WHAT ARE THE UNDERLYING

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE

GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARDS
REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS
Joan Katulege

SPS 490: SENIOR SEMINAR IN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the major in Social and Political
Systems at Pine Manor College Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
 1

Abstract

The purpose of this project is to determine and inspect the factors that influence governmental

policy towards refugees and asylum seekers. Social science scholars have identified two

predominant factors that influence refugee and asylum policy; socio-economic climate of the

asylum country and political considerations for the asylum country. This project assess what

countries utilize to either control or encourage asylum and refugee resettlement in times of

prosperity and times of hardship. The project discovers that controlling social rights and using

the Country of Origin to determine refugee eligibility works to deter asylum flows into the

asylum country. The project ascertains that there is an overlap between these two factors. They

influence each other when it comes to regulating refugee and asylum seekers.

Introduction

The recent global scale turmoil has led to the displacement of millions of people

worldwide. These people have abandoned their homes since they are no longer safe and peaceful

to live in. They are displaced and have destitute depending instead on the generosity and

humanity of others in order to survive. This group of displaced, destitute individuals is classified

as refugees. A refugee is any person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual

resident who has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religious,

nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or

unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country or to return there, for fear of

persecution (Mountz, 2010). Refugees have been a recurring facet of civilization. Refugee

flows have materialized over time, reflecting different conflicts in different parts of the world. In
 2

the past couple of years, we have seen an influx in refugee flows, surface due to the political and

economic deterioration that has transpired in recent years.

The most historically recorded refugee movement took place after World War II. After the

war, the world realized the impecunious nature of the Jews that had just survived the horrors of

the holocaust. The world realized the constraints of refugees and in an effort to elicit

participation in member countries, but provide support and homes for the refugees, the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was founded at the Geneva Convention of 1951. The

Convention established a set of conditions that designated a refugee. Since refugee populations

are scattered in temporary camps throughout the world, and people live in a condition of total

dependency, their needs for food, shelter, medicine, and clothing, and above all, for some haven

where normal life will again be possible far exceed the capacity of any nation to grant relief

(Loescher and Scanlan, 1986), the convention made it an obligation for every member state to

take responsibility in harboring and providing care and support to refugees. Refugees are a

burden to governments because they require access to basic social rights as well as financial

assistance in the immediate years after their resettlement, but knowing that the burden will be

shared and every country will assist in every way that they can make it easier for refugees to find

new homes where they can become reinstated in society.

The refugee process is a laborious one because it requires the participation of both the

United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees as well as the member states that are associated

with the resettlement process. The first step in the process requires individuals to register for

refugee status with the UNHCR. Once registered, UNHCR evaluates the application to see

whether the individual is eligible for refugee status. Once this step is complete, the UNHCR

determines which individuals are most susceptible and begins their resettlement process. Those
 3

considered for resettlement by the UNHCR are then individually interviewed by a trained

refugee protection officer who looks for discrepancies in the stories given by the applicants. If he

is satisfied, they will apply for a visa on behalf of the applicant with one of the 28 member states

associated with the resettlement process. The applicant will then have another interview with the

visa officer who tries to determine if the applicant poses a national security to their country. If

the visa officer is satisfied, a background check is run on the applicant against all available

databases to further rule out national security concerns regarding the applicant. At this time, the

applicant also has to go through a medical evaluation. If everything comes back in a satisfactory

manner, the applicant is given a loan for air travel that will help them settle into their host

countries.

Despite the extensive process of the refugee determination and resettlement process, out

of the twenty-eight member states only four accept refugees on a yearly basis. The other twenty-

four member states reluctantly accept refugees when the burden poses a debilitating effect on the

four member states with open policies. Researchers have studied two factors that affect the

policies that are enacted by governments; these factors are socio-economics and politics. The

purpose of this paper is to discern the ways that these factors work that influences which policies

governments adopt when confronted with the accepting refugees.

Social-Economic Analysis

Governments will legislate policies towards refugees based of social factors. Legislation

reflecting the social climate is enacted whenever people become acutely aware of the lack of

cultural homogeneity. People tend to react negatively when they feel normal changing. Native
 4

residents share common values and beliefs that create a culture of sameness, however, when the

refugees come in a culture of difference is created, and this difference threatens their

homogeneity. The percentage of refugees that are accepted for the resettlement process is less

than 1%. However, refugees are resettled in clustered groups which makes the native residents

feel a change in homogeneity. During resettlement, young women with refugee backgrounds

experience elevated rates of teen pregnancy and early parenthood relative to other young

women (McMichael, 2013). As a result, the lack of homogeneity becomes conspicuous.

Consequently, this apparent lack of cultural homogeneity induces an anxiety reaction that

eventually manifests into xenophobic and racist attitudes towards the refugees from the native

residents. Xenophobic and racist attacks will prompt government to respond through legislation

aimed at controlling social change. When consensus shows disapproval towards refugees,

governments have to tighten their borders and regulations to curb the number of asylum seekers

who enter their borders seeking refuge. Governments are the only ones authorized to determine

whether or not an asylum seeker qualifies as a refuge under the provisions set forth by the

UNHCR. The number of applicants approved for asylum is less than 10%. The government

typically employs two strategies that work together to control social change; containing

applicants seeking refugee status and restricting their access to social rights. These restrictionist

policies curb the number of immigrants who enter the country seeking asylum by further

discouraging those seeking economic opportunities to refrain from applying.

Cultural homogeneity is maintained through prolonged mandatory stays in reception

centers. While in the center, asylum applicants are isolated from the outside world because under

no circumstance are they allowed to leave the premises of the accommodation centers.

Simultaneously, applicants are restricted access to social rights. The whole range of welfare
 5

benefits, from education to health care and pensions has become a target for those wishing to

restrict the rights of foreigners (Hollifield, 2000: 114). This restriction act as determents for

asylum seekers. Whenever present, the enforcement of these restrictions has shown a decrease in

the number of people who apply for asylum. The decrease is speculated to be the result of fraud

applicants realizing their economic needs will not be met in the country that they are in. Using

centers also always to the government to regulate individuals. They can run background checks

to rule out people who pose a national security threat, but even those who pose a burden on the

economy due to certain long term illnesses, such as HIV, hepatitis, and other chronic diseases, or

those with acute infectious diseases such as Ebola, Influenza, etc. Having asylum seekers

secluded reduces the feeling of invasion in the communities of native residents.

Reception centers that hold applicants for prolonged periods of time stops the integration

of asylum seekers into mainstream society. They are unable to be productive members of society,

and their seclusion fosters an altered reality in their host country. For those applicants who later

receive asylum, they proceed with caution, making sure to avoid situations that might lead them

to trouble with the law. They will keep to themselves and not interact with anyone that appears

different from them. Consequently, asylum seekers are bound to be discriminated against, and

are the scapegoats of everything that goes bad. Asylum seekers are blamed for the deterioration

of the pure culture because aspects of their culture become integrated into their society.

In countries where the ontology of the native residents is not affected, an increase in

social rights is noted. The right to work is not restricted, and they are granted access to work by

the government. Asylum seekers are allowed to choose their living arrangements while they their

applications are pending because there are no mandatory policies requiring them to stay at

reception centers (Anderson and Nilsson, 2009). This gives the government an opportunity to
 6

reduce the amount of money spent on containing applicants. Asylum seekers are given a daily

allowance to cover, among other expenses, food, clothing, and telephone calls (Anderson and

Nilsson, 2009). The daily allowance is higher for applicants that have their own housing

arrangements. In case, they need more money for extra costs, such as winter clothing, glasses,

and equipment for infants (Anderson and Nilsson, 2009), applicants can request and receive a

special allowance. Access to health care is made readily available for children and for adults,

they are allowed to get emergency care and dental care with the possibility of paying a patient

fee in the future. The patient fee for asylum seekers is slightly lower than the fee paid by

residents. Last, but not least, in countries where cultural homogeneity is present, we see that

access to education is obtainable for asylum seekers.

Whenever native residents feel their ontology becoming disorganized they will prompt

government to enact laws that protect their homogeneity. Asylum seekers will be secluded from

general society, and refugees will have communities that will isolate them from mainstream

communities. Asylum seekers and refugees are seen as the causes of bad events, thus the main

agenda is to deter other asylum seekers and refugees from entering the country. However, when

homogeneity is secure, asylum seekers and refugees are embraced by the policies in their new

society. They are made to feel welcome, and are likely to experience equality and compassion

from numerous members in their new society. Whether or not refugees are resented depends on

the social receptiveness of the community, and as time goes and times change, the social

receptiveness will also change to reflect the communities ideals. Social receptiveness changes

particularly when the refugees stay is prolonged, but communities that welcome refugees

initially are less likely (or will take longer) to resent or protest the refugees presence (Jacobsen,

1999).
 7

When enacting policies toward asylum seekers and refugees, countries always examine

the impact of the economic burden that an influx of vulnerable people is going to have on the

country. Accepting refuges requires to the government of the asylum country to provide access to

housing, welfare, healthcare and education for the new immigrants. Access to career services is

also required in order for the new immigrants to receive training and certification needed for

them to get employed. However, all these services cause an economic strain in the lives of

citizens of asylum countries that is reflected in their taxes. In order to minimize the burden, many

countries enact laws that decrease the access to social rights and educational institutions.

A decrease in social rights and educational institutions works as a control tool because it

deters asylum seekers from seeking refuge in that host country. The less immigrants arriving in

the country to seek refugee results in less government money being spent in order to sustain them

and support them. Numerous countries are experiencing an increase in asylum applications and

are having difficulties in coping (Clements, 2001), as a result, many have found a solution in

enacting restrictionist policies in order to decrease the number of asylum applications. In times

of economic difficulty, tighter entry measures are enacted and social institution disentitlement are

adopted to stop individuals from gaining access into the asylum country. Asylum seekers have

found themselves, unable to work, unable to qualify for student grants, and some are not

eligible for social security as well as the lack of family reunion rights (Bloch, 2000).

However, in countries that are not experiencing economic hardship, they enact policies

that give asylum seekers access to social rights and educational institutions. For children, these

social rights and educational institutions are still available even when an asylum application is

denied. Having the ability to work and contribute towards your own housing, and other
 8

necessities saves the government money that it would otherwise have had to spend on providing

universal housing or reception centers for asylum seekers.

Political Analysis

Governments enact laws governing refugee and asylum seekers based on political factors. Ties

between the country of origin and the country of asylum, national security and current event are

some of the factors that cause governments to enact laws for political reasons. As a result,

countries will use certain criteria to accept different flows of refugees that will foster a policy of

discrimination. Policies enacted for political reasons do not always reflect the social climate of

the country, but more times than not the social factors and the political factors are aligned with

the same ideologies.

Using the country of origin in the evaluation process is the most conventional method of

identifying ties between countries of origin and the country of asylum, acknowledge national

security threats as well as deal with current events. Every application process requires applicants

to state their country of origin. Close political links between the governments of a country of

possible asylum and the country of origin make people afraid to ask for asylum in the relevant

country of destination (Havinga and Bocker, 1999). Applicants know that the friendship

between the two countries is bound to result in a denial of asylum. The country of asylum would

not want to embarrass the country of origin. In the countries that a friendship is evident, asylum

is almost certainly denied because a bestowal of refugee status upon asylum seekers implies that

the sending government persecutes its people (Jacobsen, 1996). In certain events, a country will
 9

refrain from giving refugee status to an asylum seeker with genuine concerns about returning

back to their home country because it serves their political goals.

However, if tensions exist between the country of origin and the country of asylum, the result is

more likely to be different. A host country at war with the sending country may admit refugees

only to use them in its conflict with the sending country (Jacobsen, 1996). This practice is

quintessential of developed countries who have the resources available to take on the burden of

having refugees and asylum seekers without the support of the international organizations.

Whenever this happens there is always an influx of asylum seekers that will be granted refugee

status despite not meeting the definition of a refugee as set forth in the provisions of the Geneva

Convention. Many will apply for refugee because of the economic opportunities that are present

in the country of asylum. Those who receive refugee status but initially applied in order to take

advantage of economic opportunities are able to get access to the labor market and receive

access to social rights in their asylum country (Havinga and Bocker,1999). The goal of

accepting refugees where the country of origin and the country of asylum are enemies is to

embarrass those nations. They can be branded as oppressors and abusers of human rights on an

international level which can have an impact on the relations it has with other countries.

Governments will sometimes have some open door policy aimed at accepting certain refugees

while ignoring other more deserving and vulnerable refugee flows.

Having the country of origin has been controversial and determined as unconstitutional in

many countries because refugee protection claimants to security of the person could be denied

without giving the claimants an in-person hearing or disclosure of crucial country conditions

information relied upon by the decision makers (Heckman, 2008). Numerous people with

genuine claims have been rejected due to the country that they originate from. When using the
 10

country of origin to determine the eligibility of an applicant, immigrations officers will find

themselves making a decision within two weeks which is considered fast and not thorough by

many groups. Some scholars and advocates argue that the country of origin should not play a

factor in whether a person gets approved or denied or asylum.

Country of origin can diminish national security threats. In times of war, it has proven valuable

in defeating enemies. The county of asylum can seek out individuals with extremely valuable

intelligence (Loescher and Scanlan, 1986), and offer them asylum in return they have to help in

the defeating of their country of origin. However, country of origin can also alert officers of an

individuals ideologies. In case a person has nefarious ideas that could lead to harming numerous

individuals in the country of asylum, immigration officers can attempt to vet it out at the

asylum/refugee interview that takes place before being granted refugee. At the same time, host

countries can open their doors to the most susceptible individuals by using the country of origin

as an indicator. Awareness of current events, make it much easier to determine the situation and

help those in great need.

Depending on who you ask, some scholars are in favor of using the country of origin as

an indicator of who gets granted asylum and other scholars despise the use of the country of

origin in granting asylum to applicants. Regardless of the positive or negative consequences of

its usage, using the country of origin creates a bias when deciding who is eligible for asylum and

who is not eligible.

Conclusion
 11

Sovereign nations have the discretion to allow or deny entry to any individual based on their own

criteria that reflects their socioeconomic and political climates and aspirations. Regardless of the

international framework set forth by the Geneva Convention, sovereign states still have the

autonomy to enact policies towards refugees and asylum seekers in ways that will benefit them.

In examining refugee policies, the overarching concern for countries is to minimize the costs

and maximize benefits for to themselves and their citizens. Policies are formulated so as to

minimize the burden of refugees on social and economic infrastructures and encourage refugees

to gain access to international refugee support systems (Jacobsen, 1999). The lack of social

rights leads many asylum seekers to engage in illicit behaviors. Asylum seekers who are able to

leave their premises will obtain illegal jobs that pay under the table in order to make ends meet

for themselves and their families. the existing hindrances to asylum seekers, employment prove

to be a strong incentive for entering the informal labor market (Szczepanikova, 2012).

During times of economic strain or raging of xenophobic feelings, countries have an interest in

maintaining the status quo of (Szczepanikova,2013), reception centers. They provide

governments with control refraining from integrating foreigners with native residents. Reception

centers help in deterring unwanted asylum seekers from entering the asylum country in order to

be granted refugee. In terms of economic hardship, asylum seekers isolated in reception centers

are denied access to basic social rights. In their isolation, they are unable to provide their

children with an education, they are unable to go to work and contribute to their family and the

economy of the asylum state, they are unable to get access to healthcare and welfare. If an

applicant is considered for refugee, they are subjected to a health exam to determine if their legal

status will be a long term burden in the asylum country. If they are found to have a chronic

illness that will deplete money from government taxes, their application is denied.
 12

When economies are prospering, and the number of asylum seekers seeking refuge is low,

country will enact policies that are friendly to asylum seekers. They will give them access to

social rights such as work, daily allowances, health care, education, etc. Allowing asylum seekers

to have access to these services works to save the economy, money because it incentives the

asylum seeker to seek their own housing, but also they are able to live in an area that they want

to live in, without the conditions of the reception center baring over them.
 13

Bibliography

Anderson, H. and Nilsson, S. (2009). Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Migrants Increased
Social Rights in Sweden. International Migration, Vol.49, No.4, pp.167-188.

Bloch, A. (2000). Refugee Settlement in Britain: the impact of policy on participation. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol.26, pp. 75-88.

Clements, L.M. (2001). Changing the support system for asylum seekers. Journal of Social
welfare and Family Law, Vol.23, No.2 pp. 173-202.

Dorfman, E. (2015). Testing the boundaries: Does US Asylum Law Satisfy the Refugee
Convention. Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol.32, No.4, pp.752-780.

Jacobsen, K. (1996). Factors Influencing the Policy Responses of Host Government to Mass
Refugee Influxes. The International Migration Review, Vol.30, pp.655-678.
Havinga, T. and Bocker, A. (1999). Country of asylum b choice or by chance: asylum-seekers in
Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol.25, No.1,
pp.43-61.

Heckman,G. (2008). Canadas Refugee Status Determination System and the International Norm
of Independence. Refugee, Vol.25, N0.2, pp.79-102.

Loescher, G. and Scanlan, J. (1986). Calculated Kindness: Refugees and Americas Half-Open
Door, 1945 to the Present. New York: The Free Press.

Maher, M. and Smith, s. (2014). Asylum seeker and refugee children belonging, being, and
becoming: The early childhood educators role. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol,39,
No.1, pp.22-29.

McMichael, C. (2013). Unplanned but not unwanted? Teen pregnancy and parenthood among
young people with refugee backgrounds. Journal of Youth Studies, Vol.16. No.5, pp. 663-678.

Mountz, A. (2010). Seeking Asylum: Human Smuggling and Bureaucracy at the Border.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Nicolocopoulous, T. and Vassilacopoulos, G. (2002). Asylum Seekers and the Concept of the
Foreigner. Social Alternative, Vol.21, No.4, pp.45-50.

Pettitt, J., Townhead, L., and Huber, S. (2008). The Use of COI in the Refugee Status
Determination Process in the U.K: Looking back, Reaching Forward. Refugee, Vol.25, No.2,
pp.182-194.

Szczepanikova, A. (2012). Between Control and Assistance: The Problem of European

Accommodation Centres for Asylum Seekers. International Migration, Vol.54, No.4, pp.130-143.
 14

Zetter, R. and Pearl, M. (2000. The Minority within the minority: refugee community-based
organizations in the UK and the impact of restrictionist on asylum-seekers. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration studies, Vol 26, No.4, pp.675-697.