Asylum Seekers, Social Work and Racism

S. Masocha

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137415042
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book analyses social work through the concept of 'xenoracism' to challenge the outdated concepts of racism that still pervade social work. It illustrates how, through their discursive practices, social workers are able to counteract the dominant anti asylum seeking discourses.

1

Historical Overview

Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of the history of UK immigration and asylum seeking policies from 1900 to 2014. It reviews the public and government’s responses to immigration and asylum. The rationale for this chapter is to provide a historical and social context for the ensuing analysis of the ways social work professionals construct asylum seekers. The chapter provides resources that allow links to be made between discursive patterns and social consequences. It is argued that the history of UK immigration and asylum policies is underpinned by an overriding desire to exclude and expel the Other. A version of history is thus presented upon which this book anchors its main argument that British immigration and asylum policies are permeated by xenoracism. It is argued that the policies regulating the asylum system are intrinsically racist and oppressive yet social work has to operate within and at times even enforce these policies. The social and historical context provided in this chapter therefore serves to clarify and make explicit this fundamental argument.

Masocha, Shepard. Asylum Seekers, Social Work and Racism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. DOI: 10.1057/9781137415042.0005.

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the history of immigration and asylum seeking in the United Kingdom. It also reviews the public and government’s responses to these phenomena. The rationale for this chapter is to provide a historical and social context for the ensuing analysis of the ways social work professionals construct asylum seekers. Providing such a context in this analysis of professional discourses is necessary because it enables the ‘interpretation of the position of a story, account or version of events within a field of power relations’ (Thompson, 1984; cited in Wetherell and Potter, 1992, p. 105). As such, this chapter provides a backcloth for the analysis of social workers’ discourse of asylum seekers. It provides resources that allow links to be made between discursive patterns and social consequences. However, by using history in this way, there is also awareness within this book that versions of history can never be presented in a simplistic and neutral form. As such, the historical and social context provided in this chapter should not be regarded as separate from but rather as an integral part of the whole interpretative process of this book.

This chapter represents a version of history upon which this book anchors its argument that British immigration and asylum policies are permeated by xenoracism. The policies regulating the asylum system are intrinsically racist and oppressive yet social work has to operate within and at times even enforce these policies. The social and historical context provided in this chapter therefore serves to clarify and make explicit this fundamental argument.

British immigration policies 1905–1981

Current British immigration and asylum policies should be understood as an integral part of an on-going process of discrimination based on one’s country of origin and race. This process can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century. Before looking at British asylum policy there is a need to outline the development of British immigration policy. This is important because in many ways immigration policies influenced and indeed set the tone for asylum policy. It was not until the early 20th century that Britain had a developed immigration policy even though the Poor Laws regulated internal movements. Since then, the development of immigration policy has been dominated by three main themes. First, is the tendency to construct immigrants as inherently problematic – ‘outsiders’, a ‘danger’ and a ‘plague’. Secondly, immigrants are perceived in terms of the ‘burden’ they would impose on public finances especially the welfare system. Thirdly, the demands of the British economy have also been quite influential in shaping immigration policy.

It should be noted that well before the first piece of legislation was passed specifically to deal with immigration, the notion of immigrants as the ‘outsider’, a ‘danger’ and a ‘plague’ was an entrenched way of constructing immigrants within official circles and parliamentary discourses. For instance, as early as 1 April 1901, the Conservative Party MP for Sheffield Central, Howard Vincent asked if the Secretary of State for the Home Department had looked into:

into the effect of alien immigration in the East End of London, and to the report made by their Commissioners to the effect that considerable areas in St. George’s-in-the-East and other adjacent districts are being denuded of Gentile population, the properties sold, and the old tenants replaced by immigrants paying abnormally high rents, and defraying the expense by taking in an improper number of lodgers. (Howard Vincent, Hansard, vol. 92, Col: 347–348, 1 April 1901)

This negative perception of immigrants was also echoed in the 1903 Royal Commission’s report which characterised the ‘aliens’ as ‘impoverished, destitute, deficient in cleanliness, liable to introduce infectious diseases, criminals, anarchists, prostitutes, caused overcrowding, and raised rents’ (cited in, Hayes, 2002, p. 31). Therefore, immigrants were constructed in discourses prevailing at the time as socially deviant and a threat to the British society. Thus the race vs. nation discourse anchored in the us against them distinction was very much evident then and was indeed to be drawn upon to justify subsequent restrictive legislation with negative exclusionary outcomes for immigrants. In fact, this us/them bifurcation continues to the present day to frame discourses relating to immigration and asylum and is one of the main salient and enduring features of xenoracism.

These negative perceptions and exclusionary tendencies towards immigrants can clearly be conveyed through the analysis of the parliamentary debates prior to the enactment of the first British immigration law, the 1905 Aliens Act. This law was proposed and passed specifically to establish barriers to the entry of Jews who were fleeing persecution in Germany, Russia and Poland as well as the general increase in the levels of immigration. Within the parliamentary debates that ensued, immigrants were portrayed predominantly in a negative light. The following, rather long, extract from the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Akers-Douglas, when introducing the bill to parliament, is very important in conveying a clear picture of the perceptions and attitudes that existed at the time:

there is a certain class of undesirable aliens who are not so welcome, and whose repatriation is very desirable ... Unfortunately, these aliens have a tendency to occupy very few centres in this country, and therefore their presence creates great difficulty in certain districts. Between a fourth and a fifth of the whole of the foreign population in this country are residing in four or five centres. The last return shows that, excluding the large families, which many of them have, something like 54,000 are residents in the borough of Stepney. There are other boroughs in London where large numbers have also taken up their habitation; and by their residence in these districts they have not only displaced a large amount of labour, but have also occupied a very large number of dwellings from which they have driven the bonâ fide inhabitants. ... Not only have these aliens living in these districts caused a great deal of overcrowding, with all its evils, and a displacement of British labour, but I am sorry to say, from the information which has reached me at the Home Office, that the feeling which exists between these settlements of foreigners in London and the native population is becoming very strained, and is really a very serious menace to the maintenance of law and order in these districts. This evil, I am sorry to say, is not likely to diminish; and, indeed, it is increasing. The immigration has increased very largely in recent years. ... Another point which I would ask the House very seriously to consider is that the class of aliens which we get here is not the class of aliens which at all makes the best citizens. It is the class excluded by the United States, and therefore it is fair to say that we only get the refuse ... . (emphasis added; Aker-Douglas, House of Commons, Hansard, 29 March 1904, vol. 132, Col: 987–995)

The importance of the above extract from Aker-Douglas’ speech lies not only in its explicitly xenoracist depiction of immigrants, but also in the fact that the type of reasoning and justification for calls for restrictive immigration policies that were given here have been built upon and further elaborated (and possibly sanitised and presented in much more subtle form) in contemporary discourses as will be demonstrated. Some of the xenoracist notions that have shaped immigration policy are highlighted in the above extract by way of italics. In fact the notions that are expressed here by Aker-Douglas of immigrants as undesirable Others; presenting difficulties to the host nation; having unnecessarily large families which put a strain on public resources; benefiting at the expense of the British citizens; a menace and socially deviant which makes them incapable of fully integrating into the British mainstream society and become bona fide citizens – continue to be present in contemporary discourses relating to immigration in general and asylum seekers in particular.

The result was the 1905 Aliens Act, which promulgated the power to prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants in the United Kingdom. The perceptions, attitudes and exclusionary tendencies towards immigrants that prevailed at the time were written into this piece of legislation. According to Section 3 of the Act, an immigrant was considered undesirable if he was unable to support himself, or suffered from an illness that would result in the government shouldering the cost of treatment, or had a criminal history. As Cohen (1996) and Hayes (2002) argue, these determinations became the forerunners to the ways in which immigration rules are invoked to prevent immigrants from entering the United Kingdom particularly those perceived as requiring recourse to public funds. In fact, the law made provision for the deportation of immigrants found to be in receipt of parochial relief within their first year of arrival. As Hayes (2002, p. 36) notes it becomes clear ‘how in the initial operation of the first piece of legislation to control aliens, access to public money remains key, both at the point of entry and internally’ and this remains a key consideration in determining immigration and asylum cases.

The rationale and underpinning ideology for a restrictive immigration regime was based on the purported need to keep Britain ‘British.’ In fact the influence of Social Darwinism was explicit in the parliamentary debates leading to this Act as well as the media’s portrayal of immigrants at the time. There was the underlying belief that ‘non-Britons’ came low in the pecking order of ‘races’. Jews were, therefore, perceived as a major threat of alien dilution of English blood. It is in this respect that British immigration policy can be characterised as underpinned by racist philosophies. Jews were defined in the following terms: ‘the real enemy, the invader from the east, the ruffian, the oriental parasite’ (Hayes, 2002, p. 32). These views, centred on a need to safeguard ‘Britishness,’ led to the emergence of a discourse of nation and nationhood, which continues to shape contemporary immigration and asylum policies.

The post-World War II period saw a slight change in policy towards encouraging immigration from the Caribbean and the Asian sub-continent. The change in the direction of immigration policy was necessitated by the severe post war labour shortages that bedevilled the British economy, which was experiencing a boom. It should however be stressed that this change in the direction of immigration policy was not followed by changes in attitudes and perceptions of immigrants. Racist attitudes and perceptions of immigrants as the Outsider continued to be present in immigration discourse. For instance, concerns regarding what were perceived as the deleterious effects of immigration of Black people on the ‘racial character of the English people’ were being voiced in 1948. Carter et al. (1987) state that two days after the arrival of the Empire Windrush a letter was sent to the then Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, by 11 Labour MPs calling for the control of Black immigration, since: ‘An influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life and to cause discord and unhappiness among all concerned.’ The Empire Windrush had arrived on 22 June 1948 carrying 492 Caribbean immigrants. Such calls for a more restrictive immigration policy increased especially in the aftermath of the Notting Hill disturbances in September 1958. For instance, Louth MP, Cyril Osborne, argued that Britain was faced with ‘the urgent need for a restriction upon immigration into this country, particularly of coloured immigrants’ (House of Commons, Hansard, 29 October 1958b, vol. 594, Col: 195) and in December 1958 he forwarded a motion in parliament urging ‘Her Majesty’s government to restrict the immigration of all people ... who are unfit, idle or criminal’ (House of Commons, Hansard, 5 December 1958a, vol. 596, Col: 1552); common descriptors for black people at the time.

In fact, once the economy began to shrink in the 1960s culminating in the 1970s economic recession, immigration discourse focused on the ‘problem’ of immigration. On 23 February 1960, Frank Tomney, MP for Hammersmith North, in his contribution towards the debate on the 1958 Notting Hill disturbances, explained the riots as attributable to the ‘problem’ of immigration which led to ‘ a slow simmering to boiling point extending over two years, finally erupting in the mob violence ...’ (Frank Tomney, House of Commons, Hansard, 23 February 1960, vol. 618, Col: 332–333). Thus, the post Second World War period saw what was articulated as an additional ‘problem’ associated with the influx from the Commonwealth. Immigrants were portrayed as threatening race relations within the British society. In fact, this argument continues to be used in calls to restrict the levels of immigration in contemporary discourses.

While in opposition throughout the 1950s and during the time when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was being debated in parliament, the Labour Party opposed calls to restrict immigration arguing that such calls were based on racism. Labour MP for Smethwick, Gordon Walker, in his contribution in the debate on the proposed legislation argued that the Conservative Home Secretary had been

revealed before us in his nakedness. He is an advocate now of a Bill which contains bare-faced, open race discrimination. He advocates a Bill into which race discrimination is now written – not only into its spirit and its practice, but into its very letter. (Gordon Walker, House of Commons, Hansard, 16 November 1961, vol. 649, Col: 706)

In spite of the Labour Party’s objections, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962) was passed.

It is also important to underline the fact that in spite of its consistent opposition to immigration controls and the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill in particular during the period when Labour Party was in opposition, it was doubtful that a Labour Government would repeal the existing legislation. According to Sivanandan (1982, p. 12) once the Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962) had been passed, ‘the Labour Party with its eye to the elections had begun to sidle out of its commitment’. In late 1963, the Labour Party accepted the necessity of immigration controls. This was significant as it signalled the beginning of the emergence of a consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties on this issue. Thereafter, increasingly within Labour circles, there emerged the tendency to depict immigration as a problem. For instance, in 1965 Baroness Asquith of Yanbury described the ‘problem’ of immigration as a ‘flood’ that had all along been ‘pouring in before the General Election when the previous Government were in power ... Yet that flood was apparently neither detected nor corrected’ (House of Commons, Hansard, 10 March 1965a, vol. 264, Col: 78). Therefore, what emerged clearly in the Labour Party’s parliamentary discourse on immigration was the notion of the undesirability of Commonwealth immigration. This was accounted for in terms of the perceived problems associated with immigration especially in relation to community integration and race relations.

Furthermore, when the Labour Government came into power in 1964, it came under increasing pressure over immigration from extreme right members of the Conservative Party particularly MPs from the Midlands region. For instance Smethwick MP, Peter Griffiths had successfully campaigned against Labour candidate Gordon Walker in the 1964 elections on the slogan ‘if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour’. The Conservative Party supported a new bill sponsored by Louth MP, Cyril Osborne, which aimed at denying entry to immigrants from the Commonwealth with the exception of those with parents born in the United Kingdom. Although the bill was thrown out of parliament, within a few months the Labour Government introduced a White Paper aimed at amending the 1962 Act by proposing a reduction on Commonwealth immigration quotas from 20,800 to 8,500 annually (The Earl of Longford, House of Commons, Hansard, 02 August 1965b, vol. 269, Col: 23–24). The outcome was the Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1965), which had the effect of further curtailing immigration from Commonwealth countries.

During the rest of the 1960s, the debates focused on the presence of black people from the Commonwealth. Within this discourse, imageries were deployed that evoked links with disease, crime and costs to the nation. It is within that context that Cyril Osbourne, MP for Louth, requested the Secretary o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  Historical Overview
• 2  Asylum Seekers in Media and Parliamentary Discourses
• 3  Asylum Seekers in Social Work Discourse
• 4  Countering Hegemonic Narratives
• 5  Construction of the Other
• Conclusion
• References
• Index