Findings: The Maintaining Of Safe and Secure Borders - Essay Example

 Findings: The Maintaining Of Safe and Secure Borders The literature reveals that prior to 1993 the UK had no specific legislative provisions regulating and controlling asylum and refugee seekers within its borders. Asylum and refugee seekers fell under the breadth of the UK’s various immigration rules and regulations. By and large the UK responded to asylum and refugee seekers in a particularly ad hoc manner. By the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s it became obvious that the UK needed to establish some policies and practices as the number of applications reached mammoth proportions. For instance, the number of applications rose from4,000 in 1988 to more than twice that many by 1989 and in 1990, 26, 205 applications were processed and in 1991 another 44, 840 applications were processed. (Schuster, 2003, 131) In addition other changes were occurring in Europe, placing more pressure on the UK to formalize its asylum and refugee policies and practices. The EU was steadfastly gravitating toward a single market which inevitably meant the opening of borders and the borders to the East were opened while the Yugoslavian war began. The UK had no choice in the circumstances but to make refugees and asylum seekers a priority in terms of policies and practices. At this stage, Great Britain was obviously concerned about securing its borders and protecting it from the current trend toward increasing numbers of asylum and refugee seekers. (Schuster, 2003, 131) It therefore comes as no surprise that the UK first bill reflected a policy designed to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers entering its borders and the 1992 Bill before the House of Commons expressed this agenda. In addition to attempting to indorse a policy aimed at reducing the number of asylum applications, the Bill also reflected a policy aimed at reducing the time these applicants spent within the UK by devising a scheme by which some applications would be characterized as inadmissible and rejected. The resulting legislation was the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 followed by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1996. The latest legislation provision denied specific classes of asylum and refugee applicants the right to social assistance such as social security and legal aid. This provision can be viewed as reflective of a policy aimed at discouraging applicants for asylum refugee status in the UK, or at the very least a policy aimed at removing an incentive. In 1999 the Immigration and Asylum Act was implemented introducing a policy of mandatory disposal under the auspices of a “one-stop-appeal” mechanism as well as distinct “welfare system for asylum seekers” under the National Asylum Seeker Support System. (Schuster, 2003, 131-132) What can be gleaned from these developments was a British policy calculated not only to regulate asylum but to restrict applicants access to UK’s borders. The inference is that the UK had somehow felt that it had lost control of its borders and this is due in large part to the UK’s history. Internal and external factors also contributed to the feeling that the UK had lost control of its borders. The relevant historical factors was the relationship that the UK maintained with former colonial territories, its emergence as a multicultural nation, and the notable prior absence of the word ‘asylum’ in legislation which might explain the UK’s relations with former colonies, ties to its empire and immigration issues. (Schuster, 2003, 132) Internal factors relate to the issue of immigration and its relationship with race relations. The UK has used race relations as a justification for immigration policies and practices and immigration is also applicable to asylum. (Schuster, 2003, 132) Since the UK maintains that it does not have a duty to allow immigrants to cross its borders, the UK feels justified in transforming asylum and refugee seekers as well as Commonwealth citizens who formerly had automatic authority to enter the UK into immigrants and/or economic migrants. (Schuster, 2003, 132) Other internal factors related to economic recessions, the welfare state crisis, and poll tax riots that called attention to the possibility of political and social instability in the UK. (Schuster, 2003, 133) The external factors influencing the UK’s asylum and refugee policies and practices pertain to global issues. Previously, the UK had been content to rely on visa application and approvals but the opening of border in Europe with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the Yugoslavian War meant that more and more persons would be fleeing these areas in search of political asylum. Ultimately each of these factors gave way to a policy that was aimed at curtailing rather than regulating asylum seekers in the UK. Largely viewed as a threat to the welfare state and British national identity, the UK resorted to a number of statutory devices that were predicated on policies that grew increasingly harsh with respect to asylum seekers. The fact remains, however, that although the UK has taken an entirely restrictive approach to asylum seekers it has not abandoned the concept and remains somewhat committed to permitting asylum and refugee seekers if only in a very restrictive sense. The result is that the UK failed in its objectives to control who and in what numbers asylum seekers may enter its borders. Ultimately, the UK succeed in symbolically closing its borders altogether. Perhaps the UK is satisfied with a policy and practice that virtually closes its borders. This is entirely surprising since the discussions in the House of Commons revealed an underlying ideology that permitting asylum seekers is the mark of a civilized and liberal nation. (Schuster, 2003, 146) Be that as it may, the UK is content to indorse a harsh and far too restrictive policy and practice with respect to barring as far as possible, asylum seekers. There appears to be little or no regard to its obligations toward the EU and the United Nations, both of whom encourage a rather liberal approach to opening national borders to the influx of asylum seekers and economic and political refugees. The restrictive policy runs counter to the UK’s policy to emerge: “…as a liberal state in which citizens and non-citizens alike are protected by the impartial rule of law, a state linked by historical ties of empire and universal humanitarian obligations to the rest of the world. It is a Britain that is open, confident and secure.” (Schuster, 2003, 146) This is ultimately far from the policy adapted. The focus was on the strengthening of borders, and in the discussions on the various asylum Bills, there was an undercurrent of residual fears that Europe’s inherently weak borders were compromising the UK’s border controls. There was an inherent prejudice against putative asylum seekers alleging that they were primarily “bogus” and “illegal immigrants.” (Schuster, 2003, 146) The resulting legislative provisions that reflect an entirely restrictive approach to asylum seekers is hardly surprising. Statements made in the House of Commons leave no doubt as to the negative position taken against possible asylum seekers and the policy and practices that these views perpetuate. Members of the House of Commons, referred to asylum seekers has representing a drain on the welfare state and its tax payers. Other statements indicated that the British government would not implement a policy which commanded tolerance toward foreigners. The current restrictive asylum policy is adequately manifested by the following statement emanating from the House of Commons during the 1992 debate over one of the asylum Bills: “By claiming asylum, those who have no basis to remain here can not only substantially prolong their stay, but gain access to benefit and housing at public expense…of the 40,000 asylum applicants currently being supported on benefit, very few will be found to merit asylum or exceptional leave to remain…My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the environment has concluded that the same arguments apply in relation to social housing.”(Schuster, 2003, 147) With each Bill and the ensuing Acts more and more benefits were denied asylum and refugee seekers until the inescapable conclusion is that the primary policy consideration is the removal of asylum seekers from the UK altogether. Essentially, the UK’s policy reflects a rather narrow interpretation of the word asylum so that only in rare and extraordinary circumstances will an applicant be subject to state support and an even more restrictive approach is taken to the eventual approval of such applications. The result is that the UK is committed to a policy of national identify, the maintenance of the welfare state and the maintaining of safe and secure borders. Each of these policies require that the UK strictly control its borders. The strict control of its borders provides security both symbolically and physically. Bibliography Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1996 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Schuster, L. (2003) The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum and Germany. Routledge. Read More