REFUGEE AND CHANGING MIGRATION FLOWS IN THE UK

As with all countries in the European Union, the UK is experiencing changing patterns of
migration. The creation of the European Union, the impact of globalization and the fall of
the Soviet Union are all factors in the new waves of migration and the changing flow of
refugees and migrants from various countries. One of the strongest dynamics is the force
of human trafficking. Young girls and women (and sometimes boys) are often trafficked
in and out of countries such as Kosovo, Romania, Russia, Slovenia and other Eastern
European countries. Many of them end up in the UK. A 2005 report by the Women’s
Commission for Refugee Women and Children. While the majority of these individuals
who are trafficked end up dying from wounds or because they are murdered, some are
fortunate to survive and get the help they need. The proliferation of this heinous crime in
the EU causes many of these survivors to be a new type of refugee in the UK (2). These
individuals cannot be returned to their homeland because they would be in danger of
being ‘re-trafficked’, and so they seek asylum in the countries where they are freed. The
report states clearly that the issue of trafficking cannot be understood or dealt with
through the usual framework of migration research. This is not migration in the
traditional sense, but millions of girls and women are affected each year.

As of 2007, The Gateway Protection Programme laid down quotas for the number of
refugees the UK would take in a calendar year. It is worth noting that persons who are
survivors of torture or victims of violence are not given any priority or any special
consideration as possible refugees in the UK (“Country Chapter” 6). One of the cultural
groups that are highly affected by this is the Roma. They are frequently victims of
violence in countries like Romania and Kosovo, yet they have great difficulty becoming
refugees or migrating to the UK.

In 2005, Megan Bradley wrote a paper on the subject of ‘just return’. Her primary
argument is that the ‘doctrine of state responsibility’ makes it a violation of international
law to ignore those individuals who have survived horrors such as war, torture, ethnic
cleansing and human trafficking. She acknowledges that although the notion of ‘rights’ is
a major part of the discussion on refugees, their actual rights are not necessarily always
acknowledged or enforced (3). Bradley suggests that our modern notions of
victimization and restitution emanate from the Holocaust and attempts by Germany to
provide restitution for Nazi war crimes to world Jewry (10). The question becomes; ‘what
do countries like the UK owe EU citizens (or any citizens for that matter) who are victims
of torture and other forms of violence?’ Do they owe them restitution, or must we accept
that there will be people who suffer but never receive just restitution? In her analysis, the
UK must come to terms with this question in order to decide how many poor and
victimized people they will accept as refugees in any one year.

One of the current trends in refugees and migration is that almost a quarter of the people
who are originally denied refugee status receive their status on appeal (Goodwin-Gill
2004). This suggests that the current system for dealing with migrations and refugees is
inadequate to the task and the UK needs to re-think the reasons why certain individuals
are initially denied only to receive status later. In 2002, the Immigration and Asylum Act
was rewritten to provide the UK with an opportunity to refuse anyone who did not
reasonably seek asylum as soon as possible (Goodwin-Gill 2004). Some might suggest
that in doing so, the UK created a law which gives it the de facto right to refuse people
who they simply don’t want in the country for whatever reason.

Staver (2008) clarifies the concepts of refugee and migration, by stating that she believes
the terms ‘forced migration’ is the same as that of refugee. She notes that the increased
number of military conflicts in the world is causing higher rates of forced migration than
ever before. In her analysis of forced migration, she states that one of the most obvious
consequences is that of forced familial separation (6). In many countries, men are forced
into military service. The conflict often forces families to flee the region which causes a
separation between father and family. As well, the children can become separated from
their mother and/or each other. This is a pattern that is increasingly evident in forced
migrations. In countries such as the UK which are prime targets for European migrants,
the task will be to decide how the law is to be interpreted in terms of family unification.
What responsibility does a country have with respect to allowing refugee status to
someone in order to reunify a family? Currently, family rights are protected in the EU
under the auspices of the European Court of Human Rights (Staver 14).

It is not only families affected by changing migration patterns but often women are
deeply affected. According to a feminist analysis, it is primarily women and girls who are
trafficked and they are the ones most at risk for ending up as refugees. Migration patterns
are also affected at the place where gender and politics intersect. A higher percentage of
men are leaving their countries (and their families) in search of work in other countries.
This leaves women alone, poor and vulnerable. Silvey (2004) argues that women are
traditionally less mobile and therefore more likely to become forced migrants. As they are
unable to simply pick up and find work elsewhere, they may find themselves as refugees
with no other choice. Many of these women end up as nannies or other low-salaried
caregivers in countries like the UK in order to make a living for themselves and/or their
children. In the end their forced migration has as much to do with politics and labour as it
does with gender.
REFERENCES

Bradley, M. 2005. The Conditions of Just Return: State Responsibility and Restitution for
Refugees. RSC Working Paper No. 21. Refugee Studies Centre. [accessed 06 January 2009
from: www.rsc.ox.ac.uk ].

Country Chapter – United Kingdom. 2007. Resettlement Policy. Published by the Home Office.
[accessed 06 January 2008 from: www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk.

Goodwin-Gil, G. S. 2004. Refugees and Their Human Rights. RSC Working Paper No.
17. Refugee Studies Centre. [accessed 06 January 2009 from: www.rsc.ox.ac.uk].

Silvey, R. 2004. Power, Difference and Mobility: Feminist Advances in Migration

Studies. Progress in Human Geography, 28(4), p. 1-17.

Staver, A. 2008. Family Reunification: A Right for Forced Migrants? Working Paper
Series No. 51. Refugee Studies Centre. [accessed 06 January 2009 from:
www.rsc.ox.ac.uk].

Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. 2005. The Struggle Between
Migration Control and Victim Protection: The UK Approach to Human Trafficking. .
[accessed 06 January 2009 from: www.womenscommission.org].