Detained Asylum Seekers Research Articles

Detained asylum seekers are victims, not offenders

Detained asylum seekers are victims, not offenders

Serve, subvert or emancipate? Promoting mental health in immigration detention

In recent years, Immigration Detention Centres (IDC) have become sites of increasing concern in Australia, due to their notoriously negative impact on the mental health of detained asylum seekers. In this paper, I question whether it is possible and beneficial to promote mental health in what might be thought of as an inherently ‘unhealthy’ setting. Drawing upon health promotion theory and a Foucauldian approach to power, I critique the effectiveness of two major forms of health promoting work carried out in the immigration detention setting: internally-organised services and externally-organised support and advocacy. Given the problematic nature of the detention setting, I argue that the ‘effectiveness’ of these efforts is bound up in their capacity for subverting or positivelyreforming the IDC system itself as a barrier to mental health.

Medically enforced feeding of detained asylum seekers on hunger strike

Medically enforced feeding of detained asylum seekers on hunger strike

The Detention of Asylum Seekers as a Crime of Obedience

This article deals with discretionary decisions made by British immigration officers about whether to detain asylum seekers. It takes as its point of departure the remarkable variety of views and practices reported by front line decision makers interviewed at British ports (Weber and Gelsthorpe 2000; Weber and Landman 2002). The discussion begins by drawing historical parallels between the pre-Holocaust era and the present day hostility towards asylum seekers which forms the wider context for official decision making. It notes the failure of structural analyses to account for individual differences in rule-following and draws on theoretical perspectives developed by American social psychologists Kelman and Hamilton (1989) to explore the individual dynamics of conformity and dissent. In the concluding section, theoretical connections are made between the idea of discretionary detention as a crime of obedience, and contemporary discussions about state crime and governmentality. The underlying message of this article is as much a normative as an analytical one. While recognizing the practical limitations of individual conscience, the discussion ends, as it begins, by celebrating the emancipatory potential of dissent in the face of populist policies that sanction harm against targeted groups.

Australia's human rights obligations relating to the mental health of refugee children in detention

During 2002 and 2003, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission conducted a National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (the HREOC Inquiry). In its report to the HREOC Inquiry, the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) reported that, as of April 12, 2002, there were 184 children in immigration detention centers in Australia. Of these, 163 were accompanied, and 114 were male and 70 were female. The unaccompanied children were predominantly male and aged between 16 and 17 (DIMIA, 2002a, att.3, p. 192). In a 1998 study, it was established that there was prima facie evidence that “detention may be a powerful direct contributor to severity of psychological distress in asylum seekers” and that detained asylum seekers “exhibited a significantly higher level of depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, panic and physical symptoms”, compared with those residing in the community...

Detention and deception: Limits of ethical acceptability in detention research

The core of Australia's response to asylum seekers who arrive in an unauthorised manner has been to detain them in immigration detention centres until they are judged to engage Australia's protection obligations or, if they do not, until they are returned to their country of origin. For a number of asylum seekers this has resulted in very prolonged detention. This policy has aroused a storm of controversy with very polarised positions being taken by participants in the debate. In particular, the claim has frequently been made (including by this author) that the circumstances and duration of immigration detention cause substantial harm to the mental health of a significant number of detained asylum seekers. A rational debate on the effects of detention has been hampered by the fact that the Australian government has not allowed researchers access to the detention centres in spite of persistent requests for access by professional bodies. This paper is written in response to the following questions posed by the Journal: Is there a case to be made for individuals agreeing to participate in research studies and for the wider population of current and future detainees to be involved in research without informing either the detention provider or the host nation? Is is legitimate for a researcher to engage in potentially deceptive actions in order to obtain access to such detention facilities to undertake research? What ethical framework should underpin such research? Although there is very little guidance in the literature on the ethical conduct of research in settings such as immigration detention centres, a consideration of the ethical implications of carrying out research in the manner raised by these questions leads this author to conclude that such research cannot be ethically justified. Governments must be persuaded to allow, and to provide substantial support for, ethically conducted research on all aspects of detention. There is also a need for the development of an explicit ethical framework for the conduct of research in settings characterised by a very problematic human rights context.

Legal and ethical implications of medically enforced feeding of detained asylum seekers on hunger strike.

The current practice of non-consensual medical treatment of hunger-striking asylum seekers in detention needs closer inquiry. An Australian Government regulation empowers the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) to authorise non-consensual medical treatment for a person in immigration detention if they are at risk of physical harm, but there are doubts about whether the regulation would withstand legal challenge. Authorisation by DIMIA does not compel medical practitioners to enforce treatment if such action is contrary to their "ethical, moral or religious convictions". The World Medical Association has established guidelines for doctors involved in managing people on hunger strikes. The Declaration of Tokyo (1975) and the Declaration of Malta (1991) both prohibit the use of non-consensual force-feeding of hunger strikers who are mentally competent. If called upon to treat hunger strikers, medical practitioners should be aware of their ethical and legal responsibilities, and that they should act independently of government or institutional interests.

The impact of detention on the health of asylum seekers.

Asylum seekers arriving in the United States are often imprisoned for months or years while their asylum claims are processed. Recently, Physicians for Human Rights and the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture released the findings of the first systematic study examining the health of detained asylum seekers. The study found that the mental health of asylum seekers interviewed was extremely poor, including high levels of symptoms for anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, which worsened the longer individuals were in detention. The study also raises concerns about the manner in which asylum seekers are treated upon arrival in the United States and then while in detention. These findings support assertions that detention has a harmful effect on the health and well-being of asylum seekers. Policies regarding the long-term detention of asylum seekers should be reconsidered.

Detained asylum seekers, health care, and questions of human(e)ness.

This paper contains some personal observations of life inside Woomera Detention Centre and certain aspects of the detained asylum seeker experience. This is from my own reference point as a psychiatric nurse who in 2002 undertook a six-week contract at Woomera, and from my subsequent sociological reflections on this experience. I draw attention to the disintegrative effect of detention on the individual and the bleakness of everyday life symbolically expressed in forms of self-harm. Then, through the example of medication administration, I show the vulnerability of those in detention to bureaucratic procedures that become micropolitical sites, providing the machinery for dehumanizing acts. I conclude by calling for sociologists, health care workers, and the public health community in general to take a more active political stance against a Government and its policies that actively erode spirit, the body and, for some, even life.

Down that Wrong Road: Discretion in Decisions to Detain Asylum Seekers Arriving at UK Ports

The discretionary power to detain asylum seekers on arrival in the UK has been described by one human rights organisation as ‘extraordinary and largely unrestrained’ (Amnesty International 1996). Although decisions made by immigration officers can lead to long periods in prison or in prison‐like conditions, these actions are considered to be administrative and are therefore not subject to the legal constraints that apply to criminal justice agencies. This article traces the many sources of discretion in the use of Immigration Act detention, using an analytical framework developed by Schneider (1992). Discretion is found to originate from the vague and permissive nature of detention guidelines (rule‐failure discretion), the priority given to operational considerations at ports (rule‐binding discretion) and the failure to resolve conflicts between policy objectives (rule‐compromise discretion).

College Action on the Health of Detained Asylum-Seekers

College Action on the Health of Detained Asylum-Seekers

Detention of asylum seekers: assault on health, human rights, and social development

The end of World War II ushered in a new era of international commitment to provide humane protection to all people fleeing persecution. This decade, however, has witnessed a steady erosion of that ethos, the most disturbing change being the tendency to confine asylum seekers in detention centres in countries of the West. Many of these people have suffered torture and other abuses, raising particular concerns that the anxiety, fear, and frustration provoked by detention may prolong and exacerbate underlying traumatic stress reactions and thereby create long-term psychosocial disability. Of the five million people seeking asylum in the moredeveloped world during 1980–99, the majority have been allowed to live in the community while awaiting the outcome of their refugee claims. Increasingly, however, industrialised countries are building or extending facilities to detain asylum seekers. In 2000, the USA detained about 5000 asylum seekers at any one time. Australia stands alone in mandating the detention of all individuals entering the country without valid visas irrespective of whether or not they are seeking asylum. About 3500 asylum seekers, including 450 children, were held in detention in that country as of June, 2000. More than 300 were detained for longer Detention of asylum seekers: assault on health, human rights, and social development

Detaining Asylum Seekers

Detaining Asylum Seekers

The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996: Erosion of the Right to Seek Asylum

Since the former Home Secretary's announced intention, in October 1995, to introduce new legislation in the asylum and immigration fields, asylum and refugeerelated issues have seldom been absent from the public arena. While much of the discussion during 1996 bore upon the legislative proposals contained in the Asylum and Immigration Bill extension of the accelerated appeals procedure, withdrawal of social security benefits from asylum seekers, prevention of illegal working, removal of certain in-country appeal rights recent developments, such as hungerstrikes by detained asylum seekers, and the election of a Labour government have brought a sharper edge to the debate.' Despite widespread criticism of the Conservative government's proposed measures during their passage through Parliament, New Labour's election manifesto lacked any real commitment to reforming asylum policy.2 During campaigning the then shadow Home Secretary, Jack Straw, suggested that the Labour Party, if elected, would not implement certain provisions of the 1996 Act: the 'white list' of safe countries, the withdrawal of benefits from asylum seekers and the sanctioning of employers where they recruited illegal immigrants.3 On its accession to power however, the Labour government proceeded to enforce the restrictive asylum laws introduced by the Conservatives, though an internal review of the asylum process was announced.4 This note examines the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in the context of previous legislation and critically assesses the changes made to asylum law in the light of the current debate.

The mental state of detained asylum seekers

The persecution of civilians by the Iraqi forces in Kuwait and subsequent acts of revenge on the Palestinian population have caused widespread revulsion throughout the world. Stories of torture and rape have been described in the Western media and issues of human rights have gained considerable prominence of late. Perhaps now is a good time to examine how Britain responds to the needs of survivors of torture who seek asylum here.