i'm chinese, trilingual and an african national, i'm lucky that my family has the means to send me for Uni education abroad, but not all people from my country are well-off enough to do so. the whole point of going to another country is not to "take advantage" of taxpayers and what-not. it's all about trying desperately to find a better place to live, in better conditions, even if they have to beg on the streets, hide or do whatever else from being deported back. some people are just so narrow minded that all they care about is "other people living off their taxes and benefits that are supposedly entitled to them". it's NOT the case. if you were in a country ridden by poverty, war, disease, famine and such, would you be happy and stay there? or would you try anything possible to flee and try to get a better life elsewhere, even if it means doing the lowest jobs like sweeping streets? try to see it from THAT point of view, instead of happily sitting on the other side of the fence.

Anya Lee, London,

the most important things for all a sylum seeker wherever in the world they are looking for porection but i have to say somethings about asylum seeker from sudan really they are looking for whole porection why for one reason..the government of sudan it"s means death no more ..
..hoolako..

hassan, birmingham, uk

I think this is absolutely awful and the home office are making a mess once again! It was only in the paper today saying that asylum seekers from other countries that have been lost in the system are going to be able to stay! there is then the honest asylum seekers and immigrants who report to the authorities monthly that end up suffering and being deported to these dangerous countries. they have suffered enough without having to worry about the threat of being deported back to hell again!!
Those who have condemned the immigrants are sick - imagine if you had seen your house burnt down, your family raped in front of you and had all of your possessions stolen.

Jen, UK,

Take a look at the people who happily scam the state benefit system and you will find that they look strikingly native!

For "genuine" asylum seekers, leaving friends and family behind to face certain death, to venture to a place where people view you with disdain, where you are alienated from your country, your language and your culture and where your children have to be raised in a culture that is alien to you must be the hardest thing in the world . These people don't come for a free ride from the state. Most have too much dignity to take handouts and would work and contribute if they were allowed to. The UK has a whole immigration bureaucracy designed to tell who needs your assistance and who is being fraudulent. Perhaps if you spent some time agitating for that system to become more efficient, you wouldn't find yourselves in the unenviable position of sitting calmly at your computers, arrogantly, heartlessly and inhumanely calling for people to sent to their deaths.

Lisa, Hastings, Barbados

Darfuris have on the whole come to the UK from Port Sudan on freight ships, many of them not even knowing the destination before they arrive at our shores.

We now look back with shame that the British Government refused many Jews asylum to the UK during the Holocaust, though, fifty years on we are all to happy to repeat these mistakes.

Specific and credible evidence exists that Darfuris who have been removed to Khartoum are routinely being tortured. The Home Office must see sense on this issue, this policy is inhumane unjustifiable, and will soon probably be ruled illegal by the Court of Appeal.

While we can only do so much from the UK for the people in Darfur, there is much we can do for the survivors for this genocide presently in the UK.

It’s shameful what is being done in our name. The Home Office should end this policy before any other Darfuri's are sent back to Sudan against their will.

Hratche, London,

Failed asylum seekers should be deported back, if they have come from Sudan how did they get here in the first place, pay their own way. British people are becoming second class citizens because of asylum seekers who get better treatment than us and claim all the benefits they require and being first choice for housing. It is time to say enough is enough. Failed asylum seekers should be taken to the airport and flown out straightway.

P. Simpson, Ashby, Leics

Martin, perhaps the young men survived because their parents fled with them when they were children ? Often these families spend considerable time (years) on the run, or in refugee camps, before they are able to make the journey to a safe country.

Does being an asylum seeker mean they should wear rags and not communcate with friends and family ? Surely if they are given opportunity to clothe and educate themselves they will be more likely to get a job and support themselves and their family. Or do we just like to see people with nothing because it offends us that they "got something for nothing" - despite the physical and mental trauma they may have got through. How selfish have we become ??

Janet, London,

Steve Kennedy, presumably asylum seekers get preferential treatment over someone born and bred here because the English born should a) know the language b) know the culture and therefore have every chance of getting a job and supporting themselves if they were willing and able. The asylum seeker has neither of these advantages and therefore needs assistance.

Paying tax doesn't exclude you from showing compassion to fellow human beings, who through no fault of their own cannot live in their home country. They are entitled to seek asylum and we are obliged to give it - in the same way we are obliged to support countless "home-grown" people who decide it is easier not to work and rely on the "free services" provided to them.

Marg, London,

WOW! The Home Office believes that the situation in Darfur is safe for the people to return. So all we have been hearing, all this time by various organizations, about the conditions there is so much hogwash.
That apart 60 Darfuri refugees will bankrupt the British government. Way to go Britain. A model to the rest of the world.

Elwan Lobo-Pires, Mississauga, Canada/ Ontario

Attitudes like those of Steve Kennedy and James Morrell, unfortunately all too widespread, are fuelled by imbalanced coverage in some of our tabloid newspapers - and in turn help to create the conditions for a Home Office policy towards these survivors of ethnic cleansing from Darfur that is utterly inhumane. It is simply untrue that these people get 'better treatment than the ordinary citizen' - their treatment is generally shoddy and sometimes quite shocking. How, for instance, do you tell a gang rape victim from Darfur, who witnessed family members burned alive by Sudanese soldiers, that she should go back to Sudan? I don't know, but the Home Office does. It's time that fair-minded people in this country stuck up for whatever we have left of traditions of justice and 'fair play' - and told the Home Office to stop acting towards the Darfuris the way Britain and the rest of the world acted towards the Jews fleeing Hitler in the 1930s.

David Brown, Nottingham, UK

These people are not economic migrants. They simply want to live in a stable, secure environment that will afford them a safe life.

I'm afraid the UK and other European countries cannot take in the welcome mat and wipe their hands with such a clear conscience. Intertwined with tribal and religious differences, the control of mineral wealth in Africa is a huge source of conflict. One that the west grew rich on, and continues to play a huge part in. These poor refugees will never see a penny of the wealth, but must bear the full and awful brunt of the ensuing conflicts. And then we have the likes of James Morrell, who see the little pot of UK taxpayers money being used up, and Steve Kennedy who uses the 'small island' argument. Your 'small island' spent centuries taking. And some parts of the world continue to feel that.

Tina, Dublin ,

Great to know that human compassion is strong in the UK! What has tax paying got to do with it? We take many less asylum seekers than most European nations so currently we don't even do our fair share. This problem is made worse by poor system (our fault!)such as allowing in criminal yardies etc and seemingly losing track of them in the UK. Do not tar refugees who have been through apalling times with the same brush. Would you have said the same during the second world war and rejected all the Jewish children who would have died in concentration camps if it had not been for a few who got them to the UK even tho they could not save their families? Not all refugees are here for a free ride-they would rather work than be penniless here, but the system doesnt allow them to work.Look at the facts before you make blanket statements.If you are a UK citizen and are homeless in the UK you will get accommodation - it will probably be b&b but that is what refugees protected by UN are entitled to

Amazon, London, UK

While i feel sorry for these people the fact remains that they managed to get here at all how?
These refugees must have passed through many "safe" countries but chose to come to Britain. I believe a genuine refugee will stay in the first safe haven not try travel further to bet here. I believe its because we are known for being a soft touch and generous with our benefits system.
I know that may sound cynical but i'm afraid having heard recent stories its true we seem to take more than our fair share of refugees.
Asylum seekers and refugees who go on to commit crime here should be expelled from the country immediately, why should they be allowed to go through a lengthy appeals process.

Carolyn, Yorkshire, England

Steve Kennedy and James Morrell - what about basic humanity and compassion. Surely the image Britain is trying to promote on a daily basis is not one of returning people to torture and deaths. It is very easy to sit on this side of the fence crying out about how asylum seekers on daily basis is the source of Britains (and other European countries including Norway) social, employment, health care problems, completing forgetting even ignoring the fact core of the matter which is why there are so many people fleeing wartorn countries.

One has to separate the issues of asylum seeker from the ones relating to illegal economic immigration and as I see it - these are to separate issues. Also, surely it is the government's responsibility to deport illegal immigrant rather than providing for this group of immigrants at he expense of tax payers.
Britain, I'm afraid is no longer the European country for refugees who flee outside the UN quota. The Home Office rarely grant aslym to this group.

Patricia Svendsen, Oslo,

I truly beleive that the British Government is making a grave mistake in returning the Sudanese nationals. We as a country and the international commmunity have failed the people of Darfur so many times, the catastrophic events in Darfur could have been mitigated if there had been a more rapid UN response.

To deport these people now, who have genuinely fled a country that is in major crisis, is doing them no justice. I agree with Alex from Seattle, I am sure there are far more illegal migrants who can be safely returned to there countries, yet we are in no rush to do so.

I think we owe it to the Sudanese people living in this country, to offer the protection and freedoms that our country can afford them. We have failed them before, lets not do it again.

Paul Custance, London,

I always wonder how these illegal immigrants travel all the way to the UK from where they came from ?? How do they get here over those long distances ?? And who pays for it ??
As the recent BBC documentary on the west african immigrants arriving in the Canary Islands showed, they openly admit they come here only for money. This disqualifies them immediately as asylum seekers. The compassion of the asylum laws is again being blatantly abused and ultimately prevents those true asylum seekers from help.

Richard Van Steen, London,

I am from California, and I know that I have no right to contradict the problems that you may see in the UK's immigration system. But surely refugees from Darfur, who are fleeing the most inhumane and terrifying conditions imaginable, deserve asylum. If anybody on this planet has the right to claim very real danger in being deported to their home countries, it is these poor people. I believe that these refugees' cases should be given the widest possible latitude when determining whether they are eligible for asylum.

Spenser Smith, Monterey, California

Asylum seekers ought not to be sent back to the territory where their lives are in danger. Instead, they should be returned to wherever there is a safe haven, as close as possible to their country of origin, in order that they may return to their home country as soon as the danger to them is over. In the case of the Sudanese, they could be housed in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries that are already being financed by the taxpayers of this country. Given that we are regularly told how poor these "asylum seekers" are, I wonder how they manage to raise the sums of money that allow them to bribe criminal people traffikers to bring them thousands of miles to the UK? Ought we not to be suspicious of people with such wealth who come from allegedly poverty stricken backgrounds?

Marion Morrison, Cheltenham, Glos

How can anyone wish for people to be put into the situation that these folks will have to go through? I think the people in the home office who ordered the deportations and all those who support the decision purely for financial reasons should be ashamed of themselves. How can you put money before a person's wellbeing? And how long would you last in these supposedly safe conditions? If the choice is between running a second car or saving a woman from being raped a man from being tortured or forced to kill or a child from starvation, disease or slavery, I know where my money goes. We can all more than afford to support these people.

Christine, Dublin, Ireland

Asylum seeker claims last year were just over 23,000 while inward migration on visas was close to 600,000. Some folk do not recognise that a visa will allow a visitor to vanish in the crowd but the 4% asylum seekers are finger printed and recorded and they are treated like dirst by the Alf Garnet type Ministers. You blind guides, you swallow a camel and choke on a grat!

Edwin Fleming, Portstewart, Northern Ireland

Charming people, some of your readers. Happy to send people back to Sudan to be tortured or killed. Talk about selfish...

Henry, London, UK

Having a Christian education in this "Christian country", I grew up on the parable of the Good Samaritan, told by Jesus in answer to the question "Who is my neighbour?" Most readers will know that it was only the despised Samaritan who helped the man who had been robbed and beaten by thieves. Obviously some of the commentators on this story would not only take the side of the scribes and pharisees who "passed by on the other side" but would blame them for their failure to give a dying man back to the thieves who robbed and beat him.

kathleen bell, Beeston, Nottingham, Notts

I was in Canada recently and saw a large group of young Sudanese "refugee" men swaggering around the streets with baseball caps, trendy clothes and mobile phones. How come so often it is just the young fit and single men who claim to be the victims and claim refugee status. Where are the rest? I am afraid I just don't buy it in most cases. Most are economic refugees without doubt who are fit and able to make the trip and try their luck at fooling the system.

Martin, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

I'm afraid I must agree with Morrel from Doncaster,the refugees have come to the UK because of the free services available to them including legal representation at someone else's cost,namely the taxpayer.There is of course the humane side to look at but how much more can my country do to help.There is a swelling of anger growing here that asylum seekers are getting the better treatment that an ordinary citizen is denied.Try going to your local social security office and asking for accommodation for yourself and your family and cash to live by,if you are a local, by the time you have been pushed from pillar to post and filled in numerous forms and are then told you don't qualify, but someone who has literally just stepped of the boat or plane is,can cause a lot of anymosity..I know that we should all be entitled to a decent life,free from persecution and fear but remember we are a small island and I believe the full-up sign should be in plain view now.

Steve Kennedy, Birkenhead, UK

how did these people come to the u. k. surely they must have passed through ' safe countries' before arriving here? if so, why not stay in france, italy, germany, etc.
as a tax-payer they do not have my compassion or pity.

james morrell, doncaster, england

why can't we rush to deport the failed asylum seekers who have killed or injured British citizens? They are the ones who should lose their right to our protection.These people from Dafur are probably some of the most deserving to stay. Can't imagine how they managed to get here in the first place, but surely their plight is real.

Standupfor the west, Manchester, UK

Why forcing them back to the country of punishment?
At least they should get offered to leave to any country, what could tolerate them. But informing the same thugs about the return, they were fleing from, should get punished.
Are there human righs groups, what delay the evil plans of bureaucracy? In Germany we have supporting groups against such cases of governmental hypocracy.

Schröder, Stadtroda, Germany

Whilst not usually an ardent asylum-seeker supporter because of the amount of exploitation often associated with it, in this case it would be a criminal act to return people to a certain death.
Two questions arise. 1] Why is this government suddenly acting so tough, when for years it has firmly closed its eyes to multitudes of illegal economic migrants, whose lives would not be in jeopardy if returned? 2] Why is the UK so often considered an appropriate ' asylum' for various fleeing African nationals.It canot be proximity, similar culture, climate, or considerations of available space and resources. or, in most cases, old colonial ties. One could conjure up dozens of other more suitable countries to provide these elements. Moreoever, the rationale for certain western states such as Britain and France to provide a safe haven for ex-tyrants and murderers from despotic regimes has never been explained.

alex, seattle, USA