Nytimes UK has been slammed by its readers for its recent decision to admit that “you can’t simply go and claim it” in the immigration system.
The news website’s decision to publish a story about a Syrian refugee being admitted to the UK is seen as a sign of the times.
In the article entitled ‘You Can’t Just Go and Claim It’: Why The UK’s Nytime.com News Is Going Too Far, the website claimed that Syrian refugee and refugee claimant Ahmad, from the eastern Syrian city of Azaz, was admitted to Britain under the Immigration Act 2007.
The article claimed that the Syrian refugee claimant was eligible for UK citizenship.
However, Ahmad has never applied for citizenship and has no ties to Azaz.
The Nytice.com article also claimed that Ahmad is entitled to a visa to enter the UK, despite the fact that he has never been registered with the UK Border Agency.
Nytimestudios.com also claimed Ahmad is eligible for an ‘entry permit’ for the UK to enter Syria and is entitled “to permanent residence in the UK”.
The article was published on February 8.
“As a refugee claimant you are not entitled to citizenship, a visa or permanent residence.
The act is about protecting your rights, not granting you rights,” the website’s editor, Sami Alhaji, told The Guardian.
However Alhajo said that the article was not intended to be an endorsement of Ahmad’s claim for citizenship.
“It is not an endorsement, it is just a fact, that he does not have any right to a citizenship,” Alhajab said.
The UK Border agency has confirmed that the person who has applied for a visa for Ahmad has not been registered as a refugee.
“The UK Border Force is aware of this and is working with the claimant to address the situation.” “
The Niyytimes website has received over 6,000 comments from users in support of Ahmad and his claim for asylum. “
The UK Border Force is aware of this and is working with the claimant to address the situation.”
The Niyytimes website has received over 6,000 comments from users in support of Ahmad and his claim for asylum.
However many of the commenters feel that the story was unfair.
“To be honest, I am disappointed by the Nytimmestudio article because I am not surprised that Ahmad would be eligible for citizenship but not entitled,” one reader, whose name has been withheld for privacy reasons, wrote on Niytimes.com.
“We have no idea where Ahmad got his information, where he got his passport or where he obtained his British passport.
This is what I think the article implies.
I am very disappointed that the Niytimestudia is being used to legitimise a person who is not qualified for a UK passport.”
“The Niytimes article makes a claim that Ahmad does not need a UK visa to get a permanent residency permit, but that’s false,” another reader, who has not provided his name, wrote.
“What Ahmad has done in Azaz is not something that should have been done in the first place.
He’s been a refugee in Syria for over a year, and we should be helping him to settle down here.”
“I think this article is very wrong.
If you’re not qualified, you shouldn’t be able to apply for a British passport.”
Another reader, named ‘Baz’, who did not provide his name said that he was disappointed by NiyTimes.com’s decision.
“I don’t want this story to become another excuse to legitimize refugees and refugees in general,” he wrote.
In response to the criticism, Alhaja said that Niy Times.com was not intending to “condone” the refugee claimant’s claim and that the author “does not intend to be a member of any political party”.
He added that “the Niy Times article is based on the premise that he will be able obtain a British visa to come to the country.
That is not the case.”
“We are working with Ahmad to resolve the issue.
I think we will reach an agreement,” Alhabjaj said.