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.
| 
