Advertisement

Processing Asylum Seekers

  • Steven Loyal
  • Stephen Quilley
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter extends our use of the concept of social closure by examining both the strategies used by state officials and the counter-usurpation strategies employed by asylum seekers. The very obvious power differential means that it is the state that is always hegemonic in the processing system. Like all other social processes, a social closure can be seen from two very different perspectives. On the one hand, there are asylum seekers aiming not only to escape persecution but also to gain access to the state and its resources and to acquire a better life. In the context of restricted alternative avenues for legal entry, some non-EU nationals undoubtedly use the asylum system to gain entry. For many, the distinctions between economic and political motivations are often moot, and choices relative. On the other hand, there are bureaucrats who act and speak on behalf of the state. Such officials embody the power of the state, its authority, its power of naming and judging, or what Bourdieu referred to as the central bank of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 2014). The state, he argues, has an almost magical power not only to provide titles and make official declarations but also to endorse and back all acts of nomination, credentials, and guarantees—making both positive and negative judgements, and solidifying and consecrating extant social divisions in the social world. These ‘acts of state’ employ a public power—res-publica. State acts are by definition public rather than private and more abstractly represent ‘the people’ or members of the nation-state community. With reference to immigration, the raison d’être of such officials is to slow the flow, to filter, and to restrict entry. This is especially so when these officials construe asylum seekers as an economic, ideological, and social threat to the resources of a small state. As Bourdieu (1977) sought to show, in particular fields and struggles, and according to their position in social space, actors employ ‘strategies’ to either maintain or improve their position. These are not conscious and instrumental strategies as modelled by rational choice theory. They are rather ‘embodied’, that is, incorporated into the body and personality as dispositions (or ‘habitus’). Human agents enter any field of struggle with given endowments, either incorporated within the habitus as dispositions and competencies or in an objectified state as material goods. The form that strategies take and the type of agents involved (individual, institutional or collective) are historically and socially determined by the logic of the field. In this case we can talk of a ‘field of refugee practices’ or ‘field of migration’. By foregrounding ‘strategies’ we do not imply either that the narratives used to establish refugee credibility are necessarily false or alternatively that they are true. For the most part, we bracket out such considerations. Rather, we argue that, given their dominant position in setting up the game and structuring its rules, albeit referring to UNHCR guidelines, state officials are often able to operate a form of socio-territorial closure which denies asylum seekers refugee status. This power is not, however, wholly arbitrary but is regulated through international norms and rules and ultimately enforced by judicial sanction. Nevertheless, the power to define rules and interpret them, within limits, and make accounts count, is important.

References

  1. Allen, K. (1997). Fianna Fail and Irish Labour, 1926 to the Present. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, J. (2004, July 1). Expert Evidence – The Judicial Perception in Asylum and Human Rights Appeals. International Journal of Refugee Law, 16(3), 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson, R., & Wood, T. (2015). Mass Media. Oxford: Oxford Bibliographies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (2014). On the State: Lectures at the College de France 1989–1991 (P. Champagne, R. Lenoir, F. Poupeau, & M.-C. Riviere, Eds.). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P., et al. (1999). The Weight of the World. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. (2011). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Conlon, S., Waters, S., & Berg, K. (2012). Difficult to Believe: The Assessment of Asylum Claims in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  10. Cullen, P. (1997, November 26). Callely Targets Rogue Asylum Seekers. Irish Times.Google Scholar
  11. Cullen, P. (2000). Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Ireland. Cork: Cork University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elias, N., & Scotson, J. (2008/1965). The Established and the Outsiders: Collected Works of Norbert Elias (Vol. 4). Dublin: UCD.Google Scholar
  13. Eurostat. (2016). Distribution of First Instance Decisions on (Non-EU) Asylum Applications. Brussels: EU. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/File:Distribution_of_first_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2016_(%25)_YB17.png.
  14. Faughnan, P., & Woods, M. (2001). Lives on Hold. Dublin: SSRC.Google Scholar
  15. Garner, S. (2007). Ireland and Immigration: Explaining the Absence of the Far-Right in Ireland. Patterns of Prejudice, 41(2), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geddes, A. (2000). Immigration and European Integration: Towards Fortress Europe? Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Geddes, A. (2001). International Migration and State Sovereignty in an Integrating Europe. International Migration Review, 39(6), 20–42.Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin-Gill, G. (1983). The Refugee in International Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Granhag, P., Stromwall, L., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Granting Asylum or Not: Migration Board Personnel’s Beliefs About Deception. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graycar, J. (1995). The Gender of Judgements: An Introduction. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Public and Private Feminist Legal Debates (pp. 262–282). Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, S. (1990). The Whites of Their Eyes: Racist Ideologies and the Media. In M. Alvarado & J. O. Thompson (Eds.), The Media Reader (pp. 9–23). London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Haynes, A., Devereux, E., & Breen, M. (2006). Fear Framing and Foreigners: The Othering of Immigrants in the Irish Print Media. International Journal of Critical Pyschology, 16, 100–121.Google Scholar
  23. Herlihy, J., Gleeson, K., & Turner, S. (2010). What Assumptions About Human Behaviours Underlie Asylum Judgments. International Journal of Refugee Law, 22(3), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. INIS. (2016). Irish Naturalization and Immigration Service: Immigration Review in Ireland Annual Review 2016. Dublin: INIS.Google Scholar
  25. Irish Refugee Council. (2001). Asylum Seekers and the Right to Work. Dublin: IRC.Google Scholar
  26. Irish Refugee Council. (2012). State Sanctioned Child Poverty and Exclusion. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  27. Irish Refugee Council. (2013). Framing an Alternative Reception System for People Seeking Protection. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  28. Irish Refugee Council. (2016). The Reception and Housing of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Ireland: Submission to the Housing and Homelessness Committee. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  29. Irish Refugee Council. (2017). AIDA Ireland Report, Dublin: Ireland. Retrieved from http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/report-download/aida_ie_update.v_final.pdf.
  30. Kagan, M. (2003). Is Truth in the Eye of the Beholder? Objective Credibility Assessment in Refugee Status Determinations. Georgetown Law Journal, 17(3), 367–415.Google Scholar
  31. Mair, P. (1992). Explaining the Absence of Class Politics in Ireland. In J. Goldthorpe & C. Whelan (Eds.), The Development of Industrial Society in Ireland (pp. 383–410). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mannheim, K. (1952). On the Interpretation of Weltanshauung. In P. Kecskemeti (Trans. & Ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mullally, S. (2001). Manifestly Unjust: A Report on the Fairness and Sustainability of Accelerated Procedures for Asylum Determinations. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  35. NASC. (2008). Hidden Cork: The Perspectives of Asylum Seekers on Direct Provision and the Asylum Legal System. Cork: NASC.Google Scholar
  36. O’Donohue, J. (2000). Law Society Gazette. Dublin: Law Society.Google Scholar
  37. Office of the Refugee Applications Commission (ORAC). (2005). Annual Report. Dublin: ORAC. Retrieved from www.orac.ie/pdf/PDFStats/Annual%-20Statistics/ORAC_2005_Annual_Statistics.pdf.
  38. Office of the Refugee Applications Commission (ORAC). (2016). Annual Report 2015. Dublin: ORAC.Google Scholar
  39. Pollak, A. (1999). An Invitation to Racism? Irish Daily Newspaper Coverage of the Refugee Issue. In D. Kiberd (Ed.), Media in Ireland: The Search for Ethical Journalism. Dublin: Open Air.Google Scholar
  40. Spijkerboer, T. (2000). Gender and Refugee Status. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Thornton, L. (2011). Social Welfare Law and Asylum Seekers in Ireland: An Anatomy of Exclusion. Journal of Social Security Law, 20(2), 66–88.Google Scholar
  42. Toner, B. (1998). Wanted an Immigration Policy. Jesuit Centre for Faith & Justice Newsletter. Working Notes, 33, 1–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Loyal
    • 1
  • Stephen Quilley
    • 2
  1. 1.University College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations