To what extent has there been a shift in attitudes toward asylum seekers in the UK during the refugee crisis? Bridget Anderson writes that in the wave of support for welcoming refugees there has been a surprising silence about the situation of asylum seekers already in the UK. She argues that if we are to avoid a competition between marginalised and impoverished groups it is necessary to make the case that better services for Syrian arrivals must mean better services for everybody.
There have been two big shifts in British public debate in recent months. The first is the growing discontent with the politics of austerity, most evident in the startling election of Jeremy Corbyn. The second is the popular groundswell of support for refugees. A few months ago, who would have anticipated demonstrations proclaiming “Refugees are welcome here”? However, unless anti-austerity politics addresses migrants’ rights, and support for refugees extends to those marginalised by the cuts to welfare, both movements will be fatally weakened.
It has become commonplace for politicians of all parties to recite standard references to the Huguenots and Jews and Britain’s ‘proud history of welcoming refugees’ as a prelude to introducing ever harsher immigration and asylum laws. Over the summer months, confronted with the deaths, violence and misery at the borders of Europe and the port of Calais, such claims began to increasingly ring hollow.
The government has clearly recognised the strength of public sentiment and David Cameron has promised to accept 4,000 refugees a year from camps in Syria. Many local authorities are willing to support this initiative, but they are calling for more money to fund the housing, school places and other local services that this will require. For local authorities are, as we know, extremely hard pressed. We have seen drastic cuts across the board in care provision, libraries and leisure facilities, infrastructure maintenance, community centres and other services. We have also seen dramatic rises in poverty for people living in the UK. Bedroom tax and benefit caps have hit the most vulnerable British residents – the necessary price, we are told, to balance the books.
George Osborne has proposed to redirect money from the foreign aid budget to cover the costs for one year. This is a financial move reminiscent of the Newton Fund, which saw the transfer of 365 million pounds from DfID to BIS to support science and innovation partnerships with researchers from middle income countries, meaning the money could go towards the government target of 0.7% of GDP on international development while also being counted as part of the UK’s science budget. It is, one might argue, an interesting recognition of the relation between development and global mobility.
It is not only the Treasury offering monies. There has been an unprecedented show of public support for new arrivals, and people are promising to open their houses to refugees from Syria in particular. This is an exciting development, but it is possible, though not easy, to live with strangers (who, it may turn out, one does not particularly get on with, and who may be unable to find work, ending up sitting at home all day under stress about their longer term prospects). It is even less easy to live with them as equals. Such generous gestures will require considerable support after the initial wave of enthusiasm has worn off.
But in the genuine wave of support for welcoming refugees there has been a surprising silence about the situation of asylum seekers already in the UK. Some organisations – RAMFEL for example – have been making the connections between refusal of entry to the UK on the one hand, and the deliberate production of a ‘hostile environment’ for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants inside the UK on the other. This began with the Labour Government’s pursuit of ‘bogus asylum seekers’ and has been allowed to gather pace with very little public criticism.
Asylum seekers have to wait months or years for the outcome of their asylum claim, during which time they are not allowed to work and are allocated just £5 a day cash or card support. Those who are refused have access to nothing, even if it is accepted that their country is too dangerous of them to return to. Destitution is a serious problem for these people. New refugees may be welcome, but long-term resident asylum seekers can be found sleeping outside your local supermarket.
Levels of poverty are increasing in the UK, and not only for asylum seekers. How will the promises of support extended to Syrian refugees be perceived by the hundreds of thousands of people who have had their benefits stopped or capped, who are sofa surfing, scraping by on minimum wage salaries, or dependent on working tax credits that are soon to disappear? Or the people on housing lists or going to food banks who see that Syrians are accommodated but not them?
If we are to avoid a competition between marginalised and impoverished groups it is necessary to make the argument that better services for Syrian arrivals must mean better services for everybody. This takes supporters of refugees off the terrain of humanitarian responses, and demands they argue for common interests rather than special cases. We can all agree that the current situation needs bold thinking and new paradigms. I would suggest that connecting the discontent with austerity and support for migrants is a critical first step.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article was originally published on Oxford University’s COMPAS blog. It gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Mstyslav Chernov (CC-BY-4.0)
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1Ff2Nxj
_________________________________
Bridget Anderson – Oxford University
Bridget Anderson is Professor of Migration and Citizenship at Oxford University and Deputy Director of COMPAS.
This article makes a number of assumptions which are not necessarily correct.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party was not particularly startling as it was a safe bet from the very beginning of the campaign, given the opposition he faced. His election as leader in no way demonstrates discontent with the austerity measures introduced by the Tories, who were re-elected to Government for a second time on this platform.
The mawkish and risible “refugees welcome here” bandwagon was triggered by the tragic and unnecessary death of a young Syrian boy which made the front pages around the world. It is worth remembering that this little boy and his family were already in a safe country (Turkey) and therefore there was absolutely no need for his family to make the dangerous journey from Turkey to Greece. As always, these “fads” such as “refugees welcome here” attract the gullible and those looking for a cause to participate in and as quickly as they arise, they fade away.
It is also worth noting here that the vast majority of people trying to claim asylum in the EU are economic migrants and if people from Iraq and Eritrea were removed from those recognised as refugees in need of asylum, the ratio of economic migrants to genuine asylum seekers would be even greater, but, as the EU and parts of the media have been claiming for months now that all of the people migrating to the EU are refugees, (which they have all now backtracked on) there may be a face saving exercise taking place.
This comment makes a number of assumptions which are not necessarily correct.
The sizable renewal of interest in the Labour Party, as demonstrated by increased membership post-Corbyn, does indicate a discontent in austerity measures. And perhaps a new political motivation in previously disinterested citizens. The Conservative reelection does not disprove that. Elections do not represent the entire public. Too many people don’t vote. Only 23.4% of registered voters voted Conservative in 2015. It will be interesting to see the next poll turnouts. Regardless 23.4% does not prove the general public support austerity.
Secondly, you seem to imply that refugees from Iraq and Eritrea are not in fact refugees but economic migrants? How utterly bizarre. Are you aware that Eritrea operates a shoot on sight policy for those caught trying to leave- whom they view as traitors? Can you imagine what refoulement to Eritrea would entail for your newly removed refugees?
But what’s so bad about economic migrants anyway? Why should they be less worthy of our sympathy? Poverty kills as surely as a bullet. The problem- and gross inequality- is in the NASS system. It is absurd to expect someone to survive on 55% of Income Support levels. Income Support is set at what our government deems necessary to survive. It is absurd that Asylum Seekers can’t work. The best way for anyone to contribute to the economy is to work. Migrants, economic or otherwise, have been well demonstrated to improve the economy of their host country. Phillipe Legrain- an LSE alumni- has written an excellent book on that very topic. Letting Asylum Seekers work means that they could make an even greater contribution to wider society. It would also mean less would need NASS. Maybe then NASS could be brought in line with Income Support without increasing expenditure. Migrants and refugees are not competing for our jobs. Jobs are not finite. And more people create more jobs. Neither do they burden the welfare system. The majority are highly motivated to work and pay taxes. Why not add Asylum Seekers to that group of people contributing to the wellbeing of our country? Open migration may well help make austerity policies unnecessary.
Any renewal of interest in the Labour party does not in itself demonstrate, or indicate, a discontent in austerity measures. Elections do represent the people who vote and they voted for a party who represents austerity. There is no evidence that the 76% who chose not to vote would have voted against austerity, only an assumption that they may have altered the outcome if they had voted.
There are a number of repressive regimes around the world but that does not mean their citizens are automatically asylum seekers. If any Eritreans were fleeing persecution surely they would seek asylum in the nearest country to them, not make their way to Europe, the fact that they did indicates that they are not actually asylum seekers but illegal migrants.
There is no evidence that the majority of asylum seekers and economic migrants are highly motivated to work and pay taxes and nor do they automatically improve the economy of their host country.
Non EU migrants into Britain are a net drain on our economy and do not add value to society.
Migration already places a burden on the NHS, school places, transport, housing etc.so to say that open migration may help make austerity policies unnecessary is, at best, naïve