Falling victim to hypocrisy in the British government’s immigration and integration policy, asylum seekers have become new scapegoats to political spin and vote-saving reactionary populism. “A dreadful burden” some are forced to endure the harsh conditions of detention centres, while others lucky to be on the outside, have now restricted access to Basic English lessons. But why is this group long denigrated by the media continually victim to occasional spurts of anti-immigration and scapegoating policies by the government?

Faced with aroused public feelings evoked by countless tabloid journalists from the right, the UK government in a bid to consolidate their grip of power and cover up their own short-comings engages in reactionary populism, behind which lies a very murky racist idea of the superiority of the mainstream community. In fact US critique historian Ronald P Formisano, rightly observes that contemporary populism is now automatically equated with right-wing or nationalist reaction. However, the result of this policy does not sit very comfortably with some Labour Party figures concerned over major ideological shifts in the party.

With regular human rights reports highlighting the poor conditions and ill treatment of asylum seekers in these centres, it is clear that retaining votes is necessary even if it means curbing human rights occasionally. In response to certain rightist tabloids in the national media who have fed their undercurrent of xenophobia to the British public over the dangers posed by the ’foreign devil’ to education, health and social care, while accepting this speculation, the governments in return has adopted a new tough line on immigration in recent years. Besides was it really conceivable to risk losing votes to the Conservative Party?

After all asylum seekers and refugees with little or no legal or political status here can barely speak English, let alone challenge official policy – in short they are an easy target. So using political spin before evoking the power to detain immigrants as provided by the Immigration Act 1971 was straight forward. But despite Labor claiming to offer a “safe haven to those genuinely fleeing persecution,” through the eyes of asylum seekers who are being imprisoned in one of the 10 different detention camps, these camps are effectively 21st century concentration camps. Through desperation some detained asylum seekers go on hunger strike or worse contemplate suicide as an exit strategy.

Recently Toplum Postasi reported that a family of five from Turkey that were waiting six years for a decision on whether they could remain in Britain, were issued with a deportation order that would send them back to Turkey even though they were political refugees who faced danger there and even though their now Anglophone offspring were in the middle of a school term.  More importantly their youngest child was diagnosed to be suffering from a deadly debilitating disease that could not be treated by medical professionals in Turkey, but despite the obvious dangers to the child’s life, Home Office officials from a country that for centuries was a sanctuary for Eastern European Jewry, fleeing French Huguenots and Flemish refugees, ordered them to leave. Almost a death sentence, on one of the family members, the callous decision left many of our readers asking how the government could lack such compassion.

Despite a tougher line on immigration with many asylum seekers deported, the government has promoted integration into British society as a requisite to those allowed to stay. Their arguments have at times seemed almost convincing, with calls for mandatory citizenship lessons providing an understanding of their new home. Going further, Chancellor Gordon Brown last June stated that asylum seekers should “play by the rules” and learn English, he continued that participating in English language classes (ESOL) was not only beneficial to their personal development, but to their ability to find work, train in apprentices, help their children and eventually seek citizenship.

However, in stark contrast to Brown’s rhetoric of “fair play”, in October 2006, the Government department Learning and Skills Council announced that it was slashing funding for ESOL (English language) classes at beginners level. Instead funds were to be reallocated to level two and three. Did this mean all those beginners were not worth spending a penny on? Perhaps they will be sent home? In fact Minister for Education and Lifelong learning Bill Rammell says precisely that: “Some are angered by the fact that asylum seekers over 19 will no longer get free provision, yet, with 80% of asylum claims now being settled in eight weeks, and well over half of those unsuccessful, is it really right that tax payers money should support the learning of English for people whom we expect to leave the country?” 

Yet again, it seems the government is accelerating its attack on asylum seekers using tempting arguments of defending tax-payers money (Another desperate act of populism?). But what Mr Rammell failed to mention was the implications of this racism and grotesque marginalisation of new comers. As research has shown, a lack of equity to learning the language of one’s adopted home leads to a lack of educational and employment opportunities or social exclusion inevitably leading to rising crime.

Let us also not forget that English is central to all communication in Britain (the British are hardly linguists after all), a fact best illustrated by the fact that even for those who can apply for a ESOL fee remission, they have to fill up a complicated 20 page means testing form in English! Furthermore, while considering the type of manual and ill-paid work some asylum seekers do, it is unrealistic to expect employers to part with £200 per term so their workers can learn English?

Learning to speak, read, and write in the language of one’s adopted home is the most important integration challenge that faces immigrants anywhere, but with few asylum seekers able to afford the costs of ESOL classes at private institutions, they will become further isolated, leaving them at greater risk of accidents at work and being the target of crime and illegal exploitation.  Without learning the language, how will this already disadvantaged group learn about Britishness, laws and customs? Or perhaps given the way asylum seekers are currently treated, the government may prefer it if asylum seekers didn’t learn English? After all what would happen to political scapegoating?  Without those politically voiceless asylum seekers, goodness knows who tabloid media will blame next? They may actually look harder into the internal wheeling and dealings of government? Who knows what they will find…

But I would like to ask, since the goal posts have clearly moved from an emphasis on integration to exclusion, should we now anticipate signs to be posted in Turkish and Kurdish in Hackney and Harringay Green Lanes? Somali road signs around Bethnal Green? And perhaps Polish translations to street names in West London?