Discrimination_and_Oppression

Discuss a particular aspect/s of discrimination and oppression experienced by people in the society and the extent to which legislation, policy, practice and services relevant to social work exacerbate or assist in overcoming these negative experiences. Government policies, legislation and practices can help alleviate discrimination and oppression on one group in the society yet excluding others in the same community. This is the plight of asylum seekers in the UK In this essay the writer will look at the discrimination and oppression of asylum seekers in the UK with particular interest to policies, legislation and practise used in the asylum process and how these affect housing, health and the social and economic wellbeing of asylum seekers. The writer will start by defining and discussing the key terms used in this essay which are ‘asylum seeker’ and ‘refugees’, discrimination, oppression and anti- discrimination practice. The writer will then examine and discuss the policies and legislation which have been enacted for the asylum process since the late 1980’s and how these exacerbate or decrease discrimination and oppression for asylum seekers. The writer will also show the relevance and implications of these issues to welfare service provision through social care and/or social work practice. Discrimination is defined by (Vandenhole, 2005) as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, political or social origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons on an equal footing of all rights and freedoms. Discrimination is therefore a matter of social formation as well as individual/group behaviour or praxis that promotes inequities in economic resources, educational opportunities, employment status, political power, medical access, social promotion, and cultural development. Discrimination can either be direct or indirect. Direct discrimination refers to the immediate experience at the point of the prejudicial act, whereas indirect discrimination describes the long-term effects and consequences that occur because of the direct discrimination. Beliefs that members of one group of people should be treated differently from members of another group lead to various forms of discrimination, often referred to as the isms. These include racism, sexism, classism, and ageism and colorism reference. Unlike discrimination Oppression is “the unjust treatment on individuals or groups of people through the exertion of power, both individual and structural” (Thomas and Woods 2003). When oppressing, power is used to implement unfair judgement, often widely, over a specific groups within society. The rise of discrimination and oppression in the last few years has led to concern and this gave birth to anti- discrimination practice. (Reference) The term is widely used in social or probation work and in social work training to describe how workers take account for structural disadvantages and seek to reduce individual and institutional discrimination. (Thomas and Pierson 1995:p16) The writer has come to a firm conclusion that the United Kingdom’s (UK) asylum system policies, legislation and practice especially since the late 1980’s has given rise to untold discrimination and oppression to those seeking refuge within its borders. Figures This view has been born from the writers own previous experiences of being in the asylum system and it is supported by numerous literature in the public domain including (Reference) Also in support of this view (Bloch and Schuster 2005), state that “The changes that have taken place have resulted in the exclusion of asylum seekers from ‘mainstream’ welfare provision and have led to an increase in poverty and destitution among some asylum seekers” The changes referred to here are the contemporary repressive and punitive measures introduced in the UK asylum policies and legislation since 1993. These measures were enacted in the wake of the 1990’s global events such as the situations in Uganda, Somalia and Kurdistan a former republic of Yugoslavia. The measures were designed to discourage groups affected from coming into the UK. If they were allowed to enter they were stuck in a welfare system that treated them in an inferior and inhumane way thus exacerbating their vulnerabilities. (Humphries 2004) To be able to discuss the discrimination and oppression issues present in the UK asylum process there is need to put into perspective the term ‘asylum seeker’ in relation to ‘refugee’ because these two terms are often wrongly interchangeably used by politicians and the media which has further marginalised a group in society that is already recognised “as among the most vulnerable of vulnerable groups” in the UK. (Mollard, 2001:12, Larkin 2009) The 1951 Refugee Convention describes a refugee as someone who is outside of their country of nationality and has a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a particular social group, and can’t return there for fear of persecution.(Larkin 2009p144; Whittaker 2006 pp6) An asylum seeker is someone who has fled from their home country because of war civil unrest or conflict, arrived in another country, made a formal application for asylum and is awaiting a decision about his status (Larkin 2009: p143). In view of these two definitions it is to be understood that one only becomes a refugee after their asylum claim has been accepted as meeting the strict definition of the 1951 Refugee convention. If this happens the convention clearly states that Reference. When a person is not given the permission to stay as a refugee they are then referred to as failed asylum seekers. Previous immigration laws had been concerned primarily with controlling entry into Britain until 1993, when the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act was passed Britain had no specific asylum legislation in place although it had ratified the Geneva Convention in 1954 (Schuster and Solomos, 1999:57). The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, passed under the Thatcher Conservative government restricted the social rights of asylum seekers by reducing their housing entitlement and withdrawing welfare benefits to those appealing a decision and those who applied for asylum when they were already in the country. It introduced a notion of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' asylum seekers. (Sales 2002 p 456) It was only through a court judgement which used the National Assistance Act 1948 and the 1989 Children Act, that the local authorities took up responsibility for supporting those deemed ‘destitute’, The responsibility for supporting asylum seekers was shifted to local authorities, and the cost moved from mainstream benefits to local authority budgets. (Sales 2002) A voucher system was introduced where asylum seekers were given vouchers instead of money. To make sure those prohibited from working did not work, the government also introduced section 8 in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which came into force on 27 January 1997. Under this Act it is a criminal offence for an employer to employ staff whose immigration status prevents them from working in this country. A penalty fee was pegged at £5000 per for each person found working. Two years later yet another asylum policy is passed and this had further restrictions for asylum seekers. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 introduced a one-stop appeal system requiring an adjudicator considering an asylum appeal also to deal with any other appealable matters raised by the applicant, e.g. human rights appeals. The Act aimed to: * Stop the massive influx of applicants * Ease councils of the financial burden which had been put upon them by the 1996 Acts * Relieve the housing and social pressures in London and south-east England The Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 heralded the socially divisive 'dispersal' scheme, under which all new asylum seekers in the UK especially those in London and south-east England were transferred to different regions without being given a choice of where they wanted to go. They were also required to report to a reporting centre. Failure to do this could lead to detention and possible loss of NASS support (Bloch, Schuster 2005). The government created the National Asylum Seekers Support Service (NASS) and it began work in April 2000. Its task was to centrally manage the controversial voucher scheme and the workings of ‘National Dispersal ‘scheme. (Fletcher 2008) The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 set out to repeal the provision of automatic bail hearings created by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It also granted wider powers to those who authorise and extend bail to enter asylum seeker premises. An asylum seeker could now be detained at any time during their application, not just prior to removal. Local authorities were grated the power to enter into contracts with the Home Office in respect of (NASS) emergency accommodation, induction centers and accommodation centers. A white paper was created which listed safe countries that the government deemed safe to deport people back to. Citizens of these countries who had their asylum applications rejected could not remain in the UK while they mounted an appeal. Asylum seekers were denied support unless they made their claim "as soon as reasonably practicable" after their arrival in the UK, at a port or airport, if they could explain how they reached the UK. Accommodation centers were introduced that were intended to house asylum seekers for up to six months while their applications were considered. Refugee Council (2002). In July 2002 asylum seekers were no longer entitled to apply for permission to work and were excluded from legal access to the labour market for the duration of their case. 2004 saw the enactment of yet another legislation the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act, 2004.The Act targeted the provision of welfare for asylum seekers again and included a clause that removed access to basic support for asylum seekers at the end of the appeal process (even those with dependent children) and the family had failed to take reasonable steps to leave the UK voluntarily. This meant that some children of asylum seekers would be taken into care if their family does not leave the country because their parents do not have any means to support them. On a positive note a provision of accommodation to failed asylum seekers who could not return home immediately was put in place, but this was on the conditional that they participated in community activities. The legislation also made changes to the appeal process for asylum seekers to a single tier where the asylum and immigration tribunal had to consider all appeals against immigration and asylum decisions. Further appeals to the high court could only be made on the grounds that the tribunal made an error of law. (Fletcher 2008) In February 2005 the government published a five year strategy for immigration and asylum in ‘controlling our Borders: making migration work for Britain’. This strategy announced the ‘New Asylum Model’ (NAM) aimed to further reform the immigration and asylum system, building on and amending the measures introduced in the immigration acts of 1999, 2002 and 2004 (Refugee Action, 2006). To implement the key legislative aspects of the New Asylum Model, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 was passed and phased in June 2006. Its key features are the creation of case owners who take the responsibility for all aspects of case management thus fast tracking the process of the claims. The system was designed to make decisions quickly and to facilitate the removal of failed applications. (UK Border Agency National Audit Office 2009) But even after going through the fast track some were refused and because there are not entitled to legal services they could not appeal but neither could they live the country because were from countries that were deemed un safe. The result is ultimate destitution. The policies and legislation discussed above have both exacerbated and in to a less extent reduced discrimination and oppression on asylum seekers. To look in detail at the issues that arise from the Acts above the writer will review housing, employment, social inclusion and the health of asylum seekers. Housing Homelessness, like ‘refugeeness’, is a disruption to one’s career, sense of security, personal relationships, routine, and familiar geographies. In the UK, homelessness is a legally defined category that obliges local councils to house people who are in priority need. Housing and welfare in the UK are tied to immigration status, and consequently asylum seekers are not treated as equal to nationals. The issue here is that after agreeing to help and putting ones in a queue for assessment of refugee status asylum seekers are made to live in Detention camps, overcrowded and substandard accommodation. (Larkin2009) A woman asylum seeker is quoted “The house I am living in is not fit for human beings, it’s a dangerous accommodation and it was filthy, but if you dispute with the providers they will terminate your support or cook up some story that your behaviour is out of order. Who really monitors these accommodations' As an asylum seeker I do not know the budget that is entitled to each asylum seeker, but I have the brains to sense that something is wrong'” O’Sullivan C and Gower M.(2008). The dispersal if in the best interest of the people being moved would have been a good thing. However people’s circumstances are rarely considered and in most cases people end up being moved from one place to the other. All these issues reinforce the discrimination and oppression of asylum seekers. Although NASS exists there is a high level of homelessness mostly caused by the policies put in place. For the asylum seeker who gets refugee status they are required to leave NASS accommodation in 28 days which in most cases renders them homeless because it is difficult to get a house in such little time (Larkin 2009 ;Refugee Council, 2007) Poverty Research shows that most asylum seekers live in poverty in the UK. About 95% are unable to buy essential items such as clothes, shoes and bus tickets and nappies. (Mollard,2001). Those on section 4 were given vouchers and now they get store cards that are credited every month. These are still as bad as vouchers because they do not allow the asylum seeker to possess cash which in itself is discriminative. Asylum seekers are legally prevented from working although they would want to. Thus they are forced to live on (NASS) support which is 30% below the poverty line. (Larkin2009) A large number of asylum seekers are qualified and skilled and have a lot of work experience. But they spend a long time out of work while waiting for their asylum calm to be processed and this works against them when they do get the refugee status. They end up in menial jobs that they are over qualified for. The writers own experience comes to mind in this issue. Although having been educated in a UK university having claimed Asylum at point entry I could not use the Human Recourses Management qualification I had worked so hard to obtain eight years it took for the case to be processed. The long process of the asylum system made it almost impossible to use the qualification for employment. Social exclusion and Isolation Research shows that asylum seekers suffer from hostility and harassment in detention camps and in some of the communities they are dispersed to. This Legislation worked against asylum seekers because it resulted in public hostility and an upsurge in racist attacks, physical and verbal toward the asylum seekers whose accommodation was now visibly seen in communities drawing attention to support being given. (European Race Bulletin, 1999) Media also plays a big part by misrepresenting issues about asylum seekers to the public. This main stream news paper wrote “So called asylum seekers who, in reality, seek no more than access to our welfare system”(Sunday Express May 2004) Trying to survive with no support, and without the right to seek any employment is forcing people to extremes of behaviour. These include begging, shoplifting and prostitution. In some instances, people are committing minor offences just in order to gain shelter for a night in a police cell. (Banks 2008) Government policy was designed with inherent ddiscomfort built in as an incentive for co-operation. For many the suffering has become extreme, long-term, and ineffective in achieving the outcome desired by government. It is hard to work with asylum seekers and read the vast amount of literature on the UK asylum system without believing that there is an overwhelming moral and practical case for reform of this policy. (Refugee Action 2006; Larkin2009) Various factors led to the marginalisation and isolation of asylum seekers. A good example was the voucher or more recently the electronic card and dispersal system. The legislation had the adverse effect of excluding asylum seekers from normal day to day activities. The vouchers effectively barred people from participating in the cash economy. They became excluded from shopping in all but a few nominated shops (usually large supermarkets which do not offer best value for money compared to markets or charity shops) They are also unable to get change from the vouchers and use public transport or participate in activities that required payment in cash. These problems were indeed recognized by the government when it abolished the voucher scheme and returned to the use of cash in early Autumn 2002 (Home Office 2001) but it has since gone back by introducing the electronic card. Health When asylum seekers come in to the country they may already have health issues of their own brought about by their experiences both before and upon arrival in the UK. They are stressed about bereavement The tension increases marital brake down which may give way to physical and mental illness (Larkin 2009) Failed asylum seekers are allowed to access primary services for free but are not allowed to access secondary services. Studies have shown that there is little uptake of health care for all asylum seekers and this may be due to failure to understand NHS system. Asylum seekers who are HIV positive are adversely affected by poverty, dispersion and poor accommodation which may affect their health. The situation of asylum seekers raises a lot of questions to the social work profession. What role does the social care worker or in did the social worker have in the light of a disadvantaged group that is brought about by legislation instituted by government. (Dalrymple. J, Burke. B 2006). The traditional role of a social worker is to help and protect the interests of the down trodden .However in the case of asylum seekers who are made vulnerable and disadvantaged by policies made .by a government who see them as colluding partners. Never the less Social worker should be engaged in practise that is informed by the real experiences of those who are subject to legislation that is unjust. They need to access a range of resources that support them to critically analyse evidence, policy and practise from an anti -oppression perspective and ask questions about the motives of the ideologies that inform social policy. Government is asking the social care department to collude with them so that they are able to carry out their duties of immigration control in an inhumane way (Noble, 2004). References 1. Banks J.(2008) The Criminalisation of Asylum Seekers and Asylum Policy, Prison service Journal issue 175, 43-9 2. Bloch, A. (2000) ’Refugee Settlement in Britain: The Impact of Policy on Participation’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26(1): 75-88. 3. Bloch, A; Schuster, L (2005): 'Asylum Policy under New Labour' Benefits, 13, 2: 116-118 4. Block N.J (2007) Consciousness, function, and representation, MIT press Dalrymple. J, Burke. B (2006) Anti-Oppressive Practice Bell and Bain Ltd. Glasgow 5. Fletcher, E. (2008) Changing Support for Asylum: Working Paper No 49 6. Home Office, (2001) Report of the operational reviews of the voucher and dispersal schemes of the National Asylum Support Service. London: The Stationary Office 7. Humphries B (2004) An Unacceptable Role for Social Work: Implementing Policy, British journal of Social Work, 34, 93-107 8. Institute Of Race Relations, (1999) European Race Bulletin, No.30. London 9. Jordan, B (2001) Tough Love: Social Work, Social Exclusion and the Third Way 10. Kissoon, P (2010) 'From Persecution to Destitution: A Snapshot of Asylum Seekers' Housing and Settlement Experiences in Canada and the United Kingdom', Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 8: 1, 4 — 31 11. Kramarae.C, Spender,(2001). Rutledge international encyclopaedia of women: global women’s, Volume 1 12. Larkin, M. (2009) Vulnerable Groups in Health and social Care, Sage Los Angeles 13. Mollard, C. (2001) Asylum: The Truth behind the Headlines. Oxford, Mouffe 14. Millam, R (2002) Anti-discriminatory practice By Rosalind, Continuum 15. Noble C. (2004) ‘Postmodern thinking: Where is it taking social work'’, Journal of Social Work, 4(3), pp. 289–304. 16. O’Sullivan C and Gower M.(2008) Destitution, Asylum Rights Watch 3. Survey Asylum Aid 17. Sales .R, (2002), The deserving and the undeserving' Refugees, asylum seekers and welfare in Britain Critical Social Policy: 22:456 18. Thomas M and Pierson J (2005) Dictionary of Social Work; Working with People Collins Educational 19. Schuster, L; Solomos, J. (2004) 'Race, Immigration and Asylum: New Labour's Agenda and its Consequences.' Ethnicities 4:2 pp. 267-300 20. Sukula, F. (2005) ‘This Policy is Ripping Apart our Family’, Speech to a meeting in 21. Parliament, 17 October [http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/october/ha000028.html], accessed 3 December 2005. 22. Refugee Action (2006) Destitution Trap Research into destitution among refused asylum seekers in the UK. 23. Refugee Council (2002) ‘The National, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: changes to the asylum system in the UK’. 24. Thomas D, Woods H (2003). Working with people with learning disabilities: theory and practice, Jessica Kingsley Publishers 25. UK Border Agency National Audit Office (February 2009), Management of Asylum Applications, Great Britain. 26. Vandenhole, W, (2005). Non Discrimination and equality in the View of the UN Human Rights treaty bodies. Intersetia, Oxford 27. Ward. K, (2004), Key Iissues; UK Asylum Law and Process, ICAR 28. Whittaker D.J. (2006) Asylum seekers and refugees in the contemporary world, Richmond, North Yorkshire 29. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/Resources/Refugee%20Council/downloads/briefings/nia_act_02/ed_1_dec02.pdf Accessed 18 November 2010 30. http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2010/05/discrimination-and-oppression/ .assessed 5/12/2010