Search results

The participatory action research project described in this chapter took place with an established campaigning and research organisation in Manchester. The young activists who were part of the work were all living without legal status in the UK, and had all been failed by the asylum system and cast as the ‘abject’ (Tyler, 2013) and unwanted. Building upon decades of protest against racist and ‘othering’ polices in Britain (Copsey, 2016; England, 2019), the project illustrates a powerful example of young people who are very much on the margins, neglected and disbelieved by the state, and vilified by wider society and deliberate distortions of what it means to ‘seek asylum’, coming together to activate and find a voice in public to call for justice and change. Utilising Voloshinov’s (1929/1986) method of ‘language creation from below’ to create a shared understanding of their experiences in the UK’s ‘hostile environment’ (Goodfellow, 2019), the young activists engaged in consciousness-raising together to explore the commonality of their lives as ‘(young) people seeking asylum’. Rejecting the dominant ideological sign of ‘asylum seeker’, they created a play, ‘Faceless’, to depict the reality of their experiences, to present a counterstatement (Voloshinov, 1929/1986), in the public sphere (Fraser, 1990), and to exercise what Castells (2015) refers to as ‘counterpower’.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the world is experiencing the greatest refugee crisis in recorded history alongside increasingly restrictive limits on asylum seekers and refugees. In 2020, the US administration established a ceiling for refugees of 18,000 people, the lowest number on record, and only 11,814 refugees were admitted to the United States. The Biden administration has expressed commitments to building a coherent asylum and refugee system and quickly reversing recent detrimental policies. But the administration has cautioned how quickly change might occur, given how “agencies and processes…have been so gutted.”¹

2016 to 2020 included an overwhelming series of changes to laws and policies affecting asylum seekers, often with little documented planning or communication, wreaking severe effects on conditions for asylum seekers at the US–Mexico border. These changes had significant consequences for human rights, most notably the linchpin right of access to information. At the US–Mexico border, must the right “to seek, receive and impart information” be fulfilled in order to fulfill the right to asylum?

While information professionals are not expected to be experts in law, they are experts in understanding the link between access to information and the realization of justice and human rights. This chapter investigates the role of the information professional in the fulfillment of the right to asylum, particularly in the context of contemporary asylum seekers at the US–Mexico border, volatile information landscapes, and the legal and historical framework in the United States for seeking asylum.

The purpose of this study was to examine the support available from identification through to recovery for survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking in the United Kingdom (UK) following the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015.

Twenty-nine semi-structured individual and group interviews were conducted with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) providing direct support to survivors and law enforcement engaged in initial identification, rescue and support.

Thematic analysis identified that survivors' experiences of support and negotiation of state processes is challenging, requiring lengthy periods of waiting. This experience is often compounded by variations in knowledge of processes and systems by front line staff, resulting in negative impacts on outcomes for survivors.

The small number of research participants could be regarded as a limitation but is common in qualitative, exploratory studies. A larger study should be conducted to test these initial findings. The implications propose a revision of policy especially for asylum-seeking survivors.

The study was conducted two years after the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act, 2015, during a period in which gaps in processes and support for survivors were beginning to emerge. This study offers a timely assessment of these gaps and argues for a review of policy and its implementation.

The reduction in public services since 2008 has undoubtedly affected some groups, such as disabled people, more than others. Many of these cuts, ostensibly imposed in response to recession, bear similarities to measures previously tried and tested on disabled asylum seekers. I argue that the perception of national crisis was used by government as a smokescreen to expand the population affected by such policies, thereby asserting a predetermined neoliberal agenda of public expenditure cuts.

The inequality of this situation is compounded by the entitlements granted to people deemed exceptionally worthy. The Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme for Syrian nationals includes disability among the eligibility criteria, offering considerably greater entitlements than available to asylum seekers. If the response to certain people is markedly different to that offered to others, then negative consequences can be anticipated, as from any other example of inequality. Furthermore, this scheme promotes a significant shift in migrant entitlement. The UK government has no legal obligation towards this group; therefore, those people who are selected are recipients of gifts rather than people claiming their rights. I explore the nature and implications of such differences in entitlement, arguing that inequality in all its manifestations must be challenged to reduce deprivation and to avoid negative consequences for the wider population.

In this paper, the authors explore racialisation through human-centric counter-accounts (counter-stories) to bring together critical race theory (CRT) and counter-accounting.

The authors utilise CRT to demonstrate the emancipatory role of counter-stories in (re)telling racialized narratives, specifically the narrative of asylum seekers who arrive by sea and are subjected to the inhumane and oppressive nature of the Australian government's policy of offshore immigration detention.

Counter-stories, as tools of accountability, can make visible oppressive forces and the hidden practices of racialized social practices and norms.

This paper emphasises that we are not in a post-racial world, and racialisation remains a fundamental challenge. We must continue to refute race as an ontological truth and strive to provide a platform for counter-stories that can spark or drive social change. This requires allies, including academics, to give that platform, support their plight, and offer avenues for change.

The authors introduce CRT as a theoretical tool for examining racialisation, opening space for a more critical confluence of accounting and race with potentially wide-reaching implications for our discipline. The paper also contributes to the limited accounting literature concerning asylum seekers, particularly in the use of counter-stories that offer a way of refuting, or challenging, the majoritarian/dominant narratives around asylum-seeking.

This chapter documents the process of conducting research as an anthropological expert witness to provide evidentiary proof of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of “race” among Chinese Indonesian asylum seekers in the United States. The research employed detailed oral history interviews supplemented by ethnographic information on names, kinship terminologies, and rituals honoring the dead to reconcile the dilemma of verifying cultural identity without essentializing Chinese culture. It also employed the theory of racialization to account for persecution based on “race” according to the 1951 Refugee Convention while recognizing the social science convention of viewing “race” as socially constructed.

While efforts to mainstream collection of ethnicity in routine health datasets have gathered pace since the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, relatively little attention has focused on the capture of migrants, and data on asylum seekers and refugees are even more sparse. There is negligible coverage in the key datasets for primary and secondary care, and only a few of the new contract datasets to support the National Service Frameworks accord importance to the migrant population. Some of the communicable disease data collections record country of birth, but its incompleteness is a drawback. Given the growing size of the non‐UK‐born population and the accumulating evidence on the health and health care needs of the migrant population, country of birth merits a place alongside other access variables such as age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence in routine data collection. While record linkage studies offer some scope, and there is currently a focus on obtaining improved migration statistics in the forthcoming census and other data flows, health and social care sources remain a neglected area.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the denial of social support to homeless persons and related societal effects of new local governance arrangements.

Analysis of new data and secondary evaluative and comparative data on the policies, administrative structures and management styles of Copenhagen, Glasgow and Amsterdam have brought better understanding of the elements of local governance arrangements that influence the number of homeless persons who are denied access to services and the number of persons sleeping rough who are not eligible for social support. Theoretical explanations for the impact of governance arrangements on these processes and societal effects are considered.

It appears that while the body of research, reports and policy documents on non-eligibility for homelessness services is growing, legal responses at best remain vague, and policies are still in the process of being developed. Modest progress on policy goals, and even more so on policy instruments, leading to less detrimental outcomes, can be explained by centralising and decentralising trends and the relationships between state and society. The latter may also be indicative of how the increased focus on the legal problems of some EU migrants can be explained.

The two points in time documented for the case studies are relevant in understanding processes underlying the current circumstances of homeless persons and homeless migrants and offer an interdisciplinary insight into governance and politics, law, and public and health service perspectives.

Good policy practice, as this paper shows, can lead to a difference in individual lives.

Much is unknown about considerations inside government. This paper contributes by combining theoretical and insider perspectives.