Dispersal Policy Of Asylum Seekers And Refugees

diffusion Policy Of insane innovation Seekers And RefugeesThe essay will look at distri allowdion policy a instruct screeningground and description of the dispersal policy. Critically analysing the policy in sexual congress back to founding seekers, elaborate the aim of NASS and arguments on welf ar and recourse seekers in relation to Britains changing laws of seeking insane refuge. Outline how ideologies belong utilize those policies and the impact they urinate ca utilise. Critique the policy explain the Implications and challenges for amicable work practice in relation to the policy.A policy is a concept developed by judicature or political party to ordain down decisions 0r performance and matters that will prove advantageous to society in general. Dispersal is the work at of moving chancel seekers to different beas of residence, to sh atomic number 18 the call on resources and frequent go amongst a wider work of local anaesthetic authorities across the UK instead of one particular argona of the rural. Under the immigration and Asylum Act 1999, any instauration seeker requiring reassert and registration may be dispersed anyplace in the UK while their applications be being considered (www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk).Asylum is security measure accustomed by a country to nearlyone who is fleeing persecution in their own country. It is effrontery under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. To be recognize as a refugee, you must have left your country and be unable to go back because you have a well-founded fear of persecution. The person claiming for protection is an chancel seeker. If the claim go through the person pay offs a refugee (ww.homeoffice.gov.uk).In Britain, legislation and brotherly policy in relation to asylum and refugees has been a priority for long. Britain gave attention to the refugees they had drafted in the1951 UN convention to provide protection to people who be at at tempt of persecution in their own countries. People from common wealth countries were invited to fill in gaps in the labour foodstuff following the economic boom in 1960sand thus settled in the Greater London.Dispersal has a history in UK, though it is exactly in recent years that it has come to be used routinely for asylum seekers. Before the 1990s, it was used to distri scarcee special(prenominal) groups of refugees such as the polish move in 1950s, the Ugandan Asians in 1972, the Chileans in 1974-1979, the Vietnamese as an attempt to de-concentrate ethnic minority families whose meter had had been considered besides high in relation to resources such as housing and schools. (Griffiths, Sigona and Zetter, 2005).The concentration of asylum seekers in London and south east generated localised sociable and economic costs that those areas were non willing to accept. As a result of local focuss, the practical problems of housing, and leap outing large and unexpected modus ope randis of addendumal residents, or so LA started to disperse asylum seekers. From 1996 on wards, London boroughs such as Harrow displace asylum seeker to Teignmouth in Devon (Robinson et al 2003 p 122). This inspired dispersal and more local authorities were promote to do so voluntarily. More so, the policy was also inspired by dispersal of Bosnians in 1993, which was hailed as an example of effective settlement based up cluster areas and the principle of ethnic biotic conjunction governance (Griffiths et al 2005).Initially the policy applied to asylum seekers who are gratis(p). If they asked for adjustment, they could single refuse to go if they have a medical survive in London, risk of domestic violence and have relatives around. The main aims of the dispersal are to relieve pressure sensation on councils in key areas of South East and London which have been over burdened with asylum seekers and to distribute the load more evenly around the count. Those requiring accomm odation would be dispersed to areas with housing to spare (www.bbc.co.uk/news).Dispersal was also seen as a means of improving the find of minority ethnic groups to improving life chances and a way of reducing prejudice through the deconstruction of stereotypes that these groups with areas characterised by overcrowding, poverty. The dispersal would encourage informal connection between neighbours of different races who might then take down to see each other as individuals rather than as stereotypes. The objectives of the policy were to get over asylum seekers to fancy the UK, increasing speed of the decision making for asylum seekers, refurbishing the financial support method of welfare benefits (Griffiths et al 2005).However, to supporters of dispersal policy, the issue is one of costs and equity if society has made the democratic decision study migrants, then the whole of society should bear the costs (Robinson 2003, P 163). When you look at dispersal, it is non some cutti ng costs, sharing the burden or addressing racism, but nigh soothing the fears of some voters who want to see that immigration, and who is allowed to stay in their cities is under control. The government take aims to embrace asylum seeking, shift in the relish of public debate away from illegal immigration and deterrence, using the educational system to change public perceptions, and promoting community involvement, active engagement and sponsorship (www.migrationyorkshire.org.uk).Dispersal as a form of enforced population control is primarily a means of reducing the well-disposed visibility of asylum seekers and their potential pollution of social space. If the concentration of asylum seekers in the community is constructed as a problem for race relations, then their social dispersal is both a valid and desirable outcome (Griffiths et al 2005).By 1990s the number of asylum seekers had increased sharply and public opinion had turned against them, racialising the issue and label ling them as bogus and despicable (Robinson et al 2003 P 122). They are perceived to be economically motivated. Today immigration is perceived by many in Britain as a problem for our society which stems from a fear of unknown. Refugees and asylum seekers get an unwanted entity of the otherness in the margins of UK. From the moment they arrive they face an unpredictable and often aggressively offensive local public with racialist political sentiment openly engaging in intimidation and local press making accusations of bogus claims and a drain on national resources (Pierson, 2002,p 203, Dobrowolsky and Lister 2005).This othering resulted in homophobic policies, which lead to the social exclusion, and difference of the asylum seekers, and refugee communities to the extent that their basic tender-hearteds even offs have been challenged and their very earth has been criminalized (Dominelli 2002). I think devising strategies to prevent refugees coming to the country are a threat to the polish as it violates the basic human rights. The media could be partly to blame for this concept as they often wrong imply that all asylum seekers for example, are criminals. Glasgow suspended its participation in the scheme in the shake of press hysteria. Media portrayals are often confusing and unreliable as they represent a gloomy cast about asylum seekers. The media blow up the insecurities of the public to sale more papers, as they are the simply visible group in the local communities to blame for the ill health of the welfare system in the country. They have been an easy target for all as they are powerless, dislocated, silent, and do not even having the right to be here (Robinson et al 2003).Before 1996, asylum seekers were entitled to use the same social services as the rest of the population for example, if they had had been stateless, they would go to a homeless person unit, for support. The conservative Government introduced the asylum and immigration Act 1 996, which meant that asylum seekers were cut off from mainstream welfare benefits. This left asylum seekers with no feeler to services. However, this was against the 1948 National Assistance Act which requires local authorities to provide welfare support to those destitute asylum seekers. Some local authorities started providing support to asylum seekers and their dependants if they appeared to be destitute. But, this was done on ad hoc origination and there were no clear guidelines of the local authorities responsibilities. In 1999, a new policy had been develop for asylum seekers and refugees, which is called immigration and asylum Act 1999.The immigration and asylum Act 1999 gave the National Asylum support service (NASS) the responsibility to provide services and meet inevitably of asylum seekers. This was due to the problems encountered by the social policy of UK regarding asylum and refugees, the policymakers have resolved to establish the NASS in April 2000. NASS was se t up to alleviate the pressure on the LA, and also to meet the government view that access to social security benefits creates a entrust factor on economic migration. The major occasion of NASS was to provide support and accommodation for those asylum seekers who are poor while their claim is still being considered. Individual will be given accommodation in the UK, which is usually located and on a no cream basis. This meant that NASS has the sole right to decide for the asylum seekers will be moved (Griffiths et al 2005).In 1999 the dispersal policy marked a ingrained change in British asylum approach by Introducing new procedures for the reception and accommodation of asylum seekers pending their claim for status determination in the UK (www.fmreview.org).Failed asylum seekers are often destitute when support is cut off 21 days after a final claim for asylum is refused (Refugee Action 2006). The Red Cross estimate some 26,000 are living off food parcels although the epithet c ould be far higher (www.rcn.org.uk/).Dispersal failed to relieve pressure on London. It is possible that up to 2/3 of asylum seekers decided to remain in London and stay with friends and relatives rather than take up accommodation in other parts of UK while this does not add pressure to housing, it creates problems a with health and education www.school.gov.uk/policyhub/asylum_dispersal).There were many draw backs, in the dispersal, as there was miscommunication between NASS and agencies strikeed. There was no sufficient accommodation in the dispersal areas and the whole situation was in shambles as account by the for example, councils did not know how many people were sent to them and what delivery they spoke so that they limit translating services. In general, principles of the policy were not effectively adhered to. NASS should work closely with other agencies to coordinate action to reassure the presence of asylum seekers do not harm community relations.NASS has been criti cised by Fekete as being despotic and institutionalised racism in her report Crimes of NASS What is so alarming about the approach of NASS is that they do not consider it their duty to protect asylum seekers from racial violence, or ensure racial harmony, NASS is probably the only body in the country with no coherent policies against racial harassment and no apparent overall strategy to promote good race relations (Fekete, 2001). Since the year 2000, the NASS took the responsibility of asylum seekers to disperse them, wheresoever there is accommodation without considering their culture, language or any individual needs. Those who are vulnerable were left without support or selective information (Cohen, 2002, p 119).Ethnic minority people satisfy from linguistic deprivation in areas they are dispersed to. Initially, the idea was to send asylum seekers to established communities who shared a common language and provided comfort and support. However, due to limited resources and sc arcity of accommodation in some places, well-nigh asylum seekers were sent to places away from the communities. Breaking up families and then dumping asylum seekers in sub-standard accommodation in some of our poorest communities was al slipway bound to backfire. It is a policy that was neither human nor practical (www.independent.co.uk/news).From 1996 onwards, the responsibility of asylum seekers was given to voluntary organisations, for instance, NASS who dispersed refugees away from their countrymen and families. In so doing, their networks are sabotaged and left in isolation where they do not share any ownership or sense of belonging. They are unable to convey information or attain financial assistance from their communities, and that keeps them in a state of tension.There are questions about the long-term impacts on social cohesion, because constellate can deprive these groups of people of integrating in the community. Also, clustering led to emergency of Ghettos in deprived areas of asylum seekers. This may in turn hinder refugees emerging integration into communities (The Guardian 2005).In addition to that, dispersal has led asylum seekers being sent to live in the very poorest areas where there were large numbers of people living on either benefits or in the lowest-paid jobs where they were not only more likely to face assaults but were also twice as likely to face racial harassment. More so, the accommodation of these dispersed people is made with no choice as to the location and anyone leaving the accommodation offered to them will lose the right to support. As a result, they are will be impoverishment, poverty, exploitation, ill health and sometimes death. Secondly some of them whose claims are still pending are sometimes taken to detention centres where they are dealt with brutally with discrimination and abuse (Cohen, Humphries Mynott, 2002).In relation to housing some private landlords force asylum seekers to live as a family with people they do not even know. Overcrowding has become an issue for larger families, which are given smaller accommodation. Others return to their homeless charities after failing to cope with the situation (Audit Commission 2000, p 3). NASS housed accommodation has no legal protection from eviction and the legislation of 1999 deteriorated in relation to housing conditions for asylum seekers and where by landlords growing richer on contracts in order to accommodate asylum seekers (Cohen et al, 2002).One of the worst impacts of the Asylum and immigration Act is the extension of immigration checks to housing and to all homeless applications. If the Home Office learns that a refuge has received public funds, he might lose the right to stay in the country or fail to renew their authority to stay (Cohen et al 2002).Again, the vouchers are stigmatising, as they are used in fewer shops and less on public transport. Asylum seekers and Refugees who are skilled, experience high unemployment and low pay as there are not as many jobs in rural areas as the cities, and the policy sabotage them from their networks that would help them. As a result of this, asylum seekers are discriminated against instead of being offered opportunities and strategies for help (Ibid).The government initiative towards asylum seekers preserved within the 2004 Asylum Act did not include the children welfare or to ensure that their human rights were thought of. On the contrary, children of asylum seekers whose claims failed are threatened to be removed from their families due to the powers of this act. A government which sets out to make the children of failed asylum seekers destitute cannot seriously argue, Every child matters (Lavalette and Pratt, 2006, p. 200). It destabilizes the domestic and international human rights commitment and undermines the Third Way ambition of every child matters.The detention centres, prisons and enforcement of dispersal programmes together with the 2002 Nationality Immigrati on and Asylum Seekers Act are all stereotyping asylum seekers as criminals, agree to be dispersed anywhere to get support, accommodation taken off them if they try to choose, taken in to isolation with high levels of crime directed to them, lack of legal representation. According to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigration These policies are not only discriminatory against one of the most vulnerable sections of our community but also, of the worst kinds of social engineering which is fate to fail (www.lga.gov.uk).More so, the Audit Commission has reported that asylum seekers and refugees get poor health feel for though they are entitled to free healthcare. Some of the GPs have taken their names off the lists as there is a tendency that it might impact on their surgeries. On the other hand, the examinations refugees take at ports of entry, have no follow ups due to poor health check ups. They are again registered fugacious which does not allow keeping frequent medical re cords and cannot put their needs into account due to the rights and responsibilities of healthcare. For instance, most refugees experience post-traumatic stress disorder as they escape. (Audit commission 2000a).The dispersal is reported to have improved recently, but this is down to the NASS working closely with other agencies like police, landlords, and local councils. They had all been included in the deciding in the area that was to be used, monitored the impact of the arrival of the asylum seekers on schools and other services and monitored community tension (guardian 2005). The policy has some success this is evidenced by the larger number of refugees and asylum seekers in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester areas, and Birmingham hosts a sizeable refugee population in Wet midlands. There has been a corresponding growth of refugee community organisations (RCO) in these areas compared to before the dispersal policy of 1999 (Griffiths et al 2005).In this section the will look at implications and challenges of social role players face in their work with asylum seekers and refugees in the context of dispersal policy in the UK are neighborly workers tasks include giving assistance and proper attention to these individuals and ensuring that they receive the services which are included in the immigration and asylum Act. NASS is responsible for identifying who among the asylum seekers have the right to be given the services offered by such agency. The NASS should coordinate with the social workers, and the members of the enquiry lines to know if there are asylum seekers who need assistance of the government (Dominelli, 2008).Hayes and Humphries (2006, p 44) argue that it is often the most vulnerable who suffer from lack of additional support parents worry for the health and well-being of their children. For example, a mother who can not breastfed her child because she is HIV positive and cannot afford to buy formula milk for her child. This puts social workers in a dilemma as they are forced to decide on eligibility based on immigration status, and the tension between social work values of providing for those in need and the requirement to exclude people from services. Social workers are forced to negotiate between this role of controlling access to support and that of providing care.In addition to that, social workers working with asylum seekers experience a growing demand for the services as a result of new arrivals in a period of the budget constraint and their work tended to be rule by assessing eligibility and providing for immediate needs rather than a broad social work role.Social workers need to understand the impact of negative stereotyping on asylum seekers. Thompson (2009, P 158) the need to recognise the significance of discrimination and oppression in clients lives and circumstances has been emphasised. As we have seen that asylum seekers will be subject to racist media portrayals and hostile views from members of the public , these factors will not help to integrate them into the community once an application has been successful. Thompson (2009, p 18) argues that the role of social work is to contribute to social stability, to ensure that the level of social discontent does not gravel a point where the social order may be threatened. Therefore, it is the role of social workers to help asylum seekers to integrate into local communities and adjust to a new culture. They will need to help asylum seekers to become more empowered as individuals and groups so that they can better represent themselves in the wider community. Empower involves practitioners having to create their practice and their perceptions of particular problems and solutions (Trevithick, 2005, p 219). Social workers were under pressure as Social Services are using their already over stretched budgets to provide for asylum seekers. Following the negative media portrayals the local populations made the assertion that the social services b udgets were drained, not as a result of government not providing enough money, but because of the asylum seekers. A discussion about who pays the taxes for public welfare and costs of migration devalues immigrants contributions to economic growth (Dominelli, 2008).In some cases social workers were seen as supporting asylum seekers and neglecting the rest of the population. The role of a social worker is to address issues of oppression and discrimination on a daily basis yet their involvement is too little. Emphasis on the health and welfare of children allow social workers to become focused on specific issues such as safe case transfer of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, while not focusing on the needs of the vulnerable adult. (Hayes et al, 2006). Instead of the centralised NASS service provision, it would be better if asylum seekers could use local Social Services teams and benefits offices as these are more accessible. However, limited resources and staffing, the government should provide more support within the existing mainstream structures. Instead of training more social workers and community workers to support the asylum seekers, the government set up NASS, whose staff are not trained in anti-discriminatory principles, and had not got enough experience in housing and settlement issues. NASS work practices lead to more discrimination and social exclusion of the asylum seekers.Social workers must seek clarification within their services concerning the issues related to asylum seekers. As the most asylum seekers do not speak English or cannot command the language well, social workers should make good use of interpretation services and make sure that these services are available for the asylum seekers and able to communicate appropriately. Patel and Kelly (2006, p5) suggest that ensuring access to interpreting services, and more honorable access to language learning opportunities, is essential for the appropriate provision of social care to Asylum se ekers.It is my article of faith that all human beings deserve respect and dignity and should be treated will equal concern however, looking at the media it is evident that the UK is struggling to sustain the support required for asylum seekers, which is becoming a growing problem within the UK today. The Human Rights Act 1998 applies to anyone living within the UKs borders regardless of circumstances or nationality until an asylum seeker receives refugee status they are often in a state of limbo and on a regular basis their equal rights are denied. Therefore, anti discriminatory practice and humanitarianism is vital within Social cogitation practice.Social workers should be involved in campaigning for the rights and ensure that they are observed (Dominelli 2008). The role of a social worker is to adhere to enhancing an atmosphere of acceptance, tolerance and equality for all individuals no matter what their backdrop is. It is essential that Social Workers and those accountable fo r providing services and support to the most vulnerable in our society do not lose sight of the fact that asylum seekers, regardless of their immigration status, are human beings, with fundamental and basic human rights, needs and aspirations.In conclusion, although dispersal policies are always understood as ways of temporarily accommodating asylum seekers as they wait for their decision on their asylum claims, the government needs to look at things on a long-term basis so that they are dispersed where they are able to integrate. Therefore, policy makers should also think of the future employment probability and service as they are most of the requirements for the future. NASS should work together with agencies concerned to make sure that asylum seekers are not put at risk. I have critically describe the policy, explained the implications of the policy into social work practice.