Mohammed Samad, 22, from Hurstpierpoint, is being deported.

His homeland Sri Lanka, a country on the verge of civil war, is not deemed dangerous and he is likely to be sent back later this year.

At a time when the British asylum laws are in a state of flux Miles Godfrey examines the balance between human rights and protection of Britain's borders.

July 19, 2006, Sri Lanka: Tamil Tiger rebels ambush an army bus in Sri Lanka's northern Jaffna peninsula, killing two servicemen and injuring 12.

The ambush comes after rebels killed three people and wounded 23 on Monday and Tuesday in similar attacks in the island's north and east.

July 20, 2006, Hurstpierpoint: Mohammed Samad, 22, sits at home waiting to be deported to Sri Lanka, forced by the British Government to return to a country it says is not dangerous.

Mr Samad, who has lived in Britain for seven years after fleeing Sri Lanka in 1999, will be forced to leave his wife, Sarah, and 17-month old baby Oscar.

His asylum application was refused on the basis that, despite being beaten up and interrogated, allegedly by the Sri Lankan government, British politicians deem it a safe country for him to return to.

He said: "It was frightening when I came here but it is more frightening now because I don't want to lose my family."

Our asylum laws remain in a state of flux exactly because of cases like this where human rights clash with the rights of a country to control immigration.

However, the case of Mohammed Samad, who lives in Blackthorn Close and works as a groundsman for Hurstpierpoint College, is one that could set a precedent for years to come.

Human rights organisations are championing Mr Samad's cause.

They want a full amnesty for asylum seekers who have been resident here for seven years and a partial amnesty for those here more than two years.

Although there is still anger from some over the number of immigrants entering the country, gone are the days when outrage greeted every new wave of asylum seekers arriving on British shores.

David Roberts, of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, admitted in May he did not have the "faintest idea" how many illegal immigrants there were in the UK.

Yet increasingly people are realising that asylum seekers are not here to sponge from the benefits system and that many, like Mr Samad, are happy to graft, to pay taxes and to support those around them.

So should people be allowed to stay here on the basis of how real their fear is of returning to their country? Or should it be based on their worth to this country?

Politicians argue that Mr Samad should be sent home because Sri Lanka is relatively peaceful.

Human rights organisations believe he should be allowed to stay because he has more than proved his worth to Britain, supporting his family and paying taxes.

Having a system which allows more people into the country but allows them to work, to pay taxes and to respect British culture while still practising their own ideas and beliefs would seem the ideal.

But rarely do we live in an ideal world and the perception remains that some people come here and live on benefits.

Justice, the human rights group, said: "In our view, seven years is definitely a point where the Home Office should not be seeking to remove people.

"In the past there have been amnesties for people who have lived in this country illegally for that length of time. It is a very sad case."

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said it could not understand why Mr Samad was being deported.

It said: "It is our opinion Mr Samad meets the criteria to stay in this country and should be allowed to stay."

However, like the policy which judges Sri Lanka not to be a dangerous country despite escalating violence, the policy which dictates that Mr Samad should go home is muddled.

While the situation in Sri Lanka is volatile and subject to constant change, the fact that Mr Samad has worked in Britain full-time to support his family and has been married for nearly four years, has not changed.

Britain is a net beneficiary of his residence here. Looking at things from an economic point of view it would be counter-productive to deport him.

Sarah Samad claims she will have to begin claiming benefits if her husband is deported, simply to support herself and baby Oscar.

The family are now clinging to the hope that the pressure building in their favour is enough to force a change of heart at the Home Office.

Mrs Samad said: "We have been left distraught and now we have an anxious wait to see what will happen. "They say we could go and live in Sri Lanka but what would we do there?

"I don't speak the language and would have to leave my whole family behind. How would that be good for our son?

"If Mohammed is deported and I stay here, I shall have to draw benefits. I don't see the logic.

"Those who make these decisions should come and meet us, and others in our situation, and realise we are real people."

The Home Office has refused to comment on Mr Samad's case, claiming it never talks about individuals involved in the asylum system.

However with every passing day the pressure is growing for reform of the system and soon the department may be forced to talk openly about an amnesty.

If Mr Samad does go back to Sri Lanka this country will lose a hard-working man and a wife will lose a good husband.

But more than that the opportunity to grasp the nettle and change the asylum system for the better and allow people who make the country better to stay here will have been lost.