UK policies in relation to refugees and asylum seekers and the implications for social work.
UK policies in relation to refugees and asylum seekers and the implications for social work
International law defines a "refugee" as a person who has fled from and cannot return to his/her country due to a well-founded fear of persecution, including war or civil conflict. An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country of origin, has applied for recognition as a refugee in another country, and is awaiting a decision on their application (United Nations-UK, 2002)
Refugees and asylum seekers constitute an unwanted entity of the "otherness" in the margins of UK. "From the moment they arrive they face a volatile and often aggressively hostile local public with racist political sentiment openly engaging in intimidation and local press making accusations of 'bogus claims' and 'a drain on national resources'."(Pierson, 2002, 203) To hunt them down when they first enter to the 'Safe Heaven', to blame them as a social burden, to treat them as inhuman with less human rights have been the base of election winning rhetoric adopted by the most UK politicians. They have been used as scapegoats by the politicians to avoid structural explanations of poverty and disadvantage (see Penketh, 2000,18). The media attack asylum seekers and refugees as to play up the insecurities of the public sells more papers, by the rich and powerful to create a lower class to exploit and by the working class as they are the only visible group in the local communities to blame for the ill health of the welfare system in the country. They have been easy target for all as they are powerless, dislocated, silent, and "do not even having the right to be here".
This 'othering' (Dominelli, 2002, 18) resulted in discriminatory policies, which lead to the social exclusion and discrimination of the asylum seekers and refugee communities to an extent that their basic human rights have been challenged and their very existence has been criminalized.
In this essay I will first quote figures related to asylum seekers and where they are coming from. I will then examine the effects of immigration and asylum policies on the practices of the social workers in the recent years. I will specifically look at the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002, which will be discussed in the parliament in November 2002.
According to a Home office research, migration to the UK of asylum seekers has been increased from 4,000 in 1988 to 71,000 in 1999. (Glover et.al, Migration: an Economic and Social Analysis, 2001, 23) Countries where the large amount of asylum seekers came from to the UK in 2000 were:
* 8,335 applicants from Iraq (Kurds and Shi'a muslims escaping the repressive regime, which particularly persecutes them.
* 5,980 applicants from Sri Lanka (Tamil civilians running away from the war between Singhalese government and Tamil Tigers)
* 5,895 from Afghanistan (escaping the persecution by the islamic Taliban regime in 2000)
* 5,155 from Somalia (devastating famines and political anarchy, marked by inter-clan fighting and random banditry)
(Welcome to Britain, A special investigation into asylum and immigration, 2001, 22-23)
When we look at what the asylum seekers are escaping from it is easier to understand why they leave their countries. They are not a treat to the wealth of the host country in contrary according to the Home Office study they promote economic welfare (Glover et.al, Migration: an economic and social analysis, 2001, 4). On the other hand I believe developing dehumanising strategies to stop refugees coming to the country is a danger to the civilisation as it violates the basic human rights.
I will now describe the policies on asylum seekers since 1996. Before 1996, asylum seekers were entitled to use the same social services as the rest of the population for example, if they were homeless, they would go to the homeless person's unit, for social security support, they would go to the local DHSS office. In 1996, the Conservative Government introduced the Asylum & Immigration Act 1996, which meant that asylum seekers were cut off from mainstream welfare benefits. This left asylum seekers with no access to services. "However, the courts than ruled that the 1948 National Assistance Act 'could be used to compel local authorities to provide welfare support and accommodation to otherwise destitute asylum seekers.' (Dunstain, 2002, 7)
Local authorities and social services had already over stretched budgets and were not prepared to deal with this new role of "unofficial support agency" with no financial or logistic support from central government, created by the withdrawal of benefits from the large numbers of asylum seekers in 1996. (Hurst, 2000)
Some local authorities in England and Wales started providing support to asylum seekers and their dependants if they appeared to be destitute. But this was done on a ad hoc basis and there were no clear guidelines of the local authorities' responsibilities. A striking example from Refugee Council's magazine iNexile:
One London council, for example refused to give vouchers to a Congolese man because he was wearing a gold watch and chain. They told him to pawn the items and live off the proceeds. Only there after would he be considered destitute. When he dutifully visited the pawnbrokers, he discovered that the watch and the chain weren't in fact gold. But he was still asked to pawn them, before he could present himself back to social services to ask for help. (cited in Hayter 2000, 109)
The social workers duty should not be to question their ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
One London council, for example refused to give vouchers to a Congolese man because he was wearing a gold watch and chain. They told him to pawn the items and live off the proceeds. Only there after would he be considered destitute. When he dutifully visited the pawnbrokers, he discovered that the watch and the chain weren't in fact gold. But he was still asked to pawn them, before he could present himself back to social services to ask for help. (cited in Hayter 2000, 109)
The social workers duty should not be to question their client, but to clarify issues. But in this situation, it was not clear in the social worker's mind what would be the right way to support the asylum seeker, it ended up with insulting the claimant.
The social workers were under pressure as Social Services were using their already over stretched budgets to provide for asylum seekers. Under influence of the discriminatory structure of society, local populations made the assumption that the social services budgets were drained, not because the government did not provide enough money, but because of the asylum seekers. As the following example shows some social workers were threatened because they were seen as supporting asylum seekers and neglecting the rest of the population.
Kent was one of the local authorities providing services to asylum seekers at an annual cost of £4 million to Kent Social Services. In the climate of race hate, there have been anonymous treats to torch the buildings where asylum seekers are housed and death treats to Kent Social Services director and to his staff. London Authorities spent £11 million in 1999 to support asylum seekers and not all of that was paid back by community grants (op.cit.Hurst, 2000)
In this atmosphere, a new Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was constructed to clear the chaos and to take the pressure off from local authorities and social services teams. What difference this Act made is explained very briefly and clearly at Home Office's web site:
Before the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was implemented, the Benefits Agency or local authorities provided support to asylum seekers. From April 2000 that became the responsibility of the new National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The Home Office is now increasingly responsible for providing support and accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, whilst their claim is being considered.
An asylum seeker will be entitled to accommodation in the UK, usually outside London, on a 'no choice' basis. They are also entitled to vouchers, which can be exchanged for food and other goods, as well as a small amount of cash. (IND-NASS, 2002)
The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) was designed to relieve the pressure on local authorities, and also to meet the Government's view that access to social security benefits creates a 'pull factor' on economic migration.
In my opinion, NASS didn't function very well as it did not operate with anti-discriminatory policies. Their staff lacked an understanding of issues of race, gender, disability, the support of children and families and elderly asylum seekers. It also lacked local counter services. The following examples show the way NASS functions.
In theory, NASS can be contacted via two enquiry lines. In practice to reach an officer through these lines takes about 25-30 minutes waiting on the line. When it is eventually answered, the operator only takes notes about the enquiry without being able to give any advice and passes these notes to relevant NASS case work team.
National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux (NACAB) produced a new report in October 2002, called Distant Voices. It is based on more than 400 NASS related social policy evidence reports preferred by NACAB in England and Wales. They have given examples of how difficult it is to make a telephone contact with NASS. NASS often claims that they had no record of receiving previous application and correspondence and/or a record of earlier telephone contact(s). (Distant Voices, 2002, 4)
When I was working at Brent Social Services Mental Health Team I did not have experience of NASS returning my call with an answer. Furthermore, their telephone operators are not trained to answer the calls appropriately. On one occasion NASS wrote to my client to go to NASS office in Brixton with his wife and 2 children from Wembley where he was placed (distance between Brixton and Wembley is about 20 miles) and to bring all their belongings in the next few hours so that they could to be dispatched to another part of England. Family phoned me as they had no money or the knowledge of the area, neither enough time to pack up and move. I phoned to NASS on their behalf. After waiting on the line for over 20 minutes the operator finally answered my call. Then I started explaining the problem. But as he did not listen to me carefully he cut off my speech by saying: "Listen! Don't bargain, come here immediately or you will be kicked out of the country!" I then told him that I will put a complaint about his attitude and asked him his name. He informed me that he was instructed by his management not to give his name or any identification number about himself. From this experience it is clear to see the conflicting roles of the social workers as employed within the government, and yet they have to fight structural racism within the government departments on behalf of the asylum seekers and refugees.
Social authoritarianism and institutionalised racism in the make up of NASS has been criticised by Liz Fekete in her report "Crimes of NASS":
What is so alarming about the approach of national reception administrations is that they do not consider it their duty to protect asylum seekers from racial violence, or ensure racial harmony, as evidenced by the almost total absence of strategies, policies and mechanisms in this area. NASS is probably the only housing body in the country with no coherent policies against racial harassment and no apparent overall strategy to promote good race relations (Fekete, 2002)
Instead of the centralised NASS service provision, it would be better if asylum seekers could use local Social Services teams and benefits offices as these are more accessible. However, they lack money and staffing. Government should provide more support within the existing mainstream structures. As well as statutory agencies, voluntary and charity organisations such as Refugee Council, Medical Foundation should be given grants by the government to help the refugees to settle in Britain. Instead of training more social workers and community workers to support the asylum seekers, the government created NASS, whose staff were not trained in anti-discriminatory principles, and had not enough experience in housing and settlement issues. NASS' work practices led to more discrimination and social exclusion of the asylum seekers.
NASS "dispersed" the asylum seekers around the country while they await a decision on their future. They have been sent to parts of the UK where they had no community support. The housing NASS booked for them was usually uninhabitable and derelict (The Guardian 23rd July, 2002). The dispersal policies created isolated asylum seekers' communities and made them more vulnerable to racist attacks:
Young Kurdish refugee Firsat Yildiz was killed in a racist attack 2001 in a housing estate in Sighthill, Glasgow. In the previous 14 months before the killing, 70 racist attacks where reported in the estate but NASS continued housing the asylum seekers in Sighthill. (The Guardian, 7th of August 2001)
At the NASS HQ in Croydon, London, officials promptly dispatched back to Glasgow nine families who had fled the Sighthill estate and arrived on NASS' doorstep seeking protection. A NASS official later announced that should the asylum seekers refuse to return to Sighthill, all welfare support would be withdrawn. (Fekete, 2002)
There are not only problems with safe housing, asylum seekers are also excluding from other social services. Under the section 115 of the 1999 Act, asylum seekers clearly have not been entitled to child benefit, Income Support, income based Job Seekers Allowance or Disability benefits. They are not eligible to apply to local authorities for homelessness assistance or qualify for the housing register. Some of the other social security benefits which asylum seekers are not entitled to include: Maternity Payment and Funeral Payment from the Social Fund, Cold Weather Payment, Free milk and vitamins. The Home Office renamed them as 'Disbenefited asylum seekers' (IND, Policy bulletin 53, 2002)
Last year, Westminster Council took NASS to High Court, as disabled asylum seekers applying for support were yo-yoed between social services and NASS. The judge ruled that NASS applied only to asylum seekers whose need for support and accommodation arose "solely" from their destitution, and not those who were also in need because of sickness, disablement or old age (The Guardian, 27 February 2001). This means that for instance, an asylum seeker with serious mental health problems who would not be entitled for disability benefit nor a special mental health support from NASS, would be referred to the community mental health team. His entitlement then would be a referral to some therapies and community support. But then, it may happen that the social workers label them as suffering from post traumatic stress disorders (rather than mental heath problems) and therefore see them as not qualifying to use their services. This means that some social services still remain passively inactive and do not take the services to isolated, hard to reach groups of asylum seekers. Therefore social services and social workers need clear guidelines. I think the purpose of these guidelines should be to make all services available to asylum seekers.
Similar confusion appears in regard to unaccompanied asylum seeking children. According to research done by Save the Children;
By law, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in England have the same legal entitlements as citizen children. Accompanied asylum-seeking children have lesser rights than citizen children, as they are supported through NASS and do not ordinarily have access to the provisions of the Children Act 1989 or access to child care benefits, although they do have the right to education and health care. (Stanley, 2001, 4)
*Page number The report states that there are examples of children being placed in hostels or Bed and Breakfast accommodations with minimum social work support or in some cases young people living unsupervised with no social work support. (ibid.
I had a client who came to this country as an unaccompanied asylum seeker when she was 16 with her 11-year-old brother from Angola. They were placed in a care home together. Later the care workers observed that her brother learned the English language faster and adopted himself to British culture, whereas his sister saw this as him becoming assimilated and constantly reminded him that they were Angolans not British. Care workers interpreted this as her bullying her brother and they sent her to another care home, which led to her first break down. When she reached the age of 18 she was moved to a Youth Hostel where she was later raped. Not being able to prosecute the rapist, police contacted NASS and requested them to provide a safer environment for her. NASS dispersed her to Northern England where she then lost touch with her limited support network in Kent and had her second major mental health breakdown.
This example shows that young unaccompanied asylum seekers without appropriate social work input can be at risk of abuse. Stanley argues in her report 'Cold Comfort' that all unaccompanied children should receive full needs led assessment and social services must monitor all placements regularly, including "out of area" and private provider placements, in line with statutory obligations. (ibid.p5)
In February 2002, government published "Secure Borders, Safe Heaven: Integration with Diversity". It is a white paper proposing a new Nationality, Immigration and Nationality Act.
Refugee council stated in its briefing in July 2002:
Stronger anti immigration sentiments across Europe have provided much of the political background to these proposals. The government appears to believe that one way of combating the rise of the far right is to take the ground away from them by looking at targeting illegal immigration and reducing the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK. (Refugee Council Briefing, 2002, 1)
The most controversial proposals in this Bill are:
* Accommodation centres for asylum seekers which could lead to more isolation
* Legal advice is omitted from the statutory provision of services at accommodation centres, or proposed induction centres.
* Proposes to separate children from mainstream education
* Abolishes the voucher scheme, however, keeps the present levels of benefit which still only amounts to 70 % of income support.
(Briefing on Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, 2002)
One of the issues I found disturbing in the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002 is that it suggests to establish an immigration hotline which members of the public can phone to report suspected "illegal refugees" and it encourages the social workers, GPs to check asylum seekers' immigration status before providing services (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002, page 50-51). When I was working with Turkish/Kurdish asylum seeker communities in North London in the 80s, I observed that many of them avoided registering with GPs as they were frightened of the possibility of being reported back to the Home Office. I personally went with them to the surgeries to make sure that some insensitive receptionists would not act as Home Office officials. They avoided any contact with social services departments or hospitals. That was partly because of their experiences with the government departments back in Turkey as well as the feeling of being perceived as criminals in a foreign land with no clarity about their future. In the past some members of the public voluntarily took the role of an immigration officer and today members of public as well as the service providers are encouraged to be informants.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002 states that the accommodation centres will provide education for children. As the Refugee Council states;
(.../...) This sets a dangerous precedent. It is normal practice not to withdraw children from mainstream education provision and it can be deemed discriminatory to do so. (.../...) Although asylum-seeking children may initially face difficulties in schools, they are nevertheless probably the best ambassadors for building links with their community (Refugee Council Briefing, 2002).
As Bill Morris, the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union described; to exclude " asylum-seekers' children from mainstream schools is "educational apartheid" that would "make a mockery of a tolerant Britain". (Independent, 5th October 2002) Segregating children from mainstream education will add to the problems of lack of contact between social workers and asylum seeking children and families and it will make it far more difficult for the communities integrate with each other.
As I argued in this essay, immigration and asylum policies in the UK have created poverty, social exclusion, discrimination and racism in the society where refugees and asylum seekers were at the receiving end of these injustices.
I will now summarise the problems and challenges the social workers face in their work with asylum seekers and refugees in the context of Immigration and Asylum Act in the UK:
The social workers may not know what their role is in relation to working with asylum seekers and what the entitlements of asylum seekers are. Social workers must seek clarification within their services concerning the issues related to asylum seekers. As the most asylum seekers do not speak English or cannot command the language well, social workers should make good use of interpretation services and make sure that this service is available for the asylum seekers in an appropriate two way communication.
Because of lack of funding and the negative attitude towards asylum seekers, social workers may have a negative attitude in the general population to take the services to asylum seekers, as this group is the most marginalised. Most asylum seekers are not aware of what services are available for them and they may avoid inquiring about their rights within the statutory agencies. Social workers should make sure that this hard to reach group is well informed. The social worker also has the role of fighting against structural racism and discrimination for the interests of the asylum seekers. Therefore social workers need to be trained well to take anti discriminatory action. They need to be aware that asylum or immigration status constitutes a ground for discrimination.
The social workers duty should not be to question their client, but to clarify issues. Social workers should not be given the role of investigator of asylum seekers' and refugees' immigration status as this may lead to discriminatory practices.
Social workers should take positive action to support asylum seekers who face discrimination in issues relating to ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, children, benefits, health and housing.
Bibliography
PIERSON, John, Tackling Social Exclusion, Communitycare, 2002
PENKETH, Laura, Tackling Institutional Racism, Anti-racist policies and social work education and training, The Policy Press, 2000
DOMINELLI, Lena, Anti-Oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002
DUNSTAIN, Richard, Process Error, NACAB, 2002
GLOVER,GOTT, LOIZILLON, PORTES, SPENCER, SRINIVASAN, PRINCE, WILLIS, Migration: an Economic and Social Analysis, Communications and Development Unit-Home Office 2001
HURST, Judy, "Alienshore", Community Care, 15 May 2000 http://www.community-care.co.uk/articles/article.asp?liarticleid=7137&liSectionID=22&liParentID=26 (15 September 2002)
HAYTER, Teresa, Open Borders ; The Case Against Immigration Controls, Pluto Press, 2000
STANLEY, Kate, Cold Comfort, Save the Children, 2001
Welcome to Britain, report published by the Guardian, 2001
United Nations-UK, http://www.una-uk.org/REFDEFIN.html, (13 November 2002)
IND-NASS, The National Asylum Support Service, www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?pageid=8 (20th October 2002)
Distant Voices, NACAB, http://www.nacab.org.uk/docks/distantvoices.doc (22nd October 2002)
FEKETE, Liz, Crimes of Nass, http://www.irr.org.uk/nass (23rd October 2002)
IND, Policy bulletin 53, http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?pageid=2104 (19th October 2002)
Refugee Council Briefing, http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/briefings/post_wp_summ_jul02.pdf (18th October 2002)
Briefing on Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002 http://www.quaker.org.uk/peace/briefs/immig.html (25th October, 2002)
