The cultural, religious, spiritual, social and emotional implications of interview technique should be into account. At the same time it is important not to assume, for example, on the basis of a client's religion, what they are thinking. It is the duty of the interpreter to transfer this information to the practitioner without loss of meaning or substance. As always, scrupulous confidentiality must be maintained, by both interpreter and practitioner.
With regards to interview technique, cultural differences must be taken into consideration. Communication is vital, and blockages must be avoided in order to achieve the desired outcome. These blockages can include such things as stigma (on the part of both practitioner and client’, and lack of communication skills (more generally, it can be suggested, on the part of the client). It is also up to the interviewer to assist the interpreter. Many languages have a completely different structure to English, so the interpreter may ‘…be forced to wait until you finish a sentence before they can start speaking.’ (Pavlovich, 2001)
Pavlovich also notes that ‘…questions about people's origins, culture and histories should be broached sensitively.’ Clear explanations of the reasons for asking can sometimes ease any discomfort felt by the client. Non-recognition of qualifications or resentment from the public and temporary third country nationals can result in less of an incentive to learn the language or to build good relationships with their neighbours. It is the opinion of this essay that more service could be provided that would enable the client to appreciate the cultural differences they may encounter. Currently, these services do not address the greater susceptibility of migrants to exploitation, and there may be a need for intervention to ensure that they have a level of inclusion matching their, and society’s, best interests (Schott, 2001). However, a policy recently adopted by the British government was the complete review of all housing applications by migrants. Prime Minister Tony Blair stated in a speech (April 2004) ‘…that migrants from eastern Europe who do not work will not have access to council houses and will be prevented from "benefit-shopping."’
The adoption of this policy may force migrants into illegal work, with more restraints being placed on those in genuine need of benefits and housing as soon as possible. If one is granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) as a refugee or exceptional leave to remain (ELR), they are automatically entitled to work in the UK. Confirmation of eligibility to work will be shown in a letter received from the Home Office granting asylum status. However, since twenty-third of July 2002, the Home Office has removed the right for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work. With those having already been given permission to work before this date eligiblity to work. An asylum seeker granted permission to work before July 2002, but who have had their asylum claim refused, may continue to work if they are awaiting the outcome of an immigration appeal. The advice given by the Home Office to employers is that it is lawful to employ asylum seekers “provided that they have permission to work”. It is the opinion of this essay that this policy further drives the asylum seeker/migrant into ilegal work. The denial of the right to apply for eligibility for employment is acknowledged by many to be unfair.
Another argument that can be put forward is that legal integration- namely access to rights, goods, services and resources- is a necessary although not sufficient precondition for social inclusion of any new minorities. The development of common legal indicators is needed in order to assess and discuss challenges and trends in the field of social exclusion and to arrive at common understanding and diagnosis as well as at comparable data.
One issue that should be addressed with regards to policy and practice is that within each category of migrants, women may have different needs from men, and the young from those who have greater experience in life. Spencer (2002) suggests that
‘…we need to understand the differing barriers experienced by different groups of migrants.’
There are many reasons behind this idea. Clarity in the objectives for each group can be identified and records can be made of interventions, ‘…recognising that one-size-fits-all will not deliver for this disparate group of people any more than it would for the population as a whole.’ (Spencer, 2002).
A common goal for all is the inclusion of all; not just in employment, but in all areas of society. Social inclusion into the mainstream institutions and activities that meet individual and societal needs (education, health and social care, housing) are a necessity for all, with ‘long term’ asylum seekers in particular requiring access to these. Inclusion in civic life will lead to inclusion in other areas– active participation in the institutions and obligations of civic society, ‘particularly for those remaining in the long term.’ (Spencer, 2002). The outcome to these one might suggest, are the building of trust, ‘bridging capital’, and good community relations.
The goal of the social services is not inclusion in one but all of these areas, thus preventing social exclusion. It is the opinion of this essay, however, that there are many barriers that prevent asylum seekers from attaining social inclusion. Too often, it is found, that asylum seekers/migrants are included in one ‘sphere’, and not others. Spencer tells us that inclusion can only be attained when this ideal is met, an full inclusion is achieved, ‘…Not inclusion of migrants in the labour market but living on the margins of society, with little contact with established communities….nor socially included, but unemployed and dependent on the state.’
One advantage to current policy is that it is biased towards the view that is not the asylum seekers responsibility alone to seek social inclusion. The use of the word ‘inclusion’ suggests this, with Scott noting that it is ‘…a more satisfactory word, perhaps, than ‘integration’, capturing the essence that it is not only migrants who need to want inclusion and adapt, but society that needs to open up to allow them in: a two way process, a process not of absorption but of change.’
Migrants cannot be included, cannot feel included, unless they are included by society. A number of integration courses have been devised to develop the social skills of asylum seekers. However, any skills learned cannot be put into practice, as the opportunity to do so is being denied by social exclusion.
Spencer suggests that asylum seekers and migrants face a number of barriers that hinder social inclusion. These include-
‘Restrictions intentionally imposed by migrants’ conditions of entry’
‘Barriers of discrimination’
‘Public attitudes’
Restrictions imposed limiting their access, and that of their dependants, to jobs, public services or welfare benefits, can hinder inclusion. It can be argued, however, that it is correct practice that those who immediately enter a country cannot immediately access the full range of social benefits and public services to which long term residents have contributed. Asylum seekers experience ‘enforced leisure’ (or idleness), as a result of employment restrictions whilst their claim is being determined. This can lead to associated health problems and low self-esteem. It is policy in some areas of Britain issue ‘passport to leisure’ cards (additional support with sportswear and equipment was said to be available from faith groups). However, more formal support and funding structures would enable other agencies to provide similar services to asylum seekers. Johnson notes that ‘Mobility upon receipt of a decision (and for those leaving NASS accommodation) interrupts care and may have an adverse impact on dependants.’ This suggests a need for some sort of an ‘exit strategy’ to ensure a seamless transition and continuing care for asylum seekers when they receive a decision on their claim. This should apply equally to those granted refugee status, those given leave to remain, and those who receive a negative decision.
It is the opinion of this essay, however, that there has not been enough consideration as to what benefits and services should be readily available. Or, more importantly perhaps, what benefits and services should be made available over time. Spencer argues that ‘…it is in the interests of society that they have access, because access promotes self sufficiency and social inclusion…’ There must be compromise between exclusion of migrants from public services (to limit public expenditure, deter welfare tourists and perhaps appease public opinion) and allowing access to services that promote inclusion.
The barrier of discrimination can be on grounds of race and, increasingly, Spencer argues, of religion. Discrimination can be overt, but more often unintended and systemic in the way services are organised to meet the needs of the majority. Services are often found to be ‘…un-tuned to the differing needs of new communities, lacking interpreters or materials in minority languages, services which we intend migrants to use can fail to meet their needs or exclude them entirely.’ (Spencer, 2002)
Discrimination is a barrier to inclusion not only because it excludes migrants from the jobs they are eager to do and the services they need, but because of the resentment which it fosters. There is often little incentive to continue seeking employment or other forms of inclusions when one is continually rejected, with Pavlovich noting that-
‘…feelings of resentment based on discrimination, or the sense of rejection, can drive migrants into the arms of the minority who would like to retreat to the village instead of joining the world – into the arms of the people who support forced marriages, the folk who will not allow their wives to work or speak English, and the people who will back any kind of conduct on the ground that it is justified by cultural difference. These people are the enemies of integration and we should have no time for them.’
The services provided do little to address this, and, therefore, many asylum seekers are faced with social exclusion. Currently, action undertaken to address discrimination is seen as a matter of individual rights. It is the opinion of this essay that the efficiency of practice would benefit if it was seen as one central, essential component of the issue of social inclusion and exclusion.
The third and related barrier, public attitudes, considers the concerns, fears, hostility of some in the majority population towards ‘newcomers’ (Spencer). Such attitudes can breed discrimination. They can also lead to a break down in trust, to tension, and in extreme cases, disorder. Spencer identifies that, for the migrant, ‘…no lessons in citizenship, no encouragement to identify with the collective “we” will over-ride a negative message from their neighbours that says “you do not belong”.’
There are a number of ways for social inclusion of asylum seekers and migrants to occur. This involves not only change in policy with regards to social services, but ‘re-education’ (Schott, 2002) of the general public as to the main issues involving asylum seekers and migrants. In January 2001, the Home Office published a report on ‘Migration: an economic and social analysis’. This was the first attempt within the UK to undertake a systematic analysis of the impacts of migration, and to better understand the extent to which the Home Office is achieving its aim to develop migration policy in the interests of ‘sustainable growth and social inclusion’. The report identified a range of positive economic and social impacts arising from migration, and highlighted some of the challenges. The main issue, of course, was the reduction social exclusion.
- It could be argued that he government, at European, national and local or regional level, have a responsibility. Explanations could be given to the public, in a consistent and balanced exercise in public communication, why different categories of migrants are living amongst us. The rationale for migration policies and the contribution migrants make can be offered. It is vital, however, that they then listen in turn to public concerns, separating real conflicts of interest that must be addressed from unfounded prejudices.
An evidence base for inclusion policies could be developed through research monitoring and evaluation. The fact that there is a suggestion that language proficiency has a significant, measurable impact on labour market performance is a powerful reason for providing access to language classes.
The impact of immigration controls should be reviewed, and this could be done often, perhaps annually. This would ensure that local authorities provide migrants with a secure legal status, with rights and responsibilities that reflect their temporary or permanent status, with maximum possible access to the rights that promote integration including work, family reunification, public services and participation in the democratic system. The concept of ‘civic citizenship’ that the European Commission has proposed for those not yet eligible for citizenship status could be explored, with the concept perhaps being relatively ignored by the government. Drafters of international law have generally been unsuccessful in efforts to define the term ‘minorities’. Medda-Windischer, (2001) argues that-
‘There is a lack of clear consensus neither among countries nor within the United Nations and regional organisations on this matter, and furthermore, it is extremely difficult to settle the question in the abstract.’
It is suggested, therefore, that some categories of non-citizens, should clearly enjoy many of the rights listed in the instruments devoted to minorities, but not necessarily all of them, so that there is still a clear legal boundary between a legal citizen, and a migrant.
Currently, there seems to be little in the way of effective protection from discrimination. EU law requires protection from race discrimination in employment and in services, but only in employment if discrimination is on grounds of religion or belief. They do not address discrimination against asylum seekers or migrants, thus reinforcing the idea that many asylum seekers would have to seek illegal employment. It should, however, be ensured that religious minorities are not treated less favourably when seeking access to housing, health or education services, if they are to feel included in society. The Council of Europe suggests that governments go further and give public bodies a duty not only to tackle race discrimination, but to take active steps to promote equality. The UK has recently done this and the Commission for Racial Equality oversees implementation of that duty in Great Britain.
Requiring public bodies to identify barriers to equality in their service and take steps to deliver change would be advantageous. These bodies would include health and education providers through to the police and housing authorities. Spencer (2002) notes that- ‘The new law is taking equality from the margins to the mainstream of each organisation’s service planning.’
One aspect of services provided to migrants currently lacking is the providing of information on arrival. This information could include such details as to their rights and responsibilities, on the practicalities of life like finding a local doctor and opening a bank account, and on social expectations of behaviour. There are a number of subtle cultural differences that may cause confusion, and perhaps in some cases, conflict. Currently, a number of other countries, such as Denmark and Canada, have adopted this policy. But the UK has yet to do so. This is gravely important; cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings. In the research of Spencer, (2002), he states-
‘I have come across an Albanian boy whose father had kept him out of school for two years because he wrongly thought he had no entitlement to attend; but also of patients who became aggressive with the local doctor because he could not provide them with housing – in each case simple misunderstandings.’
This merely reinforces the suggestion that more information should be given to asylum seekers on arrival in this country. Equally, there may be tensions caused by lack of knowledge of social expectations– a new migrant who put rubbish in the street each day because she has not been told that it is collected once a week; or leaves young children to go out to work, only to find that she is accused of neglect. Such issues should be addressed.
A problem not currently addressed is the physical health on arrival of asylum seekers. Although most asylum seekers are relatively healthy on arrival, there may sometimes be health problems associated with travelling long distances during dispersal. A document published on these issues, ‘Asylum seekers in dispersal- healthcare issues’ (Johnson, 1998), notes that ‘…this is particularly the case for certain groups of asylum seekers, such as the elderly and pregnant women.’ Initial health screening would help to identify those at risk.
Johnson also notes that healthcare professionals and welfare workers were concerned that asylum seekers were being ‘moved from place to place by NASS and its accommodation providers’. This would create difficulties in obtaining registration with medical practitioners and healthcare programmes. High mobility also meant that healthcare providers often had to treat asylum seekers before their medical notes arrived. Some practitioners were starting to issue hand-held patient records for asylum seekers. Practitioners also noted that the inclusion of some medical information on NASS documentation would be useful (taking medical confidentiality into account). This would enable reliable documentation to be at hand for any practitioner. Most healthcare providers said that their principal problems arose from the number, diversity and irregular flow of asylum seekers. This would encourage ‘…good practice guidelines for asylum seeker health should be developed and promoted.’ (Johnson 1998) Practitioners interviewed expressed the need for appropriate training and more support to help staff deal with the needs of asylum seekers and refugees sensitively; to work more effectively with interpreters and help staff to deal with the emotional impacts of traumatic cases.
It could be ensured that migrants know how to get independent advice, so that they can access the opportunities that are open to them. That advice may be linked to a personal assessment of their needs and provision of services as it is for refugees in Sweden and the Netherlands, or from independent sources. Without access to advice, migrants face the barrier of ignorance, and are vulnerable to exploitation.
A suggestion put forward by Donnelly (1999) was that a review of the capacity of mainstream services to meet migrants’ needs should be co-ordinated. Consultation with migrants is a key factor in the success of this proposal, and provisions should be adapted accordingly. This could be through either mainstream services (which have the greater budget and coverage) or through targeted services for migrants alone. There is, of course, issues as to which services should receive the higher priority. That, it can be argued, would depend on the evidence, in each country, on the barriers, and outcomes that are to be achieved.
One area that should be examined is the methods that may assist in controlling the flow of the asylum seeker. It has been suggested that Europe’s handling of migration flows needs to change radically over the next generation. Veenkamp (2003) proposes that growing political turbulence reflects an underlying dilemma- control of migration flows seem simultaneously to be more necessary and less feasible than ever before. A system for managing migration flows is also proposed, which stems from two starting points-
- • Voluntary migration is evolving into self-reliant, trans-national mobility.
- • Forced migration will continue as a result of upheaval, displacing people from their countries of origin and means of self-reliance.
The five principles for such a system should be-
- • The facilitation of the movement of voluntary migrants and self-reliant travellers;
- • The creation opportunities for displaced persons;
- • The protection refugees;
- • The locating of ‘flow management’ facilities close to potential migrants;
- • The prevention of counterproductive differences in the treatment and entitlements of different groups of incomers, and between migrants and settled residents.
One area that should be explored is the idea of introducing the asylum seeker to the community, and attempting to encompass them in community activities. Bridges could be built across communities, bringing people together in circumstances in which they develop shared interests, common understanding, and positive relations. The mandate of the Commission for Racial Equality is, unusually, not just to promote race equality but also to promote good race relations. It is the opinion of this essay that equality and good relations are conjoined. In social terms, it is impossible to achieve one without the other. Equality cannot be achieved, it might be suggested, without positive public attitudes of mutual respect; Johnson notes that ‘…we cannot achieve good relations if inequality breeds resentment and alienation.’ It is evident. Therefore, that there is a need for initiatives to promote both, side by side.
The promotion of understanding and acceptance of human rights standards is an issue that seems to be ignored. Human rights, as a common value, that can unite communities. Johnson says of the code of human rights-
‘Each of our nations is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights which sets down minimum standards not only on how the state treats us, but an ethical code for how we treat each other: teaching respect for privacy, equality, and family life; challenging intolerance and degrading treatment. We do not, in our diversity, need to agree on everything – there was huge diversity of values in Europe before post war migration added to that cultural mix. But we need a common code which over rides unacceptable extremes. The international human rights standards provide that.’
In order to enforce this ideas surrounding human rights, the mobilisation of ‘civil society partners’ has been suggested. This would enable the sharing responsibility between with migrants and the state, for delivery on this agenda. Johnson suggests that-
‘Employers, trades unions, voluntary organisations, faith groups, members of the public are already the key players in those every day inter-actions which determine the inclusion or exclusion of migrants.’ However, it is often found that these factions are under-resourced, under-utilised, and/or unrecognised as partners in the attempt to achieve the goals set; the social inclusion of migrants. These goals should, it might be suggested, be seen in this way as the responsibility of all concerned.
Bibliography
Hatton, Timothy J. - Wheatley Price, Stephen, ‘Migration, Migrants and Policy in the United Kingdom’, June 2000, http://ecocomm.anu.edu.au/people/info/hatton/migsurvlatest2.pdf
Johnson, Mark R D
Asylum seekers in dispersal- Healthcare issues
Home Office Online Report 13/03
www.homeoffice.gov.uk - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr1303.pdf
Medda-Windischer, Roberta (2001)- Legal Indicators for Social Inclusion of New Minorities Generated by Immigration – LISI- Project funded by the European Commission - DG Employment and Social Affairs and the European Academy of Bolzano/Bozen
Spencer, S. (1996) ‘The Implications of Immigration Policy for Race Relations,’ in S. Spencer
(ed.), Strangers and Citizens: A Positive Approach to Migrants and Refugees, London:
Rivers Oram Press.
Spencer, S. (1998) ‘The Impact of Immigration Policy on Race Relations,’ in T. Blackstone, B.
Parekh and P. Sanders (eds.), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, London:
Routledge.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
www.un.org - http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Veenkamp, T, Press Release- ‘Asylum Seekers’
www.demos.co.uk - http://www.demos.co.uk/uploadstore/docs/MIGR_pr.pdf
