‘Punishing those who do the wrong thing’: Enforcing destitution and debt through the UK’s family migration rules

Dickson, Eve; Rosen, Rachel

doi:10.1177/0261018320980634

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the tensions between the voluntary and statutory sector, and the distrust and anxiety about accessing statutory services felt by families with NRPF were lessened but never completely transcended. These were largely due to factors outside the control of the project such as the punitive nature of UK family migration rules (Dickson and Rosen 2021) and the contradiction between the 'everyday bordering' of immigration controls in social care and our professional obligations as social workers (Humphries 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflecting on Early Help with Migrant Families: A View from Practice

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a practitioner reflection on early help for migrant families with no recourse to public funds. We used Maclean's 'weather model' to examine the positives and challenges of the work. The reflection led to positive changes in programme delivery, but also highlighted tensions between following a structured practice manual and allowing practitioner autonomy, and the friction that 'hostile environment' restrictions caused between statutory and voluntary sectors, and between service users and local authority social workers. We suggest that the experience highlights the need for future service development which includes the voice of social workers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflecting on Early Help with Migrant Families: A View from Practice

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The negative health outcomes identified in the literature and prevalence of extreme poverty and destitution are not unintended outcomes of the NRPF rule, but are, as Dickson and Rosen (2020) suggest, part of a wider trend in migration policy which is deliberately designed to be punitive and "hostile". This trend can be seen beyond the NRPF rule in policies such as the NHS charging regime for "overseas visitors" which, according to Shahvisi (2019) may cost more to administer than the money recovered.…”

Section: Negative Health Outcomes Extreme Poverty and Destitutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No recourse to public funds: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Jolly

Singh

Lobo³

2022

IJMHSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to outlines the findings of the first qualitative evidence synthesis of empirical research on the impact of the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) rule which prevents most temporary migrants from accessing social security benefits in the UK. Design/methodology/approach The review used the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol guidelines. Data were analysed by using Thomas and Harden’s (2008) thematic synthesis methodology. An initial 321 articles were identified from 13 databases, of which 38 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings The key insights were that NRPF causes destitution and extreme poverty and has a disproportionate impact on racialised women. Studies found that support services were underdeveloped, underfunded, inconsistent and had a culture of mistrust and racism towards migrants. Migrants were often fearful of services due to concerns around deportation, destitution and state intervention around children. Research limitations/implications The review focussed on qualitative research. Future empirical and theoretical research is needed in the following areas: NRPF as a practice of everyday bordering, the role of the Home Office in creating and sustaining the policy; differing gendered experiences of NRPF; and a broader geographical scope which includes all four UK nations and takes an international comparative approach. Originality/value Despite an estimated 1.4 million people in the UK with NRPF (Citizens Advice, 2020), there is little policy or theoretical discussion of the experience of having NRPF or the implications of the rule. This lack of analysis is a significant gap in both our understanding of the landscape of poverty in the UK, and the ways in which immigration policies create extreme poverty. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first systematic qualitative review on NRPF, bringing together the research evidence on how NRPF negatively affects outcomes for migrants, local authority and voluntary sector responses to NRPF and theoretical perspectives on NRPF.

show abstract

“…One of the challenges for social work with families who are subject to NRPF is that, far from protecting children, the NRPF rule and other “hostile” immigration policies are designed to discipline families who are seen as an undesirable presence in the country, to encourage them to leave the UK and to not “burden” the public purse (Farmer, 2020; Dickson and Rosen, 2020). This can result in acute tensions between social work’s ethical obligation to promote human rights and social justice (IFSW, 2016) and the everyday reality of social work practice with migrant families (Jonsson, 2014).…”

Section: Social Work With Families Subject To No Recourse To Public F...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rule was first established in the Immigration Act 1971, but has been repeatedly expanded in scope to now include most temporary migrants to the UK. Its most recent extension was in 2012 to include families granted leave to remain in the UK on human rights grounds (Dickson and Rosen, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “PERSPECS” principles: early action and migrant children with no recourse to public funds

Jolly

2023

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to make the case for early action approaches with migrant families, introducing a set of principles for practice, mapped against the Professional Capabilities Framework for social work and the Social Work England professional standards. Design/methodology/approach The paper first explores the context of social work with migrant families, outlining the challenges and gaps in our conceptual understanding of this work. The paper then introduces a conceptual model of work with migrant families which draws on the literature from social work and allied professions, and informed by social work values and ethics. Findings Current social work practice with migrant children has been criticised as defensive, procedural and lacking a coherent conceptual basis, particularly for those who are subject to the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) rule. This field of social work practice would benefit from an evidence-informed model of practice, anchored in human rights approaches and focused on early action. Eight principles, drawn from existing good practice in other social work and social care contexts, are outlined as the basis for a new model of practice in social work with migrant families. Originality/value The NRPF rule is a provision in the immigration rules that prevents people who are subject to immigration control from claiming most social security benefits in the UK. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in research about the NRPF rule and its negative impact on children. However, there is currently no evaluated model of social work practice for children and families with NRPF.

show abstract

‘Punishing those who do the wrong thing’: Enforcing destitution and debt through the UK’s family migration rules

Cited by 18 publications

References 33 publications

Reflecting on Early Help with Migrant Families: A View from Practice

Reflecting on Early Help with Migrant Families: A View from Practice

No recourse to public funds: a qualitative evidence synthesis

The “PERSPECS” principles: early action and migrant children with no recourse to public funds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About