UK Immigration Policies Exclude Asylum Seekers - Essay Example

UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers Asylum and Asylum seeker The meaning of the word ‘Asylum’ is protection against persecution (Andrés, Kenyon, Birkholz, 2004:110).Persecution can be of many types when viewed in the international context. One of the online dictionaries explains asylum as “protection and immunity from extradition granted by a government to a political refugee from another country” (The free dictionary, n. d.). From the above meaning and definition of the word ‘asylum’, the meaning of ‘asylum seeker’ can be easily understood. Asylum seekers are those who would leave their own country due to fear of persecution and migrate to another country seeking protection. Most of the UK local councils and Government organisations define an asylum seeker as “someone who enters its territory, seeks refugee status and awaits a decision by its Government on his / her application” (London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, n. d.). This means that anyone who enters the UK territory for some reasons of persecution from another country and applies for a refugee status remains officially an asylum seeker as long as the application remains ending. Asylum seekers whose applications are accepted would become refugees. But, part 6 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act of the UK explains that the term ‘asylum seekers’ also includes those “who have made no claim for protection under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its Optional Protocol of 1967”. The term also includes those people who have children below the age of 18 but failed in their asylum claim (Harvey, 2002: 189). There are researchers who correctly think that a clear cut definition is lacking for these terms resulting in confusion on relationship between asylum and international protection (Kourala, 1997: 274). UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 2 Several countries have their own independent immigration laws and policies to deal with the asylum seekers and the UK has also been pursuing its own immigration policy. The policy has surely an objective to achieve. A close examination of its policies and laws reveal that the policies are guided by the objective of discouraging the increasing number of immigrants entering into the country. Attitude of the UK towards immigrants Available literature on immigration and asylum seekers suggests that majority of the UK people, like the other Europeans, are ready to accept the increasing inflow of immigrants on the condition that immigrants learn all types of skilled work, that they do not seek full welfare benefits and that they accept and adopt the host culture (Liddle and Diamond, 2006: 26). This attitude of the people obviously made the successive UK Governments adopt an immigration policy which avoided all sorts of fundamental rights to the asylum seekers. Because of this, the immigration policies excluded the asylum seekers from enjoying most of the welfare measures. The immigration policies of UK The successive UK governments are always worried about the increasing rate of influx of asylum seekers into its territories from various countries and wanted to discourage such influxes from the very beginning. It should not be forgotten that some sort of immigration controls existed in the UK right from 1962 onwards, though the issue of asylum gained prominence in the 1990s. It is also a fact that the successive Governments officially viewed presence of black people in the country as the main reason for the bad race relations on its soil (Shukra, 1998: 92). UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 3 The immigration policy has always nurtured a notion that people from the member countries of New Commonwealth and the Indian sub continent are eager to settle down in the UK by seeking asylum under some pretext or the other. With a view to control the influx of such asylum seekers, the UK Government made the 1971 Immigration Act which came into force from January 1, 1973 (Furmston, Kerridge and Sufrin, 1983: 175). It is true that the UK is the home for immigrants from nearly 150 countries having variations in socio economic background, ethnic values and culture ((Liddle and Diamond). But it is also equally true that a vast majority of the British view the asylum seekers as a burden on their economy (Garner, 2007: 147). Policies of exclusion With the arrival of the new Labour Government in 1997, the immigration policy to exclude the asylum seekers from enjoying the social benefits began on a war footing, though exclusion of some sort was there already. The Government introduced a White Paper on immigration and asylum seekers expressing the intention of streamlining their administration. But the main purpose of the White Paper was to keep the asylum seekers off the normal social benefits till the disposal of their asylum applications (Bommes and Geddes, 2000: 138-139). Bommes and Geddes argue forcibly that the experiences of other European countries were cited as pretext for justifying this exclusion. They explain that the Government’s stated intention to bring all the asylum seekers into a safety net to be directly and separately administered by the Home Office was only of some eye washing nature and that irrespective of what the Government stated, the intended result of having greater control to monitor and observe asylum seekers’ lives was effectively achieved. UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 4 Bommes and Geddes further contend that the immigration policy of the previous Conservative Government based on the claims that most asylum seekers in the UK were bogus and that the country has been attracting asylum seekers thanks to the welfare benefits was strongly supported by the Labour Government. Citing that asylum seekers in Germany were paid ‘in kind’, the British Labour Government introduced the voucher system in place of cash related benefits through the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. Another important aspect of the immigration policy adopted by the Labour Government is that the asylum seekers were made to disperse throughout the country on some pretext or the other to prevent closeness and cooperation among the asylum seekers. But the assumption of the successive Governments that the welfare schemes of the country have been attracting asylum seekers was totally dubious and false (Bommes and Geddes). A strong feeling that the inflow of immigrants into the country was causing a heavy burden on the strength of the economy was predominant in the country for decades long (Ferguson, Lavalette and Whitmore, 2005:132-133). They support this basic argument by suggesting that the 1905 Aliens Act defined as undesirable immigrants all those asylum seekers who could not financially support themselves independently or who were afflicted with some sort of disease or infirmity. Ferguson and others go on to say that an ill-conceived notion that these immigrants were eating away into the country’s resources exploiting the generosity and goodwill of the British people dominated throughout the 20th century and when the issue of asylum seekers dominated 1990s, the same old demonic feelings gained strength in shape of racism. Ferguson UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 5 and others further explain that the racist feelings peaked to such an extent that asylum seekers were branded as illegal immigrants. The first measure of the immigration policy excluding asylum seekers from seeking welfare benefits was introduced in the UK in 1993 through the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act which curtailed their housing rights (Kushner and Knox, 1999:361). In fact, though the British Government was having an immigration policy right from 1905, the country was not equipped with any specific laws on asylum seekers in any particular way prior to 1993 (Williams, Soydan and Johnson , 1998:67) . Williams and others suggest that the word ‘asylum’ was mentioned as an afterthought in the immigration laws in a list of reasons that would be shown by foreigners planning to visit and settle in the UK. The assertion of Williams and others support the argument that the UK developed an anti asylum policy from 1993 vigorously as it began perceiving that the number of asylum seekers is on the rise gradually and that it has to be tackled separately. Till then the issues of asylum and asylum seekers were there haunting the country but they were never separately seen as issues warranting special attention. Before 1993, the asylum issue continued to be part and parcel of the immigration policy as a whole. The 1993 Act virtually diluted the rights of the asylum seekers in seeking the housing welfare measures and introduced steps to return them to a safe third country. Kushner and Knox point out that the UK Government was lacking in a clear cut policy on asylum seekers till then and this measure followed a series of steps across several European countries which restricted access to immigrants. Obviously, the UK also went along with the rest of the EU in introducing UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 6 this measure. The argument advanced by Kushner and Knox corroborate the assertions made by Williams and others that the country began adopting policies separately for asylum seekers. The successive British Governments, ruled by the Conservative or the Labour, always developed an immigration policy which viewed asylum seekers as a threat to the nation. When the Conservative Government made the 1993 Act, the Labour party had toed their line and conceded that immigrants constituted a major threat to the nation (Shukra, 1998: 92). While the policy based on the 1993 Act curtailed housing welfare rights to all asylum seekers partially, the UK Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 made a division between port asylum seekers who are fresh and ‘in country’ asylum seekers who are in the country for some period barring the latter from all social security benefits and housing entitlement (Ferguson, Lavalette and Whitmore). Exclusion from employment benefits The immigration policy adopted by the UK Government following the 1996 Act was such that most of the asylum seekers were excluded from enjoying their employment rights. As a result of this discouraging attitude of the Government, majority of the asylum seekers found themselves in a trapped situation as they could not get a national insurance number till they found a job and they could not get a job till they were allotted a national insurance number ( Shah, Blake and Doebbler, 1999: 111). It was really a tricky situation for the asylum seekers. This pathetic situation was surely not the result of lack of jobs in the job market. It is the result of a policy which wanted to drive away the asylum seekers from the country. Support for this claim can be found in surveys which UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 7 revealed that people thought that there is never a shortage of jobs in the country. Most people interviewed said that if anyone in the country really wanted a job, he / she could find one immediately (Waltman, 2004: 167). Information denied The exclusion was so severe that most of the detained asylum seekers were denied the right to information in order to prevent them from exercising their right for seeking an appeal. While this is so common all over the Europe including the UK, the other disadvantage for asylum seekers in Briton is that the reviewing authorities are not independent ( Hughes and Liebaut, 1998: 29-30). Exclusion and Financial Resources The expenditure of supporting the asylum seekers is really very high in the UK and the Government spent £ I billion in the financial year 2001-02 alone on asylum seekers (World information, 2006). But the argument that the Government has been resorting to the exclusion due to high cost factor of maintaining the asylum seekers can’t be justified as the UK is the most developed and one of the richest countries in the world. It is revealed in several surveys that the citizens are willing to support the Government by paying higher taxes and allowing it to spend more on health, education and social benefits (Waltman, 2004: 167). In such a case, monetary resources can’t be cited as the reasons for the Government to exclude the asylum seekers. In any case, the Government could not have spent £ I billion if it lacked in resources. One has to be therefore very clear that the status of the economy has nothing to do with the policies of exclusion. But the unwillingness of the UK nationals to share the welfare benefits with the asylum seekers could be behind these policies (Liddle and Diamond, 2006: 26). UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 8 The successive UK Governments are also very innovative in excluding the asylum seekers from the normal social benefits. Researchers reveal that the immigration policies have pushed them towards the brink as they are barred from working for six months at least from the date of applying for asylum and their children are not allowed to pursue mainstream education (Gough, Eisenschitz, and McCulloch, 2006: 57). The most sorrowful thing about the cruelty inflicted by the Government to them, according to Gough and others is that asylum seekers are made to lose the facility of spatial proximity and self - help among themselves as the immigration officials disperse them from London to areas where they face more racist opposition from the locals. Children not spared The immigration policies of the UK do not spare even the children in the abuse of the rights of asylum seekers. This was clear from the findings of the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons which revealed that every year around 2000 child asylum seekers are being sent to the detention camps under the pretext of age disputes ( House of Commons, 2006: 24). Conclusion Going by the arguments given above, financial reasons could not have been sole reason for the UK Governments to adopt such immigration policy of exclusion but the fear of cultural invasion by asylum seekers could have driven them towards the way they did. Strength to this argument can be found in the theory advanced by researchers that the Europeans including the British always perceived the asylum seekers as a socio economic insecurity and also as a serious threat to their cultural identity ( Boswell, 2003 :19) UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 9 Reference List BOOKS Andrés, S., Kenyon, B. and Birkholz, E.P. (2004) Security Sages Guide to Hardening the Network Infrastructure. Rockland (US ) : Syngress. Bommes, M and Geddes, A (2000) Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State. London :Routledge Boswell, C. (2003) European migration policies in flux: changing patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Bognor ( UK) : Wiley-Blackwell Ferguson, I., Lavalette, M and Whitmore, E(2005) Globalisation, global justice and social work. London : Routledge Furmston, M. P. , Kerridge, R and Sufrin, B.E (1983) The Effect on English domestic law of membership of the European Communities and of ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights. Bristol : BRILL. Harvey, A ( 2002) ‘The 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act and How to Challenge it: A legal View’, in Mynott ( ed.) From immigration controls to welfare controls: London :Routledge House of Commons (2006) Immigration Control . London: The Stationery Office. Hughes, J.and Liebaut, F.( 1998) Detention of asylum seekers in Europe: analysis and perspectives. Boston ( US) : Martinus Nijhoff. Gough, J., Eisenschitz, A. and McCulloch, A. ( 2006) Spaces of social exclusion. London: Routledge, 2006 Kourala, P (1997) Broadening the Edges : Refugee definition and international protection revisited. Boston ( US ) : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers UK immigration policies exclude asylum seekers 10 Kushner, A.R.J and Knox, K.( 1999 ) Refugees in an Age of Genocide: Global, National, and Local Perspectives During the Twentieth Century. London : Routledge Liddle, R. and Diamond, P. (2006) Global Europe, social Europe. Cambridge ( UK) : Polity Shah, P, Blake, N, J and Doebbler, C.F( 1999) United Kingdom Asylum Law in Its European Context. Washington: CD Publishing Shukra, K ( 1998) The Changing Pattern of Black Politics in Britain. London : Pluto Press. Garner, S . (2007) Whiteness: an introduction. London :Routledge Waltman, J.L. (2004) The case for the living wage. New York: Algora Publishing Williams, C. Soydan, H and Johnson, M (1998) Social Work and Minorities: European Perspectives. London : Routledge World of Information (Firm) ( 2006). Europe review. London : Kogan Page WWW SOURCES: The free dictionary by Farlex (2009) Asylum , [ Online], Available: http://www.google.com/search?q=asylum%20definition&lr=&sa=N&hl=en&tab=pw [4 April 2009]. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. H & F Putting residents first, [ Online], Available: http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/azofservices/a/17464_Asylum_Seekers.asp [4 April 2009]. Read More