Conditions of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK - Case Study Example

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF CURRENT UK GOVERNMENT POLICY ON REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS Executive Summary One of the major achievements of globalization has been the diversification of global societies. Globalization has opened-up international boundaries to allow free movement of people, including refugees and asylum seekers. However, refugees and asylum seekers have generated policy challenges for many nation-states, particularly those in developed world. At the turn of the new millennium, Britain experienced a surge in individuals seeking asylum. Since then, successive governments have formulated a policy framework to control the population of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. The policy on asylum has been influenced by EU legislations and other conventions on human rights Current UK government policy on asylum is based on two measures. First, the UK government has set controls to vet asylum seekers with the aim of determining the authenticity of their status claims. Second, the UK government has instituted extraterritorial measures to delay or deter asylum seekers and refugees from entering its territory Much as the UK government policy has been effective in reducing the population of asylum seekers and refugees, concerns have been raised over the manner in which asylum seekers are treated. While awaiting determination of their status, refugees and asylum seekers in the UK are detained in not so human enclosures, in addition to being denied access to care and other rights only enjoyed by citizens. Furthermore, asylum seekers and refugees are not allowed to engage in paid employment. The treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK has reinforced the notion that these populations are dangerous criminals and a threat to economic development Concerns have also been raised over the government’s conceptualisation of “a refugee”. Some commentators have argued that the UK government offers immunity to terror suspects Table of Contents Executive Summary 0 1.0Introduction 2 2.0Theoretical Framework 3 3.0UK Government Policy on Immigration 5 4.0Implementation of the Immigration Policy 7 5.0Conditions of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK 10 6.0Key Findings 11 7.0Conclusion 13 Reference List 13 1.0 Introduction Globalisation has, indeed, opened up global frontiers to immigrants and asylum seekers from diverse nations. However, immigration is an emotive subject in contemporary society as it provokes very strong racist feelings. Discussions on immigration illicit distorted views and misconceptions from mainstream media and politicians. Immigration and immigrant are terms that are now being treated synonymously with “foreigners” or “outsiders” (Goldberg, 2008). The UK has had a long history of hostility towards immigrants and these hostilities are being reproduced and propagated in society today (Uslaner, 2012). Much as globalisation has facilitated free movement of populations across international borders, immigration policies aimed at managing migrant populations discriminates against refugees and asylum-seekers in the UK. Current discussions on immigration policies in the UK and European Union as a whole exemplify the contentions surrounding immigration. On one hand, the UK government is obligated by international agreements and treaties to protect the inalienable human rights held by refugees and asylum seekers. On the other hand, the government carry the burden of maintaining control as it provides asylum to refugees. Refugees and other asylum seekers often resort to unorthodox avenues to gain entry into host countries in order to bypass formulated immigration controls (Uslaner, 2010). Consequently, uncontrolled entry of immigrants portends social and financial strains on host countries (Reitz et al., 2009). Against such a backdrop, the objectives of this report are twofold. First, the report will discuss current UK government policy governing refugees and asylum seekers. Special attention will be paid on the procedures used to grant asylum to refugees entering the UK. Second, the report will the challenges faced by refugees in their quest to be assimilated in the UK society. More focus will be lent on socio-economic issues surrounding refugees seeking asylum in the UK. Overall, the report will determine how the UK government policy impacts on the refugee populations in the country, particularly the systems employed to determine eligibility. 2.0 Theoretical Framework Globalisation has increasingly become a major phenomenon that is currently shaping policy trends. Impacts of globalisation are more pronounced in the economic sector where economic policies are being formulated to foster economic growth and development. Notwithstanding the prominent influence of globalisation on global economies, globalisation also encompasses political, social, cultural, psychological and geographical dimensions (Jones, 2010). However, the theory of globalization in contemporary society is one riddled with extensive and multidisciplinary contentions. Several schools of thought have tried to exemplify the globalisation phenomenon from diverse angles. While some scholars believe in the reality of globalization, others see it as a modern cliché (Stefanović, 2008). Globalization is indeed a complex phenomenon given the various dimensions inherent of globalisation (Eriksen, 2007). Globalisation has been defined by various scholars based on the dimension under discussion. In view of this, globalisation has emerged as a phenomenon that has neither a precise nor a unified definition (Herd & McGrew, 2007). Globalisation is often linked to contemporary economy and as such, theoretical debates have emerged over this phenomenon (Jones, 2010). In an effort to define globalisation, many scholars have contributed towards the development of globalization theory. Discussions surrounding globalisation are usually classified within three broad schools of thought: the sceptical thought, the hyper globalist thought and the transformationalist thought. Discussions in this report will be restricted to the transformationalist thought (Herd & McGrew, 2007). The transformationalist thought is based on the conviction that a new wave of globalisation was open at the dawn of the new millennium. According to this school of thought, the new wave of globalisation has been responsible for the unprecedented changes in economic, political and social spheres in contemporary society (Stefanović, 2008). Proponents of this school of thought opine that modern globalisation processes are historical unprecedented meaning that societies and governments must conform to a world that makes no distinctions between internal and external affairs. Globalization in modern times has created a new world order, in addition to reshaping societies (Herd & McGrew, 2007). The new frontier created by globalisation is influencing the economic, political and social fate of states and communities. Within this context, globalisation is envisaged as the most powerful and transformative force that shapes economies, societies, world order and institutions of governance (Herd & McGrew, 2007). Conversely, the transfomationalist’s view holds that the direction of this influence remains uncertain given that this school of thought conceive globalisation as a contingent historical process sated with inconsistencies. When compared to the sceptical thought and the hyperglobalist thoughts, transformationalist thought makes no mention of the future trajectory that globalisation will follow (Stefanović, 2008). On the contrary, transformationalist thought stresses that globalisation is an on-going, historical process that is riddled with contradictions, as well as influenced with conjectural factors (Herd & McGrew, 2007). The uncertainty about the future of globalisation is based on the fact that current patterns of global politics, economy, migratory and technological flows in a globalisation are historically unprecedented. Globalisation has managed to bring states and societies across the globe into a single, functional part (Lechner, 2009). However, a unitary global system does not directly imply that the world will converge into a single society in the future. In contrast, transfomationalists believe that globalisation is integrating some segments of society into a single order while at the same time marginalising other segments (Herd & McGrew, 2007). At the heart of the transformationalist thought is the belief that globalisation is reinventing the power, authority and functions of national governments. While states still maintain sovereignty over the affairs of their respective governments, this sovereignty is juxtaposed with international law and governance (Lechner, 2009). For instance, the sovereignty of countries in the EU is divided between local, national and international authorities. Much as governments still hold sovereignty, they can no longer make unilateral decisions on local matters without the influence of international pressure. Interconnectivity of governments disregards the notions of autonomy and self-governance in contemporary society (Stefanović, 2008). 3.0 UK Government Policy on Immigration Asylum refers to the protective immigration status that is normally offered to refugees and other asylum-seekers by host nation-states. The granted status gives refuge-seekers immunity from deportation as they await determination of their asylum claims. If the asylum claims are successful, refugees and other asylum-seekers are usually granted a residence permit for a specified period of time (McAdam, 2008). Like many other countries, the UK government is confronted with the challenge of developing a policy that grants asylum to refuge-seekers while at the same time maintaining the veracity of immigration controls. In the absence of alternative avenues, migrants from poor countries often take advantage of asylum admission to bypass established immigration controls (Home Office, 2005; Spicer, 2008). The UK government has instituted a raft of legislation aimed at developing a local framework upon which refugees and asylum seekers are assessed and granted access to social services (Sim & Bowes, 2007). Generally, the broader legislative policy on asylum makes varied provisions. To begin with, refugees that have been granted asylum are entitled to equal rights and liberties as other UK citizens. Secondly, local authorities are mandated with assessing the needs of all asylum seekers (including those denied asylum) to ascertain if they require care services stipulated in the Community Care Act 1990 and Section 47 of the National Health Service (Home Office, 2007). Thirdly, local authorities are also required to provide care under the auspices of the National Assistance Act (1948), Section 21. Provisions of this Act indicate that provision of care should move beyond accommodation to incorporate other aspects of care. However, local authorities should determine eligibility for care based on individual circumstances. By adopting a case by case approach, local authorities should consider factors surrounding every individual’s case and seek legal advice for each individual circumstance where necessary. When eligibility for support has been determined, personal budget or direct payment is used as a means of support instead of direct services (Home Office, 2007). Finally, local authorities are prohibited against providing routine support to refugees and asylum seekers that have been denied status. The denial of routine support is governed by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002), Schedule 3. Refugees and asylum seekers that have been denied status are deemed unlawful immigrants and are thus not required to enjoy the same rights as other UK residents. However, there are exceptions to the denial of support to refused refugees and asylum seekers. Local authorities are required not to deny support to refused asylum seekers if such denial would violate an individual’s human rights as stipulated in the Human Rights Act of 1998 (Home Office, 2007). Generally, the UK government policy guidelines on asylum have been successful in two key aspects. First, the number of applicants seeking asylum in the UK has been falling over the years. Second, the UK government has employed systematic measures for removing asylum seekers who have been denied status (Gibney, 2008). Despite the success, three major issues still raise pertinent issues on the UK policy guidelines on asylum. Firstly, sole aim of the asylum policy is to ensure that genuine refugees are granted status while those with unfounded claims are refused asylum. However, restrictive measures by the government are hurting those refugees who have with valid claims. For instance, non-arrival measures continue to deny refugees with strongest claims to seek asylum in the UK (Lewis, 2009; Lewis, 2007). Secondly, it is not yet clear whether the decline number of asylum seekers in the UK is as a result of fewer arrivals or if it has been deliberately brought about refugees who have chosen to stay in the country irregularly. The government often use restriction and detention policies to monitor refugees and asylum seekers (Smart, 2009). However, such policies may be welcome news for some asylum seekers who opt to move beyond the reach of government control and restrictions. Finally, it is unclear what the government will achieve in the future through its crackdown on illegal immigrants. While the government seems to have succeeded in addressing public concerns over the surging number of asylum seekers, it has created unhelpful and unrealistic expectations on how to handle other areas of immigration (Lewis, 2009). 4.0 Implementation of the Immigration Policy Asylum represents a crucial policy matter on the basis that it entails safeguarding the rights of individuals who are susceptible to unjust detention, torture and/or death if deported to their home country. The issue of asylum remains a major concern for many nation-states in the developed world giving the ever growing number of asylum seekers. Some political commentators argue that the rising number of asylum seekers symbolises a failure by nation-states to effectively control and manage their borders, which have become more porous (Ellerman, 2008). Since the start of the new millennium, a time when globalisation turned a new phase, the issue of asylum has moved to the top of agenda for the UK government. Successive governments have had to deal with asylum applications hovering between 70,000 and 85,000 asylum seekers per annum (Home Office, 2007). The UK has traditionally offered asylum to individuals meeting the two criteria that were set out in the 1951 UN Convention’s definition of a refugee. First, the person seeking asylum must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is at risk of persecution in the home country. Second, asylum is granted to individuals who may be subjected to fragrant human rights violations if returned to their home countries. The Home Office is mandated with the task of granting asylum to refugees. Much as the Home Office purports to foster Britain’s longstanding tradition of granting asylum to refugees, the UK is often hesitant to welcome asylum-seekers in its territory. A number of measures have been put in place by successive governments to prevent the arrival of refugees or speed their departure from the country (Home Office, 2007). The measures instituted by the UK government emanated from the surge of refugees seeking asylum in the country during the 1990s. Such measures include restricting asylum seekers’ access to places of residence and welfare, as well as limiting their freedom to choose the places they wish to settle (Ellerman, 2009). Extraterritorial measures have also been developed by successive governments over the years. Such measures are solely aimed at deterring asylum seekers from gaining entry into the country and subsequently claim status. Within this context, the current government policy on asylum finds itself at crossroads. On one hand, the UK government has committed to offer asylum to refugees under international conventions. On the flipside, the same government continues to implement measures to reduce asylum applications (Smart & Fullegar, 2008). The double standards shown by the UK government in dealing with the issue of asylum has always been a subject of controversy at national and international levels. To that effect, the implementation of UK government policy on asylum presents three major challenges. First, the definition of “a refugee” remains a major area of contention in the UK. The UN Convention has excluded from its definition of refugee persons deemed to be a threat to national security and those facing serious crimes unrelated to politics. However, the UK prohibits deportation of asylum seekers convicted of violent crimes and terror offences. Therefore, the scopes of asylum seekers who are eligible to receive status in the UK remain a controversial issue (Lewis, 2007). Secondly, the rights enjoyed by asylum seekers as they await determination of their status represent another contentious issue in the UK. Currently, asylum seekers wait up to six months for a first instance decision regarding their asylum application. Furthermore, the asylum seekers have to wait for another year to know their fate if they lodged an appeal against the first instance decision (Smart, 2009). The marginal status created by this timelines makes the status of asylum seekers in the country unclear, in addition to providing local authorities with ample time to deport unsuccessful applicants. Such policy measures frustrate asylum seekers in the sense that they cannot seek paid employment, choose a place to live and/or become detained if perceived as likely to disappear within the community (Root, Levine & Amon, 2008). Thirdly, the return of refused asylum seekers to their home countries is another area of contention. Determination of asylum status requires immense labour and financial resources. While the UK government spends a lot of resources in determining the status of asylum seekers and refugees, it is clear that a large proportion of these individuals remain in the country even after their status has been denied. The gap between unsuccessful and deported asylum seekers (deportation gap) has become a heated political issue. Many asylum seekers and refugees disappear in the community making it difficult for authorities to apprehend them. Nevertheless, some asylum seekers and refugees get support from their friends and neighbours in the community who vehemently oppose their deportation (Stewart, 2004). 5.0 Conditions of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Refugees and other asylum seekers constitute a highly diverse group of individuals from different countries who are only united by the same mission; application of asylum. As a diverse group, they include people with different experiences, skills and individual challenges. More often than not, these individuals encounter a myriad of hardships prior to, during and after gaining entry into the UK. Given their similar circumstances, refugees and asylum seekers in the UK have shown remarkable resilience in the manner in which they have organized themselves into support networks (Parekh, 2008). Despite their resilience and determination, refugees and asylum seekers have to surmount numerous challenges, not considering the uncertainty of their status applications (Refugee Action, 2006). Globalisation has been applauded for its role in enhancing diversity and multi-cultures. Governments across the globe have adopted the concept of multiculturalism in response to the diversity arising from globalisation (Lechner, 2009). Despite proponents of multiculturalism arguing that urban cultures appreciate cultural differences, they fail to recognize that diversity goes hand in hand with equality. When society celebrates diversity, while still promoting inequality, it inevitably breeds the ground for entrenched segregation (Uslaner, 2012). Without full citizenship status, refugees and asylum seekers have limited access to care and other support services. Denying refugees and asylum seekers access to full rights is a clear indication of discrimination and segregation (Parekh, 2008). Other areas where inequality is evident are in health, education and housing sectors. While multiculturalism in urban societies has enhanced diversity, social inequalities are widespread in these societies. The number of unemployed youth and homeless persons is growing in the UK, particularly among migrant populations. Furthermore, limited access to health services and education opportunities is undermining the life and future of refugees and asylum seekers (Bloch & Schuster, 2005). The challenges faced by refugees and asylum seekers have been exacerbated by public outcry over their presence in the county. Some members of the public perceive them to be dangerous criminals and a threat to their economic wellbeing. Within this context, asylum seekers have often been subjected to Xeno-racism (Uslaner, 2012). 6.0 Key Findings The globalisation phenomenon has successfully opened up global frontiers that were formerly closeted to allow the free flow of people and goods across international boundaries. Globalisation entered a new face at the onset of the new millennium, which saw a surge in the number of individuals seeking asylum in the UK. In response to the growing number of immigrants, successful governments have instituted a raft of measures to manage the population of refugees and asylum seekers. The UK government policy on asylum has however been criticised for applying double standards. While the UK government is committed to providing asylum to refugees in line with international obligations, it has instituted measures to restrict entry of refugees into its territory. Two aspects have emerged from the discussion on the current UK government policy on asylum. First, non-arrival measures used to deter refugees and asylum seekers from entering the UK territory is denying individuals with strong, legitimate basis to seek asylum in the country. Second, restrictive and control measures imposed on asylum seekers and refugees awaiting determination of their status are causing undesirable consequences. Persons awaiting status determination are often held in less salubrious and inhumane conditions. Detention of asylum seekers and refugees in such conditions disregards their material and psychological needs, particularly for those individuals who have suffered torture, conflict and other forms of state sanctioned abuse (Smart, 2009; Smart & Fullegar, 2008). According to the transformationalist thought asserts that the new wave of globalisation that emerged at the beginning of the millennium has been responsible for the unprecedented changes in economic, political and social spheres in contemporary society. Furthermore, the transformationalist thought opines that globalisation is an ongoing process whose future is uncertain (Stefanović, 2008). One of the areas that have experienced unprecedented changes is the issue of asylum. The free flow of people across borders has forced the UK and other developed countries to formulate policies that limit population movements. At the moment, it remains uncertain how the issue of asylum will be addressed in the future and if this issue will still be an issue for future governments (Eriksen, 2007). Moreover, the transformationalist thought holds the policy decisions made by nation-states are subject to influence from external forces (Stefanović, 2008). As a member of the European Union and signatory to international treaties, the UK government is obligated to realign its national policies to the policy decisions made by the EU and other bodies. One area that the UK government has been blamed on its handling of asylum seekers is the definition of “a refugee”. The UK government has been vilified for protecting the rights of terror suspects and violent criminals under its asylum policy. However, this protection has been necessitated by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated in the UK law in 1998 (McAdam, 2008). 7.0 Conclusion The UK government policy on asylum has largely adopted a restrictive approach in handling refugees and asylum seekers (Sriskandaraja et al., 2007). However, restrictive measures are heightening public antipathy and antitrust among members of the public, politicians and the media with regards to the institution of asylum. While the government policy intends to handle the issue of asylum and refugees, it becomes counterproductive when persons seeking asylum are detained and restricted (Bosworth, 2008). Detention and restriction creates that notion that refugees and asylum seekers are dangerous people that should be kept away from the general society. Furthermore, denial of asylum seekers and refugees the right to seek gainful employment creates the notion that asylum seekers are responsible for the economic woes facing host countries (Schuster & Welch, 2005). The aforementioned concerns raise a pertinent question as to whether the punitive policy adopted by the government is effective in addressing the issue of asylum. Furthermore, the general public has been apprehensive on matters regarding asylum. Debate has also arisen as to whether detention and restrictions imposed on asylum seekers enhance or hinder public confidence in the institution of asylum (Sawyer & Turpin, 2005). Towards that end, the UK government carries the onus of rethinking its policy approach in order to balance between safeguarding the rights of asylum seekers and maintaining the integrity of normal asylum controls. Reference List Bloch, A. & Schuster, L. (2005). At the extremes of exclusion: deportation, detention and dispersal. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), pp.491-512. Bosworth, M. (2008). Border control and the limits of the sovereign state. Social Legal Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 199-215. Ellermann, A. (2008). The limits of unilateral migration control: deportation and inter-state cooperation. Government and Opposition, vol. 43, no. 2, 168–189. Ellermann, A. (2009). States against migrants. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eriksen, H. T. (2007). Globalization: the key concepts. New York: Berg. Gibney, M.J. (2008). Asylum and the expansion of deportation in the United Kingdom. Government and Opposition, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 146-167. Goldberg, D. T. (2008). The threat of race: reflections on racial neoliberalism. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Held, D. & McGrew, A. (2007). Globalization theory: approaches and controversies. Malden: Polity Press. Home Office (2005). Integration matters: a national strategy for refugee integration. London: Home Office. Home Office (2007). UK borders bill: regulatory impact assessment. London: Home Office. Jones, A. (2010). Globalization: key thinkers. Malden: Polity Press. Lechner, J. F. (2009). Globalization: the making of world society. Malden: John Wiley. Lewis, H. (2007). Destitution in Leeds: the experiences of people seeking asylum and supporting agencies. York: Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Lewis, H. (2009). Still destitute: a worsening problem for refused asylum seekers. York: Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. McAdam, J. (2008). Asylum and the universal declaration of human rights. Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 3-12. Parekh, B. (2008). A new politics of identity: political principles for an interdependent world. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Refugee Action (2006). The destitution trap: asylum’s untold story. London: Refugee Action. Reitz, J.G., Breton, R., Dion, K.K. & Dion, K.L. (2009). Multiculturalism and social cohesion. New York: Springer. Root, B., Levine, I. & Amon, J. (2008). Counting and accountability. The Lancet, vol. 371, pp. 113. Sawyer, C. & Turpin, P. (2005). Neither here nor there: temporary admission to the UK. International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 17, no. 4, 688-728. Schuster, L. & Welch, M. (2005). Detention of asylum seekers in US, UK, France, Germany and Italy. Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 331-355. Sim, D. & Bowes, A. (2007). Asylum seekers in Scotland: the accommodation of diversity. Social Policy and Administration, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 729-746. Smart, K. & Fullegar, S. (2008). The Destitution Tally: an indication of the extent of destitution among asylum seekers and refugees. London: Asylum Support Programme Inter-Agency Partnership. Smart, K. (2009). The Second Destitution Tally: an indication of the extent of destitution amongst asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees. London: Asylum Support Programme Inter-Agency Partnership. Spicer, N. (2008). Places of exclusion and inclusion: asylum-seeker and refugee experiences of neighbourhoods in the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 34, no. 3, 491-510. Sriskandarajah, D., Cooley, L. & Kornblatt, T. (2007). Britain's immigrants: an economic profile. London: Institute of Public Policy Research. Stefanović, Z. (2008). Globalization: theoretical perspectives, impacts and institutional response of the economy. Economics and Organization, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 263-272. Stewart, E. (2004). Deficiencies in the UK asylum data: practical and theoretical challenges. Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 29-49. Uslaner, E. (2010). Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. Comparative Sociology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 415-434. Uslaner, E., 2012. Segregation and mistrust: diversity, isolation, and social cohesion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More