Re/Making Immigration Policy through Practice

Abstract

Refused asylum seekers living in the UK face hostility and legal restrictions on the basis of immigration status that limit access to statutory support, employment, and social goods. Working at a non-profit organization that offered an advice service for refused asylum seekers, I observed how the experiences of refused asylum seekers are constituted not simply by restrictions within immigration law, but rather by the ways in which laws are perceived and implemented by a wide range of actors. I argue that the legal consciousness of social workers hostile to refused asylum seekers plays an important role in making policy through practice. I show that social workers prioritized immigration enforcement over other legal obligations, thereby amplifying the meaning of immigration status and deepening the marginalization of refused asylum seekers.

Mothering in hostile environments: Migrant families negotiating the welfare and immigration regime nexus

“…When families become destitute, local authorities have a duty (under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989) to assess children and to provide services and resources identified as necessary. However, restrictive immigration rules intersect with austerity policies and pressures on budgets to position social care teams as gatekeepers, leading to many families with no recourse to public funds being turned away (Dennler, 2018; Humphris and Sigona, 2019; Price and Spencer, 2015; Ratzmann and Sahraoui, 2021; Wroe, 2019).…”

“…These multiple forms of bordering experienced at different stages of help-seeking from local authorities – described by Dennler (2018: 83) as ‘anti-migrant gatekeeping by social workers’ – not only denied mothers and children access to basic resources for extended periods of time, but produced further marginalisation of racially minoritised mothers with insecure status by inhibiting their everyday mothering practices. As Dennler (2018: 84) has argued, ‘A hostile stance delegitimizes people—their existence, their presence, and their needs—and denies their rights’. Insecure immigration status, having no recourse to public funds, and the precarity of support mechanisms created barriers for mothers striving to enact citizenship and belonging through everyday mothering work.…”

Two Models of the Sanctuary City

“…Th e sanctuary city, then, might not be always disobeying, but rather refusing to let its own jurisdictional powers be seized by the federal government; the law of the United States provides the city with some grounding for this refusal under the heading of the anti-commandeering principle (Adler 2001). In this way, the city represents a site of resistance, one of the many sites that might work toward reinterpreting and recasting the supposedly dispositive pronouncements of a federal authority (Dennler 2018). A second, broader, worry goes toward the issue of disobedience and notes that we might be able to justify disobedience to an unjust law by collective agents, as much as we have by individuals.…”

Mothers Doing Friendship in a Hostile Environment: Navigating Dialectical Tensions and Sharing Support

“…The expansion of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) condition and the ‘10-year route to settlement’ policy subject people to legal and financial precarity (Mort et al, 2023); racially minoritized mothers are most affected (Dickson and Rosen, 2020; Pinter et al, 2020; Woolley, 2019). NRPF denies access to mainstream welfare benefits and creates barriers to housing, healthcare, childcare and other services, with often detrimental impacts on children and families (Children’s Society and Coram Legal Centre, 2018; Dennler, 2018; Dickson, 2019; Erel, 2018; Meissner, 2018; Yuval-Davis et al, 2018). Those who have lost their ‘leave to remain’ are excluded from doing paid work.…”