Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Can there be a hidden agenda?
- Varuni Ganepola (4 March 2001)
-
Carpet Baggers
- Tina Ambury (4 March 2001)
-
Re: Asylum seekers and refugees in Britain
- Michael Peel (7 March 2001)
-
Re: Can there be a hidden agenda?
- von Kaehne (7 March 2001)
-
seeking solutions for refugee and asylum seeker health
- Mark R D Johnson (12 March 2001)
-
Re: Can there be a hidden agenda?
- Fatheena Mubarak-Iqbal (20 March 2001)
|
|
|||
|
Varuni Ganepola, PhD Fellow, School of Social Sciences and International Development University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 0NG
Send response to journal:
|
There can be little dispute about the atrocities that displaced communities endure due to political conflict and expressions of violence in their home countries. Burnett and Peel (BMJ 2001; 322) outline some of the atrocities that people can experience not only in a war situation but also in the second or third country of asylum. It is true that most victims in conflict situations are civilians and that the majority of this displaced population remain within the countries that displaced them. Some may be compelled to argue that those who seek asylum endure risks, which only the desperate would embrace. We see evidence of this in recent British history where two Indians clung to the wheels of an airplane in order to enter Britain and another the person who made a fatal journey from Gatwick air port clinging to a wheel of a plane. More recently is the story of nine Romanian illegal immigrants who travelled underneath the Eurostar from Paris to London(1). It was the genocide of Jews that produced the 1951 Geneva Convention. But circumstances have changed and so should the Convention. It is clear that deciding who a genuine refugee is remains problematic despite theoretical instruments and legal mandates. But we do need such legislature because countries cannot sustain the rapid growth of global refugee figures due especially to consistent strains on limited economic and environmental resources. In short, countries cannot tolerate unlimited migration. I agree with Burnett and Peel that all asylum seekers who fail to meet the Geneva Convention are not bogus refugees. But I do contend that all those who claim asylum do not deserve the refugee status. I say this from my personal experiences with and research on refugees in Australia and Sri Lanka. In Australia, some so-called refugees proudly disclosed to me how they had beaten the system by producing false documentation and fabricating stories, events, and incidents. In Sri Lanka, my current research among two displaced communities living in refugee camps divulged that not a single person desired to claim asylum overseas. They had no relatives or connections in Western Europe or North America, no families to reunite with, little or no marketable skills in a competitive labour force, little or no English language skills and educational qualifications. Some did not even have the money to afford a bus ticket to travel long distances internally. Seeking asylum overseas was an option that was not even considered. In current refugee discourse, it is undeniable that there are migrants who exploit the refugee channels to seek asylum overseas. In some cases, genuine refugees become criminals because they have to resort to ‘smuggling agents’ in order to flee their sources of persecution. Migrants who are desperate to move will do anything to gain a foothold in a first world country and then sponsor family and other community members. If it is not the refugee channels they dishonour, it may be student criteria or marriage legislation that they exploit. The range of refugee benefits that are conferred may seem like pittance to us, but it is a substantial amount for those from poorer countries where a pound stretches far. I addition, the lures of richer economies and benefits of welfare states can be overwhelming reasons to migrate. Migration is also the answer to fundraising and propaganda activities that support their ‘causes’ at home. I agree that refugees have been misrepresented in the refugee diaspora. My refugee research has indicated that they are not simply victims of conflict and displacement but that they are also active participants in reconstructing their lives. Some, more than others, are resilient and resourceful, and will take advantage of the new situations and opportunities to empower themselves. Human smuggling and illegal immigration however, are not solutions to the problem. The aim of policy, wherever possible, needs to be directed more at attenuating the causes of displacement and promoting integration within countries that produce refugees. There may be a lesser urgency then for those fleeing violence and persecution, and a possible reduction of numbers of asylum seekers fleeing international borders. This is why it is important that the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are made legal and binding so that the international community can provide support to countries in need(2). A method that the Australian Government adopted in the 1980s was to introduce a case-by-case determination(3). This was a selection policy aimed at responding to the category of asylum seekers with no refugee claims but in need of resettlement opportunities. Refugee determination was based on reviewing cases on an individual basis. Today, we need to go one step further. We need to go, wherever possible, to politically unstable countries that make people become refugees, and review and investigate their cases locally. In certain Embassies, there are immigration officers who screen potential applications and this has to be further developed. In addition, research and inquiry into the situation, conditions, and social networking in the country of origin are essential in order to better understand and determine why Britain is Europe’s top asylum destination(4). The other solution is to resolve how the asylum seekers and refugees who are already in Britain can contribute positively to British society. Although deportation of failed asylum seekers is problematic (and a tragedy for some as Burnett and Peel highlight), the UK Government faces a real difficulty in deporting failed migrants. There are also more and more appeals even though independent adjudicators have upheld about 80% of the initial refusals. In one reception centre in Cambridgeshire, out of a 1000 refused applicants, only 350 have left the country(5). There are two identifiable camps within refugee discourse where people are either refugee romantics or refugee paranoiacs(6). Very few sit on the fence. Whatever camp we identify ourselves with, the issue remains that there are migrants who abuse the limited refuge available to genuine refugees. It is important to bear in mind that although all refugees are migrants, not all migrants are refugees. (1) The Times, 3 March, 2001 (2) The Inter-Agency standing Committee (IASC), United Nations 1998, Published by OCHA. (3) National Population Council (1990). NPC’s Refugee Review, Australian Government’s Publications Section (AGPS), Canberra, Australia. (4) Home Office figures, published in The Times, 26 January 2001. (5) Ibid. (6) Van Hear, N. 1998. New Diasporas: Mass exodus, dispersal and regrouping of migrant communities. London: UCL Press. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tina Ambury, Primary Care Physician, (GP in AED) North Manchester General Hospital
Send response to journal:
|
Reading this (and the previous week's) article on health issues for asylum seekers, I felt I needed to raise the matter of current Government policy regarding private finance initiatives.
Last December I overheard one of the senior sisters in AED despairing about the number of asylum seekers that were attending with chronic, 'general practice' type conditions. As part of my role in AED is to liase between the department and the local community, my attention was aroused by the assumption that local GPs were refusing to register these patients. I rang the primary care department of the Health Authority in which most of the refugees had been housed to enquire what the arrangements were, only to find that the Health Authority was not aware of their arrival. I was told that the private company responsible for housing the refugees have no legal or statutory obligation to inform the health or social services of their presence. My phone call had been the first tip off. As local GPs had entered into an agreement whereby they would accept asylum seekers on to their lists if they had prior knowledge of their arrival, this omission threatened to upset matters. However, I was able to design a poster and flier (in English & French) detailing the contact numbers of patient data desks in all three of our local Health Authorities. This flier is now given to any asylum seeker attending our AED who is not registered with a GP. Locally the situation is now in hand, with all parties co-operating to try and provide the health care these new arrivals to our country need. However, 'batches' of refugees still arrive in the community without any of the local care agencies being aware until someone seeks medical help. Surely this exploitation of vulnerable people by carpet bagging, so-called, philanthropists should be stopped? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Peel, senior medical examiner medical foundation for the care of victims of torture
Send response to journal:
|
We agree with Ganepola that not all those who claim asylum deserve refugee status. However, we believe that the distinction between "genuine asylum seekers" and "economic migrants" is much less clear than the media would suggest. We have seen some people dishonestly claiming asylum, and we do not condone it. They are abusing the resources of the Medical Foundation, as well as other services. However, it is not easy to make an accurate assessment. Whilst they are in the UK, all asylum seekers are entitled to be treated with respect by the legal and medical systems, and also by politicians, the media and society. Removal is appropriate for those asylum seekers who have failed in their application, providing the process has been fair, and that they are not at risk of torture or cruel and inhuman treatment on their return. However, the fact that Special Adjudicators overturn more than 20% of cases refused by the Home Office is a sign that the system needs improving. The danger is that the system becomes faster at the expense of becoming fairer or firmer. Michael Peel and Angela Burnett |
|||
|
|
|||
|
von Kaehne , General Practitioner Fernbank Medical Centre
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Ganepola's rapid response is in my eyes a rather unfortunate and not too subtle attempt to discredit an already miserably treated community. I appreciate that there are people in this world who quite happily will undergo any kind of ordeal in order to have a better life somewhere and not everyone will fulfill whatever criterias are set by Western countries as being enough to qualify as "refugee". Some might also resort to lies and faking of documents. Some of these might also come from Sri Lanka. Nevertheless Dr Ganepola's response is quite clearly not "on the fence" between the "refugee romantics and the refugee paranoiacs", as she would like to be. On the one hand she quite sweepingly accuses refugees of being economic migrants under false pretences, of being criminals and of lying and faking their way into the Golden West, on the other hand she claims "Migration is also the answer to fundraising and propaganda activities that support their ‘causes’ at home." Fundraising and propaganda activities for a 'cause' are quite obviously the expression of anti- government convictions, leading frequently to imprisonement and torture, particularly in Dr Ganepola's homeland Sri Lanka. It is a fact only recently again asserted in a publication by the Medical Foundation that young Tamil men from the North of Sri Lanka face a high risk of imprisonment and torture, particularly if they have scars "proving" their participation in the civil war. (1) Caught In The Middle: A study of Tamil torture survivors coming to the UK from Sri Lanka (June 2000), Medical Foundation, London Competing Interests: None |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark R D Johnson, Reader in Primary Care Mary Seacole Research Centre, De Montfort University
Send response to journal:
|
I have been interested to read the debate about the health needs and service requirements - of refugees and asylum seekers. It is clear that several agendas are involved. The oldest, perhaps, is the 'public health' defence: most of the exsting services dedicated to examing the health of migrants (particularly asylum seekers) are not really part of the NHS but part of the Local Authority and national immigration systems. Secondly, there is the political controversy over asylum seekers and migration: this is not really a health issue, but it affects the allocation of resources and places additional stress upon the individuals concerned, thereby possibly adversely affecting their mental health and reducing the likelyhood that they will seek help, even if clinically necessary. Thirdly, there is the moral, ethical or clinical debate about the best way to meet the health needs of refugees and asylum seekers as human beings and patients. I hope we can concentrate on this I have been asked to compile a short report on the issues involved in meeting health needs for refugees and asylum seekers within the context of the new Dispersal system. There are clearly some similarities with the needs of 'ethnic minorities', (such as the need for interpreters, cultural differences etc) and others which are particular to this group. I'd appreciate hearing from practitioners who have developed innovative ways of meeting these needs. Mark R D Johnson |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fatheena Mubarak-Iqbal, PhD Candidate London School of Economics and Political Science
Send response to journal:
|
Re: Can there be a hidden agenda? Dr. von Kaehne states that Ganepola, in her article, 'quite sweepingly accuses refugees of being economic migrants under false pretences'. In his haste to criticise Ganepola, he sadly misses the essence of her views, that is, we need to be conscious of 'migrants who abuse the limited refuge available to genuine refugees'. Of course, this immediately stimulates the debate on who a 'genuine refugee' is, but it should not make us complacent about the 'real' reasons why some (not all) migrants may exploit any available refugee channels to leave their home countries. I quite agree with Dr. von Kaehne that refugees are a 'miserably treated community', but this does not mean that we should live with our heads buried in the sand and be totally oblivious to the realities of migration and asylum-seeking. In conclusion, I wish to emphasise that it is not just young, Tamil men who have suffered as a result of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, even though many people may assume that on reading Dr. von Kaehne's article. Suffice it to say, that all ethnic communities in Sri Lanka have experienced distress and torment to a greater or lesser degree in the past few decades as a result of the ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka. |
|||