We should all unite and back one another to help save those in danger of being removed from this country. Even after showing positive efforts to amalgamate with the societies that we leave in Zahra and her sons still face this crude government policy of intimidation and mistreatment of humans. Only then will the government realise the undying spirit of human rights and change it's policies to treat all people fairly. My thoughts and prayers are with Zahra and her children and hope that today's demonstration will help save them from being depoted to a place that puts her life and children's in danger.

Let's get this straight. She came here, claimed asylum and her claim was rejected. She was housed, fed, and had her children educated while her claim was being processed. All at the taxpayer's expense. Who are these do-gooders who seem to think that there's a get-in clause for failed asylum seekers if they're 'nice people'? Why do asylum seekers suddenly discover human rights and free speech in this country rather than go home and fight for their rights there? If she has a genuine claim I would welcome and support her. However, if her claim has been rejected, she has no grounds to remain and should be returned to her own country. You can't pick and choose rules based on whether or not you agree with the outcome. What's the alternative to the asylum process? A people's committee who'll decide whether or not an asylum seeker is a good person? I've never met this family but they seem to have made a positive impact in the community. I'd support her stay here on one condition - we arrange with Uganda that we'll accept her family if they'll accept an equal number of our lazy, workshy, shell-suited neds. Everybody wins.

oh wow, I'm impressed, I've managed to break the threshold of 1 comment, and even have a discussion going. Thanks!

Well, yes, it is a weak argument to let someone stay because they are so nice, but sorry, in this case, for me, that's the main part. This IS personal and I'm not afraid to say so. That's what blogs are for and I accept your dismissal of my argument.

However, there is a big problem with the asylum process. At the end of the day, each case is decided on whether the asylum judge "believes" the evidence presented or not. Often, the evidence isn't hard, and this is particularly the case for women. How do you prove rape? How do you prove severe intimidation by soldiers, threat of FGM and your children being taken away to become child soldiers? If even a Ugandan politician who was a prisoner of conscience taken on by Amnesty International cannot get his claim for asylum accepted (as happened here in Glasgow as well), what chance does a single mum with two kids stand, articulate as she may be? Now, I don't know Zahra's exact story because she's too traumatised to tell all the time. But I do know that she had very real reasons to flee her country and apply for asylum. And she was not believed.

The problem I see is that people "fail" a process which is actually not fair. I agree that there has to be a process and that not everyone can stay here. But people fail the asylum process who have a real case and suffered real persecution (and will suffer again if returned). Plus, the Home Office has a backlog of cases. Some people I know have been here for 6 years and still have no right to remain. They all have children at Scottish schools, with Scottish accents, for whom removal to their parents country of origin would be as traumatic as it would be for each of us having to start a new life in a different culture.

On the money issue: asylum seekers only cost the taxpayer money because the UK government decided that they are not allowed to work. They really don't want to cost anyone any money and are the first who would take up work if they were only allowed to. On the other hand, the government also spends money on silly things like motorway extensions through the southside of Glasgow, so if we're talking of not spending money here or there, you'll always have contradicting views where money is well spent and where it isn't.

Incidentally, removal of asylum seekers is vastly more expensive than allowing them to stay and letting them work... Really! In economical terms it would be best to actually introduce an amnesty for those who've been here for say 3 years or more, give them status, let them work and get on with their lives.

But of course the Home Office wants to be seen as tough on immigration, especially with the threat of the Tory's becoming stronger by the day.