Tag Archives: media coverage of asylum

The weight of asylum seekers ‘credibility’

Our research team is busy with interviews this month. We really appreciate the time, energy, and commitment of people in the asylum sector and want to extend our thanks to those who have participated in interviews with us so far, for sharing your knowledge, experiences, and ways of navigating advocacy and support in the asylum sector. Groups are operating in an austere environment for immigrants in strikingly innovative and committed ways, it’s a privilege for us to learn about this work and we look forward to passing on our findings at our asylum-network workshop, which is scheduled to take place Friday, September 23rd. Mark your calendar and stay tuned for more news on this event. If you’d like to set up a meeting to talk with us about your organization’s work, challenges, strategies, and needs,  you can contact us here.

Ceri and I (Deirdre) have also been busy presenting some of our findings and insights from the project at international conferences. This week, Ceri is at a conference organized by the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM), in Kampala Uganda; she’ll blog about that experience next week. I am heading to the International Society for Political Psychology’s Annual Meeting (ISPP), in Istanbul Turkey later this week where I’ll be giving a presentation, drawing from our project, on ‘fear and freedom in liberal society’.

Among the questions the paper addresses is: what does it take for an asylum seeker to become ‘credible’?

In light of this question I cannot help but be struck by news over the past week in the sexual assault case against former IMF managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The case, brought by an immigrant hotel housekeeper, over Strauss-Kahn’s “gross abuse of power” (McGovern, New York Times, July 7th 2011, A-21) during his visit to New York in May is now on the verge of disintegrating because the character and credibility of the woman who has accused Strauss-Kahn of assaulting her has been called into question. I will leave the details of the case to mainstream media where there has been plenty of coverage, much of it problematic because of the manner in which it hastily brushes over issues of power relations between immigrant and non-immigrant, men and women, entitled and less-so, and between representatives of institutions in the global North and those in the global South.

Today, however, an op-ed piece ‘Before You Judge, Stand in Her Shoes’, in the New York Times does acknowledge these matters, and with it provides some much-needed balance in media coverage of this case. The contributor, Mike McGovern, an anthropologist at Yale University, offers a little more understanding of the despicable economic inequities—which the global North bears considerable responsibility for—as well as the political and social turmoil that many asylum seekers endure. Beyond this, McGovern highlights how “asylum claimants are often asked to perform an impossible task. They must prove they have been subject to the most crushing forms of oppression and violence — for this, bodies bearing the scars of past torture are a boon — while demonstrating their potential to become hard-working and well-adjusted citizens” (McGovern, New York Times, July 7th 2011, A-21). The circumstances that asylum seekers must navigate—demonstrating fear in their quest for freedom—highlight the problematic that ‘credibility’ presents when inequities abound.

Maternal Sanctuary: creating networks of assistance and hospitality for migrant mothers.

On Friday Imogen and Ceri went to a meeting organised by Leeds City of Sanctuary, which aims to set up a network of people working in maternity services to support asylum seeker and refugee pregnant women and mothers. The meeting was led by Rose McCarthy, an inspiring activist and advocate, whose work as a National Childbirth Trust teacher with migrant women inLeeds has led to her involvement with the Sanctuary movement.

City of Sanctuary

To quote their website, “City of Sanctuary is a movement to build a culture of hospitality for people seeking sanctuary in theUK”.  So it’s not an organisation as such, but a ‘movement’. Its central aim is to build public support for Sanctuary- in other words to counter myths, and public hostility to migrancy fuelled by news media and Government rhetoric.

For cities like Leeds, which are working towards City of Sanctuarystatus, the aim is to get existing organisations and networks to actively work towards making their activities welcoming to refugees and asylum seekers.   Four cities (Sheffield, Swansea, Coventry and Bristol) have achieved full City of Sanctuary status, and many more across the UK, are `Cities with City of Sanctuary Movements’ Bradford,Chester, Glasgow, Hackney in London, Huddersfield, Hull, Ipswich,Leeds,Leicester, London,Manchester,Nottingham,Oxford and Wakefield) which are working towards City of Sanctuary Status.

Whilst the City ofSanctuarymovement was designed to create hospitable cities and towns, but the model is one that is now being applied to other organisations and entities, such as Universities. This adaption of the sanctuary model has led to the call by McCarthy for a maternity stream within the movement.

Maternity Services of Sanctuary

The aim of the meeting we attended was to bring together a range of individuals and groups providing maternity services (including midwives, health visitors, obstetricians, NCT teachers, breast-feeding counsellors, migrant network organisers and community workers) to think together about how to make a difference to pregnant women and mothers newly arrived in the City of Leeds. Around 20 people attended this first meeting, the room was packed and many ideas and existing examples of good practice where shared. The hope is to create a maternity strand within the Cities for Sanctuary Movement, which might create a national network of hospitality for migrant mothers and those who care, assist and advocate for them.

At the inaugural meeting we attended the goal was to think about how to create a maternity sanctuary network within Leeds, with a view to a national network –a ‘maternal sanctuary’ strand, under the umbrella of the Cities of Sanctuary movement.  This strand is important because according to a report from one of the meeting participants: although numbers of maternal deaths are decreasing, women in the category ‘newly arrived migrant, refugee or asylum seeker’ still face a higher risk of maternal death (even when underlying conditions are controlled for) (for more see the reports of CMACE). Health Services have a legal responsibility to provide services, such as translation services, to women accessing their care. In many ways this meeting was attempting to think through the failures and the possibilities of better practice in this area of provision. There are significant contradictions here, on the one hand NHS trusts have a responsibility to everybody in the community, on the other hand migrant mothers are often a target of immigration and border controls and `failed` asylum seekers are barred from legal access to many front line services.  Furthermore, as well as the ongoing detention of pregnant women and mothers, there has been a raft of legislation aimed at managing (and excluding) the reproductive bodies of non-citizens within the state by, for example, refusing pregnant women access to free medical care.

Creating a maternity strand within the Sanctuary Movement is a significant opportunity for the sanctuary movement as a whole, as often those associated with maternity services such as Health Visitors, Midwives, Mother and Baby groups, are well-placed to be a conduit of welcoming hospitality to newly arrived migrants.

What was so admirable (and interesting from the point of view of integration) about the City of Sanctuary movement is the focus on making the most of existing services and networks and a) encouraging them to actively welcome asylum seekers and refugees rather than starting ‘special’ groups; and b) the way in which the activities they promote emphasise the participation of non-migrants as strongly as the participation of refugees and asylum seekers.  In doing so, they’re making an important contribution to efforts that aim to counteract the idea of asylum seekers as ‘other’, as beings somehow separate from ‘mainstream society’ and everyday community live.

Speaking Back to Stereotypes and Terminology – asylum or sanctuary?

One important question raised at the meeting, was that of terminology, including the negative connotations of terms such as asylum-seeker or ‘failed’ asylum seeker, and the thorny issue of those migrant mothers and their children who are in theUKwithout a documented immigration status, but nevertheless require support and access to services. Many pregnant migrants without status, for example, are afraid to access services, such as GP and midwifery services, as they are ‘billed’ by Health Trusts. They might not go to hospital until they are in labour, at which point treatments, which are sometimes critical and life-saving, can be adminstered too late to make a positive impact on the health of mother and child.

The Cities for Sanctuary Movement tries to negotiate the issue of legality, and negative stereotypes, by employing a broad-based language.  A quick ‘find text’ request on their home page shows four mentions of seeking sanctuary and only one mention of the term asylum seeker.   As Jonathan Cox (of the Independent Asylum Commission) points out in his article on opendemocracy, there are many issues regarding the refugee regime in the UK that are more important than terminology.  However, there’s no denying that the term ‘asylum seeker’ carries with it many negative connotations, and the Independent Asylum Commission have campaigned for a change in language to the more positive term `sanctuary` which has a long history in the UK (see their action suggestions here).

What do you think?  What term is better, asylum or sanctuary?  Does terminology matter, or are there more important things to worry about?

Related resources:


http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/


http://www.citizensforsanctuary.blogspot.com/
and
http://www.citizensforsanctuary.org.uk/index.html

For research on the specific vulnerability of Migrant mothers see:

Bail for Immigration Detainees (September 2007) Refusal Factory:Women’s experiences of the Detained Fast Track asylum process at Yarl’sWood Immigration Removal Centre

Clarke, N and L. Nandy (2007) living on the edge of despair: destitution amongst asylum seeking and refugee children. The Children’s Society.

Cutler, S. And Ceneda, S. (2004) They took me away: Women’s experiences of immigration detention in theUK. Asylum Aid.

Luibhéid, E. (2004) Childbearing Against the State? Asylum seeker Women in the Irish republic. Women’s Studies International Forum. 27, 335-349.

McLeish, J., Cutler, S. and Stancer, C. (2002) A crying shame: Pregnant asylum seekers and their babies in detention.London: MaternityAlliance, Bail for Immigration Detainees & London Detainee Support Group.

The Maternity Alliance(2002) Mothers in Exile: Maternity Experiences of Asylum Seekers in England.London: The MaternityAlliance.

The Maternity Alliance. (2002) A Crying Shame: Pregnant Asylum Seekers and Their Babies in Detention.London: The MaternityAlliance.

Tyler, I.(2010) Designed to Fail: A Biopolitics of British Citizenship. Citizenship Studies. 14 (1). 61-74.

Waugh, M. (2010) The Mothers in Exile Project: Women Asylum Seekers’ and Refugees’ Experiences of Pregnancy and Childbirth inLeeds.

 

Word Search – How do categories and contexts shape the way advocacy organizations view their work?

I recently learned about a fascinating tool, called the ngram viewer, recently unveiled by Google labs. It’s an enormous searchable database of books that are available to the public in digitized form. The material includes books published from the 1400’s to 2008 (Google promises to continue expand the database of searchable items). While most of the materials included are English language publications, there are a few publications in other languages such as German and French available too. The ngram viewer offers users the opportunity to search 5.2 million digitized books and millions of words and to graph the flow of words in printed matter over time. In other words, it allows you to visualize trends including when a word first appears in print, when it drops from popularity, and the ebbs and flows of use in published material. One interesting aspect of this huge database is that it allows a search that distinguishes between books published in English and available in the US vis-à-vis English language publications available in Britain.

You might wonder how does this tie in with our research on asylum seekers? Among our findings is that, as a category, asylum seekers in the US seem to be less visible than in the UK. I was curious to see if this trend is reflected in published materials, so I searched the ngram database. I entered the following categories: ‘asylum seeker’, ‘undocumented migrant’, and ‘illegal immigrant’ into the database and searched for their use in British English and American English publications from 1970 to 2008. The graphs below show what I found:

Frequency of terms describing 'migrants' in American English publications

It’s interesting to see that usage of the term ‘illegal immigrant’ (the green line) far outweighs use of ‘asylum seekers’ (the blue line) among American English publications. It’s also interesting to note the dramatic upsurge in use of the term ‘asylum seeker’ (shown in the chart below as a blue line) since 2001 in materials published in Britain.

Frequency of terms referring to 'migrants' in British English publications

While I realize that the nature of published materials and asylum advocacy differs and that categories used in print and in ‘on-the-ground’ advocacy are distinct, I think it is fair to say that there is traffic between them. With this in mind, I’m left wondering how public exposure and familiar usage of categories such as ‘asylum seeker’ and ‘undocumented migrant’ in printed matter, popular culture, and political forums influences the way advocacy organizations view themselves, their work, and the individuals they work with.

What are your thoughts or experiences on this issue? Why not weigh in on this question, send us your comments and experiences related to language and popular discourses that surrounds asylum seekers by posting a comment here or by contacting us directly.

Asylum-Network makes the headlines …

Today our project made the headlines  on Emerson College’s e-news site where one of our team (Deirdre) is currently based. You can read the write-up here. We’re really pleased with this attention to and interest in our project. With growing publicity, we’re eager to share more organizations success stories on this site, do send us your news so others can find out more about the work you do to support asylum seekers in the US and UK.

A happy Christmas for asylum-seeking families?

This time last week the Home Office finally announced the closure of the family wing of Yarl’s Wood, meaning no children will be detained there over Christmas, and a “new compassionate approach to family returns” (press release).

A tentative approval has been given to this by some organisations but concerns are already being raised about families remaining at Tinsley House (which has space for four families) and will still be used as a “last resort” (from HO press release – see link above).  Also, some organisations have accused the new approach to family return as re-branding detention rather than ending it.

Key to whether this is happy news or not, will be the way in which alternatives to detention will be implemented (for a review of options see Heaven Crawley’s paper on alternatives).  The Home Office’s press release is not detailed on the options that will be used…

“New options being developed include a form of short notice removal, the use of open accommodation, and – as a last resort where families resolutely fail to comply– family friendly, pre-departure accommodation, where we will allow children to have the opportunity to leave the premises subject to a risk and safeguarding assessment and suitable supervision arrangements.”  (from the HO press release)

Whether this will be a real improvement depends a lot on what ‘last resort’ means, what ‘open accommodation’ means and of course, what is involved in a “risk and safeguarding assessment and suitable supervision arrangements”.

Of course, the UK isn’t the only country to detain asylum-seeking families and children in other immigration categories too.  Whilst surfing the web yesterday I came across the website for the International Detention Coalition, which does research on detention, and has a special interest in children in detention including currently carrying out a multi-country survey of children in detention.  I look forward to reading the outcomes of their research.

See also, our earlier post regarding the channel 4 dispatches programme, The Kids Britain Doesn’t Want.

Public attitudes towards asylum seekers

Did you watch Dispatches – ‘the Kids Britain doesn’t want’ – this Monday on Channel 4?

The programme followed the story of three young asylum seekers (from Iran, Afghanistan and Uganda) and showed how they had been failed, or even damaged, by the asylum system that is supposed to protect them.

Lots of people have already written about the C4 dispatches program (e.g. here and here) so I won’t go into it in too much detail, except to say that it was extremely upsetting.  Instead, I’d like to comment on some comments and ask what they say about people’s attitudes towards asylum seekers.

I’ve been reading with interest the comments on the C4 dispatches website.  Unlike the Guardian Newspaper’s Comment is Free, it doesn’t seem to have attracted the usual ‘send asylum seekers home’ brigade in quite the same numbers (although there are a few).  In fact the majority of comments appear to be from people who were genuinely moved by the programme, including ‘ANON’ who claims to be an employee of the Home Office.

The stories on the dispatches programme won’t surprise anyone who has experience of supporting anyone through an asylum claim… but a lot of the viewer who felt moved to comment on the C4 website were clearly surprised and shocked by the way asylum seekers (especially children/families) are treated.  Many said they were ashamed that people were being treated in such an inhumane way “in my name” or “using my taxes”.  Some demanded that the government initiate an inquiry into UKBA’s actions towards families.  Some comments asked what they could do to help asylum seekers near them and Refugee Action posted a comment making suggestions.

Students often ask in seminars about asylum about the direction of ideas between ‘public opinion’, government policies and the media.  It’s difficult to know and I suspect it goes in both directions, but based on the comments board on the C4 website it seems that ‘public opinion’ is not as in favour of being ‘tough’ on asylum seekers as the media and government might expect.  I hope that the personal stories of the three young people on dispatches helped people remember that asylum seekers are individuals with normal human wants and needs.

Finally, I’d just like to highlight a comment posted by ‘ANON’, claiming to work for the Home Office.

…Asylum seekers in this country are looked after by charities.  It’s usually charities NOT THE UK GOVERNMENT that offers legal advice and backing, shelter and financial assistance to these people…  Also, many asylum seekers who come here usually make a go of things for themselves and their families.  Many are not used to the luxury of having free education and health care, and having the government fork out a living for them; many have a very clear sense of responsibility and work ethics.

If ANON is indeed a Home Office employee it’s a pity their voice was/is not heard on the programme.  The Home Office did respond to Dispatches (read it here).  However, ANON criticises their “formally published statements” and encourages people to “research further”.

A well-timed documentary and a very interesting response.  Did you see it?  What did you think of it?  Feel free to add comments below.