The Language of Asylum

Refugees and Discourse

Steven Kirkwood,Simon Goodman,Chris McVittie,Andy McKinlay

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137461162
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Personality in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The early part of the 21st century has been marked by widespread social upheaval and geographical displacement of people. This book examines how refugees, asylum-seekers, locals and professional refugee workers make sense of asylum and refuge in the context of current UK asylum policies.

Part I

Seeking Asylum and the Journey

1

Policy and Research on Refugees and Asylum-Seekers

What Britain does welcome and what Britain does want – of course, we’ll welcome asylum-seekers genuinely seeking asylum and take them to our hearts as we have over centuries. And of course people who can legitimately come here and work or study, we’ll make you feel at home. But we do need to send, frankly, a clearer message to people that we’re not a soft touch in terms of people coming here.

Cameron (2013)

Introduction

Above we see an excerpt from a speech given by the UK Prime Minster, David Cameron, on the topic of immigration and welfare reform. In the course of his speech, encapsulated within this excerpt, Cameron sets out coalition government policy on these issues in terms of an apparently clear binary distinction between those people who come to the UK as ‘asylum-seekers genuinely seeking asylum’ and those who by implication do not fall into this category. Whereas people in the former category will be made ‘welcome’, those in the latter category are to be given ‘a clearer message … that we’re not a soft touch’. Yet, this supposedly clear distinction that describes UK Government policy immediately raises two questions that are central to understanding current policy on these issues: first, who is to count as an asylum-seeker ‘genuinely seeking asylum’ and who is not; and, second, how will those deemed ‘genuine’ be accepted into UK society. Such questions form the basis of this chapter.

Seeking asylum and the UK context

The need for asylum

The widely recognized principles of applying for refuge in a country other than one’s country of origin are set out in the United Nations Convention of 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (United Nations, 2010). Article 1 Section A (2) of the convention defines a refugee as someone who:

owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his (sic) nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself (sic) of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his (sic) former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

This definition and the Convention itself, although first codified in 1951, in effect simply recognized principles of seeking asylum and refuge that had been widely in existence for some time previously. Indeed, the scale of international conflict and the forced migration of people over the course of the twentieth century have led some commentators to describe the twentieth century as a time that was defined by refugee movements (Kushner & Knox, 1999). Mass movements of displaced groups and populations required practices that acknowledged their problems and the risks that they faced, and provided them with safety and new opportunities. Now, in the early part of the twenty-first century, the need for refuge and for the principles enshrined in the Convention is ever more apparent. In a global context, recent statistics show that there are 42.8 million people in the world who are ‘of concern’ to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2013). This figure includes 11.7 million refugees, and 1.17 million asylum-seekers. To take but one example, it is estimated at the time of writing that, as a result of the ongoing war in Syria, almost one half of the entire Syrian population has been displaced internally and externally, many of them fleeing in no more than the clothes in which they stand due to extreme fear for their lives, notwithstanding the harsh winter conditions that they will have to endure as they seek to escape (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015). Recently, the Mediterranean Sea has been termed ‘the world’s most dangerous sea’ (Amnesty International, 2014), reflecting the number of deaths at sea of those who seek to make the crossing from the dangers of Africa and Asia to the relative safety of the European Union, commonly doing so at the hands of people smugglers, and in vessels that are not or are barely seaworthy. Thus, as processes of globalization unfold, and as war, famine, disease, recession and a multiplicity of other international catastrophes stride across the global stage, the consequences are, as always, felt by those least able to bear them.

All such circumstances point to the need for the 1951 Convention and principles of refuge as people leave their countries of origin and seek refuge elsewhere. It is unsurprising that the Convention has been described as the one piece of legislation that has saved the most lives in history (Yeo, 2011). Yet, even since its inception, implementation of the Convention has been subject to criticisms that the protection offered to refugees comes not just from a humanitarian aim to help those in most need but is instead bound up with other, less altruistic, motivations. In particular, the Convention came into being during the period of the Cold War when international relations between Western and Westernized countries and the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were at a political low point. During that period, every person who fled the USSR (which was not a signatory to the Convention) to Western nations, particularly the United States, was treated as an indication of the superiority of capitalist democracy over communism (for example, Boswell, 2005; Westin, 1999). Schuster (2003) notes that this has resulted in a system that privileges those persecuted in terms of civil and political rights (that is, those freedoms valued by the West) rather than economic and social rights. In consequence, only 5 per cent of all refugees are actually accepted into developed Western countries, with the remainder being harboured within the world’s poorest countries (Summerfield, 1999). A similar emphasis can be found in the current policies of many countries that seek primarily to attract only ‘highly skilled’ migrants. While, then, signatories remain committed in principle at least to the provisions of the 1951 Convention, their agreement to enact its provisions does not mean that, in practice, any who arrive seeking asylum will be welcomed. Rather the tension between espousing humanitarian principles and the reality of dealing with claims for asylum can be seen to be reflected in the policies and practices of countries (the UK included) that now find themselves potentially faced with claims from people fleeing from different parts of the globe.

UK asylum policy

The UK has a long history of granting asylum to those in need, with people fleeing persecution finding refuge in the UK since at least the nineteenth century. This practice was given a formal legal structure in the 1951 Convention. The Convention has been cited, albeit some time later, in UK statute law since the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (O’Sullivan, 2009). Subsequently, the European Convention on Human Rights became part of UK domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. In recognizing the application of human rights to asylum-seekers, the Act explicitly restricts the use of detention as well as specifying the rights of all to enjoy family life. Most importantly for those seeking asylum, it explicitly prohibits the return of people to places where they risk torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Thus the Act extends the rights of asylum-seekers previously recognized under the 1951 Convention.

By contrast, however, most of the asylum legislation introduced since 1993 has sought to restrict the scope and possibilities of applying for asylum. Much of this seeming ‘change of heart’ has come about in a political context where provisions for allowing asylum and refuge are now viewed within a broader context of the immigration of non-UK nationals into the country. Indeed, it is in this context that we saw the current UK Prime Minister talk about asylum-seekers in the excerpt with which we began this chapter. Notwithstanding that they arrive in the UK for specific reasons, and not through freedom of choice in where to live their lives, asylum-seekers become viewed as one part of the overall group of those who arrive in the UK seeking leave to remain there. While the conflation of the interests of asylum-seekers with other immigrants goes back some way, it can be seen clearly in the policies of the Labour Government during its time in office in the UK between 1997 and 2010. That government officially advocated a multicultural society, stating that it encouraged immigrants who would make a positive contribution to British society to come to the UK, and provided asylum to those fleeing persecution, through the process of ‘managed migration’ (Young, 2003). This included ‘toughening’ the processes for those seeking asylum, ostensibly because so-called economic migrants were masquerading as refugees in order to take advantage of the UK’s ‘soft’ approach on asylum-seekers (Bagilhole, 2003).

Evidence suggests that this approach is inherently flawed, as very few asylum-seekers have prior knowledge of the UK immigration system or benefit entitlements. Instead they often choose to come to the UK due to having friends or relatives in the country and/or general beliefs about the UK being a safe and tolerant society. Many, of course, have no choice over their destination as they rely on human smugglers to reach any destination of safety (Gilbert & Koser, 2006; Robinson & Segrott, 2002). Moreover, policy initiatives such as the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which was intended to reduce the number of immigrants into the UK, have been judged as a failure given that the number of asylum applicants decreased before the legislation was brought in and rose for each of the three years following (Schuster, 2003). With regard to ‘toughening’ policies related to asylum, Bagilhole (2003, p. 17) stated that the government’s role in the ‘moral panic surrounding the issue [was] both dangerous and damaging to race relations’. Despite these flaws and failures, subsequent UK Governments, first Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition and since May 2015 Conservative, have continued these attempts to ‘tighten’ the immigration system, with a stated aim of bringing annual net migration to the UK down to ‘tens of thousands’ rather than ‘hundreds of thousands’ (Cameron, 2011).

Many commentators, therefore, have characterized the UK’s recent immigration and asylum policies as founded on a model of deterrence, based on the assumption that only the most needy – and the most likely to be genuine – will make the effort to apply (for example, Bagilhole, 2003; Malloch & Stanley, 2005; Pearce & Stockdale, 2009; Phillips & Hardy, 1997; Wren, 2007; Zetter, 2007). In fact, it is almost impossible to enter the UK legally as an asylum-seeker, as visa requirements mean that it is necessary to attain false documents to enter the country; the policy of fining airlines and other transport companies for carrying passengers with false documents makes it more difficult for asylum-seekers to travel on this basis and requires many to rely instead on human smugglers (Barsky, 2000; Burnett & Peel, 2001; Westin, 1999). Westin (1999, p. 39, emphasis in original) argued that this essentially means that access to the asylum procedures is blocked. Owing to greater restrictions on immigration to the European Union, applying for asylum is one of the few methods for immigrating to the UK from less developed countries (Castles, Korac, Vasta & Vertovec, 2002). Those who arrive without appropriate documentation are treated as criminals, justifying the use of detention and expulsion, even though this increases the chances of imprisoning those who are legitimately in need of asylum and have all the likelihood of being victims of trauma and abuse (Bosworth, 2008; Bracken & Gorst-Unsworth, 1991). The use of illegal means of entry – often the only means of entry – may also increase the likelihood of refugees being perceived as economic migrants (Harding, 2000). Overall then, these policies and practices are in opposition to the spirit of the 1951 Convention and effectively prevent many people from entering the UK and accessing protection from persecution.

UK asylum practice

Since March 2013, all matters relating to UK asylum have been under the direct control of the Home Office through its two directorates of UK Visas and Immigration, and Immigration Enforcement. Asylum applications are considered within three categories: (1) asylum claims under the 1951 Convention; (2) claims for humanitarian protection or discretionary leave; or (3) claims under the European Convention of Human Rights or the Human Rights Act 1998 (O’Sullivan, 2009). If an application is accepted, the applicant receives refugee status, which may provide them with five-year ‘limited leave to remain’ – and applicants may later apply for indefinite leave to remain – or they may receive five-year Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave of no more than three years. If unsuccessful, an applicant may be able to appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and then to the High Court, and in some cases to the House of Lords or the European Court of Human Rights.

Over recent years, the number of people applying for asylum annually in the UK increased to a peak of 84,130 in 2002, but has since dropped to 23,507 in 2013 (Home Office, 2014). This figure, however, represents only part of the total number of people currently seeking asylum in the UK. Prior to March 2013, matters relating to asylum fell within the remit of the former UK Border Agency (UKBA), a quasi-autonomous agency distinct from the Home Office. Major criticisms of the lack of transparency in conflicting cultures operating within the UKBA, and the apparent absence of accountability for its actions led the Home Secretary to abolish the UKBA in 2013 and to subsume responsibility for asylum and immigration issues within the remit of the Home Office itself (UK Comptroller and Auditor General, 2014). This transfer of functions has led to improved performance on various fronts but has failed to deal with accumulated backlogs of asylum claims. As the Public Accounts Committee (House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 2014) recently noted, around 29,000 asylum applications dating back to at least 2007 remain to be resolved, with 11,000 of these applicants still awaiting initial decisions. Moreover, the backlog of undecided claims continues to grow, with the number of claims awaiting an initial decision in the first quarter of 2014 rising to 16,273, an increase of 70 per cent compared to the first quarter of 2013 (House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 2014). All such figures point to the increasing number of those caught up in the UK asylum system who are unrecognized (at least as yet) as ‘legitimate’ refugees and awaiting confirmation of their status.

Those who await the outcomes of their asylum applications are spread throughout different areas of the UK. Since the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the UK has operated a policy of dispersing asylum-seekers in need of support to a number of different locations around the UK. Dispersal was officially introduced in order to ‘spread the burden’ of accommodating and supporting asylum-seekers, who were previously concentrated in the South East of England. In practice, however, dispersal has resulted in other tensions within the asylum process. The power to regulate asylum and immigration is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament, the responsibilities being exercised by the UK Home Office. Other issues related to the concerns of asylum-seekers lie elsewhere. Thus, for asylum-seekers who find themselves dispersed to Scotland, their asylum claims fall to be determined in the UK context, while other matters, such as entitlement to education and to health services, come within the control of the Scottish Government as devolved matters. What this has led to, in practice, are some differences in the treatment of asylum-seekers in Scotland when compared to the rest of the UK. Whereas integration has been stated to be a policy objective of successive UK Governments of different parties (Home Office, 2002, 2008; May, 2010) the effects of this policy vary. For example, the Scottish Government has tended to treat integration as starting from arrival (Scottish Executive, 2005; Scottish Government, 2013), whereas at the UK level, integration is taken to apply only to those whose claims have been successful (that is refugees) rather than those who are awaiting the outcome of their application for asylum (that is, asylum-seekers; Da Lomba, 2010). In principle, therefore, there is the potential for asylum-seekers located in Scotland to enjoy greater access to education and other resources while awaiting the determination of their claims. Across the UK, however, most asylum-seekers are not permitted to work before their application is approved: regardless of the date from which integration might appear to commence, integration into full participation in the UK is less likely to occur before a successful outcome of a claim for asylum.

Who are asylum-seekers and refugees?

Categorizing asylum-seekers and refugees

We now turn to the first of the questions raised at the beginning of this chapter. In the excerpt earlier, we saw the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, in describing the government’s policy on asy...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Seeking Asylum and the Journey
• Part II: Getting Here
• Part III: Being Here
• Part IV: Staying Here or Going Back
• Part V: Conclusion
• Key Terms
• References
• Index