You said: "Now, why you wanna get personal?"

Don't try that. YOU posted those statements on the board, so I am quite in order to quote them, and comment on them. I have not gone past what YOU have presented. I also placed links so you can check to ensure I quoted you correctly.

You said: "I think I need to clarify. Zimbabweans seeking refugee status in the UK are only doing this because the immigtation lawyers tell them that this is the only way to extend one's stay here. The other option is studying Nursing."

You have not clarified anything here again. You called the concern from that writer "a load of hogwash", but you have not invalidated anything. Here is a definition of “Refugee”: One who flees for safety, one who seeks protection, one who seeks asylum.

To invalidate the article, you will have to show how the main concern in the article is bogus.

It does not matter who gave Zimbabweans the advice to lie in order to extend their stay in Britain. It is also interesting to know that British lawyers are also encouraging Zimbabweans to lie. If Zimbabweans are trying to enter or "extend their stay" in Britain as refugees, they must claim they are fleeing for safety. Most will give anti-Mugabe statements, be they true or false, and these statements support the British position on Zimbabwe. That is the propaganda they want, so it is not surprising that British lawyers may be encouraging them to lie.

Based on what I am explaining, the concern in the first article, far from being "a load of hogwash", is a fair analysis, even from the Zimbabwe government's point of view.