Reporting Asylum Seekers and Refugees in the UK: The Myths and the Facts

2012 ◽  
pp. 202-226
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Seaga Shaw
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Deal ◽  
Sally E Hayward ◽  
Mashal Huda ◽  
Felicity Knights ◽  
Alison F Crawshaw ◽  
...  

Introduction Early evidence confirms lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake in established ethnic minority populations, yet there has been little focus on understanding vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in migrants. Growing populations of precarious migrants (including undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees) in the UK and Europe are considered to be under-immunised groups and may be excluded from health systems, yet little is known about their views on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, which are essential to identify key solutions and action points to strengthen vaccine roll-out. Methods We did an in-depth semi-structured qualitative interview study of recently arrived migrants (foreign-born, >18 years old; <10 years in the UK) to the UK with precarious immigration status between September 2020 and March 2021, seeking their input into strategies to strengthen COVID-19 vaccine delivery and uptake. We used the Three Cs model (confidence, complacency and convenience) to explore COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, barriers and access. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Data collection continued until data saturation was reached, and no novel concepts were arising. The study was approved by the University of London ethics committee (REC 2020.00630). Results We approached 20 migrant support groups nationwide, recruiting 32 migrants (mean age 37.1 years; 21 [66%] female; mean time in the UK 5.6 years [SD 3.7 years]), including refugees (n = 3), asylum seekers (n = 19), undocumented migrants (n = 8) and migrants with limited leave to remain (n = 2) from 15 different countries (5 WHO regions). 23 (72%) of 32 migrants reported being hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and communicated concerns over vaccine content, side-effects, lack of accessible information in an appropriate language, lack of trust in the health system and low perceived need. Participants reported a range of barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine and expressed concerns that their communities would be excluded from or de-prioritised in the roll-out. Undocumented migrants described fears over being charged and facing immigration checks if they present for a vaccine. All participants (n = 10) interviewed after recent government announcements that COVID-19 vaccines can be accessed without facing immigration checks remained unaware of this. Participants stated that convenience of access would be a key factor in their decision around whether to accept a vaccine and proposed alternative access points to primary care services (for example, walk-in centres in trusted places such as foodbanks, community centres and charities), alongside promoting registration with primary care for all, and working closely with communities to produce accessible information on COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions Precarious migrants may be hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and face multiple and unique barriers to access, requiring simple but innovative solutions to ensure equitable access and uptake. Vaccine hesitancy and low awareness around entitlement and relevant access points could be easily addressed with clear, accessible, and tailored information campaigns, co-produced and delivered by trusted sources within marginalised migrant communities. These findings have immediate relevance to the COVID-19 vaccination initiatives in the UK and in other European and high-income countries with diverse migrant populations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Dwyer ◽  
Stuart Hodkinson ◽  
Hannah Lewis ◽  
Louise Waite

Socio-legal status determines the differential rights to residence, work and social welfare that accrue to migrants depending on their particular immigration status. This paper presents analysis of original empirical data generated in qualitative interviews with migrants who had both made a claim for asylum and experienced conditions of forced labour in the UK. Following an outline of the divergent socio-legal statuses assigned to individual migrants within the asylum system, early discussions in the paper offer a summary of key aspects and indicators of forced labour. Subsequent sections highlight the significance of socio-legal status in constructing such migrants as inherently vulnerable to severe exploitation. It is concluded that immigration policy and, more particularly, the differential socio-legal statuses that it structures at various stages of the asylum process, helps to create the conditions in which severe exploitation and forced labour are likely to flourish among asylum seekers and refugees in the UK.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike M. Vieten ◽  
Fiona Murphy

This article explores the ways a salient sectarian community division in Northern Ireland frames the imagination of newcomers and the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees. We examine the dominant ethno-national Christian communities and how their actions define the social-spatial landscape and challenges of manoeuvring everyday life in Northern Ireland as an ‘Other’. We argue all newcomers are impacted to some degree by sectarianism in Northern Ireland, adding a further complexified layer to the everyday and institutional racism so prevalent in different parts of the UK and elsewhere. First, we discuss the triangle of nation, gender and ethnicity in the context of Northern Ireland. We do so in order to problematise that in a society where two adversarial communities exist the ‘Other’ is positioned differently to other more cohesive national societies. This complication impacts how the Other is imagined as the persistence of binary communities shapes the way local civil society engages vulnerable newcomers, e.g. in the instance of our research, asylum seekers and refugees. This is followed by an examination of the situation of asylum seekers and refugees in Northern Ireland. We do so by contextualising the historical situation of newcomers and the socio-spatial landscape of the city of Belfast. In tandem with this, we discuss the role of NGO’s and civil support organisations in Belfast and contrast these views with the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees. This article is based on original empirical material from a study conducted in 2016 on the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees with living in Northern Ireland.


2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (685) ◽  
pp. e537-e545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara Kang ◽  
Louise Tomkow ◽  
Rebecca Farrington

BackgroundAsylum seekers and refugees (ASR) face difficulty accessing health care in host countries. In 2017, NHS charges for overseas visitors were extended to include some community care for refused asylum seekers. There is growing concern that this will increase access difficulties, but no recent research has documented the lived experiences of ASR accessing UK primary health care.AimTo examine ASR experiences accessing primary health care in the UK in 2018.Design and settingThis was a qualitative community-based study. ASR were recruited by criterion-based sampling through voluntary community organisations.MethodA total of 18 ASR completed face-to-face semi-structured recorded interviews discussing primary care access. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis by three researchers using Penchansky and Thomas’s modified theory of access.ResultsThe qualitative data show that participants found primary care services difficult to navigate and negotiate. Dominant themes included language barriers and inadequate interpretation services; lack of awareness of the structure and function of the NHS; difficulty meeting the costs of dental care, prescription fees, and transport to appointments; and the perception of discrimination relating to race, religion, and immigration status.ConclusionBy centralising the voices of ASR and illustrating the negative consequences of poor healthcare access, this article urges consideration of how access to primary care in the UK can be enhanced for often marginalised individuals with complex needs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rose Gordon-Orr

This article examines the impact that different normative understandings of sexuality and relationships have on LGBTIQ+ people’s experience of the UK Immigration System, with a particular focus on mononormative conceptions that privilege forms of coupledom. By examining legal regulations and case judgments, the mononormative bias is shown to disadvantage LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers and make it difficult for those not seen to be in long-term romantic relationships to have their sexuality acknowledged and their claims for asylum upheld. The article considers how mononormativity intersects with heteronormative stereotypes and narrow homonormative prescriptions of gay identity such as “coming out” or expressing particular lifestyle choices. Taken together these normativities combine in a culture of disbelief in the immigration system that negates the self-identification of LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers and refugees by requiring them conform to norms that do not reflect the diversity of queer lives and experiences.


Author(s):  
Sally Vivyan

This article explores the use of interviews as a tool for relationship development in the context of conducting mixed methods qualitative research during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. It demonstrates that beyond being a source of data, interviews can be instrumental in opening doors to hard to reach informants and can form bridges between phases of fieldwork. This article draws on my PhD project which is looking at a single case study charity working with asylum seekers and refugees. The research is being undertaken through the view of a leadership-as-practice lens but the implications for how we view interviews may be of relevance to a wide range of mixed methods qualitative research. In particular, researchers whose work requires them to gain and maintain access may benefit from a more explicit consideration of the normally implicit ways interviews are used as tools in research.


The Lancet ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 353 (9163) ◽  
pp. 1497-1498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon S Friedland ◽  
Sally Hargreaves ◽  
Alison Holmes

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document