The Learning of the Local Economic and Political Environment by Service Providers - Research Paper Example

Introduction A social movement is collectivity acting with some continuity to promote or resist a change in the society or organization of which it is a part of a collectivity, a movement is a group with indefinite and changing membership and with leadership whose position is determined more by informal response of the members than by formal procedures for legitimating authority (Turner, 1987 p. 223; Ivy, 2010, p. 397). Social movements are ideally collective enterprises established by a new order of life. They have their inception in the condition of unrest, and derive their motive power on one hand from discontent with the current form of life, and on the other hand, from wishes for a new system of living (Peter & Hashem, 2011, p.148). In studying social movement dynamics, several key factors are operationally significant and must be present in interacting before a collectivity of whatever size becomes a true movement (Adam, 2012, p. 25). These include ideologically bound structural unit that consist of face to face recruitment by committed individuals usually with pre-existing social relationship. This personal commitment inherently separates an adherent in one way or the other from the established order replacing these with a new set of values which in the long run changes his or her pattern of behavior (Adam, 2012, p. 25). For a social movement to exist, it usually has an ideology that codifies its values and goal which in turn provide a conceptual framework by which all experiences or events in relation to their goals are interpreted and envisioned. Similarly, whether real or perceived, opposition from a society at large or from that segment of established order within which the movement has arisen is the basic tenet of a social movement (Adam, 2012, p. 26; Etlyn et al 2010, p. 350). In retrospect, social movement perspective on governance, then, is twofold. First and foremost, activists must exercise governance within the movement to firm it for the coming struggle for power. Secondly, they must also protect members from authorities who seek to disrupt and disband their opposition. With its base secured and resources gathered and focused, the social movement is prepared to claim a share of governance and authority from state actors. (Goldberg, 2010, p. 65). These can take the form of silent vigils, parades, demonstrations, strikes, rallies, kidnappings, boycotts, violence, and similar collective behaviors which are initiated to persuade authorities to recognize challengers and to bring change (Goldberg, 2010, p. 70). It then follows that when state actors deny the legitimacy of an institution and ignore their grievances, opportunities arise for social movement mobilization. Historical Development The hardest task for social movements is challenging the status quo.It requires them to sustain their members over time to withstand assaults from within and without; through creation of self-contained communities, non-state entities, administered by their own leaders and codes of conduct. (Goldberg, 2010, p. 71). Movements are not only formed by individuals, movement organizations also play an important role in making the civil actions happen. The more people involved in the action, the more effective a movement can appear in terms of achieving a certain goal (Amenta et al., 2010, p. 289).The bid to influence status quo is an uphill climb. This may involve divisive means like repression, preemption, cooptation, and redirection that subvert challenge or deny it completely to transform it into something managed and controlled. If victorious, candidates submit to authorities. On occasion, this rising from the grassroots results in the legitimization of new constituencies and yields important cultural changes. (Goldberg, 2010, p. 79). With base secure, the movement is ready to compete for power and make claims on state actors. This involves not only employing resources, but also finding influential friends, appealing to the wider community for support while avoiding actions that antagonize movement-breaking establishments. State actors meet claims on governance by bargaining, reforming, repressing, or subverting challengers. Such contention is hardly static. Electoral shifts and economic disruption offer new opportunities to challengers by upsetting the existing balance of power and sparking the emergence of identities relevant to changing times (Goldberg, 2010, p. 79; Buzek & Surde 2012, p. 57). For the sore losers of democratic governance and social strife, asylum seeking becomes the easiest escape route as they find themselves away from their birth countries seeking political, social or even economic asylum. It is this social movement that will be magnified in the succeeding pages of this report with the ultimate goal of determining factors that constrain action and how social actors try to instigate change despite such constraints. Asylum Seekers An Asylum seeker means a person who has applied for asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention on the Status of Refugees on the ground that if he is returned to his country of origin he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political belief or membership of a particular social group (N.S.P.C.C., 1997, p. 14; ONS, 2008). He remains an asylum seeker for so long as his application or an appeal against refusal of his application is pending (Mitchell 2006, p.2) This term is sometimes erroneously interchanged with the word refugee. A "Refugee" on the other hand means an asylum seeker whose application has been successful. Broadly, it means a person fleeing e.g. civil war or natural disaster but not necessarily fearing persecution as defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention (Mitchell, 2006, p.3) Johnson et al., (2000) write that ‘refugees' are ‘displaced people who are unable or unwilling to return to their homeland because they are facing persecutions for reasons such as, race, religion or nationality differences'. The difference in their application is usually in the perceptions of the users. An "Economic migrant" means a person who has left his own country and seeks by lawful or unlawful means to find employment in another country (Berkel et al 2012, p.274). Many asylum seekers are in fact economic migrants who hope to secure entry into the United Kingdom by claiming asylum (Mitchell, 2006, p. 4) To describe a person as an asylum seeker is in principle a neutral statement, not making any assumption as to whether his claim is justified or not. Unfortunately "asylum seeker" and "refugee" are frequently conflated, giving rise to much confusion. Persons compelled to leave their country of origin as a result of international or national armed conflicts are not normally considered refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol. They do, however, have the protection provided for in other international instruments, e.g. the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Brief Background In 2008, a comprehensive examination of the UK's asylum system found it "marred by inhumanity" and "not yet fit for purpose". (Dugan, 2008, p.1)The report, published by the Independent Asylum Commission, is a damning indictment of the Home Office's failure to deal fairly with those applying for sanctuary in the UK.The commission found that Britain's treatment of asylum-seekers "falls seriously below the standards to be expected of a humane and civilized society (Dugan, 2008, p.3). It detailed how the “friendly” system is failing applicants from the very first point of interview, with officials accused of stacking the odds against genuine applicants. The findings are the result of the most thorough look at the system in history, with testimonies from every sphere of society, including three former home secretaries, more than 100 NGOs, 90 asylum-seekers, the police, local authorities, and hundreds of citizens. (Dugan, 2008, p.7). The reports indicated that the use of detention centres – especially to lock up children, pregnant women and torture victims – was condemned, as was the brutal handling of removals, and the use of destitution as a tool to drive applicants out of the country. This they found to be not only oppressive to the asylum seekers but an unnecessary burden to taxpayers. Factors such as post-traumatic stress were not considered enough when asylum-seekers had their initial interviews with border officials. Victims of rape and torture who might initially find it difficult to describe their experiences sometimes had their cases overlooked because they only described these incidents in later conversations. (Dugan, 2008, p.13). Cuts in the legal aid budget have also made it more difficult for those with complex cases to find lawyers to take them on, resulting in many genuine claims being overlooked. The UK government has long recognized that many people from countries in a state of turmoil for one reason or another, although they may not have a valid claim for asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention, should not be compelled to return to their countries of origin because of general anarchy or lack of security there. (N.S.P.C.C., 1997, p.34) Towards this end, the UK government has allowed such people to remain for a limited period on grounds of humanitarian protection even though their claims have failed. In recent years persons from Liberia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Iraq have been granted limited leave to remain on this basis. (Beckford, 2012). In July 2012, the Supreme Court (UK) blocked the deportation of asylum seekers with no political views. This move allowed thousands more asylum seekers at risk of persecution from oppressive regimes to stay in Britain (Beckford, 2012) They held that the right not to hold political opinions is protected by international refugee law just as much as the right not to be religious. They said that no one should be expected to lie about their allegiances in order to avoid persecution, and that it would in any case be impossible for judges to decide if their pretence would be believed. The ruling allowed four Zimbabweans to remain in Britain, defeating attempts by the Home Office to deport them, but could be used more widely by those claiming asylum to avoid being returned to dictatorships even if they have never been dissidents. (Beckford, 2012; Barkman, 2011). The number of people fleeing persecution and arriving on the UK shores has fallen significantly in recent years. (Beckford, 2012) In the first three months of 2011, 4,845 people sought asylum in the UK. These people mainly from failed states and oppressive regimes such as Somalia, Eritrea, Iran and the Arab Spring uprisings however come into a non-conducive environment. This includes a strained Legal aid system which is facing another £350m cut from the previous year’s slash. More than 400 barristers warned that victims of torture, children and the mentally ill will have their lives put at risk by cuts that, they say, will create legal aid "deserts" where it is impossible to find publicly funded access to justice. Immigration status and awaiting the outcome of asylum claims for young refugees is “an issue that permeates all other aspects of their lives” (Humphries & Mynott, 2001, p.24). During entry interviews young people experience a constant underlying sense of anxiety in relation to this issue and their ability to settle is compromised by long waits and lack of information. Asylum specialists are also going out of business. In 2011, the legal charity Refugee Migrant Justice (RMJ) shut down, leaving 10,000 asylum cases in limbo leaving case files locked away in storage. (Beckford, 2012, p. 22). With no representation and access to justice it seems it is the end of the road for asylum seekers across the country. Once rejected, they lose their accommodation and other state support. They are classified as "destitute", a condition designed to deter others from seeking asylum in Britain. Still not permitted to work, they must survive on charity, find themselves a solicitor who can access legal aid, unearth new evidence to submit a fresh claim. Two years ago, the most recent period for which figures are available, there were 3,000 destitute asylum seekers in Leeds. Although asylum arrivals have fallen, refugee charities in the city say they are busier than ever this year because people are more in need of help. (Beckford, 2012, p. 27) Conclusion Though scanty, information on rejected asylum applicants is a critical weakness in existing data sources. Some rejected applicants depart by government removal or various voluntary departures schemes for which data are available. Others, as noted above, might either depart without notifying authorities or remain in the UK as part of the irregular migrant population.  Reliable data do not exist to discern between these two categories. Indeed, lack of data on departures from the UK is a weakness in asylum data and migration data generally in the UK. Compared to other nations, there are additional gaps in UK asylum data. Demographic data about asylum seekers are limited to age, sex, and nationality. By contrast, nations such as Sweden and Australia collect additional information on asylum applicants’ marital status, ethnicity, religion, and parents’ countries of birth, date of migration, education, prior occupation, health, language, and future migratory intentions. Most asylum seekers fleeing danger do not arrive with ID and paperwork to support their claims. Many are too traumatized to tell the coherent chronological story of their flight from oppression that the authorities demand, and so their claims are, at first, rejected. Service providers have a critical role within dispersal cities, handling the transnational flow of migrants. They are accepting of individual's cultures and identities whilst encouraging the learning of the local economic, social and political environment. It is high time for the Government takes a long hard look at the way it treats people seeking sanctuary on our shores. We must treat people with basic decency, and the system must get asylum decisions right – they are a matter of life and death. If basic principles governing asylum seekers could be accepted and enacted by practitioners, policy makers and government, this is would go some way to ensuring that the gaps identified in this review are filled and that this social movement has access to the services they need without undue grudges. References Adam, T. (2012). Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia, Reference Reviews, 26 (5), 25 – 26. Amenta, E., Chiarello, E. & Su, Y. (2010). The Political Consequences of Social Movements. Annual Review Social. Barkman, P. (2011). The asylum seekers facing a Kafkaesque legal nightmare. Retrieved August 4, 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk Beckford, M & Laing, A. (2012). Supreme Court blocks deportation of asylum seekers with no political views. Retrieved July 26, 2012 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk Berkel et al (2012). The diversity of activation markets in Europe, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 32 (5), 273 - 285 Buzek, J & Surdej, A. (2012). Paradigm lost, paradigm rediscovered? Prospects for the development of solidarity-oriented economy in post-communist Poland, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32 (1), 56 – 69. Dugan. E. (2008).’inhumane and oppressive': the final verdict on Britain's asylum policy. Retrieved March 27, 2013 from http://www.independent.co.uk Etlyn et al (2010). Exploring ethnicity in organizations, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29 (4), 348 - 363 Herbert, B. (1939). An Outline of the Principles of Sociology. New York: Barnes and Noble Ivy, J (2010). Choosing futures: influence of ethnic origin in university choice’, International Journal of Educational Management, 24 (5), 391 - 403 Johnson et al (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography, Oxford: Blackwell Luther P. & Virginia H. (1970). People, Power, Change: Movements of Social Transformation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Mitchell, H (2006). The distinction between asylum seekers and refugees, Retrieved January 24, 2013 from http://www.migrationwatchuk.org Mynott, E & Humphries, B. (2003) Young Separated Refugees, UK Practice and Europeanization, Europe Social, 9(1). N.S.P.C.C. (1997). Turning Points: A Resource Pack for Communicating with Children. London: N.S.P.C.C. ONS (2008). Methodology to Estimate Total International Migration 1991 to 2008. Newport: Office for National Statistics. Peter, J & Hashem, F. (2011). Responding to minority ethnic groups' language support needs in Britain, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30 (2), 145 - 162 Ralph, T. & Lewis ( 1987). Collective Behavior. N.J: Prentice Hall Robert G. ( 2010). The challenge of change: Social movements as non-state actors. 62-80 Stewart, E. (2004). Deficiencies in UK Asylum Data: Practical and Theoretical Challenges. Journal of Refugee Studies, 17(1), 29. Read More