A refugee clashes with the absurd at ISS-HK
May 16th, 2014 | Advocacy, Food, Housing, Refugee Community | Comment
In September 2013, Bassirou fled deadly trouble in Niger to seek sanctuary in Hong. His ISS-HK file was opened at the Mongkok office in October, when his struggle with case worker Lok Lam commenced.
For eight months he complained to his case worker that his room was unfit for living. Bassirou is 180cm tall while the space for his mattress is 160cm long, which forces him to fold his legs to sleep. The room has no window and ventilation is a problem as he suffers from asthma.
During recent thunderstorms, the ceiling of this top floor room was flowing with rain. The cracks in the roof are so significant that one afternoon all his belongings were soaked in water. Recently three of the other five ISS clients left these crumbling premises.
The six refugees shared a subdivided flat with one toilet bowl, no bathroom or kitchen. However, Bassirou sells his food rations, not for lack of a kitchen, but because Lok Lam arbitrarily refused to provide cooking gas since October 2013. In eight months his never received toiletries either.
Bassirou sells his food for bus money. He gets 300$ for a 1200$ monthly allocation. Who keeps 900$?
When asked how he eats, Bassirou explains, “I am a man. I am strong. I put my life in God’s hands. My food is to write. My eating is my memory for everything wrong that ISS did to me. One day they will pay for everything.”
On 14 May 2013, Bassirou blasted his case worker, “You have salary. You have money for your room. You have money to eat. Everything you have, so why you don’t want to help me? Why you don’t pay for my room? Why you don’t give me gas? Why you change my food? Why you give me rubbish food?”
Lok Lam stumbled, “ISS doesn’t have money to deliver food to all people. Everyone who takes the food sells it to the Pakistani who stand outside the shops.” [N.B. Refugee are forced to sell substandard, unwanted food to buy what they really require.]
Lok Lam repeatedly instructed Bassirou to buy cooking gas and present a receipt for refund. But Bassirou was furious, “Are you crazy? How do I pay for gas, if I don’t work? I told you that I have no money to buy anything! Where I get the money?”
When Lok Lam explained, “ISS doesn’t have money to pay you gas,” Bassirou interrupted, “You mean that ISS doesn’t have little money to buy gas, but has big money to pay lawyers to take Vision First to court? So … no money for refugees, but only money for lawyers?”
Bassirou lambasted is case worker, “Before I don’t like to give you problem, but now I am very angry because I know ISS is an organization for corruption. I have many proof. You can take me to court and I will talk to the judge.”
Lok Lam concluded in frustration, “If you want to go to court, you go to court. I don’t care!”
Instead of accepting Bassirou’s request to rent a modest 3000$ flat in Tokwawan, Lok Lam advised him to move into a guesthouse in Mirador Mansion instead. This temporary solution would cost ISS-HK, and therefore Hong Kong tax-payers, about 9000$ a month – three times more than the flat.
Lok Lam described the absurd policy, “ISS will not pay 3000$ for your room, as your rent assistance is 1500$. But if you go to the guesthouse, we can pay [300$] every night and you don’t worry about rent.”
Vision First is concerned about the irresponsible disbursement of public funds entrusted to ISS-HK. What rational supports the settling of refugees in guesthouses that cost three times more than basic flats?
In a separate case a family of three was placed for several months in a guesthouse at 18,000$ a month before they secured a 4500$ apartment. Such irrational squandering raises doubts about ISS-HK financial accountability and the Social Welfare Department’s oversight.
Does somebody besides guesthouse owners benefit from such extravagance?
ISS oppresses female refugees through rent and food reductions
May 15th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
Case workers at ISS-HK fancy themselves Immigration officers in training. Instead of treating every client as a destitute asylum seeker without money or work rights, case workers tailor services according to nationality. By doing so they fail in their role as contractor for social welfare services.
The SWD instructions to ISS-HK concern “enhancing the humanitarian assistance for non-refoulement claimants” without consideration of nationality and previous immigration status. All protection claimants must be treated equally irrespective of how they arrived, or whether they work visa prior to seeking sanctuary.
Vision First is concerned about the prejudiced treatment of ex-Foreign Domestic Helper by ISS-HK case workers. To support this claim we offer a comparison between two African and two Indonesian ladies living together:
Example A: Two Somali ladies requested ISS-HK pay in full a shared 4000$ room in Kowloon. They state their claim pointing out that nothing cheaper was available, and they were banned from working. They met initial refusal with a promise of a sit-in until their non-negotiable request was met. And they got what they wanted!
Example B: Two Indonesian ladies requested ISS-HK pay in full a shared 3000$ room in a slum. They noted that the room was cheap and each could receive 1500$ rent assistance. Their case worker Tanya Tse refused to provide what they were entitled to. Tanya said, “It’s enough to give you 1400$ each. That is enough. Just sign and go!”
Tanya Tse also arbitrarily reduced the utility allowance from 300$ to 200$ each, despite the SWD clearly stating that, “300$ per month which may be used to meet different utilities charges (i.e. water, gas, electricity, etc.)”
Tanya Tse visited the room in illegal structures and signed an Agreement on Provision of Assistance bearing false information. Both Indonesian ladies were provide with ISS-HK agreements stating, “I confirm my address to be at Letter Box, XXX Shek Tong Tsuen, Au Tau”. Clearly two people cannot live inside a letter box!
Tanya Tse does not abide by the principle: “Treat other people the way you want to be treated.”
Vision First is deeply concerned about food problems at the ISS-HK appointed shops, New Bauddha and Safwan in Yuen Long. The quality problem is a shortcoming of the shops, though we understands that ISS-HK case workers are responsible for the quantity/selection problem. These issues must be addressed by the SWD:
- The rice is contaminated with excrement. A lady said, “The rice is very bad. Sometimes the rice is so smelly. Inside have shit. The rice is no good. When you finish cooking it becomes very smelly. Even if you wash very clean it is no good. All people are saying no good this rice … Everyone complain and asking how to solve this problem … Please ask them to change the rice. We cannot eat it!”
- Food selections are cut short. Milk, milk powder and Milo are not distributed despite being ticked on the order sheets. A lady complained, “If Tanya wants to give, she will give. If she doesn’t want to give, she will not give. It depends what she wants to give. Also, things like eggs and spices she never gives. I think that in one month I get 600$ [worth of foodstuff].Sometimes she only gives onion too much and expensive food don’t give. Vegetables too much give because it is cheap. Milk, powder milk, Milo don’t give.
- Cooking oil is insufficient despite what is selected on the forms. A lady explained, “I ask for cooking oil but only receive three small bottles a month. The very small bottles. We write the big one but they give the small one only. They give small one because it costs less money. How can we cook without oil?
- Basic toiletries, including detergent for clothes, must be distributed monthly as SWD pays ISS-HK for such provisions. Many refugee ladies share this complaint, “Sometimes they don’t give us toiletries. The shop doesn’t give every month. They give only one time in two months. The soap is not enough for us. They should give more as we need it to wash our clothes. We only get ONE toilet tissue roll each month. That is not enough for one month. If we cannot work how we buy toilet paper?”
- The food collection should be every 10 days. However, to save money over time, the ISS-HK shops progressively extend the frequency to as many as 15 days. The excuse of public holidays doesn’t hold up when distributing emergency rations to hungry people with no options. Distribution dates should be brought FORWARD, not pushed backward. A lady protested, “It is very bad, so we don’t have enough food and we are hungry. My food is not enough for 5 days. How can it last me for 15 days? They say we collect food every 10 days, but they lie. Now it is always 12 days or longer. And I don’t have any money …”
- These refugee ladies are intimidated by the male staff at the ISS-HK shops. If the ladies complain, the vendors shout back, “This is not your business. You ask your case officers. You are lucky we give you this!”It appears that these vendors believe they are engaged in charitable distribution. They forget that their bosses are paid tens of millions of dollars from the government purse to provide essential assistance to needy people. Would they speak like this to their Chinese customers?
- These refugee ladies get no redress from ISS-HK case workers. One explained, “We complain many times to Tanya and she just says, ‘Next time, next time.’ But [there is] never any change. Tanya doesn’t want us to complain. She said to me, ‘Don’t listen to what other people say. No need to complain too much!’”
Refugee Union celebrates three months of occupation
May 14th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
Three months after the Occupation action against ISS-HK started, the stand-off continues. The Refugee Union consolidated its protest camp on the footbridge outside the IFC mall to maximize exposure and avoid the worst of the rainy season. Five comfortable sofas offer space for talks and presentations.
The protest started on 11 February 2014, when refugees demanded a halt to food manipulation, which detracted one-third of rations’ value, and the publication of the contract between the Social Welfare Department and ISS-HK. Neither objective has been achieved yet.
Evidence is mounting against a food distribution system that fails to deliver to 5700 hungry individuals the 1200$ stipulated by the SWD in the Provision of Assistance for Asylum Seekers and Torture Claimants, enhanced on 24 January 2014.
In a city as costly as Hong Kong, 40$ hardly provides sufficient food for three meals a day. When reduced to 25$ and exacerbated by sub-standard quality, expired dates, rotting food and faeces contamination, the ensuing hardship is intolerable for those banned from working.
Anyone who disagrees with this statement is invited to live off ISS-HK rations for 10 days.
Reliable sources informed Vision First that 80% of refugees sell their food as soon as collected to crafty middlemen who consolidate it in illegal, unrefrigerated storerooms prior to reselling it to residents, restaurants and, it is rumoured, back to the ISS-HK appointed shops.
The ripple effect caused the halving of prices in ethnic groceries stores of competing items.
The Hong Kong Government should be concerned about the annual loss of over 50,000,000 HKD this farcical, failed food distribution system causes the government purse. The hemorrhaging of tax-dollars could be instantly halted by giving 1200$ cash directly to refugees.
Vision First submitted evidence of this financial damage to the relevant authorities.
The Refugee Union’s Occupation was trigged by discontent with food manipulation and the questionable practices that supported it for many years. A broader scope was later adopted to also expose the slums and petition the SWD to terminate its agreement with ISS-HK.
To achieve these goals, protesters file complaints daily at the SWD head office, where social workers appear to be sympathetic with the refugee cause and mightily annoyed with the incompetence of ISS-HK case workers. The Union anticipates that SWD will not renew its contract with ISS-HK this August.
The fact that the SWD earnestly handles complainants without deploying security, unlike ISS-HK and other non-profits, gained trust that contributed to the Union shifting the protest camp to Central. Ultimately the SWD will be part of the solution, while ISS-HK will not.
In a short three months the Refugee Union established itself as an effective pressure group to lodge complaints with the Social Welfare Department and even write to the Security Bureau urging change.
Never before did refugees in Hong Kong emerged with a Union that can stand on its own feet before forces that encourage either voluntary departure, or compliant submission to unbearable treatment.
As days roll into months and the Refugee Union grows in experience and consolidates its presence, anyone supporting the social injustice of the past has reason to be concerned about their future.
ISS-HK hides behind lawyers as police investigate
May 14th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
On 9 May 2013, sickened by the slums in Ping Che, Vision First published a landmark blog, “The Compound Under a Tree”. The point was made that the ISS-HK had callously settled refugees in appalling living conditions that we would robustly countered as a matter of social justice.
This seminal report listed several reasons why the squalid reality of refugee ghettos should be exposed: exploitation by slum lords, dangerous and unsanitary living conditions, illegal structures not fit for living and fraudulent disbursement of government funds.
The article concluded firmly stating that refugee slums are an affront to Hong Kong citizens who put their trust in the government to do what is right and dignified in welfare services to refugees.
One year later, on 12 May 2014, Vision First wrote an open letter to the members of the Board of Directors of ISS-HK asking whether they condoned the sponsoring and supporting of 65 refugee slums exposed by Vision First in 2013.
Perhaps unnerved by the unravelling of a complex reality, the ISS-HK directors are hiding behind lawyers at Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong. On 14 May 2014, the law firm replied that, “since legal proceedings have been commenced, our client shall not make further comments thereon.”
ISS-HK attempts to circumvent accountability and transparency by hiding behind a defamation suit has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of 65 refugee slums and food manipulation that hemorrhages 50,000,000$ from the government purse yearly.
If Vision First were to vanish overnight, the evidence of the slums and food scam would not.
We have been informed that the secretary of ISS-HK director and lawmaker Tam Yiu-chung turned down a press interview with the excuse that the Honorable Mr. Tam is very busy and is *not* involved with the day-to-day management of refugee service program.
It is noteworthy that that Mr. Tam Yiu-chung was appointed to the ISS-HK Board of Directors on 23 November 1999, and for 15 (fifteen) years proudly carried out the role, duties and responsibilities vested within such an key appointment. Is the Honorable Mr. Tam washing his hands of it?
Stephen Yao is the executive director of ISS-HK and indisputably responsible strategic decisions and overall operations. Mr. Yao is hiding behind his secretary, Miranda, who informed that, “the matters are subject to a defamation suit and we must ask the lawyers.”
Most readers will agree that these are two completely unrelated topics. The Vision First website could vanish overnight, but evidence of the slums and food scam will not be swept under the carpet no matter how high up in the government ISS-HK connections are.
While not privy to police investigations, credible sources inform us that Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers are swarming around ISS-HK services to refugees in Kowloon and across the New Territories.
There are reports of police investigating the food manipulation and interviewing participants across the distribution chain on evidence of fraudulent practices, many of which were first exposed by this website ISS-HK alleges being defamatory. If that were so, why are police investigating?
CID officers inspected and photographed the slums and presumably took action at one location where refugees reported that, “ISS-HK case workers want us to move to a good place as they will stop paying rent here this month. They said we must move out immediately and they will pay deposits.”
It is further reported that police are investigating an ISS-HK shelter where apparently more than 25 refugees were listed as currently residing, although only one family has lived there for the past eight months. Vision First is familiar with the ISS-HK practice of showing bogus addresses on contracts.
The police make no secret about surveillance and word in the street is that many individuals associated with International Social Service are persons of interest. Meanwhile, and in sharp contrast, police patrols walk by the Refugee Union protest camp in Central without batting an eyelid.
ISS-HK discriminates against FDH
May 13th, 2014 | Food, Housing, Personal Experiences, VF Report, Welfare | Comment
Case workers at ISS-HK fancy themselves Immigration officers in training. Instead of treating every client as a destitute asylum seeker without money or work rights, case workers tailor services according to nationality. By doing so they fail in their role as contractor for social welfare services.
The SWD instructions to ISS-HK concern “enhancing the humanitarian assistance for non-refoulement claimants” without consideration of nationality and previous immigration status. All protection claimants must be treated equally irrespective of how they arrived, or whether they work visa prior to seeking sanctuary.
Vision First is concerned about the prejudiced treatment of ex-Foreign Domestic Helper by ISS-HK case workers. To support this claim we offer a comparison between two African and two Indonesian ladies living together:
Example A: Two Somali ladies requested ISS-HK pay in full a shared 4000$ room in Kowloon. They state their claim pointing out that nothing cheaper was available, and they were banned from working. They met initial refusal with a promise of a sit-in until their non-negotiable request was met. And they got what they wanted!
Example B: Two Indonesian ladies requested ISS-HK pay in full a shared 3000$ room in a slum. They noted that the room was cheap and each could receive 1500$ rent assistance. Their case worker Tanya Tse refused to provide what they were entitled to. Tanya said, “It’s enough to give you 1400$ each. That is enough. Just sign and go!”
Tanya Tse also arbitrarily reduced the utility allowance from 300$ to 200$ each, despite the SWD clearly stating that, “300$ per month which may be used to meet different utilities charges (i.e. water, gas, electricity, etc.)”
Tanya Tse visited the room in illegal structures and signed an Agreement on Provision of Assistance bearing false information. Both Indonesian ladies were provide with ISS-HK agreements stating, “I confirm my address to be at Letter Box, XXX Shek Tong Tsuen, Au Tau”. Clearly two people cannot live inside a letter box!
Tanya Tse does not abide by the principle: “Treat other people the way you want to be treated.”
Vision First is deeply concerned about food problems at the ISS-HK appointed shops, New Bauddha and Safwan in Yuen Long. The quality problem is a shortcoming of the shops, though we understands that ISS-HK case workers are responsible for the quantity/selection problem. These issues must be addressed by the SWD:
- The rice is contaminated with excrement. A lady said, “The rice is very bad. Sometimes the rice is so smelly. Inside have shit. The rice is no good. When you finish cooking it becomes very smelly. Even if you wash very clean it is no good. All people are saying no good this rice … Everyone complain and asking how to solve this problem … Please ask them to change the rice. We cannot eat it!”
- Food selections are cut short. Milk, milk powder and Milo are not distributed despite being ticked on the order sheets. A lady complained, “If Tanya wants to give, she will give. If she doesn’t want to give, she will not give. It depends what she wants to give. Also, things like eggs and spices she never gives. I think that in one month I get 600$ [worth of foodstuff]. Sometimes she only gives onion too much and expensive food don’t give. Vegetables too much give because it is cheap. Milk, powder milk, Milo don’t give.”
- Cooking oil is insufficient despite what is selected on the forms. A lady explained, “I ask for cooking oil but only receive three small bottles a month. The very small bottles. We write the big one but they give the small one only. They give small one because it costs less money. How can we cook without oil?
- Basic toiletries, including detergent for clothes, must be distributed monthly as SWD pays ISS-HK for such provisions. Many refugee ladies share this complaint, “Sometimes they don’t give us toiletries. The shop doesn’t give every month. They give only one time in two months. The soap is not enough for us. They should give more as we need it to wash our clothes. We only get ONE toilet tissue roll each month. That is not enough for one month. If we cannot work how we buy toilet paper?”
- The food collection should be every 10 days. However, to save money over time, the ISS-HK shops progressively extend the frequency to as many as 15 days. The excuse of public holidays doesn’t hold up when distributing emergency rations to hungry people with no options. Distribution dates should be brought FORWARD, not pushed backward. A lady protested, “It is very bad, so we don’t have enough food and we are hungry. My food is not enough for 5 days. How can it last me for 15 days? They say we collect food every 10 days, but they lie. Now it is always 12 days or longer. And I don’t have any money …”
- These refugee ladies are intimidated by the male staff at the ISS-HK shops. If the ladies complain, the vendors shout back, “This is not your business. You ask your case officers. You are lucky we give you this!”It appears that these vendors believe they are engaged in charitable distribution. They forget that their bosses are paid tens of millions of dollars from the government purse to provide essential assistance to needy people. Would they speak like this to their Chinese customers?
- These refugee ladies get no redress from ISS-HK case workers. One explained, “We complain many times to Tanya and she just says, ‘Next time, next time.’ But [there is] never any change. Tanya doesn’t want us to complain. She said to me, ‘Don’t listen to what other people say. No need to complain too much!’
Open letter to the Board of Directors of ISS-HK
May 12th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
Slum Lord evicts refugee family by criminal intimidation and destruction of property
May 6th, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
Shortly before 9pm on 4 May 2014, a furious caretaker roared into the Slum That Rose Like A Phoenix to carry out orders from slum land Mr. Kwan. The henchman had to kick a refugee family into the street as a stark warning to 20 ISS-HK clients crammed into that derelict, abandoned chicken farm.
Two weeks earlier Bangladeshi Mohammad had begged the caretaker’s wife, and landlord’s sister, “Please give me more time. I don’t have money to pay!” when presented a 1700$ handwritten demand note for electricity use in March.
Winter and summer, the “utilities racket” – calculated by head-count including infants – torments the residents of the 65 slums exposed by Vision First, without concern or control by indifferent ISS-HK case workers who sponsored and support what The Guardian calls “Hong Kong’s Dirty Secret”.
Mohammad, his Indonesian wife Hana and one year-old boy were away when the caretaker raided the room without warning. The front door was broken open with criminal fury. Then the bed and cabinets were smashed and kitchenware, clothes and toys scattered outside without mercy.
Recalling the destruction, Hana later lamented, “The crazy man broke our mobile phones and threw the baby trolley into the jungle! He dumped our food outside the door and broke everything inside. We try to pay 1700$ for electricity every month to them, but where we find money if we cannot work?”
She continued, “We called the police and the landlord arrived with two gangsters talking bad to [swearing at] my husband. They try to fight with my husband. The CID told them not to do like this. I was very afraid for my husband, myself and my baby. The police took us to Kamtin station, not them.”
Despite the police being present, Hana recalls, “The sister [caretaker’s wife] closed mobile, so the landlord said, ‘If you cannot pay electricity bill, you don’t stay here. You go! You take all your things and go out from here. I will cut electricity and close water. You go away!”
Hana explained, “For two years I paid the [extortionary] electricity and water bill. But when I ask for the original bills he never show me. He just writes on the paper electricity coming how much, and that is what we must pay. Every month come the bill like that, around 1700$. He just counting the money … counting … counting …”
“I cannot go back,” shaken Hana said, “I am very scared. Those people are not good people. If there is problem they bring many people, like gangsters. This owner coming and threaten people. This owner is crazy people. When asking money, [there is] too much shouting. He just want more, more money. Everyone is scared of him. When he comes everyone just keep quiet.”
Hana recounts how her helpless family became homeless, “Sunday night at 1am we left everything and only took one bag. We will never sleep there again. We are even afraid to go back to pick up our things. We stayed in the Kamtin garden near the market. It was raining too much. We didn’t know where to go. We stayed there all night. We didn’t sleep.”
Hana explained the fear, “Why are we scared too much? When CID bring us in the car, the landlord called me and said, ‘If you go to police station, you don’t talk too much! You just keep quiet! Don’t talk anything about me, because I will give you problem! You understand, right?”
She continued “I made loudspeaker and said to CID, ‘Ah Sir, you hear what he telling me?’ and CID said, ‘I know your owner is local person. So better you move from there because your life is in danger.’”
“When we were with CID” Hana elaborated “the landlord said nothing, but when we left he said, ‘I will give you problem’, so my life and my husband’s life and my baby’s life is in danger. He is resident, right? I am only refugee. So if he give me problem, then me how …?
On 5 May 2014, the family reported the incident to ISS-HK and sought assistance. Their case worker Tanya Tse called the landlord and reported the obvious while overlooking the criminal behaviour, “Your owner call you, he said you have balance 2000$ and you cannot keep, so he do like this.”
Hana asked, “What can you do for me? You are my officer.” Then Tanya Tse replied, “Because I don’t know who is right and who is wrong, you or your owner, so I cannot do anything!” Charming!
To make matters worse, when the family arrived at 16:45 at the ISS-HK Tsuen Wan office, after their monthly report to Immigration, the security guards stopped them from entering and meeting Tanya Tse.
Vision First is deeply concerned that ISS-HK case worker Tanya Tse failed to protect a vulnerable and homeless family in their hour of need. Tanya Tse had a fiduciary duty to assess the danger faced by her clients and to ensure that criminal damage to property and criminal intimidation were reported to the police.
Despite being fully aware of the dangerous situation, Tanya Tse showed no concern about her clients’ safety and where they would spend the following two nights, May 6 being a public holiday.
There was clearly no humanitarian spirit to settle and protect helpless victims of criminal abuse, who remained homeless while Tanya Tse returned to the comfort of her home to enjoy the Buddha’s Birthday – unconcerned and indifferent in typical ISS-HK fashion.
Refugees join the Labour Day march for first time
May 3rd, 2014 | Advocacy | Comment
The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, emphatically states, “Refugees and asylees are authorized to work indefinitely.” The right to work for asylum seekers is a fundamental human one which Hong Kong Government violates by selectively interpreting international treaties such as ICESCR and ICCPR.
Most people agree that no capable human being feels dignified, respected and socially worthy without employment, particularly if forced unnecessarily into Hong Kong’s inadequate welfare system.
Refugees and asylum seekers have a right to self-sufficiency and they demand the right the work. They want to productively care for their families, plan for the future, contribute to society and feel a sense of belonging while awaiting asylum decisions.
Hong Kong’s policy of partial welfare and no employment is manifestly cruel and unlawful.
It is unacceptable that 6000 human beings are moved into the community with insufficient welfare and no employment right. Whoever formulated this policy should demonstrate how to live under such inhuman conditions – it is simply impossible!
This punitive treatment fails to be an ineffective deterrent for new arrivals (effective, timely and credible screening would be) while causing mental stress and physical hardship to vulnerable individuals punished for seeking sanctuary in Asia’s World City.
Pushed to the extreme margins of society, destitute and unprotected, refugees enter the informal economy where they are unscrupulously exploited, exposed to dangerous conditions without labour protection and often jailed for up to 22 months for working illegally.
Make no mistake, every adult refugee is obliged to raise money monthly for rent, utilities, food, clothes and daily necessities. If he or she have children, financial problems compound exponentially.
Hashid explained this dire situation, ““I am here as a refugee for six years and Immigration has never interviewed me. I try my best. I don’t break the law. Sometimes I work, but what other way do I find money to survive? … I want to ask God … I cannot pay rent. I cannot pay electricity. I don’t have clothes.”
Anyone who chooses to ignore this reality is conveniently sidestepping the obvious and turning a blind eye to social injustice. Anyone who disagree with the unfairness of this situation probably earns a decent salary and returns every evening to a comfortable home.
In history it is often those who enjoy rights who justify why others shouldn’t have them.
Vision First encourages refugees to oppose welfare solutions and fight for the right to work.
