Immigration and Asylum Seekers

2009 ◽  
pp. 65-70
Author(s):  
Christine James ◽  
Janaki Tampi
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Immigration And Asylum

Britain’s authoritarian turn

Race & Class ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 030639682198918
Author(s):  
Frances Webber
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Overseas Operations ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Looking Back

Looking back, in December 2020, at the year since Boris Johnson’s Conservatives were swept back into government with a huge majority, the author identifies a raft of new laws, Home Office measures and government proposals in the fields of policing, crime, and immigration and asylum which embody long-held rightwing projects. Coming on top of already discriminatory practices, these include restrictions on the fundamental right of peaceful protest and freedom from invasive and racist policing, the subjection of migrants and asylum seekers to dangerous and inhumane conditions and the removal of legal protections for asylum seekers. Simultaneously, Bills going through parliament restrict or remove altogether the legal accountability of state actors, including soldiers on overseas operations and police informants, for crimes including torture and murder. Citizens’ recourse to the courts to challenge unlawful ministerial decisions is also under threat.

New Labour's Community of Rights: Welfare, Immigration and Asylum

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
LYDIA MORRIS
Keyword(s):  
Labour Market ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Conditional Approach ◽  
Market Needs ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
And Control

This article shows how a conditional approach to rights dominates New Labour's perspective, not only in the delivery of welfare for full citizens but also in relation to immigration, where rights are a privilege to be earned by meeting labour market needs. This approach does not readily address the position of asylum seekers, who are claiming an absolute right of protection, but an erosion of entitlement during status determination has been used as a means of deterrence and control. The article applies a civic stratification perspective to these developments, as a means of bringing together the operation of rights with the practice of governance, and highlighting the ethical issues at play.

scholarly journals “Escaping the Sunken Place: indefinite detention, asylum seekers, and resistance in Yarl’s Wood IRC”

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-186
Author(s):  
AIDAN SEYMOUR-BUTLER
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
British Politics ◽  
Hunger Strike ◽  
Immigration Detention ◽  
Migration System ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Philosophical Questions

 The Law Society has recently raised concerns about the UK’s migration system, stating that ‘failures in UK immigration and asylum undermine the rule of law’. Nowhere are those problems more apparent than in the UK’s handling of migrants and asylum seekers in detention centres. A particular recurring issue that speaks to the Law Society’s concern is the absence of a defined time limit for immigration detention. The possibility of indefinite detention has been a source of tension both within British politics, and within UK immigration detention centres. An example of this can be understood with reference to the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Bedfordshire, known for its controversial and rebellious past. In 2015 Nick Hardwick, a former chief prisoner inspector, labelled the Centre a place of ‘national concern’, after examining the mistreatment of vulnerable detainees. Yarl’s Wood’s problematic history, seems to have continued into the present, following a detainee led hunger strike that resulted in ‘renewed concerns’ over health care in detention centres. In addition to protesting the standard of medical treatment received by detainees, the strikers’ underlying focus was on indefinite detention.  The Home Office’s response to these strikes was unsympathetic, it sent a letter to detainees suggesting that their continued participation in the strike may in fact result in their removal being accelerated. Although, the hunger strike ended in March 2018 the Home Office’s response to the strike raised some interesting legal and philosophical questions about human rights and resistance in detention centres. In order to grapple with some of these issues, this paper has been separated into two parts. The first part will attempt to contextualise the existing immigration regime and explore how legal disputes might fit within the broader scheme of opposing indefinite detention. It will also briefly examine the legal challenges that may arise from the use of threats of accelerated deportations. 

scholarly journals Refugees and Asylum ~eekers In Britain: V.K. Immigration and Asylum Act,1999.

Refuge ◽  
2000 ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Anthony H. Richmond
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Differential Treatment ◽  
The Law ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Systemic Discrimination

Trends in the numbers of asylum applicants in Britain 1997-00 are examined, together with changes in the law and in the treatment of refugees in the U.K. The system is designed to deter claimants, penalise anyone assisting illegal entry and aims to expedite removal. New regulations control the location of asylum seekers in the country, pending determination of their status. Differential treatment of various nationalities indicates systemic discrimination against certain groups.

Creeping Crimmigration in CEAS Reform: Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Restrictions on Their Movement under EU Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Izabella Majcher
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Broad Understanding

Abstract This article analyses freedom-restricting measures set forth in the Reception Conditions Directive and its proposed recast; it does so through the lens of the concept of crimmigration, understood as convergence between criminal and (administrative) immigration and asylum law. To tackle “secondary movements” within the European Union (EU), the proposed amendment of the Directive establishes a broad understanding of the risk of absconding, which can justify detention, and expands the restrictions on asylum-seekers’ freedom of movement. The article argues that asylum detention under EU law pursues penal law objectives, such as deterrence and retribution. Restriction on freedom of movement, on its part, may amount to systematic surveillance. This observed crimmigration phenomenon is detrimental to migrants and refugees because the incorporation of criminal law objectives into asylum law has an asymmetric form. Although states subject non-citizens to increasingly punitive measures, the administrative label of immigration detention and restrictions on movement allows them to evade due process guarantees, which typically accompany criminal law proceedings. As the article proposes, appropriate interpretation and application of the principles of lawfulness and proportionality with respect to detention and restrictions on freedom of movement will help circumscribe the scope of the phenomenon of crimmigration under the EU asylum legislation.

7. Challenging decisions: appeals, administrative and judicial review

2021 ◽  
pp. 247-276
Author(s):  
Gina Clayton ◽  
Georgina Firth ◽  
Caroline Sawyer ◽  
Rowena Moffatt
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Current Structure ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Immigration And Asylum

This chapter discusses the development of the current structure of the appeals bodies—the Appeal Tribunal and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC)—and their procedure. It sets out the limited rights of appeal following the implementation of the Immigration Act 2014. It has sections on administrative review and judicial review. The chapter also considers whether there is a right to a fair hearing in immigration and asylum decisions. It concludes with a section on immigrants and asylum seekers’ access to legal representation, including funding.

scholarly journals Meeting Basic Needs? Forced Migrants and Welfare

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Dwyer ◽  
David Brown
Keyword(s):  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Basic Needs ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Welfare Services ◽  
Forced Migrants ◽  
Housing Needs ◽  
Immigration And Asylum

As the number of forced migrants entering Britain has risen, increasingly restrictive immigration and asylum policy has been introduced. Simultaneously, successive governments have sought to limit the welfare entitlements of forced migrants. Drawing on two sets of semi-structured qualitative interviews, with migrants and key respondents providing welfare services, this paper considers the adequacy of welfare provisions in relation to the financial and housing needs of four different groups of forced migrants i.e. refugees, asylum seekers, those with humanitarian protection status and failed asylum seekers/‘overstayers’. There is strong evidence to suggest that statutory provisions are failing to meet the basic financial and housing needs of many forced migrants.

scholarly journals Exercising ‘Bad Faith’ in the Asylum Policy Arena

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne Poole ◽  
Irene Rafanell
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Political Narratives ◽  
Power Operation ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Policy Arena

This article uses a ‘scoping’ methodology to identify the different ways in which asylum policy and practice fall short of policymakers’ stated aims, are counter-evidential and are inhumane in their effects. It highlights how asylum seekers, commonly constructed as undeserving economic migrants, are impacted by these powerful ‘othering’ narratives, before drawing on a breadth of research evidence to challenge dominant claims and expose the particular weaknesses of the asylum system. In doing so, it asks why, if asylum policy is not informed by the evidence, does not achieve its stated objectives and yet causes suffering for those seeking asylum, such an approach persists. The article then develops the concept of ‘bad faith’ as an exercise of power, in order to theorise the actions of powerful agents in the shaping of asylum policy and practice with reference to hidden collective interests. It contends that the asylum policymaking community, in failing to acknowledge the suffering resulting from the diminishment of asylum seekers into a ‘typified other’, are engaging in an oppressive power operation, concealed by the political narratives underpinning policy reforms from the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act to the 2016 Immigration Act.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document