Tuesday 6 December 2011


A few key points highlighted in Chance or Choice?

Chance or choice? Understanding why asylum seekers come to the UK, written by Professor Heaven Crawley, University of Swansea and commissioned by the Refugee Council  is available online at:


The report is based on semi-structured interviews with 43 refugees and asylum seekers in the UK and key findings include the following:
·         Over two thirds did not choose to come to the UK
·         Most only discovered they were going to the UK after leaving their country of origin.
·         The primary objective for all those interviewed was reaching a place of safety.
·         Around three quarters had no knowledge of welfare benefits and support before coming to the UK – most had no expectation they would be given financial support.
·         90% were working in their country of origin and very few were aware they would not be allowed to work when they arrived in the UK.
·         The majority of the interviewees explained their lives were in danger and that they had to leave their home countries very quickly – within a few days or weeks – leaving them little time to plan or pick their destination. In addition most were helped to leave by an external party or agent, who made the key decision about their destination and helped facilitate their journey to safety.

While none of those interviewed came to the UK in order to seek work, they fully expected to have to work to support themselves, and were not anticipating being given money by the government to live on. The single biggest area of British life they were familiar with was football.

The report also makes a number of recommendations around the following areas:
·         Addressing the root causes of migration
·         Creating protection-sensitive border controls
·         Improving the asylum determination process
·         Providing access to work and increased benefits
·         Changing the terms of public and political debates on asylum
·         Addressing research gaps

Saturday 26 November 2011

Any Thoughts On This?

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/rights/


Rights and responsibilities

This page explains the rights and responsibilities you have while you are in the United Kingdom as an asylum applicant.

Your rights

As an asylum applicant in the United Kingdom, you have the right to:
  • be treated fairly and lawfully regardless of your race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation or any disability;
  • practise your own religion, and you are expected to show respect for people of other faiths;
  • have your application considered fairly and accurately;
  • have access to support and accommodation if you meet the requirements for it;
  • have access to free health care from the National Health Service (NHS); and
  • have legal representation. Free legal help may be available, depending on your income and your case. Your case owner can tell you more about this.
Various types of support may be available to you, depending on your circumstances. For more information, see Asylum support and Help and advice. You will not normally be allowed to work while we are considering your asylum application. For more information, see Employment.

Your responsibilities

As an asylum applicant in the United Kingdom, it is your responsibility to:
  • co-operate with the UK Border Agency and tell us the truth. It is a crime to make an asylum application that involves trying to deceive us. If you do this and are found guilty of it in a court, you may be put in prison, after which you may be deported;
  • stay in regular contact with your case owner, including keeping all your appointments;
  • obey the law (for examples, see Obeying the law);
  • care for your children (for example, an adult must always supervise children under the age of 16, and if they are aged between five and 16 they must have full-time education, usually at school);and
  • leave the United Kingdom if we refuse your application for asylum and any appeal you make is unsuccessful. But until we have made a decision on your application, we will not take any action to remove you or your dependants from the United Kingdom.



Monday 21 November 2011

DID YOU SEE US???

Last Tuesday, 15th November, we had a flashmob in aid of the STILL HUMAN, STILL HERE campaign. This is a campaign to end the destitution of asylum seekers. In most cases these people have been refused asylum but they cannot return home i.e. for safety reasons - they may be killed, arrested, tortured if they return (you may ask the question: well if this is the case why haven't they been granted asylum then?????)
 - they may not have the right documents
 - they may not have the money to return
 - they may have family in the UK.

These refused asylum seekers then end up homeless, many live on the streets. We believe this is WRONG. Because they have not been granted asylum they cannot work; many are forced to work illegally, or to beg.
What civilized country would do this to someone who is feeling persecution? All they are seeking is protection. They don't come here to claim benefits, or to use the health care system, they come here because something has seriously provoked them to leave their home country and their family.

The flashmob therefore was a way of raising your attention to this issue and to demonstrate that there are people living like this in OUR society. We want to make this change. The more people who are aware, the better chance we have of making ourselves heard.

If you want to become more involved in campaigning with STAR Manchester, email me annieostorey@hotmail.com and we can come together with ideas and make something happen!

Friday 18 November 2011

Another Film Night!

After the success of the last film night, we're having another one, this time alongside the Francophone society.



Welcome’ (2009) by Philippe Loriet

24th November
Khalid Said Room, Student Union
19:30-22:30


This film centres on the friendship between a swimming instructor at the Calais municipal bathsand a 17-year-old Iraqi Kurd bent on swimming the channel to be reunited with his girlfriend in London. The film's chief revelation is the way French officialdom treats both the illegal immigrants and French citizens who assist them.

Winner of numerous awards at events such as the Berlin Film Festival, César Awards and Warsaw International Film Festival. 

Check out the trailer (below)and then come down for a chilled evening showing that its not always 'la vie est belle' in France...







Friday 4 November 2011

Refugee Action Responds to Child Detention Reports

From Refugee Action. Have a browse around their website:




In response to today’s reports that almost 700 children have been detained at ports and airports between May and August this year, Dave Garratt, Chief Executive at Refugee Action, said:
“We are shocked by the high numbers of children that have been detained, with more than a quarter of those children travelling alone.
“We welcomed the government’s announcement that it was committed to ending child detention for immigration purposes by May this year, which makes this figure all the more shocking. Their publication also follows the Independent Monitoring Board’s recent description of some of the detention facilities at Heathrow Airport as ‘degrading’.
“We agree with the Children’s Society, which obtained the figures through the Freedom of Information Act, that the Home Office should launch an enquiry into the reasons why so many children have been detained on entry to the UK and the length of that detention.”

Thursday 3 November 2011

Experiences of Child Detention


The UK has declared child detention to be over; but there is still work to be done. It is true that child detention at Yarls Wood is over but there are still children being detained at border entry points to the country.
Even short term detention has been shown to have detrimental effects on the health of children.

‘Sarah Campbell, research and policy manager at Bail for Immigration Detainees said: "Children can experience extreme distress in detention even when only detained for short periods and the prison's inspector has already outlined sometimes appalling conditions in short-term holding facilities which are not suitable for children."
Source: Alexandra Topping, 'UKBA accused of breaking pledge to end child detention'. The Guardian, 16/10/2011.

In September 2010 the charity Medical Justice looked into the effects of detention on children and found some chilling results.  Information here.
For a look at some quotes and a video expressing the feelings of some children in detention please go here.



Tuesday 18 October 2011

Film Night


We are holding a film night. Here are the basic details:

Where? Khalid Said Room (Student Union)
When? 27th October (next Thursday). The film will start at about 7:30pm.
Perks Free entry; there'll be popcorn.
What's this film about then? From IMDB:
Beyond Borders is an epic tale of the turbulent romance between two star-crossed lovers set against the backdrop of the world's most dangerous hot spots. Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie stars as Sarah Jordan, an American living in London in 1984. She is married to Henry Bauford son of a wealthy British industrialist, when she encounters Nick Callahan a renegade doctor, whose impassioned plea for help to support his relief efforts in war-torn Africa moves her deeply. As a result, Sarah embarks upon a journey of discovery that leads to danger, heartbreak and romance in the far corners of the world.
Running time: 127 minutes
Anything else? Bring tissues, it's a sad one. We also will be going to the pub afterwards if anyone wants to come along, and feel free to leave your comments about the film with us.


Hope to see you all there!

Training!


For all those that want to get involved in ANYTHING that STAR do or want to know more about the situation faced by refugees and asylum seekers in Manchester, come to:

Refugee Awareness Training by Boaz Trust
Kro Bar (Oxford Road)
2-4pm
Wednesday 19th October

A representative from Boaz Trust will be explaining what life is like for some refugees and asylum seekers in Manchester and what Boaz do to help them out.

Monday 17 October 2011

Child Detention: Has The Government Broken Its Promise To End It?

One of STAR's campaigns last year was to end the detention of children. When the government promised last December to end child detention for good, it looked like we'd won...but are the 'pre-departure accommodation centres' that hold refused asylum seekers and their children really any different?


Have a read of today's article in the guardian HERE and let us know your thoughts. 


Or read below (by Amelia Gentleman, 17 October 2011, The Guardian).


"A lot of care has been paid to the interior decoration of the new centre designed to hold families facing deportation from this country. Each of the nine apartments is named after a flower – lavender, iris, orchid – and pictures of these flowers are painted on the doors to the flats. The centre has an indoor play area for young children, decorated with animal murals, and a recreation area for teenagers, with a pool table. There's a computer zone, a mosque and a non-denominational prayer area, as well as family-friendly communal kitchens. Outside there is a mini-adventure playground and extensive gardens.
There are also two boundary fences that make it impossible for residents to leave the premises unsupervised, and the centre is staffed by workers from the security firm G4S, paid by the UK Border Agency (UKBA). Guests are brought here by escorts, after being arrested at their homes. Belongings are x-rayed, and adults are taken aside to be searched on arrival. The pretty, white-gabled building will be inspected by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons.

Officials avoid referring to Cedars as a detention centre, describing it instead as a "pre-departure accommodation centre" to hold families whose immigration requests have failed and need to be removed from the country. The children's charity Barnardo's (which campaigns for an end to child detention) has been contracted to work with the children who are housed there, and its chief executive, Anne Marie Carrie, says its involvement will ensure that the new regime never recreates the scandals of the old "immigration removal centre" Yarl's Wood, particularly the notorious, now-closed family unit, where families of failed asylum seekers were held (often at length).

But there is a lot that is confusing about the new site. Is it a detention centre? Does it represent an end to the detention of children, which the government promised in its coalition manifesto last year? Is the presence of Barnardo's a constructive attempt to ensure that conditions are better, or (as some asylum charities argue) just a useful fig leaf?

Last December Nick Clegg announced in an impassioned speech that child detention would be ended this May, promising that the government would end the "shameful practice that last year alone saw more than 1,000 children – 1,000 innocent children – imprisoned".

"Children literally taken from their homes, without warning, and placed behind bars," he said. "That practice, the practice we inherited, ends here." By March there would be a "big culture shift" and "totally new process" for families in the immigration system would be introduced, one that "puts our values – the protection of children – above paranoia over our borders", he said.
But a number of charities believe that the changes are superficial and point out that if children are still being locked up, child detention has not ended. A Freedom of Information request made by the Children's Society revealed this week that almost 700 children were held between May and August this year at the UK's south east ports, as they tried to come into the country. Cedars centre doesn't take families as they come into the country, but holds them before they are removed, while final arrangements are made for their travel.

The government has not yet disclosed how many families or children have been held there since the centre opened in August, although the numbers are understood to have dropped substantially since the closure of Yarl's Wood. In a written statement, immigration minister Damian Green said: "This facility could not be further in look or feel from an immigration removal centre or other detention facility. The completion of the pre-departure acc

ommodation marks the final step in the government's radical new approach to family returns."
Officials say Cedars has brought a new, softer culture to the process by which families are removed from the country, but in the past few weeks one police investigation has already been opened in response to an allegation that a Nigerian asylum seeker who stayed at Cedars was assaulted in front of her three children, as she was taken on to a plane by the staff paid to escort her out of the country.

Earlier this year, it began to be obvious that far more children were being detained at the ports than the coalition had anticipated when they promised to end child detention. During an unannounced inspection of a holding facility at Heathrow Terminal 4, prison inspectors witnessed a G4S member of staff, wearing latex gloves, telling a five-year-old French boy: "You're a big boy now so I have to search you."

Elsewhere, charities remain concerned that UKBA staff are mounting dawn raids at families' homes in order to remove them to Cedars.

At the Barnardo's headquarters, Carrie explains that the decision to work with the government was "painful", and repeatedly stresses that this was the "hardest decision" she has ever had to make. The step has been criticised by asylum charities and she recognises that if things go wrong donors may be less willing in the future to support the charity.

"Is it absolutely perfect that we're in the PDA [pre-departure accommodation]?" she asks. "No. Would I rather the PDA didn't exist? Absolutely. It's difficult for us to be here. It's difficult for us to be criticised, but it's absolutely the right thing to do because there are vulnerable children and families here."

Families at Yarl's Wood went on hunger strike to protest at their treatment and the institution was criticised by prison inspectors as well as charities for its prison-like regime.

"What went on at Yarl's Wood was completely unacceptable," Carrie says. Barnado's advised on how to make the new centre feel family friendly, on the best soft play equipment, the best colours for the walls, on creating private spaces where the charity could hold counselling sessions. The centre can hold nine families at once, and up to 44 people.

All G4S staff working at Cedars are being trained by Barnardo's in child welfare, but Carrie admits to some unease about cooperating with G4S, which has a mixed record on working with asylum seekers.

"I'm not an idiot. I know that there are concerns about them as an organisation," she says. "But we're not there to work for G4S. Their job is to run the facility on behalf of UKBA, they are accountable to UKBA. I'm accountable to the children and families who are in there, and I'm accountable to my wider stakeholders, and to my staff at Barnardo's."

Struggling for the best way to describe the place, she says it looks like an "upmarket" holiday resort, perhaps a bit like Center Parcs, before adding: "Let's not pretend it's that, but ... It looks the best facility it can be. It looks family-centred, child-centred …"The 'child-centred' visitors lounge at Cedars. The 'child-centred' visitors lounge at Cedars.She dances around the question of whether Cedars is a detention centre, pointing out that residents are, theoretically, free to go to the cinema, shopping or swimming once they have gone through a formal assessment of the risks they pose (although this has yet to happen).
She gives a series of head-spinning digressions instead of a straightforward answer.

"It is the last process in a forced departure," she says. "Regrettably and sadly, forced departure is part of the provision. We are there at the beginning of the immigration policy, all through the process; we should be there for the last 72 hours in this country to make sure that the children and the adults are treated with the dignity and humanity that we would expect."
Is it a detention centre?

"It is where children and their families go through enforced departure and where they are detained for the last 72 hours that they are in this country," she says.
So it is a detention centre?

"I'm saying that enforced removal of families is part of our immigration process and that is a sad and regrettable fact. And I do not agree with the detention of children," she says.
So is it a detention centre?

"It is the last 72 hours of people being in this country in an enforced departure. And I just don't know what the alternative is," she says.

She is clearer in response to the question of whether child detention has been ended by the coalition government.

"You mean in the absolute? No, they haven't if children are being detained for over 72 hours," she says. "Fundamentally, I don't see that there are any alternatives. Regrettably, enforced departure is a reality. Somebody has to be there for children and families."

Barnardo's position is that if Britain's immigration system is to continue functioning, some families will inevitably be deported; those who refuse to go voluntarily will be forced to leave. Locking children up during the process of deportation might be avoided if families were to be split up and the children sent into foster care while their parents were detained, Carrie says, or if they were taken from their home and despatched straight to the airport and out of the country, but both alternatives are viewed as undesirable by campaigners.

The charity has hired 26 members of staff to work at Cedars and is being paid for its services by the UKBA. It has set out seven "red lines", encompassing unacceptable practice. If after a year more than 10% of families who are being returned to the countries they arrived from are being forcibly removed (rather than going voluntarily), the charity will stop working with the government. It also promises to speak out if the level of force used with a family en route to or from the PDA is "disproportionate to the family circumstance".

Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, a longstanding campaigner for ending child detention, said Cedars represented a huge improvement.

"My view is that the government has achieved what is achievable with a framework that ultimately will require some families to be deported. Unfortunately, once a family has exhausted all its appeals, they will have to be deported. Some of them may have to be detained for a very short period to stop them from absconding. We have to ensure that the period of detention is kept to an absolute minimum, because we know the effects of detention on children even for relatively short periods of time can be quite damaging."

Under the new system, stays at Cedars beyond 72 hours require the authorisation of the minister and no family is to be held there for more than seven days – a big reduction on the length of stay at Yarl's Wood, where families could be held for up to 28 days, before ministerial permission was required.

Brake later expressed concern at the high numbers of children being detained as they entered the country, at a separate detention centre, Tinsley House. It recently underwent a £1m refurbishment, and now has eight suites for families with 32 beds, a development that has triggered surprise among campaigners.

Among asylum charities who have a long track record of campaigning for an end to child detention, there is disappointment at the government's failure to deliver fully on its promise and some frustration with Barnardo's.

Emma Ginn, of Medical Justice, a charity that has documented the damage detention does to children's mental and physical health, says: "We think that the promise to end child detention has been broken. They are still detaining children — it has been rebranded but it is still detention. They are arguing somehow that detention that isn't in a big immigration centre is not actually detention. But you can't deny the English dictionary definition of detention."
She accepts that there are positives in the new approach – citing the reduced numbers of families being detained and a decision to give families a fortnight's notice before they are to be removed – but she warns that the new regime falls far short of the promises made for it by the government. And she questions Barnardo's ability to improve the treatment received by detainees, on their way to and from the centre. "They didn't manage to stop the alleged abuses that the Nigerian family suffered last month. They haven't stopped the scary dawn raids, or excessive use of force.

"Barnardo's ruined the campaign to end detention of children. The coalition promised to end the detention of children, we were halfway through the fight to make it happen, and then Barnado's jumped in and helped the government find a way of rebranding the detention of children," she says.

Her organisation's views are echoed by a number of other charities, although some were not willing to go on the record, anxious not to sour relations with Barnardo's.

Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "While we of course welcome the improved, more family-friendly conditions at Pease Pottage [the village where Cedars is located] and the involvement of Barnardo's, there is no hiding the fact that this is still a family detention unit. We will be keeping a close eye on the new process as there should be no compromising the protection of children."

In a paper on Cedars, Heaven Crawley, professor of international migration from Swansea University, wrote: "It is important to call a spade a spade. To repackage detention as 'pre-departure accommodation' is disingenuous. Families with children will be taken to the facility against their will. Once there, families will not be allowed to come and go freely."
Among charities active in this sphere, the response to Barnardo's decision to get involved ranges from "gruff acceptance to downright hostility", according to one campaigner who asked not to be named.

"The general feeling is that the UKBA was under a lot of pressure to end child detention and by negotiating with Barnardo's, the government got cover for continuing to detain children," he says. "Barnardo's ... have become complicit in the process."

Carrie accepts that she will be criticised for the difficult decision she took. "We want to be open and transparent about the whole of the immigration process and we want to be transparent about our involvement in this," she says.

The Home Office is less transparent than Barnardo's would like it to be. Despite initial promises to show the new centre to the media, the Home Office decided over the summer that it would not. However, a number of charities that support individuals through the immigration process were given a tour in August. Ginn from Medical Justice was on one.

"It looks great; they have made it very stylish," she says, but the design doesn't detract from the fundamental purpose of the centre. There is an isolation room, with no furniture, she says, designed to be easily sluiced down, next to a flat designed to accommodate families deemed to be at risk of suicide or self-harm, with large glass observation panels.

Carrie says she is not surprised at the level of scepticism from fellow charities, but insists that Barnardo's presence would guarantee that children's welfare was paramount at the new centre.
"I totally understand it because what went on at Yarl's Wood was so utterly terrible and I know how scared they [other charities] are that that's what this is going to become. But we are in there as an independent voice. I have to hold it in my head that I'm not part of the system, I'm there for children and families and nobody was ever allowed in there before. "Trust me, if it isn't like that I'll be the loudest voice on the block," she says."

Friday 14 October 2011

Like To Know What You're Talking About...?


Check out RAP (Refugee Awareness Project), for all the facts and figures on refugees, asylum seekers and public opinion in the UK. 

For over ten years now, RAP have been busting the myths about refugees and asylum seekers across the UK, changing public attitudes through workshops, talks, theatre, music, you name it. Their funding has now ended but there are still plenty of ideas on the website on how you can help to spread the word and make positive change in your communities. Check out the infovault and everyday actions.

http://www.refugee-action.org.uk/RAP/default.aspx


Wednesday 12 October 2011

The Right to Live

This is an article about a refugee's life story.....according to the Human Rights Act we all have the right to live (Article 2). Let us know what you think. (Interview  by Carole Angier, 18 June 2007, full link at bottom.)



"I'll tell you my story, but I won't tell you my name. People say "it's a dog's life". You can call me Dog. I come from Africa. I won't say where. My father left my mother when I was very young. I don't remember him, he never took care of me. My mother did her best. She worked selling fruit in the market, but we were poor. In Africa, if you have no money, you get no schooling, so I never went to school. Sometimes my mother would go away for a long time and would leave me with friends. They didn't treat me well. Sometimes I didn't have enough to eat. I had to beg on the street. I was only five or six years old. Young.



So my life was rough from the start. Maybe God wanted to prepare me. But he prepared me well, because my mother is a good woman. She loved me and taught me good things: work hard, don't steal, trust in God. But one day she didn't come back. I asked and asked her friends, but they didn't tell me what had happened to her for a long time. Finally, they said she had died. I was about 10 years old. I don't even know where she is buried, or who paid for her grave.


I stayed with the friends, but I had to beg to survive. One day on the street a man called me to go and buy something for him. He was a black man, but French, not African - a French businessman. He asked me why I was not at school. I told him my situation. After that he employed me whenever he was in my country. He became a friend.


Two years passed. One day he told me, "You are a smart kid. You should go to school. I can send you to school, or I can take you to Europe." I had nothing in my country, so I went to Europe.


I don't know how he fixed documents for me. I never had any of my own. Maybe he said I was his son. Anyway, we had no problems. We came to France, to Paris. He took me to a friend's house, let's call him Paul. Paul's place was small. I slept on the floor. I only got to sleep in a bed when Paul was away. Every now and then the businessman would come to visit us. I asked when I could start work, when I could go to school, but nothing happened. Maybe he had problems getting papers for me. In Europe you have to have papers for everything.
I took care of Paul's place, like a servant, and he gave me food and clothes, but no money. Sometimes I went into cafés and asked people for money, and sometimes they gave it to me. But I wasn't so smart. Usually I can learn quickly, but I couldn't learn to speak French well. I don't know why, maybe I was scared. French people are very proud of their language - if you don't speak it good, they don't like you.


After a few years the businessman stopped coming to see us. Paul didn't want to keep me any more. He told me he was going away and I couldn't come with him. I stayed in his room alone. But then someone came and started asking questions. Who was I? Who did I stay with? I left the room and never went back. I was 16 years old.


****


For the next few years I slept rough on the streets, in Paris and other cities in Europe. I begged for money and food, I couldn't wash much. I slept in bus shelters, or in discos, which are free to go in after midnight. But I remembered my mother. I never committed a crime. I drank alcohol sometimes - I needed to drink sometimes - but I never touched drugs. I am not that kind of person.


By now, I was in my twenties. I knew my life might be half over and I could see the way things were going. I didn't want to be on the streets any more. I needed a proper plan for my life. I decided to go to England. I knew the language. I'd liked the English people I'd met, I like the football - the best team in the world is Man United. So I spoke to a friend of mine. He told me that England is not like the Continent, that I needed documents to get there, but once there, there would be good work. He helped me. He gave me a Netherlands ID and a plane ticket.
The ticket took me to Belfast. In Belfast they told me it was not my photograph on the ID card. I told them I wanted to claim asylum, but they told me I couldn't claim asylum in the UK. They put me in prison for four days and then sent me back to Holland.


I told my friend what had happened. He gave me a new ID card and a new ticket, train this time. This time, no problem. The UK immigration officers checked my ID on the train. They said safe journey, I said, thank you. And that was the last time I had a friendly chat with immigration. Hah!


When the train stopped I asked people where we were: London! I was happy. I didn't ask for asylum, because the Belfast man told me they didn't give it. And I didn't want asylum, I wanted work. My mission was not to go back on the streets again, but to support myself, to survive.
I went to an agency and asked for work. And it's true - there's plenty of work in England. And I'm a good worker, everywhere I worked they liked me. So, after a few weeks this company offered me a full-time job. I didn't have to sleep on the chair any more, I rented my own house and slept in my own bed. For the first time in my life, I was living on my own. Everything I had was mine alone. I couldn't believe it, I tell you. And now they were offering me full-time work. If I said no, maybe I'd lose everything. So I took the risk. I gave the job centre my ID card and asked for an NI number. They told me to come back in a week.


I went back a week later, but nothing. For four months I went back, but they told me they were still investigating my card. I worked every day, overtime, too. I bought good things, quality things, I could enjoy my life for the first time. I paid all my bills - rent, utilities, council tax - everything. The council tax was a big deal for me, but no problem. I was glad to pay it, proud to pay it. I kept all the receipts. I didn't owe a penny to anyone.


I was worried, but I figured I'm not doing any wrong. Finally, I got an appointment to collect my number. My friends told me not to go, that I might be arrested for working illegally. I didn't believe them. I didn't know that what I was doing was wrong. I didn't run away, I just waited for the appointment day. And then, that morning, the police came and arrested me. They charged me with deception, and said I had committed a crime.


****


From that day I became a criminal. But what did I do? I hadn't hurt anyone. I hadn't cheated anyone. I worked hard and paid my way. But they said I'd committed a crime.


Immigration officers came and interviewed me. One officer said I could wait at home for my trial, but I mustn't run away. I stayed at home for six weeks without going to work - lucky for me I paid my landlord a month in advance. When I reported to the officer, he was surprised. "You're a good guy," he said. "I never see people like you. I asked you not to run away and you didn't. You came."


I went to court and they sentenced me: 12 months in prison. It was hard. I don't like prison; prison spoils your record, and I knew myself I'm not a criminal. But I obeyed. I didn't fight, I didn't get into trouble. In the mornings I went to school, and studied English and computer studies. In the afternoons I worked - packing instruments and loading them in cars. When I finished my sentence I had earned £300. I worked so hard. The officers liked me and treated me well. They could see I wasn't a criminal.


In prison, a lady came from Croydon and told me to seek asylum. I said, "You won't give it to me, so why are you wasting my time?" She told me that this was the procedure. So I obeyed. I gave more interviews. Always interview, interview, interview. I swear to God I won't give another interview in my life.


I served six months; good behaviour. My sentence was done. And so it came to the day of my release. Every time I remember that day I cry. When I reached the gate they told me, "No. The Home Office says you have to go back." I asked them why? They wouldn't tell me, but later I heard it was because there was no room at the detention centre. Whose fault was that, the Home Office's or mine? Who served the extra month in prison? Home Office or me?
After a month they sent me to a detention centre. This was better. You could make phone calls, you could walk outside. But it wasn't all good. I couldn't make money there like in prison, and they took the money I had. A phone card outside cost £3.50, but they took £5. Mobile phones outside cost £15, they took £30, sometimes more. What's the difference between detention and prison? Nothing. People still monitor you, they decide for you, they take everything from you - your photographs, your fingerprints, your DNA, your independence. I had nothing left.


And some of the officers here were worse than in prison. Some were very good, kind and treated me well. But we were all foreigners there, and the British don't like foreigners. Some of the officers talked to us as though we were animals. If you are illegal, you are not a human being in Britain. That is the problem.


I stayed in the detention centre for six months. Every month I got a report from immigration. Wait for the document, wait for the document. All that changed was the date. I went a bit crazy - we all went crazy. In detention you don't know how long it will go on for; maybe you'll die there. You feel you're dying already.


And then came the worst thing. Lawyers.


****


The police had given me a lawyer already for my criminal case. He visited me in prison and I signed for legal aid. He kept saying he would come, but he didn't come. He said he would write to the Home Office for my case, that he would write to the court for bail, but I didn't hear a thing. Finally, I got a date for bail. A week before, he came and said: "I see from your case you will lose. So legal aid won't pay, and I can't represent you." I asked him why he hadn't told me before so that I could find someone else. He said if I paid him, he would represent me. That was his strategy - he told me so late, I had nowhere else to turn.


He asked for £3,000. I said, "You know my situation, how can I get £3,000?" I had a friend, maybe she could get £1,000. But he said, "No." I don't smoke, but that day I smoked nearly three packets of cigarettes. I lost hope. In fact, that day I nearly died.


When I got to the court, the lawyer didn't come, and he didn't send my friend's address, either. I spoke for myself. I could see the judge wanted to release me but without an address she couldn't. I didn't get bail.


I tried again. On that day I got up early, I showered, I dressed well. But they didn't come and pick me up. I asked them what happened, and they said, the van is gone. The van had gone without me.... Then the court wrote and asked why I hadn't shown up. What! What did they expect me to do? Should I have flown?


After that, the lawyer asked me for money again, but I finished with him. I found a new lawyer - but he was worse than the first! He came and took £200 from me, and then I heard nothing from him for a month. Every time I rang him he would say, "Hey, hey, Mr Dog, I'm a busy man, hang up the phone!" Once, I heard him tell his secretary to say he wasn't there. I could hear him on the phone. People think that if you are from Africa you don't have sense. They treat you like an idiot, but I am not an idiot. Hah!


Finally, I got a letter saying we had a court date, and that I needed £500 for a barrister. My friend got me £500, but how could I repay her? I had no choice. And then, when we got to court, no barrister. When she finally arrived she didn't know my case well at all. She spoke real quick, maybe for seven, eight minutes. That's all.


For a long time I heard nothing, and when I did, I wished I hadn't. The judge said my case was nonsense. Nonsense! He said I lived in a council house - not true! I lived privately. He said I had three bank accounts. Not true! I was fitted up. And I couldn't answer. The law abused me. Legal aid lawyers, private lawyers, they were all the same. They took £700 from me and represented me like that. I had another friend in detention, whose lawyer took £1,600 from him and didn't represent him at all. You're in detention, then you're deported, what can you do? Nothing. They know. That's what the Home Office should investigate. That's who the criminals are.


After my appeal was dismissed I had no hope, no money, nothing. But God was there for me. When I was at the very bottom he sent good people to me. I got a volunteer visitor, and I got BID - Bail for Immigration Detainees. They found a new lawyer for my case, they prepared a new bail application for me. I'll always thank them, and pray for them. I have no family. My friend, my visitor, BID - I take them as my family now.


But immigration are wicked - they try to frustrate you, they try to paralyse your life. As soon as you have a bail hearing they give you a removal date. I was nervous. I couldn't stand any more. I went to the immigration manager and told her they should release me. She told me to, "Go to Colnbrook and get a tag." I said, no, she should give me a tag from here. But she wouldn't agree. That day I was really annoyed. I was really worried. Some people were on hunger strike, and I joined them. For one day. And bang - they sent me to Colnbrook. Not for the tag - that's a lie. Because I joined the hunger strike, and they wanted to break us up.


****


I got to Colnbrook. I don't want to talk much about that. They put me in a wing you're only supposed to stay in for 72 hours max. Thinking about that room makes me cry. I could only go out for 15 minutes. Security watched me all the time. I was only allowed 10-minute phone calls... It was a punishment. But what did I do?


Colnbrook is a prison - no air, nothing. Everybody's frustrated, everybody's crazy. You remember what happened at Harmondsworth? Why you think they burnt that prison? Because of frustration. You think that someone would do that if they were in a good condition? If you put a person in a cage, you spoil his mind.


I stayed in Colnbrook for six weeks. Then came the day I never believed would arrive: I went to court with two sureties, my friend and my visitor. My lawyer sent me a good barrister, and I got released. The guards gave me my stuff in a big plastic bag. It was heavy, and it was made for criminals. But I didn't care. I was free.


****


That day was more than eight months ago. For eight months I have tried to keep up my spirits, to count my blessings. My lawyer has worked hard to get my case reviewed. I live with my friend in a nice house, I sleep in a soft bed, not on the street. She helps me a lot, and I help her with her house, with her children. I try to remember that this is good. I do remember. In fact, I take my life now as paradise, compared with before. But sometimes, I tell you - I can't help it, it's hard. I live in someone's house again, like a houseboy. I am not that type of person, but I don't have a choice. I can't work. I can't pay her back. I can't pay anything. I am dependent. Just for a bus ticket, a pint of Guinness - I have to ask her for everything. And she doesn't have much money either, sometimes she gets upset with me.


Sometimes we fight, and she says bad things to me. Then I feel she's like everybody else, she betrays me, too. Sometimes, I swear, I don't trust anyone in Britain any more - not my new lawyer, not you either - why do you want to know all this from me? Maybe you'll put me in problem, too.


I go to school, I'm learning English and maths. My teacher says I'm doing very well. But that is once a week, one hour or two. The rest of the time I am in the house. I sleep a lot. And I think about my case, about how to survive, and not to be in this mess. I think and think and think, around and around. I am not in prison any more, but this is prison, too.


I say this to the Home Office: "What are you looking for? Still, you are deporting me. Still you don't want me - what have I done? What about the things you did to me? You lied about me in a court of law, you treated me like a criminal - worse than a criminal. You treated me like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. I'm a foreigner, that's all. And because I am a foreigner, you can do what you like to me. Hah!"


What about the British lawyers that cheated me? What about the British company that cheated me, too? They still owe me my last salary - £1,200, £1,300. But when I was arrested they said that was not my name, and they took the money back. Who did the work, me or my name?
I say this to Home Office, and to anyone who reads my story: I was an orphan in Africa, and a street boy in France and Holland. The worst things in my life happened here. You came to my country first and took money away. I want to work and leave my money here. You can kill without a knife, without a gun. Sometimes I feel like you have killed me already.


I didn't come here for benefits, I didn't come here for a council house or a bank loan. My mission is to sweat and work and survive. If that is a crime, I've served my time for it, and more. And even now I am out, you punish me. I have to sign at that police station and every time I go I feel shame. Then you send me to sign 40 miles away. How can I get there when I don't work? Huh! Let me work! No benefit, just work. Even if you give me one year, I'll be happy. It would give me a chance. I could pay back my friend, I could be independent, I could hold up my head again.


That is the important thing I want to say. Let people work. If don't want criminals, let them work. If you stop them working, you make them criminals. What choice have they got? If you don't treat people like human beings, maybe they can't behave like human beings any more.
If you don't listen, I swear I don't know what I'll do. I am an honest person, but the way you treat people spoils their minds. If you provoke me, you'll make me do what I don't want to do... I pray hard that it won't happen. I pray hard to keep my conditions, that I won't betray anyone who has trusted me, that I won't run away. I'm prepared to die for my case, I swear. If they detain me again, I won't cooperate any more. Never in my life will I eat. Never in my life will I call anyone - no lawyers, no friends, no one. Let them kill me! But will my life end like this?"


From The Independent.