such difficult decisions. or are they?

This week, a 'parishioner' from my placement church was deported. Elizabeth's attempts to seek asylum had failed, and she was taken from the vicarage and deported back to Uganda. The basic details are here, but actually knowing the people involved makes it a subject it's hard to turn a blind eye to. In the time I was at St Columba's, I learnt that Elizabeth gave much to the community, easily as much as she may have received. She's smart, funny, educated, taught the community a lot about diversity, culture, cooking, and Christian values. Commentators on that newspaper article imply that all asylum seekers are after a free ride. Yes, I suppose if you are fleeing for your life, you should be tempted to stop at the first place you'd be safe, not make it all the way to England. But does that make everyone someone out to grasp all they can get? Difficult to believe that of Elizabeth, to be honest. A shame to deny the community the talents that she brought with her. I would venture to add, talents and preparedness to work hard that sometimes seem sadly lacking in some of our own citizens. Ah, you say, but our citizens are entitled to live off my tax, because they have a right to. Because what? Because they were born here? Well, actually so were Marie and John. What rights do they have? 'This island is full' says another commentator. A clip I heard yesterday as an advert for the Today programme was David Attenborough saying how many more people there are on Earth since he began making nature programmes. Astonishing. Can the earth support our future growth, never mind a particular bit of land mass or island? To answer that, we probably need to think more coherently and collaboratively, not by closing our own borders and ruling people with contributions to make out on numerical grounds. Sure, immigration is a huge issue for many, not least the people who have to decide who does and doesn't have a 'right' to come in. If there were no borders, what would happen? Is it really a case of geopgraphical borders, or is it more a case of financial borders, not letting people come in who will then be a drain on our structures and systems. England has always had comers-in. Not always peaceable ones. The Vikings, who chased Cuthbert's monks to Durham. William the Conqueror, whose regime saw Durham Castle and Cathedral left for us. The refugees from World War II, all the way to those who came from the Indian sub-continent to take the jobs 'we' didn't want, and now both keep our lazy convenience-seeking supported by all-hour shops and provide many of the medical and scientific personnel this country depends on.

The immigration officers trying to stop illegal immigrants coming over from Calais will struggle to just 'close' the camps. On the news the reporter just said people are drawn to Britain because of our relaxed attitude to asylum and our benefits culture - the lads from Afghanistan don't want to seek asylum in France, they "don't get given a passport there". The benefits culture is as much of a problem to Britain by Brits. The relaxed attitude to asylum? Tell that to Elizabeth's children, separated from their mother in a dawn raid and deported to a land they've never known. Go back and read the details . And the comments on the main story. I am fearful for Elizabeth and the future of her children. But I am also fearful for Marie and John's generation of British-born children, growing up with ignorance and prejudice, and in some cases 'values' that I cannot recognise. Immigration and asylum are huge issues, and how can you think of it any other way than globally when you have to find a strategic 'solution' to it? But equally, how can you look the other way? How can you forget that these are individuals we are talking about here. Individual men, women and children. Whose 'right', if any of us really have any, is to be treated as a fellow human being. For as you do unto them, you do unto me....