Poor, excluded and forgotten: asylum seekers and the welfare state

Media coverage of the UK's creaking asylum system continues unabated, with proposals for 'offshore' processing centres recently grabbing the headlines. Pamela Fitzpatrick argues that the Government's increasingly punitive asylum policies are not working and run counter to its goal of abolishing child
poverty.

Introduction
21st Century rights
Legislative change
A proud record of providing asylum?
Conclusion

Introduction
The issue of ending child poverty has provoked great debate, yet there has been a remarkable silence in respect of how this aim remains an impossible ambition whilst the Government continues to pursue its policy against asylum seekers.

Increasingly our social security system is one that bestows eligibility on the basis of nationality rather than need. Consequently asylum seekers, one of the most vulnerable and impoverished groups in the UK, are now excluded from entitlement to most social security benefits. They are also excluded from access to public housing and are no longer allowed to work.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee is set to investigate how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) delivers its services to black and minority ethnic communities. This stems from the introduction of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which places duties upon public bodies to promote race equality. However, it is difficult to see how discrimination in service delivery can be eliminated when the benefit rules themselves discriminate against this group.

Discrimination against people from black and minority ethnic communities in the benefit system is not a new phenomenon. Over the past 15 years CPAG has published a number of books examining the link between ethnicity and poverty. The first of these, Passport to Benefit, found that black people in Britain were particularly affected by unemployment and low wages, yet their access and rights to benefits were jeopardised by racism in the social security system.[Footnote 1] It identified how the link between access to welfare benefits and immigration status led to racism in service delivery, resulting in black and minority ethnic people being treated as second-class claimants. In the early 1990s Poverty in Black and White considered the different forms of disadvantage experienced by minority ethnic groups.[Footnote 2] Again, it found that the benefit system failed to protect black and minority ethnic claimants. It failed administratively, often creating barriers rather than routes to entitlement. These failures were exacerbated by rules explicitly restricting access to benefits for people who had come from abroad through residence tests, the public funds test and sponsorship rules. And in 2002 Parallel Lives explored the extent to which particular minority groups lead a parallel existence to that of the population as a whole, through greater rates of poverty and deprivation, and identified the ways in which past discrimination and disadvantage had affected the current welfare of minority groups.[Footnote 3]

It is currently not unlawful for social security regulations to discriminate against black and minority ethnic claimants, but it is unlawful to discriminate in terms of service provision. However, to remove people from the benefit system, on the basis of nationality sends a highly racialised message.

21st Century rights
It is said though that times have now changed. Not only do we have a government with a publicly-stated aim of eradicating child poverty [Footnote 4] but one which has introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and sought to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Furthermore, we are said to be a more tolerant and culturally diverse society and one more enlightened to the terrible consequences of exclusion and racism. In particular, the Macpherson Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence pointed to the existence and the effects of institutional racism [Footnote 5] and the Laming inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié highlighted very graphically the potential consequences for a child placed outside the mainstream welfare supervision services.[Footnote 6]

One might expect, therefore, that a rational non-discriminatory approach to the welfare of asylum-seeker families would be sought. Yet in recent years asylum seekers have been subjected to a sustained attack, by both the media and politicians. This has culminated in a series of legislative amendments, which have led to this vulnerable group becoming perhaps the most socially excluded within the UK.

A series of legislative amendments has led to this vulnerable group becoming perhaps the most socially excluded within the UK

A report by the Council of Europe has attributed blame for the increase in racism in the UK to increasingly restrictive asylum and immigration laws.[Footnote 7] According to the report, the frequent changes to legislation designed to deter people from seeking asylum in the UK have had a central role in the general negative climate concerning asylum seekers and refugees. The report states:

Many politicians have contributed to, or at least not adequately prevented, public debate taking on an increasingly intolerant line, with at times racist and xenophobic overtones. Public statements have tended to depict asylum seekers… explicitly or by inference, as a threat… politicians should not only avoid promoting the general assumption that most asylum claimants are not genuine…

The media is also criticised for 'xenophobic and intolerant coverage' of asylum issues.

It would appear that the general view of the public, fuelled by inaccurate and misleading press reports, is that asylum seekers are provided with public housing, social security benefits and much more. Indeed, it is often said that they are given preferential treatment over British citizens. However, this view is completely at odds with the reality of those seeking sanctuary in the UK.

Legislative change
Over the last decade social security law has changed significantly in respect of asylum seekers and has resulted in many newly-arrived children being excluded from the protection of the welfare state. Often they do not come into contact with officials, such as teachers, health professionals and social workers, who might exercise a watchful eye in respect of their safety.[Footnote 8] More fundamentally, they are often without even the basic necessities of a roof over their head and food to eat. Such families are extremely vulnerable and susceptible to exploitation.

However, very little thought appears to have been given to the long-term effect of these policies. The majority of asylum seekers will be found to have a valid claim for asylum and even those who are refused are likely to be living in the UK for many years while their claim is processed.

Sadly, successive governments have chosen to jump on a populist bandwagon rather than publicise the real experiences of asylum seekers. The consequence has been constant legislative reform, each latest piece of legislation more draconian than the last.

Prior to 1996, asylum seekers were able to access benefits on the basis of need. They could also take up work to support themselves.

In 1996 regulations were introduced that restricted access to social security, allowing eligibility only to those who claimed asylum at a port of entry. Many families fell destitute and subsequently sought help from their local authority. This was provided under the National Assistance Act 1948, which places a duty on local authorities to accommodate and support a person who is in need of care and attention. Unsurprisingly, local authorities began to complain that they were unable to cope and lobbied government for change.

A new Labour government came to power in May 1997. It pledged to alleviate the pressure on local authorities and began a review of the asylum system. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, introduced in April 2000, excluded virtually all asylum seekers from access to the social security system. [Footnote 9] It established the National Asylum Support Service to provide support, at a significantly lower level than income support, to asylum seekers. However, support was conditional on the person agreeing to be 'dispersed' away from the south east of England.[Footnote 10]

The Act also largely excluded asylum-seeker families from access to the National Assistance Act 1948 and from help under the Children Act 1989. These measures have received widespread criticism from charities, churches and trade unions and are largely attributed as having placed asylum-seeker families into a level of poverty not witnessed in Britain for many years.

It is difficult to imagine the Government finding it possible to introduce any more punitive laws against asylum seekers. Yet the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which came into force in January this year, does exactly that. This will allow asylum-seeker families to be placed in large accommodation centres and introduce a type of educational apartheid whereby asylum-seeker children will no longer be able to attend mainstream schools. If a person fails to make a claim for asylum as soon as possible after entering the country they will be denied support.

In a separate measure the Home Secretary announced that asylum seekers can no longer work. Consequently, asylum seekers have no way of maintaining themselves and their families.

Asylum seekers have no way of maintaining themselves and their families

A proud record of providing asylum?
Popular mythology dictates that Britain has a long tradition of offering refuge to those forced to leave their homeland because of religious or political persecution and that we espouse a benignly liberal tolerance to economic migrants seeking to better themselves by coming to work in the UK. Because of this tolerance the levels of immigration have now reached such huge proportions that we are in danger of becoming 'swamped' and therefore must clamp down on immigration. This attitude is summed up by former Conservative minister Norman Tebbit, who wrote in the 1980s: [Footnote 11]

Sadly what has been almost an age of innocence is ending. Our gentle nationalism, more a sense of nationality, was never built on any sense of racial purity… But in recent years our sense of insularity and nationality has been bruised by large waves of immigrants resistant to absorption, some defiantly claiming a right to superimpose their culture, even their law, upon the host community.

and by Anne Widdecome who, as Minister of State for the Home Department, said in Parliament in 1996:

Nothing in our Bill is intended in any way to disadvantage the genuine asylum seeker. Britain has a proud record of looking after those in need of a place of safety, and we shall continue to maintain that record. [Footnote 12]

However, the reality is very different and as Malik [Footnote 13] points out, it is to rewrite history to argue that previous waves of immigration were easily assimilated into British society. In fact the opposite is true and Britain appears to have a remarkable consistency in its poor treatment of 'foreigners'.

Not a day passes but English families are ruthlessly turned out to make room for foreign invaders… Out they go to make room for Rumanians, Russians and Poles… It is only a matter of time before the population becomes entirely foreign… The rates are burdened with education of thousands of children of foreign parents… The working classes know that new buildings are erected not for them but for strangers from abroad.[Footnote14]

The sentiment is familiar and could almost be taken from any tabloid or politician today. Except that the statement is taken from a debate in the Commons in 1902. The resistance to asylum seekers is clearly not a recent phenomenon. In fact the arguments in favour of immigration control have remained relatively consistent for several hundred years.

In the 11th century Jews did not enjoy legal rights of citizenship and lived in separate quarters. However, their presence led to increasing hostility from the local population. In response, a series of statutes began to confine Jews. For example, they were not entitled to own property, to build synagogues, to act as physicians, or to eat with Christians. By 1275 no Jew was allowed to walk the streets without wearing the Jewish 'badge of shame', made of yellow taffeta and sewn on to their clothing in a prominent place. The xenophobia and racism continued and culminated in 1290 with a Royal decree ordering all Jews to leave the Kingdom or be put to death.[Footnote 15]

The 16th Century witnessed the arrival of religious refugees, many of whom were destitute on arrival. At this time 'aliens' were restricted from working in certain industries or certain districts. This led to widespread destitution.

In the 17th and 18th Centuries much the same pattern continued, but the factor of nationality began to assume a greater role and the arguments against aliens became even more recognisable to those of today. Officially, immigration was needed because England was under-populated and because it was felt that aliens brought with them ingenuity and skills which would aid the economy.[Footnote 16] However, the welcome was countered by complaints from the indigenous population. The Aliens Act 1793 was passed to prevent:

much danger that may arise to the public tranquillity from the resort and residence of aliens.
[Footnote 17]

Masters of ships had to declare to customs officers the number and details of aliens on board. Aliens themselves were placed under a corresponding duty to disclose their personal details and to obtain from the customs officer a certificate recording those details. Failure to do so could lead to prosecution and the mandatory expulsion of the alien. The primary sanction for disobedience was placed on the carrier who could be fined for each unauthorised alien. This is not unlike sanctions introduced by the Carriers Liability Act 1987 which makes it an offence for airlines and shipping companies to carry immigrants without proper documentation.

This approach to immigrants continued during the 19th Century and opposition to aliens assumed a well-worn guise. Complaints were made about their impact on trade, unemployment, housing and sanitary conditions, their strange habits, their impact on values and culture, their crimes, and the sheer size of their numbers.

The end of the First World War saw the beginning of mass movements of refugees. This movement coincided with increasing immigration control in the UK. Britain's great concern during the inter-war years was to keep immigrants out. An alien was given permission to land only if s/he could show that s/he could support her/himself and any dependants. No distinction was made between people seeking asylum and others. Immigration officers had wide discretion to refuse leave. As a result, only a person of substantial means, whose opinions aroused no suspicion, stood much chance of finding refuge in Britain.

Racism and xenophobia were prevalent at this time, in particular towards the Jews. For example, it was Home Office practice to require Jews to have been resident for 15 years rather than the statutory five years before considering their applications for naturalisation. Equally, when Hitler's activities toward the Jews became apparent in the 1930s the Home Office urged the Foreign Office to take measures to prevent Jewish refugees coming to Britain by introducing visas.

The Home Office stated:[Footnote 18]

The situation is serious, without the check that a visa system affords there can be no guarantee that the entry of refugees from Germany and Austria can be effectively controlled.

A visa system was subsequently set up to prevent German and Austrian asylum seekers from entering the UK. It has been said that:[Footnote 19]

Of the 12 million people whom the Nazis killed in concentration camps and putsches, many might have lived on in security outside Nazi-occupied Europe had not other states raised legal barriers against them.

Shocking though this might appear this system continues today and applies to approximately a hundred potential countries from where asylum seekers are likely to flee. [Footnote 20] The combination of a visa requirement and carriers liability means that it is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter Britain lawfully. Yet if they pay someone to help them escape, for example, hidden in a truck, they are branded as 'illegal' and criminalised.

It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter Britain lawfully

Conclusion
The Government considers low income to be a major cause of social exclusion. It also says that it is committed to ending child poverty, to stopping discrimination and to introducing the concept of human rights. So why do asylum seekers continue to be denied benefits?

A variety of explanations are offered as justification for these measures. For example, that it is not an attack on the asylum seekers themselves, but a way of preventing them being exploited by ruthless people-traffickers. Yet the Government will be well aware that there is often no other way in which an asylum-seeker family could enter the UK.

Further justification is given in the guise of being tough otherwise we will be inundated by 'bogus asylum seekers' coming to claim our benefits. Asylum seekers have not been able to claim benefits for a number of years, yet the number of asylum seekers has not reduced. Furthermore, the Government's own research into why asylum seekers come to the UK shows that the reasons are nothing to do with claiming benefits or work.[Footnote 21] It is also clear that the West is not bearing the burden of refugees. Figures from the United High Commission on Refugees show that the UK does not even appear in the top ten host countries. Further justification comes in the form of preventing the rise of fascism and racism. But adopting far-right racist policies would seem to many to be a strange way to promote good race relations.

So if the intention of these ever-draconian policies is to prevent asylum seekers coming to the UK, then clearly this does not work. If the intention is to save money, then this also fails. It must be cheaper to allow asylum seekers to work and to be able to claim benefits like all other people on the basis of need. The claim that it improves race relations is clearly flawed given the rise of the far right in local politics. Perhaps the only answer that we are left with is that summed up by Cohen who said:[Footnote 22]

Welfarism is intimately linked to immigration control and cannot be understood other than as a construct of the basest nationalism… the relationships of welfare throughout the entire 20th century have been premised on national chauvinism - and this is a direct reflection of the fact that agitation for greater and greater immigration control has been one of the most constant and salient features of 20th Century English political life.

In the absence of any rational explanation for the Government's treatment of asylum-seeker families, Cohen's analysis may well be accurate.

It is often said that a society may be judged by the way in which it treats its most vulnerable members

In a modern, wealthy state such as the UK it is imperative that social welfare is provided on the basis of need rather than immigration status. Many of these families will settle permanently in Britain. If their initial experience of this country is such total social and financial exclusion, it is difficult to see how they will be able to rebuild their lives and become useful and valuable members of society. It is often said that a society may be judged by the way in which it treats its most vulnerable members. If that is so, Britain fails.

Footnotes
1. P. Gordon and A Newnham, Passport to Benefit, CPAG, 1985 [back to text]
2. K Amin and C Oppenheim, Poverty in Black and White, CPAG, 1992 [back to text]
3. Lucinda Platt, Parallel Lives, CPAG, 2002 [back to text]
4. For decades successive governments have refused to accept that poverty actually exists in the UK, whereas the current Labour Government iscommitted to eradicating child poverty by 2020. [back to text]
5. Sir William Macpherson's Inquiry into the Matters Arising from the Death of Stephen Lawrence, 1999 [back to text]
6. Victoria's aunt was a French national. She was excluded from access to social security benefits and public housing under the habitual residence test. [back to text]
7. The report was produced by the Council of Europe's anti-racism body, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance in 2000. It examined prejudice in a number of countries including the UK. [back to text]
8. See for example, Mothers in Exile by Maternity Alliance or Children First and Foremost: meeting the needs of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children by Barnardo's. [back to text]
9. Some asylum seekers remain eligible for benefit only because they were already in receipt of benefit when the new rules were introduced and therefore receive some transitional protection. Some other asylum seekers are able to receive certain social security benefits because they are able to rely on rights under EC law or various conventions. However this is a very limited group. The clear policy intention is to exclude all asylum seekers from the benefit system. [back to text]
10. Under the dispersal system asylum seekers are moved out of London and the south east of England to certain designated areas. [back to text]
11. K Malik, The Meaning of Race: race, history and culture in western society, Macmillan, 1996 [back to text]
12. Hansard, 1996 [back to text]
13. See note 11 [back to text]
14. Hansard 29 January 1902 in S Cohen, 'Anti-semitism, Immigration Controls and the Welfare State', Critical Social Policy, 1996 [back to text]
15. C Nicholson, Strangers to England 1100-1952: immigration to England, Wayland, 1990 [back to text]
16. See note 15 [back to text]
17. V Bevan, The Development of British Immigration Law, Croom Helm, 1986 [back to text]
18. A Dummett and A Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,1990 [back to text]
19. See note 18 [back to text]
20. Visa nationals are nationals of all those countries which are listed in the appendix to the immigration rules. There are currently over 100 countries listed. Invariably they include countries from where asylum seekers are likely to come. [back to text]
21. V Robinson and J Segratt, Understanding the Decision Making of Asylum Seekers, Home Office Research Study 243, 2002 [back to text]
22. See note 14 [back to text]

Pamela Fitzpatrick is a welfare rights worker at CPAG

Poverty 115, Summer 2003