Suchergebnisse

Gender identities and family roles and relationships have an important – but controversial and contested – place in the British asylum system. Drawing on the experience of a refused asylum seeker, who I call Martin, this article considers the various ways in which 'family' arose in the long course of his asylum claim: from the loss of his parents, to falling in love and creating new family ties in the UK. Through Martin's narrative of his experiences of the immigration system, and the realities and aftermath of prison and immigration detention, the article considers the politics, tensions and hurdles of family ties for asylum seekers and those facing forced removal from the UK.

An association of strangers with danger and criminality is one of the most enduring social myths. However, in the UK, it was only after a media outcry 10 years ago over the release of foreign nationals from British prisons, that the 'Foreign Criminal' exploded into political and popular consciousness. Despite the small numbers of people involved, the location of this folk devil at the intersection of legal and moral assessments of 'wickedness' and alterity imbues it with considerable potency and has ensured that its reverberations are still felt strongly a decade later. Drawing on qualitative research with immigration detainees, deportees and irregular migrants, the article considers some of the many faces of the Foreign Criminal and illuminates their racialised, classed and gendered natures. It argues that a twin set of developments – coalescing around Operation Nexus and curtailed Article 8 right protections – work together to taint a growing number of non-citizens with criminality, whilst simultaneously undermining their claim to belong. Case studies are presented to demonstrate the fault lines of this malleable and expanding category, and to argue that the Foreign Criminal is paradigmatic of both social disorder and national boundaries, and is fundamentally shifting the lines of citizenship and belonging.

Gender identities and family roles and relationships have an important – but controversial and contested – place in the British asylum system. Drawing on the experience of a refused asylum seeker, who I call Martin, this article considers the various ways in which 'family' arose in the long course of his asylum claim: from the loss of his parents, to falling in love and creating new family ties in the UK. Through Martin's narrative of his experiences of the immigration system, and the realities and aftermath of prison and immigration detention, the article considers the politics, tensions and hurdles of family ties for asylum seekers and those facing forced removal from the UK.

In policy terms, "genuine" refugees are conceptualized as vulnerable, coerced victims, an image that does not reflect the realities of most male refugees and asylum seekers. Not only does the image conflict with dominant forms of masculinity, but as refused asylum seekers have their purported vulnerability rejected and honesty challenged as part of having their claim refused, there is an implicit conclusion that they are deceptive, opportunistic, or even criminal. The emblematic "bogus asylum seeker" figure is generally imagined to be male and is associated with gendered suspicions and expectations regarding agency. Concurrently, however, the asylum system operates various emasculating tendencies. Using testimonies from male refused asylum seekers, this article explores the interplay of gender and asylum law and policy, examining how individuals understand and negotiate their reconstruction from vulnerable would-be refugee to undeserving "bogus" asylum seeker. Gender is presented as an unspoken but critical dimension of this immigration category.

Immigration detention is a central tenet of the British government's
response to immigration but remains under-theorised in academia. This
article uses testimonies drawn from anthropological research conducted
with detainees at an Immigration Removal Centre to examine lived
experiences of immigration detention and explore the relationships between
detainees and the British state. It suggests that despite being a space of
extreme control (both in terms of legislation and daily practice),
immigration detention is beset with uncertainty and confusion. Examples
are given of chronic instability in relation to mobility, violent 'incidents',
time frames and access to information. The article examines the
repercussions of such instability on individuals and coping strategies
employed. It argues that immigration detainees live in a context of
continual crisis, in which profound uncertainty becomes normalised. This
disorder should be understood as a technique of power, with governance
through uncertainty constructing certain immigrants as expendable,
transient and ultimately, deportable.

In 2012, Home Secretary Theresa May told a newspaper that she wanted to create a 'really hostile environment' for irregular migrants in the UK. Although the phrase has since mutated to refer to generalised state-led marginalisation of immigrants, this article argues that the hostile environment is a specific policy approach, and one with profound significance for the UK's border practices. We trace the 'hostile environment' phrase, exposing its origins in other policy realms, charting its evolution into immigration, identifying the key components and critically reviewing the corresponding legislation. The article analyses the impact and consequences of the hostile environment, appraising the costs to public health and safety, the public purse, individual vulnerability and marginalisation, and wider social relations. We conclude by identifying the fundamental flaws of the policy approach, arguing that they led to the 2018 Windrush scandal and risk creating similar problems for European Economic Area nationals after Brexit.

There is a widespread, and growing, expectation that no matter where a person seeks asylum, comparable procedures and consistent standards of fairness will be applied in assessing their claim under the Refugee Convention. Initial findings from a three-year study by researchers at the University of Exeter examining asylum determination procedures in the UK has found that there are considerable differences between the hearing centres where asylum applicants' appeals are heard, and significant inconsistencies in the practice of judges who decide such appeals. These findings have important implications. Inconsistencies in procedure undermine faith in the fairness of legal processes, and a reduced perception of fairness could result in further appeals, as appellants seek to challenge what feels like an unjust decision. Lack of adherence to procedures in particular could lead to erroneous decision making, with the grave consequence that asylum seekers may face forcible return, to face persecution or serious harm. Adapted from the source document.

Vulnerable groups' direct experiences and impressions of British courts and tribunals have often been overlooked by politicians and policy makers (JUSTICE, 2019). This paper takes a geographical, empirical approach to access to justice to respond to these concerns, paying attention to the atmosphere of First Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal hearings to explore the qualitative aspects of (in)access to justice during asylum appeals. It draws on 41 interviews with former appellants and 390 observations of hearings in the First tier immigration and asylum tribunal to unpack the lived experiences of tribunal users and to identify three ways in which the atmosphere in tribunals can constitute a barrier to access to justice. First, asylum appellants are frequently profoundly disorientated upon arrival at the tribunal. Second, appellants become distrustful of the courtroom when they cannot see it as independent of the state. Third they often experience the courtroom procedures and the interactions that take place as disrespectful, inhibiting their participation. These insights demonstrate how the concept of 'atmosphere' can illuminate legal debates in valuable ways. Additionally we argue that legal policy making must find better ways to take vulnerable litigants' experiences into account.