INTRODUCTION
For decades, immigration has become a recurrent subject in social
and political
debates in Western Europe. Whereas human being's mobility
throughout the
world is an historical fact that can be traced back ages ago. The
term immigration
includes economical as well as political migrants. If the former
due to «pull» factors
migrates to positively improve his conditions of existence, the
latter leaves his
country because of «push» factors. Indeed in order to
have a safe and peaceful life,
people are forced to flee from their own countries to escape
conflicts, torture,
persecution and other degrading treatments. By leaving their
countries for another one
to seek refuge, they become asylum seekers, who according to
United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, 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(UNHCR,1996). In their flight, most asylum
seekers' destinations are
countries where they think basic human rights such as the right
of life, the prohibition
of torture, freedom of movement and expression etc... are
scrupulously respected.
The different political crises and conflicts all over the world
have generated thousands
of asylum seekers heading to the European continent especially to
the European
Union members `states where they think their life will be safe.
The choice of some
states of the Western Europe is not fortuitous. First, most of
them have colonial ties,
Secondly, they are signatories of 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and finally
they all have a well-
established refugee regime. Thus the end of World War II and the
period post
decolonisation have seen many people flowing in Western Europe.
That tendency has
been increasing since the 1980s up to now.
The phenomenon of asylum seekers referred to as aliens coming to
Europe has
become a great concern and a real challenge for some European
countries. The alien
is a subject of curiosity for the local population because of his
skin, face and the
language he speaks. He is a mysterious person whose increasing
number frightens the
local population. A trivial incident he is involved in becomes a
serious matter, blown
up by newspapers and politicians to infuse fear then xenophobia
and finally racism in
the native population.. Though the issue of asylum is seen by
states as a kind of
immigration they nevertheless make a distinction between both of
them. They have a
moral obligation to accept the former who has rights guaranteed
by the UN 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. While the latter
has no right and can
be therefore denied entry. Assuredly the issue of immigration
linked to the concept of
«race relations» has strongly influenced most European
countries' policies.
To tackle the problem of massive arrival of asylum seekers in
order to preserve
national stability, some countries have voted new legislations,
elaborated new
strategies that are at variance with all the International
treaties they signed and
ratified. One of the blatant examples is the administrative
detention of asylum seekers.
Although that practice, many times denounced by some Human Rights
organizations,
is contrary to the Article 31 of the 1951 Convention and the
Article 14 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is still carried on by
most of Western
European countries even those reputed to have a refugee tradition
such as the United
Kingdom. Is the presence of asylum seekers undesirable? Is
xenophobia or racism the
new growing feeling in Europe? One could spend times wondering
why people
seeking asylum are treated so. The rationale of the European
countries' behaviour
towards asylum seekers differs from one country to another. Some
refuse them for
racial considerations while others for economic ones. Among the
panoply of measures
to discard asylum seekers, European countries use either
containment which is to
prevent people from actually leaving their countries of origin
and arriving at Western
states' borders or deterrence which is a mixture of restrictive
and punitive measures
taken in the country of asylum (Hassan, 2000).
For decades many works have been written in sociology (Solomon
1989; Hayes and
Humphries 2004), politics and international laws dealing with
asylum seekers but also
deterrence measures implemented against them (S.Cohen 2003;
Hayter2004; Hassan
2000; Schuster 2003).
The topic: Deterrence Measures as Response to Potential Threats
To The
Host Country: The case of the United Kingdom; deals with the
practice of a
signatory state of the UN 1951 Convention to protect its society
and the welfare
system.
My work adds to the debates on the rationale of deterrence
measures against asylum.
It first gives us the opportunity to see through a discourse
analysis that politicians'
statements are the frame of its implementation, secondly that the
concept of race
relations which states that many different races in a given
country lead to violence
influences British immigration policy, and finally that both
containment and
deterrence measures in the United Kingdom are protective means
used against the
growing number of asylum seekers who constitute potential
economical and societal
threats.
I would like to mention that though the topic of the work is the
case of the United
Kingdom, I am not pretentious to cover the whole United Kingdom
but I would
rather focus on England. However I will refer to the United
Kingdom
or Great Britain as it is in the international treaties, official
documents or in any
quoted article I took from books.
My work will start by the origin of immigration to England where
we will see
the reasons why people choose to come to this country and the
role played by
governments. Secondly, I will present the impact of asylum
seekers' presence in
England. This part will give us an insight of the economic burden
and the societal
threat. In the last part of the work talking about the state
'response, we will have the
opportunity to see the measures adopted by the host country to
deal with the potential
threats.
METHODOLOGY
The focus of this work is on the rationale underpinning the use
of deterrence measures
towards asylum seekers in this country which is one of the first
signatories of 1951
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of refugees. I
am convinced that
those measures are not spontaneous but rather the result of
series of events that took
place in this country. That is why I have based my work on a
combination of
qualitative and quantitative methods. They helped me first, to
see the history of
immigration in this country, understand what were people's
reasons for fleeing their
countries to come here and the role of the host country.
Secondly, to analyse the
statements and reactions of the leaders, politicians and
population of the host country.
Thirdly, to have an insight of the effects of deterrence measures
on asylum seekers.
Fourthly, to see the statistics related to the presence of asylum
seekers in the 70s, 90s
and 2003/04 and also the number of detainees in 2004.Finally, the
level of support
provided by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
The understanding of the rationale of deterrence measures starts
by the analysis of
different Acts since 1905 to 2002.
Knowing that English society is in a perpetual change rather than
static, population's
behaviour and language follow the current environment as politics
follows economy
and the social environment. Therefore politicians' Acts stem from
somewhere and
have objectives. That is why any limitation of my work to only
quantitative or
qualitative method will mislead us in the understanding of the
implementation of
deterrence measures. For numbers cannot reveal and tell the inner
feeling of the host
population, likewise language without numbers does not show the
size of a situation.
Though I have chosen a combined method, I acknowledge that it was
not easy to
gather information and documents. The poor quantity of former
asylum seekers I
found through a church network is due to people reluctance and
apprehension to
testify even talk about their past and reveal their status. I
also encountered
difficulties to gather first hand statistics from local councils
and notorious refugee
organisations. Under the confidentiality label, I have been asked
to browse their
web sites because they don't give interviews to students. While
others nicely will give
me a telephone number they will never answer.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Since the 1980s there has been a growing academic literature
concerning immigration
in the United Kingdom. The movement of people crossing
international boundaries
and settling in this country for a short time or forever has been
examined in its
different aspects and natures.
Contrary to the idea of Globalisation which is free mobility of
capital, goods and
technology across countries, the movement of human being, owner
of those items, is
subject to restrictions by states structural barriers. But what
makes people travel to the
United Kingdom, sometimes at the expense of their lives? The
Neo-Classical
economists argue that migrants are workers leaving low-wage to
higher-wage areas.
For them the movement of people to Europe is motivated by a
desire of better pay.
This perception of migration is also shared by the
Historical-Structuralist approach
inspired by the Marxist political economy. It states that
migration is to provide cheap
labour for capital. Those two theories of migration with a
disconcerting simpleness
push aside any other reason to only reduce migration to the quest
of money, financial
well-being. Whereas there is something greater than money,
something which is the
raison d'etre of human being; that thing is life itself. The
narrow perception and
theory of the Neo-Classical economists and the
Historical-Structuralist approach are
fortunately not shared by all.
Castles and Miller (1998) claim that migration is a combination
of push and pull
factors. People are attracted by opportunities existing in other
countries and migrate
therefore to improve their conditions of life, while others are
forced to leave to
preserve their life. Though the theory of push and pull factors
seems whole because it
takes into account both the improvement and preservation of life,
it does not explain
the magnitude of future migration, the conditions of travel nor
the reaction of host
countries. It also fails to see another type of migrants whose
reason to move is nothing
more than follow-the-leader.
Different reasons to migrate implies different kind of migrants.
The differentiation
between them lies in the motivation of departure. International
law and human rights
organisations call migrants who leave their countries for
well-founded fear of being
persecuted as refugees whereas the other group is economic
migrants. The UNHCR
Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee
status (1996) makes it
clear that a migrant is a person who, for reasons other than
those contained in the
definition, voluntarily leaves his country in order t take up
residence elsewhere. He
may be moved by the desire for change and adventure, or by family
or other reasons
of a personal nature. If he is moved exclusively by economic
considerations, he is an
economic migrant and not a refugee. Bloch (2002) argues that the
key difference
between refugees and other migrants is that refugees do not want
to leave their
country of origin, they are pushed rather than pulled. They are
therefore involuntary
migrants. Between the two kinds of migrants, Harvey (2000) states
that because of
international treaties, the host country has an ethical
obligation to allow in, assist and
protect refugees which is not the same treatment for economic
migrants. It is not easy
for the receiving country to draw a line between the two groups
because the
anticipatory refugee leaves and migrates before the situation
prevents an organised
departure. This type of refugees, though they leave under push
factors are mistaken
for voluntary economic migrants(Kunz, 1973).
As people's flight has become easier because of sophisticated
means of
transportation, great numbers of asylum seekers landed in the
United Kingdom. The
choice of this country is based on colonial links. Sassen (1998)
claims that
the choice of destination is colonisation, political influence,
trade investment and
cultural ties. Those criteria are no longer relevant nowadays
because asylum seekers
go everywhere regardless of colonial ties or language. The
consequence of asylum
seekers influx is the changing of policies towards them, from
haven to protectionism.
It is said that nation requires defined territorial boundaries
which are made
impermeable to unwanted migration. Because any country poor or
rich that opens its
borders will see many people and neighbouring states taking
advantage of its
permeability. Economic factors are important in relation to
immigration. His
statement implies that refugees affect the economy therefore
state has the right to
protect its social goods. In the same vein is the position of
Communitarian theory
which argues that state is the highest authority as such it has
the obligation to protect
and favour its citizens first. Walzer (1983) claims that the
theory of justice must allow
the territorial state to specify the rights of its inhabitants
and recognize the collective
right of admission and refusal. The choice of state for
protectionism over
humanitarian is directed by the economy. This assertion leads to
one question: Is the
United Kingdom closing its borders to refugees because of its
national interest? The
use of deterrence measures outside and inside the country by
governments is to
protect the society and the welfare system. Cohen (1988) argues
that the 1905 Aliens
Act was purposely voted to deny entry to Jews who did not have
assets to maintain
themselves and could therefore be a burden to the host country.
His work is a
compilation of mistreatments ranging from detention to
deportation endured by
asylum seekers and refugees in this country. It helps to
understand the perception
people have of refugees, their reactions and strategies set up to
deter them. It is true
that it is a pamphlet against governments' abuse but it would
have gained vast interest
in suggesting solutions to the improvement of refugees'
conditions rather than
encouraging acts of defiance against the laws of the host
country.
Politics and economic are closely linked. The protection of the
welfare is at the core
of the immigration policy. For instance in the visa granted to
students, it is written `no
recourse to public fund'. The message is clear, we allow you to
enter into our country
but not to our finance. To avoid using people's money to take
care of asylum seekers,
it is in the interest of the state not to let them enter. Even
those who managed
to enter are no more entitled to social benefits. Hayes and
Humphries (eds) (2004)
argue that refugees are called `bogus refugees'or economic
migrants by authorities to
justify the restriction and then the removal of benefits. Their
work highlights the
refugees crisis in this country. Crisis not in terms of physical
or social violence but in
terms of embarrassment at the head of state to how to refuse
refugees without losing
the label of liberal democratic state or the reputation of haven
for refugees? How to
protect the welfare system and not to be seen as a human rights
violator by the
international community? Between national interest and
humanitarian compassion,
there is a choice the state has made regardless the plight of the
refugees. Through
legislation, the state finds the way to restrict, deter and
impoverish asylum seekers.
The legislation is so pitiless that in February 2003, the High
Court condemned the
2002 Act as inhuman.
Though their work does not give account of the genesis of
refugees in this country,
neither statistics of asylum seekers influx in this country nor
propose solution to the
dilemma of the state, it has the merit to speak out what is
murmured that asylum
seekers are left aside in a prosperous country. Similarly Bloch
(2002) argues that
various Acts are passed to restrict access not only to the
country but also to the
welfare benefits. Asylum seekers are prevented from gaining
access to this country
through various legislations Acts and those who are already there
face mistreatments.
Her work sheds light on the origin of immigration in this country
and the response to
increasing numbers of asylum seekers. It is a useful work I will
regularly refer to in
my findings. It helps in the understanding of the use of refugees
for economic
purposes by governments. The attitude of governments is closed to
wickedness and
hypocrisy. They take advantage of the plight of refugees to fill
the void in the labour
market. Hypocrisy is openly celebrated by governments when they
hide under
humanitarian act the real driving force of granting refugee
status.
The usefulness of the work lies among many others in the
retrospective view of the
origin of immigration, the display of the pieces of legislation
and deterrence aspects
incorporated in them. However it does not go deeply to reveal the
consequences of
those laws on asylum seekers. A brief mention of asylum seekers
detention without
her own view might suggest that it is a trivial and normal thing
which she agrees.
Lastly, it presents a nice picture of the settlement of minority
groups at Newham in
London. Would it not have been objective to also take another
locality outside
London to compare and show if the settlement policy is a
successful operation in this
country?
Hayter (2004) goes in the same way to argue that governments
believe in deterrence
measures to bring down the number of asylum seekers. They put a
special accent on
immigration controls to achieve that goal. Detention is at the
core of the arsenal to
discourage would-be asylum seekers. It is used at any stage of
the process. The
reasons why asylum seekers are detained are first the possession
of false documents.
It is undeniable true that someone fleeing under `push factors'
perpetrated by his
state' agents does not have the necessary time to carry all his
documents while others
do not have one. For instance, in a country ruled by a dictator,
opponents' passports
are confiscated to prevent them from leaving the country. In such
situation, they can
only leave the country either disguised or with false
documents.
Detain asylum seekers because of false documents raises the
question whether their
lives are less important than the documents they carry with them?
How can travelling
abroad with their own documents bring any change to the situation
that causes them to
flee? The second reason to detain is when immigration officers
think that the
individual may abscond. In other words, the asylum seeker will
disappear in the
nature without waiting for the result of his claim. It is a
naïve view. In entering in this
country people have two options, either legally or illegally that
is to say with or
without record of their presence. By lodging their claims, asylum
seekers show their
desire to abide by the law of the host country and not live
illegally. Therefore see
someone making an asylum application and think that very person
will abscond
without waiting for the result, is a wicked thought only
immigration officers can have.
The other tool of deterrence measures is impoverishment. The
removal of social
benefits coupled with the prohibition to work lead asylum seekers
to a situation of
destitution. The government is, through NASS, ready to take care
of them if only if
they prove to be penniless. All this participates in the strategy
to deter asylum seekers.
Face to arbitrary and wicked character of immigration controls,
Hayter suggests
stopping immigration controls because no one is illegal.
Her work which is an invaluable contribution in the understanding
of the plight of
asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, has been a precious source
of information
to my work. It gives deep description of the effect of
immigration policy on asylum
seekers. Nevertheless, it fails to appreciate the positive side
of immigration controls.
It is not enough to claim asylum to be allowed in the country nor
is it an open sesame.
For under the mantle of asylum seekers or refugees are hidden
criminals who are
wanted by tribunal. The case of a former Rwandese military
officer who planned the
massacre of Tutsi, then ran to Europe, claimed asylum and was
granted the refugee
status.
The plight of asylum seekers has also been the concern of
Schuster (2003) who
asserts that the purpose of the legislation in this country is to
deter potential asylum
seekers. The rationale of that position is based on the
perception that asylum seekers
are a threat to the welfare system, to British identity and to
the Liberal state.
Legislation is then used as legal weapon to restrict access to
the country and also to
certain social goods such as the welfare provisions. But how to
restrict the granting of
asylum and remain a liberal state? The government finds the
solution in criminalising
asylum seekers. An intelligent and subtle campaign is organised
through media to
shape and orientate the international and national opinion that
asylum seekers are not
genuine but bogus or economic migrants who come to improve their
well-being. They
rather flee hunger not persecution. This accusation leads then to
the categorisation of
asylum seekers into two groups: the genuine and the bogus or
economic migrants. It is
well spread that economic migrants are far numerous than genuine
asylum seekers.
Unfortunately no statistics is attached to the allegations to
prove them right. The
manipulation goes on and allows the government not to abide by
its moral
obligation towards asylum seekers.
It is clear that granting asylum or refugee status today does no
more respond to any
humanitarian act or political propaganda but is conditioned by
public order and
mainly the economical situation of the country.
This work gives us an indication of the origin and development of
asylum, focuses on
the use and abuse of political asylum by both asylum seekers and
states. It emphasizes
that though British governments will grant asylum to very few
people to assert its
liberalness, immigration controls are a priority in their agenda.
Face to asylum crisis,
containment and temporary protection are proposed as solutions.
However, Schuster's
work presents a bias inclination. It fails to give us the
evidence of abuses perpetrated
by asylum seekers to only record debates by Members of Parliament
and those in the
government. It is therefore a one side point of view because the
accused are not given
the opportunity to present their case. In addition no data is
shown to prove that asylum
seekers are a threat to the economy. Finally, the understanding
of deterrence is
contracted to restriction by legislation without reference to
detention which is a
current practice in this country. Is it an omission or an
implicit support? Hassan
(2000) goes further to state that deterrence policy described as
a mixture of restrictive
and punitive measures, is conceived to reduce the number of
asylum seekers,
discourage their permanent settlement then save the government
money, and finally
reassure the native population that the government has the
solution regarding the
problem of refugees. The implementation of deterrence policy
happened in the past.
Confronted to an influx of immigrants of different skin colours
and the emergence of
xenophobia, the country passed laws to make entry difficult for
them. Among the
tools of deterrence, detention is the most used against unwanted
immigrants. They are
detained without set times to be released which creates anxiety
in response to an
abnormal situation.
Hassan's work is useful to know the real motivation of the
government for
implementing deterrence policy against asylum seekers. One can
only agree with it
since it is the manifestation of truth.
A) I) THE ORIGIN OF IMMIGRATION TO ENGLAND
For a very long time England has been a country of emigration
toward other countries
such as the USA and Australia. But after the two World wars the
tendency changed.
The level of people entering the country increased for political,
economic and
traditional reasons. We will start by the political one.
A) POLITICAL REASON
In the 19th Century, England was a haven for other
European political dissidents.
Famous writers and thinkers such as Victor Hugo, Karl Marx and
Albert Einstein
found refuge in this country. But at that time to be a refugee
was not given to
anybody as Marrus put it: «the world of political exiles was
that of the relatively
well-to-do, at least of the once well-to-do» (Marrus cited
in Marfleet, 2006, p110).
It is clear that it was possible for only rich people to flee
their countries and live
abroad. The ideological division of the world between Capitalism
versus Socialism,
Democracy against Communism played an important role in the
immigration in
England. After the First World War, the emergence of
anti-Semitism and Fascism
throughout Europe saw the arrival of 30000Jews (Robinson, 1993,
p28), 160000
Belgians (Bloch 2002, p27) and 15000 White Russians fleeing the
Bolsheviks in
power (Bloch 2002,p27). Those people targeted for their race or
Political opinion
found refuge in England. After the World War II saw a new wave
coming from
Eastern Europe. Indeed from 1947 to 1949, 2000 Czechs, 84000 from
various
Eastern European countries and 20000 Hungarians in 1956(Robinson,
1993, p28).
Here is an idea of refugees coming into this country in the table
below.
Main Refugee groups arriving in the UK, 1870 - 1945
table1
|
DATE
|
GROUP
|
NUMBER
|
|
1914-1918
|
Belgians
|
250000
|
|
1918-1931
|
White Russians
|
15000
|
|
1918-1939
|
Armenians
|
200
|
|
1933-1939
|
Germans, Czechs, Austrians
|
55000
|
|
1937
|
Spanish
|
4000
|
|
1940-1943
|
Europeans
|
60000
|
|
1945
|
Poles
|
135000
|
Source: Bloch, 2002, p26
Accepting people fleeing dictatorship countries is a propaganda
method used to
promote capitalism the corollary of democracy. As we can see on
table 1, the groups
of refugees in the span of time 1870-1945 come from countries
under either Fascism,
Communism or Nazism regime.
Another reason under the political wing that favoured immigration
in England is
the colonial legacy. England like many other European countries
went for assets for
its industries . The pursuit of wealth to compete with other
countries led it to have
colonies in the remaining part of the world. After the
decolonisation era, those former
colonies called new Commonwealth made their way to England.
Estimated net immigration from the New Commonwealth,
1953-1962 Table 2
|
DATE
|
West Indies
|
India
|
Pakistan
|
Others
|
Total
|
|
1953
|
2000
|
|
|
|
2000
|
|
1954
|
11000
|
|
|
|
11000
|
|
1955
|
27500
|
5800
|
1850
|
7500
|
42650
|
|
1956
|
29800
|
5600
|
2050
|
9350
|
46800
|
|
1957
|
23000
|
6600
|
5200
|
7600
|
42400
|
|
1958
|
15000
|
6200
|
4700
|
3950
|
29850
|
|
1959
|
16400
|
2950
|
850
|
1400
|
21600
|
|
1960
|
49650
|
5900
|
2500
|
350
|
57700
|
|
1961
|
66300
|
23750
|
25100
|
21250
|
136400
|
|
1962
|
31800
|
19050
|
25080
|
18970
|
94900
|
Source: Layton-Henry, Z (1992, p13)
As we can read on table 2, the number of people coming from the
New
Commonwealth increases year after year with the highest record in
1961. the number
fell the next year in 1962, because of the Commonwealth Act. In
the 1970s another
wave of refugees came from Africa, Asia and South America because
of
decolonisation, wars and crises. 36000 Asians from Kenya, 24000
from Uganda
(Bloch, 2002, p35), 3000 Chileans, 19000 Vietnamese and 10000
Greek Cypriots
(Bloch 2002 , p36) came to England.
Besides the political reason for coming to England there is an
economical one.
B) ECONOMIC REASON
The economical ambition and power of England played a decisive
role in the
immigration policies. Indeed to compensate the shortage of labour
force necessary to
rebuild the infrastructures and the economy destroyed by years of
war, the
government set up the Foreign Labour Committee to encourage the
recruitment of
foreign labour from Europe workers as well as from its former
colonies. They all
came as refugees. In 1946, 1000 women from the Baltic States of
Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania and another 5000 were recruited to work in tuberculosis
sanatoria or as
residential domestic workers along with 74511 people from the
same region (Bloch,
2002, p29). The idea of recruiting refugees from Europe was
called European
Volunteer Worker (EVW). Their stay in the country depended on
their stay at their
work because they could be prosecuted or deported if they broke
their conditions of
recruitment (Bloch 2002 , p30).
Here is their number below:
Main refugee groups arriving in the UK, 1946-61
Table 3
|
DATE
|
GROUP
|
NUMBER
|
|
1947-1949
|
EVW from Eastern Europe
|
84000
|
|
1948
|
Czechs
|
2000
|
|
1956
|
Hungarians
|
22000
|
Source: Bloch, 2002, p33.
The purpose of accepting and granting refuge was not a
humanitarian act but was
rather based on filling vacant positions as Kay and Miles put
it:
Refugees were selected and landed in Britain largely according
to an explicit criterion of economic utility...What mattered
most
to the British government was the capacity of the refugees to
work,
and hence the emphasis on their fitness, health and strength
when
selecting those allowed to enter Britain and the concern that
deportation
should remain an option for those who might prove unwilling or
unable
to play the economic role that was expected of them (Kay and
Miles cited in
Bloch, 2002, p30).
It is clear refugees were accepted to bring a plus to the
economy. Along with the
refugees, Commonwealth citizens, due to colonial ties with the
United Kingdom,
were ipso facto British subjects and as such they were free to
enter the country once
their citizenship was established. The arrival of the
Commonwealth citizens to boost
the economy was even accepted by the Trade Union Congress which
did not see a
threat to native's job but rather shew sympathy: «Congress
is on the opinion that
these coloured workers are driven from their homeland by poverty
and insecurity
which are due mainly to unbalanced economies created by long
years of colonial
exploitation» (Hammar, 1985, p96).
The last reason explaining immigration in England is its
traditional reputation.
C) REFUGEE TRADITION
The United Kingdom is one of the first signatories of the 1951
United Convention on
Refugees. Even before that convention which forbids any
contracting state to return
refugee to a country there is persecution but does not compel any
state to allow
people in to claim refugee status, England had already opened its
borders to people
seeking refuge. Its tradition of welcoming door to refugees is
clearly stated in
1853 in the newspaper The Times: «Every civilised people on
the face of the earth
must be aware that this country is the asylum of nations, and
that it will defend the
asylum to the last ounce of its treasure and the last drop of its
blood» (Marfleet, 2006,
p112). The commitment to open door to people fleeing for their
live is the motivation
of the coming of at least 120000 Jews fleeing pogroms (massacres)
from 1875 to
1914. But this commitment to give shelter finds its roots in the
tradition of this
country. Indeed over centuries, England is a state of Liberal
democracy which
stresses individual rights such as freedom of religion, of
movement, of speech of
assembly etc... The political option of the country since the
18th Century till up to now
has attracted many people in quest of shelter for their life like
seven people I
interviewed this year 2007.
Salifu, 27, from Sierra Leone:
I fled my country where my life was in danger. My parents have
been killed in
the family house by gunmen, in broad day light, for political
reason. I am alive
because I was not at home that day. I am here since 2000. I have
friends here
who told me that this country is a democratic one where human
rights are
respected and where I will safe.
Stella, 32, from Uganda:
For political reason my husband was killed. I was worry for my
life and the
life of my two children. I did not know where to run to when one
relative
helped me to come here. He told me that England is a safer place
where my
children and I will receive protection. I did not have relative
or acquaintance
in this country before coming here in 2002.
Sandrine, 26, from Ivory Coast:
I was a student activist who fled the repressive regime of the
late President
Houphouet in 1992 after the militaries came on the student campus
to look
for me. I could not go to France because of the political
agreements between
France and my country therefore I chose to come to England. I did
not know
anything about this country before coming.
Victoria, 22, from Nigeria:
My dad was a politician in my country who was opposed to military
dictatorship. He was shot one night by militaries that were
looking for my
family. We all came here in 2000 because it is the only country
where we can
find protection.
Gaspard, 35, from Zaire:
My life was in danger when I challenged a candidate of the ruling
party. One
night while I was holding a political meeting my friends and I
were attacked
by armed men. I was lucky to escape, three were killed. Since
that event
I have to flee for my live. I came here in 2001 because of its
reputation of
democratic country and respectful of human rights.
John, 40, from Zimbabwe:
I was arrested because I worked with the opposition party, the
Movement for
Democratic Change. I was detained two months during which
policemen beat
and tortured me. I was accused of plotting against my country by
working with
imperialist forces hidden inside and outside the country. I
managed to flee the
prison with the help of a policeman who happened to be a relative
of my wife.
I went to South Africa where I took a plane for England. I came
to this country
in 2002 because it is a democratic country fighting against
dictatorship in my
own country and because I think my life will be safe here.
Eduardo, 45, from Equatorial Guinea:
I left my country because of my political activism. I was a
member of a
clandestine organisation that opposes the government. One day,
coming from a
meeting, I was arrested by the police and detained for five
months without
trial. Nobody knew where I was. I suffered abuses, torture and
degrading
treatments. I was released and was under police watch. I fled my
country
during a regional football tournament. I came here in 2002
because the person
who helped me told me that it is the safest country for
politician activists.
In all the stories I listened to, the common denominator is that
asylum seekers fled
to this country to save their lives. Even though all the
interviewees are from Africa,
human rights violations are not only pertaining to that
continent. All the people
seeking asylum in this country are here for the protection of
their life.
In this chapter I have tried to see the rationale underpinning
immigration in
England. We have seen that asylum was given to people who were
opposed to the
government of their country for political or religious reason.
Granting asylum also
was used as propaganda during the bipolarisation of the world
between Capitalism
versus Communism. At the economical level, people were granting
the status of
refugees to fill the shortage of manpower and work to boost the
economy. These two
reasons cannot overshadow the fact that people look for shelter
in England because
of its reputation of country of asylum.
The mass flow of people seeking either temporal or definitive
shelter in this country is
not without consequence upon the host country. The next chapter
will deal with the
social and economical impact of the presence of asylum seekers on
England.
II) THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS' PRESENCE
This chapter will talk about the surge of societal and economic
threats among the host
population due to the growing number of asylum seekers. On the
one hand English
fears that the organisation of their society, their culture and
identity will be diluted if
not will disappear because of the flow of foreigners. On the
other hand, they dislike
the financial cost created by asylum seekers.
A) SOCIAL IMPACT
Today the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers has transformed
English society
into a multiracial and multicultural one. London is a typical
example of that
transformation. Many parts of the capital from the North to the
South, the East to the
West rhyme with foreign traditions, cultures and beliefs. But the
settlement of
foreigners was not easy, they endeavoured xenophobic and racist
aggressions.
Indeed early the 1900s, the settlement of Jew refugees triggered
the hostility of the
host population. They were subject to all kind of remonstrations
among which their
«cultural presence was perceived as incompatible and
inferior to British ways «
(Baldwin-Edwards, 1994, p19).Jew's culture totally different was
seen as a danger
to English values. Hence the statement of Sir Ernest Wild, MP:
«Anybody who wants
to realise what the peril really is has only to walk down the
Mile End Road or
Whitechapel Road or in the East End of London generally. They
will
find these places literally infested by aliens» (Cohen,
1988, p16).the xenophobic
feeling in his statement is well rendered by the use of those
words `peril' and
`infested'. Thus refugees were perceived a real danger that could
induce damages to
the society; in a sense that too many aliens could alter English
identity and culture.
The xenophobic feeling was endorsed by prominent politicians such
as Enoch Powell
and Thatcher.
Enoch Powell in his «river of blood» speech talked
about invasion and transformation
of whole areas into alien territory. He also stressed that Black
immigration was a
threat to the national culture and identity.
As for Thatcher, she said: «people are really rather afraid
that this country might be
rather swamped by people with different culture» (Granada
television, 1978).
Those politicians echoed the population's desire to halt
immigration if not to get rid of
all aliens whose cultures are different from the host society.
Since then different white
groups such as skinheads, British Movement, the National Front
and other groups
have started perpetrating attacks and violence against
immigrants. One Bengali said:
«the National Front organizes street corner meetings. These
meetings are used for hate
campaigns against the Bengalis...They used all sorts of ploys to
incite the local whites
against us. They tell shopkeepers that Bengalis are taking over
their businesses»
(CRE, 1979).Another consequence of the societal threat is
racism.
The feeling of racism was obvious among the population and was
expressed by the
authorities.
In 1948 when the first black immigrants arrived in the the ship
Empire Windrush, it
was a shock. The responsible Colonial Office was sermonized and
told not to let
similar incidents happen in the future. A group of politicians
wrote to the prime
Minister to express their concern: «An influx of coloured
people domiciled here is
likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public
and social life and
to cause discord and unhappiness among all
concerned»(Joppke,1999,p106). It is
obvious that black people were not wanted. Even in a period of
severe labour shortage
criteria were set to recruit workers. They need to be «of
good human stock and ...not
prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the
host population and
becoming merged in it»(HMSO, Royal Commission on Population
1949 cited in
Hammar, 1985, p95).The arrival of aliens was a subject of
concern. The fear of racial
clashes that happened in the USA makes English very anxious. The
anxiety resulted
from the impossibility to culturally assimilate the newcomers
because of their number
but also because of the preconceived ideas that non whites are
biologically and
intellectually inferiors. They are therefore incapable to
integrate and fit in a white
society. Hence racial harassment, racial attacks, streets
violence to get rid of them.
The words of the politicians shaped the mind, the behaviour of
the host population
and were seen as support of the racial crimes, attacks,
harassments refugees and
asylum seekers were victims in the 1980s. What happened in the
1980s repeated
itself in the 1990s because of the inflow of asylum seekers as
seen in the table below.
Asylum applications in Britain in the 1990s
|
YEAR NUMBER
1990 26,205
1991 44,840
1992 24,605
1993 22,370
1994 32,830
1995 43,965
1996 29,640
1997 32,500
1998 46,015
1999 89,701
|
Source: Hayter, 2004, p 70 Table 4
The table shows an increasing number of applications with some
slight decreasing at
certain periods. In a decade the figure has tripled from 26,205
in 1900 to 89,701 in
1999. The growing number of immigrants fuelled the surge of
racist feeling among
the population. People say and believe that England is becoming
«swamped» by
immigrants. The result of these ideas and says are racial attacks
and the latest violence
against asylum seekers and refugees took place in 1999 at Dover.
There again people
were psychologically prepared, brainwashed by the media mainly
the newspapers and
politicians. The Mail on Sunday of 15 March 1998 put on its
headline «OPEN
DOOR FOR BOGUS REFUGEES» (Hayter, 2004, p 70); the Daily
Mail of 28 July
1998 «Straw opens Door to 30,000 refugees» (Hayter,
2004, p70); The Sun «Kick the
gypsies out» ( Hayter, 2004, p70). The Conservative
opposition took a campaign
against asylum seekers. Its leader William Hague in 1999 was
reported in the
newspaper accusing the government «of dereliction of duty
for allowing so many
people to seek refuge in England, and saying that he was
particularly outraged to
discover that Westminster Council had more asylum seekers
dependent on social
services than old ladies in nursing homes» ( Hayter, 2004,
p79). The impact of the
influx of asylum seekers is not only felt at the social level but
also at the economic
one.
B) ECONOMIC IMPACT
According to the UN 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, any
contracting country shall meet the needs of the refugees as
stated in Chapter IV.
Those recognised as asylum seekers have access to the resources
available to the host
country's citizens.
Here in England, the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), a
department of the
Home Office deals with the asylum seekers who are eligible for
the government's
support such as cash, maternity payments, education, health
access, legal aid and
accommodation. The latter is a real concern for the authorities
as the former Home
Secretary Jack Straw put it:
The pressure on housing and other services both from asylum
seekers
and others housed by local authorities in those areas is intense
and
unsustainable. It results in problems for London local
authorities, and
indeed for Kent local authorities, in discharging their duties
towards
local homeless households under homeless legislation. Asylum
seekers themselves often end up in very poor conditions. No
one...
believes that such concentration of asylum seekers in one part
of
the country is sensitive or defensible( Hansard 9 November
1999
cited in Bloch, 2002, p51).
The use of the terms `pressure', `intense' and `unsustainable'
are revelatory of the
difficulties faced by local authorities. Those words also justify
the need of the
government to take actions to alleviate the burden of Londoner
authorities. The next
action of the government face to the housing pressure is the
implementation of the
policy of dispersal.
To disperse asylum seekers throughout England will not only
permit the sharing of economic burden, avoid social problems such
as housing
shortages, pressures on local schools and health services but it
will surely prevent
racial attacks. In fact the policy of dispersal lies on three
aims that are first the
redistribution of economic costs with the idea of shared costs
between regions.
Secondly the control of the asylum seeker's residence and
movement which will
facilitate his location and deportation in case of claim denial.
And finally the
reduction of social tensions caused by the concentration of a
high number of asylum
seekers in a specific area.
Here is in the table below the dispatching of asylum seekers
throughout England.
Asylum Seekers supported in accommodation by NASS in Regions
(2004) Table 5
|
Government Office Region(GOR)
|
Quarterly 1
(Jan,Feb,March)
|
Quarterly 2
(Apr,May,Jun)
|
Quarterly 3
(Jul,Aug,Sept)
|
Quarterly 4
(Oct,Nov,Dec)
|
|
North East
|
4920
|
4620
|
4165
|
3920
|
|
North West
|
7835
|
7325
|
6720
|
6430
|
|
Yorkshire & Humberside
|
9875
|
9555
|
9210
|
9370
|
|
East Midlands
|
3075
|
2850
|
2720
|
2555
|
|
West Midlands
|
8455
|
7820
|
6800
|
6310
|
|
East of England
|
780
|
670
|
565
|
590
|
|
Greater London
|
2985
|
2035
|
1475
|
1455
|
|
South East
|
1170
|
940
|
720
|
815
|
|
South West
|
1360
|
1255
|
1060
|
1065
|
|
Total England
|
40460
|
37070
|
33430
|
32500
|
Source: Home Office (2004)
We notice a decrease of the number of asylum seekers accommodated
through the
year 2004.This can be explained by three reasons. First, asylum
seekers are no more
accommodated by NASS because they are granted refugee status.
Therefore they have
to fend for themselves. Secondly, their claims are turned down by
the Home Office.
Hence they are liable to deportation. Thirdly, the asylum seekers
decide to leave the
accommodation for hygienic reason or environment hostility
towards their presence.
Yorkshire and Humberside remains the only region among the nine
with a great
number of asylum seekers accommodated. It is undeniable that the
number of
asylum seekers accommodated by NASS represents a financial burden
for the local
authorities and the central government because most of the
housing providers are
private landlords whose interest is to make profit and not
charity.
Besides the accommodation there is also cash or voucher which is
a financial abyss.
Cash support
table 6
|
Qualifying couple
|
£ 64.96
|
|
Lone parent aged 18 or over
|
£ 41.41
|
|
Single person aged 25 or over
|
£ 41.41
|
|
Single person aged at least 18 but under25
|
£ 32.80
|
|
Person aged at least 16 but under 18(except a member of
qualifying couple)
|
£ 35.65
|
|
Person aged under 16
|
£ 47.45
|
Source: Home Office
The central government funded the asylum seekers' support. The
level of support
depends on the status of the family and any special needs such as
illness, disability
and so forth...They receive their support every week from NASS. A
rapid calculation
will help us to understand how much the central government spends
on one asylum
seeker. £ 41.41* 4 weeks = £ 165.64.This is what an
asylum seeker receives a month.
But since he is not entitled to work the first six months of his/
her claim, here is the
total money he receives: £ 165.64 * 6 = £ 993.84.Let us
see the whole figure during a
year for all asylum seekers. According to the UNHCR Statistical
Yearbook, there
were 23900 asylum seekers during the year 2003 in the United
Kingdom (UNHCR,
2005). Let us assumed that all of them were single person aged 25
or over. Here is the
calculation: 23900 * £ 993.84 = £ 23.752.776.
Here is an overview of the amount of cash spent by the central
government through
NASS in each Government Office Region (GOR) displayed in the
table below.
Asylum Seekers with Subsistence support given by NASS
Table 7
|
Government Office Region(GOR)
|
Quarterly 1
(Jan,Feb,March)
|
Quarterly 2
(Apr,May,Jun)
|
Quarterly 3
(Jul,Aug,Sept)
|
Quarterly 4
(Oct,Nov,Dec)
|
|
North East
|
185
|
175
|
160
|
165
|
|
North West
|
905
|
865
|
875
|
900
|
|
Yorkshire & Humberside
|
835
|
760
|
695
|
660
|
|
East Midlands
|
910
|
870
|
775
|
745
|
|
West Midlands
|
1240
|
1255
|
1265
|
1195
|
|
East of England
|
1110
|
955
|
855
|
760
|
|
Greater London
|
19920
|
18295
|
16165
|
14505
|
|
South east
|
1735
|
1550
|
1465
|
1340
|
|
South West
|
400
|
355
|
315
|
280
|
|
Total England
|
27245
|
25085
|
22570
|
20550
|
Source: Home Office (2004).
Among the regions, Greater London comes first as the one which
receives a huge
amount of money spent for the support of asylum seekers. This
shows well that there
is a large number of asylum seekers in London than in any other
region. This can be
explained by the fact that London is the main port of entrance,
also by the fact that
because of the existence of many asylum seekers and refugees
organizations and
networks asylum seekers prefer to stay where they find people
from their own
countries, languages or even relatives who will direct them and
give them the proper
support they need to cope with their new situation.
Besides cash, education is another field under the pressure of
asylum seekers.
In England, the local authorities have the obligation to provide
primary and secondary
school education to the asylum seekers' children. Their
transportation, lunch and any
activity by their local school involving money is covered by the
local authorities.
Thus the cost of the education of asylum seekers' children is
totally paid by the local
authorities who are reimbursed by the central government. The
field of health is not
also spared from the expenses engaged for the care of the asylum
seekers. Indeed they
have access to free treatment for eyes test, dentist practice etc
offered by the National
Health Service (NHS). Social assistance is also given in case of
chronic illness,
disability or other serious illnesses. In hospitals, translators
are hired to interpret
when language is an obstacle in the communication between the
general practitioner
(GP) and asylum seekers. All this is financed through NASS by the
central
government. The care and attention asylum seekers received from
the government
through NASS cause them hostile reaction .In January 2003, the
Shadow Health
Secretary Dr Liam Fox wrote to all primary care and hospital
trusts in the UK,
suggesting that British citizens were being denied access to
treatment on the NHS
because of `preferential access' given to asylum seekers
(Kundnani cited in
Hayes, 2004, p24).
In this chapter, we saw that the magnitude of asylum seekers'
presence really
influenced English society. Initially white, the society turned
to multicultural and
multiracial by the inflow of asylum seekers coming from different
countries and with
different cultures. Their presence was perceived as a threat to
English identity and
culture. The fear of loss of identity among the host country
generated feelings of
xenophobia, hatred and racism backed up by politicians'
statements. Racial attacks,
harassments entailed riots, racial crimes and violence across the
country. At the
economic level, the presence of asylum seekers exerted a pressure
on
accommodation, the National Health Service (NHS), education and
the government
treasury. The policy of dispersal implemented to ease the
pressure did not remove it.
Because of foregoing reasons, asylum seekers are accused of being
spongers,
scroungers. The feeling of discontent is spread among the
population. The
government is even accused of being too soft with asylum seekers,
not doing enough
to stop them coming in the country. Face to general
dissatisfaction, what will the
government do to preserve social stability and prevent the
collapse of the welfare
system? This question will be answered in the next chapter where
we will talk about
the state's response.
III) THE STATE'S RESPONSE
As we saw earlier, the number of refugees and asylum seekers
coming to England
increased year after year. This situation which had an impact on
the social and
economical level triggered resentment among the host population .
To control and end
the escalation of inflow of asylum seekers, the state through
different governments
implemented deterrence measures to keep England out of the reach
of asylum seekers.
The instruments of the deterrence measures are the use of
restrictive and dissuasive
Powers.
The implementation of deterrence measures went in the same vein
with the former
Prime Minister John Mayor's statement: «We must not be wide
open to all [new]
comers just because Rome, Paris and London are more attractive
than Bombay or
Algiers» (Joly, 1992, p119).
A) RESTRICTIVE POWERS
The use of legislation as restrictive power expresses the State's
desire to stop
immigration in England.
Before the 1980s, there was a conflation of asylum and
immigration. That is to say
any migration in this country was dealt under the scope of
Immigration Rules. In
those times, an immigrant meant a black or brown person coming
from the New
Commonwealth. The white men coming from other countries were
considered as
aliens. To curb the number of immigrants the governments passed
various Acts. As
politicians follow the desire of the population, as Acts as
passed to solve problems
and please the population.
Early the 1900s, the host population started complaining loudly
about the increasing
number of Jews entering the country as seen in chapter II. To put
an end if not reduce
their number, the government passed in 1905 The Aliens Act. It is
true that the Act
did not specifically mention the Jews but in practice many were
denied entrance on
the ground that they were poor and might be a burden to public
funds. Cohen sees that
Act as a mean to exclude `undesirable immigrants' defined as
someone who «cannot
show that he has in his possession or is in a position to obtain
the means of decently
supporting himself»(Cohen,1988,p12). At that time where
anti-Semitism feeling was
at its peak, the government turned his back to Jews as revealed
by the statistics: 505
Jews entered in 1906; 43 in 1907; 20 in 1908; 30 in 1909 and
finally 5 in 1910( Cohen
1988,p12). Within four years, the number of Jews allowed to seek
refuge was sharply
cut down from 505 to 5 that is to say 99%. A decade later, there
was the 1914 Aliens
Restriction Act which important feature was the power of the Home
Secretary to
deport any alien.
During and after the First World War, there was in England a
resentment of German
and Jews presence. The government therefore passed the 1919
Aliens Restriction Act
to make difficult their entrance but also stressed the powers of
the Home Secretary to
deport them and people deemed dangerous for the country. After
the end of the
second World War, for economical motivation ,the Nationality Act
of 1948 was
passed to allow in the Commonwealth citizens. That Act created an
escalation of
mass flow from New Commonwealth citizens as seen in table 2. The
majority of
them with black or brown skin labelled `coloured people'
triggered hostility and
racist comments. Sir Cyril Osborne, Tory MP said: «This is a
white man's country,
and I want it to remain so»(Daily Mail,7 February, 1961
cited in Hayter, 2004,p27).
His Tory MP colleague Mr Angus Maude went in 1965 in the same
vein: «It is not
unreasonable for a white people in a white country to want to
stay a white country»
(Hayter 2004, p27). There is no better illustration of racism and
xenophobia than
these statements from members of the Parliament, institution
where Acts are passed
to regulate the society. Face to the massive inflow of coloured
people in 1961 as seen
in table 2, an Act was passed to halt the `invasion'. The 1962
Commonwealth
Immigrants Act restricted access to England to Commonwealth
citizen who did not
belong to the United Kingdom. As the then Home Secretary put it:
«except from
control [are] persons who in common parlance belong to the United
Kingdom»(
Joppke, 1999, p108). The term `belong' to the United Kingdom
meant being born in
the country( the jus soli rule) or hold a United Kingdom passport
issued by the
government.The Act in its implementation stratified the society
in two layers:
citizens with passports issued in the country and those whose
passports were issued
by Commonwealth countries. The nature of the Act was racist as
the then Prime
Minister William Deedes confessed it; «the real purpose was
to restrict the influx of
coloured immigrants.[Although] we were reluctant to say as much
openly»(Robinson
1999,p xx). Unfortunately this Act showed its limits when the
period post
decolonisation drove out thousands of Ugandan Asians holders of
British
passport. Their massive arrival prompted the 1968 Commonwealth
Act to curb their
number. «Equally, there is no doubt about the problem which
can, and will, be created
if the rate of immigration goes ahead too rapidly...This clearly
is a racial problem
[that] arises quite simply from the arrival in this country of
many people of wholly
alien cultures, habits and outlook»( Joppke,1999,p109).
Indeed to avoid social
instability, the government passed the 1968 Commonwealth Act
which set as
condition to all the colonies citizens who did not have strong
connection with the
metropolitan country to obtain an entry voucher before coming.
The Act was not only
a flagrant violation of the international law and basic duties of
a State to accept its
own nationals but also a violation of the Article 3(2) of the
European Convention
which stipulates that «No one shall be deprived of the right
to enter the territory of the
State of which he is a national»(Fourth Protocol to the
European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, 1963).
England did what no
civilised country would do to its own nationals. In the 1968 Act
like the 1962
one, the rhetoric of `jus soli' and `jus sanguinis' or
citizenship by birth and citizenship
acquired through descent was reasserted once again. This idea of
making a distinction
between nationals of the same country paved the way to the 1971
Immigration Act.
The 1971 Act was an important one in the sense that it shaped the
following Asylum
and Immigration Acts. It set the criteria to recognize asylum
seekers. It replaced the
employment voucher by work permit; increased the powers of the
State to deport
aliens lawfully living in the country, allowed permanent rather
than temporary
settlement. It created two categories of citizenship, patrials
and non-patrials. Patrials
were exempt of immigration control and had the `right of abode'
because their
citizenship was acquired either by birth, adoption, registration,
naturalization in the
United Kingdom or by a parent who was born in the country. The
non-patrials
though holders of British passports were subject to immigration
control.
In the 1980s, after the interview of Thatcher stressing anxiety
over immigration, new
laws were passed to exorcize the fear of foreigners from the host
population and
reduce the number of newcomers. Thus a number of Acts ranging
from the restriction
of citizenship to carriers' liability were passed. Indeed in 1981
the British Nationality
Act was introduced to restrict the entry of Asians and Blacks to
England. The Act
created three categories of citizenship: British citizens,
British Dependent
Territories citizens and British Overseas citizens. Among them,
only British citizens
were entitled to settlement and abode in the United Kingdom
whereas the others were
excluded. This Act also removed citizenship by birth in the
country (jus soli) and
emphasized patrial background to settle in the United Kingdom.
Years later, the Immigration Procedure Rules in 1985 introduced
visa requirement. Its
explicit aim was to hinder the arrival of asylum seekers from Sri
Lanka at the time
when Tamils were fleeing their country on ground of persecution
by the State agents.
It is useful to say that the use of visa control is not new since
it has been used in 1938
against German and Austria citizens. Later the visa control was
extended to other
countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
and many other
Commonwealth countries. In November1992 during the Yugoslav civil
war, the
government introduced visa control for those fleeing for their
lives and wishing to
seek refuge here. One noticeable fact is that England always
turns its back to asylum
seekers when they need it the most.
The most important legislation passed in the 1980s to stop asylum
seekers in this
country was the 1987 Carriers' Liability Act. It held carriers
responsible for carrying
passengers with fake, incorrect or without document of
identification. A fine of £
1000 then £2000 on airline companies for carrying such
passengers. The Act, since
2000, was extended to trucking companies. Obviously the Act
contravenes the
article 31 of the 1951Convention which forbids any penalty for
unlawful entry:
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of
their illegal
entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a
territory where
their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1,
enter or are
present in their territory without authorization, provided they
present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause
for their
illegal entry or presence(1951 UN Convention Relating to the
Status of
Refugees).
The war against asylum seekers went on in the 1990s where
governments
were more creative in their attempts to curb if not crack down
asylum number.
Asylum seekers were labelled `bogus refugees' or disguised
economic migrants
coming to England for `pull' and not `push' factors. Michael
Howard, former
Conservatism leader said:
By claiming asylum, those who have no basis to remain here cannot
only substantially prolong their stay, but gain access to benefit
and
housing at public expense...Of the 40000 asylum applicants
currently
being supported on benefit, very few will be found to merit
asylum or
exceptional leave to remain...My right honourable friend the
Secretary
of State for the Environment has concluded that the same
arguments
apply in relation to social housing(Michael Howard cited in
Schuster,
2003, p147).
By branding asylum seekers with negative terminology, the
government
psychologically prepared the national and international opinion
to accept the coming
laws.
The 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act introduced new right
of appeal,
faster deportation and restriction on those who apply for asylum
in the United
Kingdom. In 1996 the Asylum and Immigration Act removed the right
to welfare
benefits from asylum seekers who made their applications
in-country rather than at
the port of entry. The 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act created a
new directorate,
the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) to deal with the
social support of
asylum seekers. It also introduced the use of vouchers,
compulsory dispersal scheme
regarding accommodation and finally removed entitlement to a
variety of benefits.
It is clear that the three Acts we mentioned above were intended
to impoverish asylum
seekers to the extreme and set to be an example to anyone who
would be tempted to
claim asylum in this country.
Driving asylum seekers out England, cutting down their number,
preventing others
from coming to claim asylum have been the core provisions and
clear message
embodied in the laws passed since the 1900s up to now. But all
the laws cannot
intrinsically work and achieve the purpose without dissuasive
powers.
B) DISSUASIVE POWERS
Among the dissuasive powers displayed by the state, detention is
far the most used
Tool against asylum seekers. It is a practice denounced by the
United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):
The right to liberty is a fundamental right recognised in all the
major human
rights instruments, both at global and regional levels. The right
to seek asylum
is, equally, recognised as a basic human right. The act of
seeking asylum can
therefore not be considered an offence or a crime. Consideration
should be
given to the fact that asylum seekers may already have suffered
some form of
persecution or other hardship in their country of origin and
should be protected
against any form of harsh treatment. As a general rule, asylum
seekers should
not be detained(UNHCR, 1996).
Detention of asylum seekers is not something new in the history
of this country.
Under the 1905 Aliens Act, the first Jews who came in this
country to seek refuge and
protection against racial persecution were detained in Warth
Mill, a derelict cotton
factory. Although at that time by a game of words, internment was
used rather than
detention, nevertheless it remains that their freedom of movement
was confiscated,
they were under watch and lived in total promiscuity. Their
degrading and difficult
conditions of life were narrated by an internee.
In the big hall there were 500 people. 2000 were housed in the
whole building...The building was surrounded by rows of barbed wire,
between which armed guards patrolled...We were ordered to fetch our beds but
found out they were only old boards...There were neither tables nor benches,
we had to eat standing...There were 18 watertaps for some 2000 people to
wash...There was a fight about the.(...).The lavatories Commandant refused to
give any drugs for the sick people without payment. There was one bath tub
for 2000 people...The officers took our wallets, the soldiers took our
suitcases and they took anything they fancied(novels, books, chocolates,
pencils, paper, cigarettes) and distributed the things among themselves in
front of us(Cohen,1988,p19).
The mistreatment of Jewish refugees was to encourage them to
leave England and
also a warning signal to others who would be tempted to come.
Even the ratification
of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees by the
United Kingdom did
not alter its objective to stop in general immigration and
particularly asylum seekers.
Years later, the 1971 Aliens Act confirmed the detention of
aliens `pending
examination or removal from the United Kingdom'. From the 1970s
up to now,
detention has become the key component of the dissuasive
strategies to enforce
return. It is used at any stage of the asylum procedure. Under
the Immigration and
Asylum Acts, power is given to immigration officers to arrest and
detain (
administrative detention) when they believe that asylum seekers
may abscond or not
comply with the conditions of entry or are about to be deported.
Here is what Charles
Wardle, the Conservative Home Office minister wrote:
It is Immigration Service policy to use detention only as a last
resort.
Temporary admission is granted wherever possible and detention is
authorised
only when there is no other alternative and where there are good
grounds for
believing that the person will not comply with the terms of
temporary
admission. In deciding whether to detain account is taken of all
relevant
circumstances, including the means by which the person arrived in
this country
and any past immigration history, and the person's ties with the
United
Kingdom, such as close relatives here (Hayter, 2004, p118).
The text of the minister raises many questions. What are the
other alternatives that
have not been tried? What are the objective elements of `good
grounds' that permit to
believe that the individual might run away? How can the manner of
entering in the
country determine one's probity? Is it because someone travels by
a plane of a reputed
good European company makes him a reliable person than the one
who comes
through lorry tyres? This arbitrary practice is at variance with
many International
laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
provides limits to
immigration detention through the Article 9: «No one shall
be subjected to arbitrary
arrest, detention or exile» and Article 14 « Everyone
has the right to seek and enjoy in
other countries asylum from persecution» (UDHR,1948). The
subjectivity of
detention is also pointed out by Sir David Ramsbotham, the
government's own Chief
Inspector of Prisons, in his report on Campsfield detention
centre in 1998:
It is abundantly clear from our inspections of Campsfield House,
Tinsley
House, and the detention wing at HMP Rochester, as well as what
we have
seen at Haslar and other prisons in which immigration detainees
are held, that
in the view of the Immigration Service and contractor's staff
there is little or
no consistency, or logic, in current arrangements for deciding
upon detention,
nor in how detention is managed. The Immigration Service needs to
re-
examine the criteria and process of detention to ensure that they
are readily
understood by all involved and that detention is used for the
shortest possible
time (Hayter,2004,p120).
Though governments are well conscious of all the dispositions
contained in
International Laws and Treaties, they carry on their policy of
detention with the
Machiavellian idea: the end justifies the means. Thus from four
detention centres in
1997 in which people may be held for eight or nine months (Hayter
2004, p115), we
now have ten Immigration Service Removal Centres where great
numbers of asylum
seekers are detained regardless the validity or not of their
claims.
ASYLUM DETAINEES 2004 Table 8
|
Quarterly 1
(Jan, Feb, Mar)
|
Quarterly 2
(Apr, May, Jun)
|
Quarterly 3
(Jul, Aug, Sept)
|
Quarterly 4
(Oct, Nov, Dec)
|
|
1330
|
1385
|
1105
|
1515
|
Source: Home Office
The number of detainees has increased from January to December.
It is certainly not
the net number of people who applied for asylum that year but it
may be the number
of people who launched their claims at ports of entry or those
who were about to be
deported.
The administrative detention does not set time when to be
released, this aspect
combined with the confinement in a cell psychologically affect
the detainees. Here is
the stories of former asylum seekers I interviewed.
Victoria:
I never thought to be in detention here. I did not do anything
wrong except
seeking protection for my life. I shed all the tears of my eyes
the day I was
locked. I spent three months crying. I was so depressed that I
was under
medication the remaining time of my detention. Claim asylum here
in this
country! Never will I advise anyone.
Salifu:
I felt like an animal in cage. I cannot go out. I could not
believed I was in
England a country with good reputation regarding asylum seekers.
I spent
five months going from one detention centre to another. As time
passed I felt
depressed and considered committing suicide. I will never ask a
relative or
friend to seek asylum in England.
Sandrine:
The prison officers locked us all day. It was terrible and
horrible. I spent
one month. I witnessed a woman who killed herself after being
detained for
five months. I will never encourage anybody even my worst enemy
to apply
for asylum in this country. It was a traumatizing experience in
my life.
Gaspard:
I was detained at Oakington reception Centre then moved to Haslar
and
Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre. I nearly spent ten months.
It was
psychologically difficult to bear. I tried to kill myself because
of the
conditions of detention. At times we were allowed for only five
hours outside
our cells. It is absurd to be detained for seeking asylum. I
cannot encourage
anybody to seek asylum in England.
Stella:
I applied for asylum and they put me in prison. The very day I
bitterly cried, I
could not believe to be imprisoned for seeking asylum. I spent
three months. I
tried many times to kill myself. Though they released me I still
on psychiatrist
therapy. I will never forget this part of my life. I will never
encourage anyone
to apply for asylum in this country.
John:
When I lodged my claim, the Home Office said it did not believe
me and I
would be deported. Meanwhile I was at Harmondsworth Removal
centre
where I spent one month. It was very difficult to bear. I was
everyday haunted
by the idea of being deported and handed back to my persecutors.
I said to
myself I would kill myself rather than go back. The pressure was
so much that
I was ready to go to any African country. After Harmondsworth I
was sent to
Dungavel removal where I spent two horrible months. We were
constantly
abused by guards. I don't want to live even remember that episode
of my life.
Eduardo:
When I arrived at Heathrow, I claimed asylum. In the afternoon
with three
other persons, we were put in a van and sent to a place Later I
knew was a
detention place. I did not sleep the very night; I thought that I
would be send
back home the following day. I spent five months in detention. It
was difficult
to make myself well understand because I did not speak English
and the
translator was not good in Spanish. It was a depressing period.
Fleeing
detention in my country to be detained here in a country so
called democratic.
It was a disillusion. I did not commit any crime to be detained.
I could not
sleep. The doctor said I have a post-traumatic stress
disorder.
From the stories above it is undeniable that the condition and
time of detention have
affected them so much so that they will never claim asylum in
England if it was to
happen again. From their stories can we conclude that English
governments have
succeeded in deterring future asylum claimants?
In addition to detention, the introduction of visa requirement is
another tool used that
contributes to the dissuasive measures.
Whenever a given country produces a large number of asylum
seekers, visa to enter
The United Kingdom is introduced against its nationals no matter
what may be the
reason of fleeing their country. To illustrate the truth of this,
one has to remember the
case of the Tamils.
In 1985, the political situation of Sri Lanka in turmoil reached
its peak level. The
Tamils were persecuted even killed by state's agents on ground of
their ethnic
belonging. To save their life, many Tamils fled their country to
seek asylum in
England with which they have colonial ties. The influx of Tamils
prompted the
government to impose visa control. Later visa requirement was
extended to Turkish in
1989, Ugandan in 1991, Yugoslav in 1992 and finally to all non
European Union
countries. It is clear that visa is required to stop potential
asylum claimants. For
without a visa it is impossible to embark a plane or a boat to
England. But the wicked
side of the visa requirement is that it is difficult even
impossible to satisfy for
someone whose life is in danger by the authorities of his own
country, someone who
is not prepared but suddenly has to flee his country where may be
visiting an
European embassy is an offence. In a word it is difficult for
someone under `acute
push factors' to comply with that requirement. But despite the
introduction of
visa control, people were still entering with forged documents in
England and claimed
asylum. To close the hole, the Carriers' Liability Act was
introduced in 1987. The Act
held carriers responsible and liable to heavy fines for carrying
passengers without
papers or incorrect documents. The Act explicitly shifted the
work of the immigration
officers onto airline staffs and other transporters, compelling
them to check the papers
of every passenger. In so doing, they turned to unofficial
immigration officers. It was
clear that The Carriers Act strengthened the visa control.
The last dissuasive measures we will talk about are the welfare
restrictions.
The 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act created a new directorate,
the National
Asylum Support Service (NASS), an organ of the Home Office. Its
official role was to
provide support to asylum seekers but the hidden role was
internal control and
restriction of welfare benefits. The state has an agent to
locate, control and
implement on the field dissuasive measures against asylum
seekers.
Perceived as bogus refugees, scroungers coming to England because
of welfare
enticement, asylum seekers were accused of being economic
migrants. Hence the
necessity for the state to discourage them by removing what was
considered as
enticing.
Indeed one disposition of the 1999 Act stipulated that people
liable to immigration
controls were not entitled to council housing, housing benefits,
income support,
income-based jobseeker's allowance, council tax benefit, child
benefit, attendance
allowance for disabled people, disability allowance etc... The
denial of all these
benefits affected many asylum seekers and left them destitute.
The implementation of
the Act is the unofficial role bestowed upon NASS which is
firstly dealing with the
preservation of welfare and secondly the crucial role in the
whole enforcement
process- that is starving out (...) refugees(Hayes and
Humphries,2004,p9). Thus the
role of NASS is not to support asylum seekers by giving them the
resources available
but rather to exclude many from getting them. To make it more
legal, the 2002 Act
states the asylum seekers who fail to apply for asylum at ports
of entry, or,
immediately after their arrival would be denied access to NASS
support. Deprived of
all benefits asylum seekers
lived on weekly voucher which was insufficient to meet their
needs. They were
therefore living in poverty as Community Care made it clear:
many pregnant asylum- seekers were facing extreme hardship
because
of rules that meant they were not eligible for maternity
grant...the
dispersal system is now taking up to eight months, and many women
were left to cope with a single grant of £50 for baby
equipment and
clothes(Community Care cited in Hayes and Humphries,2004,p147).
Those of the asylum seekers, supported by NASS, were not shielded
from destitution
because financial support to accommodation could be lost for not
living at a given
address, not attending regularly at a post office to exchange
NASS subsistence
could lead to its end, absence to weekly or monthly reporting to
police station or
Immigration Service reporting centre entailed the end of NASS
support.
Under the 1999 Act a great emphasis was put on the impoverishment
of asylum
seekers.
In this chapter, we saw that in response to increasing number of
asylum seekers
entering the country, the different governments of England
resorted to deterrence
measures, a combination of restrictive and dissuasive powers, to
stop them.
Several laws were passed to tighten entry, strip people of their
citizenship and deny
entrance on grounds of race. Legislation was therefore used as
restrictive measures to
shut the doors on certain category of people. While detention,
visa controls and NASS
were the dissuasive weapons used to punish, discourage,
impoverish and keep the
country out of the reach of asylum seekers and undesirable
immigrants.
REMARKS
The United Kingdom is a signatory of the 1951 Convention Relating
to the Status of
Refugees, the 1967 Protocol and the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
which states in article 14(1): «Everyone has the right to
seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution». The Conventions and
Declarations are non-
binding instruments, therefore the right to grant asylum remains
a prerogative of the
country. By signing and ratifying International Treaties and
Laws, the United
kingdom shows its willingness to respect and abide by them. But
the promise to apply
the provisions contained in the International Treaties and Laws
is no more kept. In
fact the United Kingdom's reputation of shelter for refugees has
been called into
question. For on the field, the reality is that the United
Kingdom has turned its back
to all signed and ratified documents to implement deterrence
measures against asylum
seekers. It is well known that it detains and returns (refouler)
asylum seekers, practice
that is opposed to the 1951 Convention and the Universal
Declaration of Human
Rights. In so doing, the United Kingdom has become a human rights
violator. Its
behaviour has raised questions; what has happened to the country
to be a human
rights violator? What is the rationale of such change? The answer
surely lies in the
pre-eminence of the United Kingdom's national interests over any
humanitarian act.
The use of deterrence measures is aimed at protecting the welfare
system and race
relation. Though these two reasons are plausible, they are
nevertheless not sufficient
to justify deterrence measures against asylum seekers
According to the UNHCR index, the United Kingdom receives less
asylum seekers
and refugees than many non-industrialised countries such as
Pakistan and Tanzania.
MAIN HOST COUNTRIES END 2005
|
COUNTRY
|
RANK
|
Number of Refugees
|
|
Pakistan
|
1
|
1.088.121
|
|
Germany
|
2
|
781,116
|
|
Islamic Republic of Iran
|
3
|
716,611
|
|
United Republic of Tanzania
|
4
|
549,131
|
|
United States
|
5
|
549,083
|
|
United Kingdom
|
6
|
307,064
|
|
China
|
7
|
301,125
|
|
Chad
|
8
|
276,927
|
|
Kenya
|
9
|
267,731
|
|
Uganda
|
10
|
259,089
|
Source: UNHCR 2005
The table is interesting in the sense that it gives the country,
the number of asylum
seekers and refugees in its territory and its rank. We can see
that poor countries even
the poorest, Chad, host asylum seekers and refugees.
From the table, we will draw a comparison between the United
Kingdom and the
United Republic of Tanzania. The aim of the comparison is to
refute the arguments
Displayed by the United kingdom to implement deterrence
measures.
UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED REP. OF TANZANIA AT A
GLANCE
|
UNITED KINGDOM
|
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
|
|
Status: Industrialised, developed country.
|
Status: Non-industrialised, under developed country.
|
|
Population(millions):59.4
|
Population(millions): 38.3
|
|
GNI (US $ billions):2,016.2
|
GNI(US$ billions): 12.6
|
|
GNI per capita(US$):33,940
|
GNI per capita(US$):330
|
|
GDP(US$ billions):2,140.9
|
GDP(US$ billions):11.3
|
|
Balance of payments US$ millions(net income):44,038
|
Balance of payments US$ millions(net income):- 68
|
|
Life expectancy at birth(years): 78
|
Life expectancy at birth(years): 46
|
Source: World Bank (2005)
The comparative table shows us that the economy of Tanzania, in
terms of wealth, is
poor than the United Kingdom one. Its GNI per capita and net
income are thousand
times inferior to the United Kingdom one. Yet Tanzania does not
deter asylum
seekers and refugees by putting them in detention or requiring
visa from them. That is
to say that the United Kingdom should not give as a pretext the
enticement of their
social goods to shut the door because asylum seekers are not
after anything except the
preservation of their life. Making conditions harsh to reduce the
number of people
applying for asylum will not solve the problem, it will rather
create another one. The
subjective character of the immigration controls coupled with the
power given to
immigration officers to decide the outcome of individuals' claims
will surely give
way to a situation of financial and physical corruptions. For
instance, the sexual
scandal that shook Lunar House, Immigration offices at Croydon,
in 2006 is still fresh
in our mind. At that period when immigration control was the
daily frontline of
newspapers and the opening news of the televisions, an
immigration officer was
caught granting Leave to Remain for an Indefinite Period to
Brazilian girls in
exchange of sexual intercourse. Another one was caught selling
British passports. We
should also bear in mind that detain asylum seekers for reasons
such as possession of
false documents is another way to push them into the hands of
traffickers and
gangsters.
As far as the removal of welfare benefits is concerned, it will
not deter asylum seekers
but create insecurity in the country. The legislation that
prevents asylum seekers from
working the first six (6) months of their claims and the one
removing benefits
entitlement will be source of begging, theft, mendacity, crime
and robbery. In a
capitalist and expensive country nobody can live without
financial support. Therefore
to prohibit work and remove financial support to a human being in
this country will
lead him to one of the scourges mentioned above.
As for the race relation, the example of the United Republic of
Tanzania is still
relevant. With a huge number of asylum seekers and refugees
living inside its
territory, no report of social violence or riot has been made
because of their presence.
The United Kingdom's fear of race confrontations stems from its
desire to apply the
policy of assimilation rather than integration. For assimilate
newcomers means to ask
and make them abandon their own way of life, culture and belief
to adopt yours.
Thing that is difficult to obtain from people who have been for
long time practising
their culture , religion and custom. The policy of assimilation
reeked of racism that
was why people reacted against it in the 1970s.Whereas accepting
newcomers the
way they are, with their customs, belief and make them feel part
of the society neither
inferior nor superior, is what is called integration. Since the
United Kingdom has
turned its back to assimilation to apply the policy of
integration, no riot or racial clash
has ever occurred.
For all the reasons cited above, neither welfare benefits nor
race
relation should dictate asylum policy in the United Kingdom, a
country which sees
receiving refugees as a mark of civilised society.
CONCLUSION
This paper has tried to understand and explain the rationale of
the use of
deterrence measures against asylum seekers in England, a country
proud to be a
sanctuary for refugees. For a better understanding, I first
looked back at the origin of
immigration to England before and after the two world wars. It is
useful to notice that
at that time, asylum seekers and refugees were seen and dealt
under the term of
immigration. This retrospective glance revealed that refugees
were welcome even
invited in this country by the government for political,
economical and traditional
reasons. It was a political propaganda to receive refugees as a
civilised and
democratic country among other European countries. The end of two
wars, with their
corollaries of destruction of the economy and infrastructures
coupled with the
shortage of labour force, made the English government invite in
England European
Volunteer Workers, Commonwealth citizens and refugees on the
basis that they
would fill the void, work to rebuild the economy and boost it.
Besides that, the
tradition of shelter for refugees based on the liberal system of
the country favoured
the acceptance of many asylum seekers and refugees. But the
massive flow of
refugees and asylum seekers would have in the long run an impact
on the society and
the economy.
Under the influx of refugees and asylum seekers coming from
different continents
and countries, the English society initially white turned to a
multiracial and
multicultural one. But this transformation did not easily happen
because of white
racist groups backed up by prominent politicians who openly
expressed xenophobic
and racist opinions. Asylum seekers and refugees were victims of
attacks, violence
and murders. At the economic level, the presence of asylum
seekers put a huge
pressure on the government budget and the welfare system because
of their access to a whole range of benefits.
Face to the financial cost and the growing feeling of hostility
among the host
population towards asylum seekers, the state, in response ,
implemented deterrence
measures to curb their number. The response of the state was
built on restrictive and
dissuasive powers. Legislation was the key element to undercut
the right to seek
asylum by preventing people from reaching England, to strip
individuals of their
citizenship and deny entry. While the dissuasive powers were
based on detention as
punishment for seeking asylum, visa requirement to keep England
unreachable and
the removal of benefits to impoverish asylum seekers.
Do asylum seekers deserve such mistreatment from England? Even if
they are bogus
refugees or economic migrants, is a fight for economic survival
less worthy?
I have come to the sad conclusion that England has never been a
welcome door to
asylum seekers because the acceptance of refugees in the post-war
period was purely
for economic motivations not humanitarian ones. Therefore,
England as sanctuary for
asylum seekers is a myth.
REFERENCES
Bloch, A. (2002) The Migration and Settlement of Refugees in
Britain.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Castles, S. and Miller, M. (1998) The Age of Migration:
International Population Movements in the Modern World
(2nd edn) London: Pelgrave Macmillan
Cohen, S.(1988) From The Jews to the Tamils: Britain's
mistreatment of refugees.
Manchester: South Manchester Law Centre.
Commission for Racial Equality. (1979) Brick Lane and Beyond: An
Inquiry into Racial Strife and Violence in Tower Hamlets.
Edwards-Baldwin,M and Schain, M.,(eds) (1994) The Politics of
Immigration in Western Europe. Great Britain: Frank
Cass & Co.Ltd.
Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1963.
Granada Television, 30 January 1978. «World in Action»
interview given by Mrs Thatcher.
Hammar, T. (ed) (1985) European Immigration Policy. A
Comparative Study.
Great Britain: University Press Cambridge.
Hayes,D and Humphries,B.(eds)(2004) Social Work, Immigration
and Asylum:Debates, Dilemmas and Ethical Issues for Social Work
and Social Care Practice. United Kingdom: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Hayter, T.(2004) Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration
Controls. (2nd edn),
London: Pluto Press.
Joly, D., Nettleton, C.and Poulton, H. (1992) Refugees:
Asylum in Europe?
Great Britain: Minority Rights Publication.
Joppke, C.(1999) Immigration and the Nation-State. The United
States, Germany, and Great Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kubat, D. (ed)(1993) The Politics of Migration Policies:
Settlement and Integration. The First World Into The 1990S.
(2nd edn), New York: Centre for Migration Studies.
Kunz, E.F. (1973) The Refugee in Flight: Kinetic Models and
Forms of Displacement. International Migration Review,
vol.15, no.1
Marfleet, P. (2006) Refugees in a Global Era. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, V. (ed) (1993). The International Refugee Crisis.
British and Canadian Responses. London: Macmillan Press
Ltd.
Robinson, V. (ed) (1999) Migration and Public Policy.UK
and USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Sassen, S. (1998) The De Facto Transnationalizing of Immigration
Policy in Joppke.C (ed), Challenge to the Nation State: Immigration in
Western Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schuster, L. (2003) The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum in
Britain and Germany.
London: Frank Cass Publishers.
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
(1951).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1996)
Guidelines on Detention of Asylum Seekers. Geneva: UNHCR
Walzer, M.(1983) Sphere of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism
and Equity. Oxford: Martin Robertson & Co.LTD
Zig, Layton-Henry.(1992) The Politics of Immigration.
Immigration, `Race' and `Race Relations' in Post-war Britain.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
The Immigration Act (1971).Available from:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i5NzAmAJ5F0C&pg=PA143&ots=lB2l1KbjsS&dq=Immigration+Act+in+the+United+Kingdom&sig=exuAx9HmmiqtPIUc1jMxBwRbLJI#PPA51,M1
[Accessed 07/09/07]
Great Britain. Carriers' Liability Act 1987: Elizabeth II.
Chapter 33. (1987) Available from:
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/idischapter33/section1?vi
ew=Binary [Accessed 07/09/07]
Great Britain. Immigration and Asylum Act 1993: Elizabeth
II.Chapter23 (1993) Available From:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/Ukpga_19930023_en_1.htm
[Accessed
07/09/07].
Great Britain. Immigration and Asylum Act 1996: Elizabeth II.
Chapter 46(1996). Available from
:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996049.htm
[Accessed
07/09/07].
Great Britain. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: Elizabeth II.
Chapter 33. (1999).Available from:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1999/ukpga_19990033_en_1
[Accessed 07/09/07]
Great Britain. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002:
Elizabeth II.Chapter 41.Available from:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020041_en_1.htm
[Accessed
07/09/07]
Hassan .L, (2000) Deterrence Measures and the Preservation of
Asylum in the United Kingdom and United States. From:
http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/13/2/184
[Accessed 28/03/07].
Home Office (2004) Asylum Statistics: 1st Quarter
2004. United Kingdom. Available from:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/asylumq104.pdf
[Accessed 28/03/07].
Home Office (2004) Asylum Statistics: 2nd Quarter.
United Kingdom. Available from:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/asylumq204.pdf
[Accessed 28/03/07].
Home Office (2004) Asylum Statistics: 3rd Quarter.
United Kingdom. Available from:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/asylumq304.pdf
[Accessed 28/03/07].
Home Office (2004) Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter.
United Kingdom. Available from:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/asylumq404.pdf
[Accessed 28/03/07].
Border & Immigration Agency (2007) Cash support. Available
from:
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/asylumsupport/cashsupport
[Accessed 15/08/07].
UNHCR. (2005). Statistical Yearbook. Available from:
http://
www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics.
[Accessed 22/08/07].
World Bank, (2005). Development data. Available from:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/AAG/gbr_aag.pdf [Accessed
11/10/07].
World Bank, (2005). Development data.Available from:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/AAG/tza_aag.pdf
[Accessed 11/10/07].
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloch, A. (2002) The Migration and Settlement of Refugees in
Britain.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, S. (1988) From The Jews to the Tamils: Britain's
mistreatment of refugees.
Manchester: South Manchester Law Centre.
Cohen, S. (2003) No One is Illegal: Asylum and Immigration
Control Past and present. UK: Trentham Books Limited.
Commission for Racial Equality(1979) Brick Lane and Beyond:
An Inquiry into Racial Strife and Violence in Tower Hamlets.
Edwards-Baldwin,M and Schain, M.(eds) (1994) The Politics of
Immigration in Western Europe. Great Britain: Frank
Cass & Co.Ltd.
Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1963.
Granada Television, 30 January 1978. «World in Action»
interview given by Mrs Thatcher.
Hammar, T. (ed) (1985) European Immigration Policy. A
Comparative Study.
Great Britain: University Press Cambridge.
Harvey, C.(2000) Seeking Asylum in the UK: Problems and
Prospects. United Kingdom: Butterworths.
Hayes,D and Humphries,B.(eds)(2004) Social Work, Immigration
and Asylum:Debates, Dilemmas and Ethical Issues for Social Work
and Social Care Practice. United Kingdom: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Hayter, T.(2004) Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration
Controls.( 2nd edn),
London: Pluto Press.
Jacobs, B. (1988) Racism In Britain. London: Christopher
Helm.
Joly, D., Nettleton, C.and Poulton, H. (1992) Refugees:
Asylum in Europe?
Great Britain: Minority Rights Publication.
Joppke, C. (1999) Immigration and the Nation-State:
The United States, Germany, and Great Britain. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kubat, D. (ed)(1993) The Politics of Migration Policies.
Settlement and Integration. The First World Into The 1990S.
(2nd edn), New York: Center for Migration Studies.
Marfleet, P.(2006) Refugees in a Global Era. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, V. (ed) (1993) The International Refugee Crisis:
British and Canadian Responses. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Robinson, V. (ed) (1999) Migration and Public Policy.UK
and USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Schuster, L. (2003) The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum in
Britain and Germany.
London: Frank Cass Publishers.
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees., (1951).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) ( 1996)
Guidelines on Detention of Asylum Seekers. Geneva: UNHCR
Zig, Layton-Henry.(1992) The Politics of Immigration.
Immigration, `Race' and `Race Relations' in Post-war Britain.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
