Mit einer DNA-Probe die Staatsangehörigkeit oder geographische Herkunft eines Menschen zu bestimmen bewegt sich auf der gleichen Ebene wie mit einer Geodreieck die Temperatur einer Substanz herausfinden zu wollen … aber wie der gestrige Ausgabe der linken Tageszeitung Morning Star berichtet, glaubt die britische Abschiebebehörde UK Border Agency fest daran, dass dies möglich ist … mit dem Ziel, Menschen aus Somalia nachzuweisen, dass sie gar nicht von dort stammen und daher in eines der Nachbarländer abgeschoben werden können:
Experts horrified by DNA scheme
A new scheme to take DNA samples from asylum-seekers in an attempt to prove their nationality was condemned as inhumane and scientifically unsound on Sunday.
The UK Border Agency launched the Human Provenance pilot project without fanfare last month. It seeks to use DNA and isotope analysis to verify asylum-seekers’ nationality and decide if they are entitled to enter Britain.
The pilot scheme is targeting refugees from the Horn of Africa, who the Home Office claims are pretending to be from war-torn Somalia to make their asylum claims more likely to succeed.
But leading scientists pointed out that the project was deeply flawed and based on false assumptions.
Geneticist David Balding of Imperial College London told Science magazine: “Genes don’t respect national borders, as many legitimate citizens are migrants or direct descendants of migrants and many national borders split ethnic groups.”
And Alec Jeffries, who pioneered human DNA fingerprinting, told Science: “The Border Agency is clearly making huge and unwarranted assumptions about population structure in Africa.”
He said the “extensive research” needed to show whether DNA could pinpoint ethnic origin in the Horn of Africa “simply has not been done.”
“Even if it did work (which I doubt), assigning a person to a population does not establish nationality – people move!” said Mr Jeffries.
“The whole proposal is naive and scientifically flawed.”
The test uses tissue samples to establish ancestry through mitochondrial DNA – the maternal line – and Y chromosomes, which come from the paternal line.
But University College London population geneticist Mark Thomas, who called the scheme “horrifying,” pointed out that ancestry was not the same as nationality.
And even tests to prove ancestry are often “little better than genetic astrology,” he told Science.
Asylum campaigners raised serious fears about the morality of the project.
A Refugee Council spokeswoman told the Star: “We would have major concerns about the impact this will have on incredibly vulnerable people, people who arrive here scared and alone.
“This programme feeds into the culture of disbelief where the initial presumption is that someone is lying.
“The asylum process should be about protecting those whose lives are in danger, but it has become more and more combative.”
UK Border Agency documents claim that the scheme will be voluntary, but the spokeswoman argued that “many families may feel they are in no position to refuse.
“This programme is not humane and does not take into account the complex situations of many asylum-seekers.”
The Border Agency said: “This pilot scheme uses analysis of the asylum-seeker’s DNA, which helps determine a person’s ancestral background, and the chemical composition of hair and nail samples which, as they are affected by diet, therefore can indicate where the individual has been living in the world.
“These tests are always used in conjunction with other inquiries such as language analysis and face-to-face interviews, to indicate the possible origin of an individual and help successfully return them to their true country more quickly.”