Category: Civic Participation

Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Digital Exclusion in the UK 

31/05/2024 

Background

An estimated 231,597 refugees are living in the UK, along with 127,421 individuals seeking asylum (UNHRC, 2023). Many of the refugees and asylum seekers in the UK have been persecuted for reasons of religion, race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and are now living outside their country of nationality (UNHRC, 1951). Their journey to the UK is often long and dangerous, as they are put at significant risk of exploitation, isolation, and mistreatment along migratory routes. Upon arrival, most asylum seekers will not have the right to work in the UK until their refugee status has been granted by the Home Office. Therefore, they must rely on state support until their asylum application is granted – a process that can take anywhere from several months to a few years. During this period, asylum applicants will be given temporary accommodation and can expect to receive as little as £49.18 per person per week to pay for food, clothing, and toiletries (Home Office, 2024; Refugee Council, 2023).

This article critically explores the policy and scholarly narratives surrounding digital inequality among refugees and those seeking asylum in the UK. As a method of exploring these narratives, this piece will follow the broad stages of someone fleeing their home country, seeking asylum, and then finding refuge in the UK. This article adopts the UNHRC’s definitions of refugees and asylum seekers as two separate terms. Firstly, the term ‘refugee’ refers to someone “who has been forced to flee conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to seek safety. They cannot return to their country without risking their life or freedoms” (UNHRC, 2024). In contrast, the term ‘asylum seeker’ refers to someone who is “seeking international protection” by requesting refugee status (UNHRC, 2023). It is important to note that not all asylum seekers will be granted refugee status, but all refugees have been asylum seekers. The practicalities of these legal terms lay out the contours of digital inequality among both groups. By navigating the temporal qualities of these groups' experiences of migrating to and settling in their host country, a clearer picture will be painted to show the impact of policies and practices on their everyday lives and their experiences of digital inequality. This shall inform policy recommendations that seek to reduce digital inequalities among those seeking asylum and refugees, to support them in settling in a new country.

Fleeing

The characteristic of mobility throughout an asylum seeker’s immigration journey is embedded in their use of smartphone technology. Described as ‘lifelines as important as food and water’, Gillespie et al. (2018) consider smartphones to be integral tools for those fleeing persecution or conflict. In its form as a mobile connection to the Internet, the smartphone offers an asylum seeker a resource to navigate their perilous journeys to a safe country, as well as help to maintain a connection with family and friends who have either made similar journeys or remained at home. However, a smartphone can expose its user to significant risks and harm. Whether that includes being in contact with people smuggling networks or being exposed to misinformation on the Internet, the benefits of such types of digital connections bring should not dismiss the ill effects Internet access can have. In Merisalo and Jauhiainen’s (2019, p. 691) study, for example, the smartphone is identified as a resource as important as food and water during the “often fragmented” asylum-related journey along migratory routes and through bureaucratic channels. However, while the study found that the importance of mobile connections grew significantly as migratory journeys advanced, the splintered arrangement of asylum seekers’ transitory lives meant that the effective use of the Internet was curtailed by external factors out of their control.

In trying to address these issues through policy and practice, transnational bodies and non-profit organisations have attempted to connect asylum seekers at moments of stasis along migratory journeys. However, the contributions of charity organisations, such as Jangara’s effort to improve Internet connections at the temporary settlement of refugees in Calais, France, demonstrate the restricted capacity to sustain digital inclusion for asylum seekers (Mervana, 2021). Furthermore, these approaches tend to overlook the complexity of digital connectivity and the implications that connecting vulnerable people can, especially because of their perceptions of state control, judgment from peer groups, and insecurities about regulation. Nedelcu and Soysruen (2022) highlight the intricate relationship between the empowerment and control that being digitally connected implants into the journey of an asylum seeker. The emancipatory possibilities of Internet access and the application of mobile technologies are juxtaposed with the debilitating constraints that state surveillance can impose on asylum seekers’ navigation of international borders. Gillespie et al. (2018) have suggested that these multi-scalar frameworks play into the digital inequality of asylum seekers’ journeys by determining their ability to navigate “dialectical tensions” in digital connectivity. It is important to note that asylum seekers and refugees “are not passive victims fleeing misery but ‘actively escape using a wide range of resources and skills available to them’” (Gough and Gough, 2019, p. 96; Borkert et al., 2018, p. 9). Thus, by classing digital exclusion among asylum seekers and refugees as a matter of connection or disconnection, the complexity of their social history may be dismissed.

Waiting

Those who reach the UK and begin the formal process of seeking asylum are likely to experience multiple barriers in using public services, accessing primary healthcare, building social connections, and furthering their education. Moreover, these groups are further marginalised through the ubiquitous digitalisation of everyday life (Dufva and Dufva, 2019). In a report by the British Red Cross (2023) on digital exclusion and healthcare access among asylum seekers in the UK, it was found that asylum-seeking groups were more likely to be at the wrong end of digital inequality. Language barriers, unsatisfactory temporary accommodation, low income, and trust issues limit their ability to benefit from digital healthcare services. The report goes on to identify the inadequacy of the Home Office’s provision of temporary accommodation, wherein the lack of an obligation to provide Wi-Fi and adequate private spaces forces asylum seekers to depend on insecure public Internet access and costly data plans. This housing-related problem is further underlined in Holmes et al.’s (2022) evaluation of temporary accommodation, noting that the lack of inclusive spaces for digital access can hinder rich engagement with resources online (such as video calls with family and using online banking). Should their refugee status be granted, these circumstances may even hamper their chances of securing good quality housing.

According to Linter (2022), current trends in policy in the UK still fall short of securing meaningful digital inclusion for such vulnerable groups living in stasis. By equating digital inclusion to connectivity, the support for asylum seekers remains a rudimentary attempt to lessen digital inequalities in their host country. The delays in reviewing asylum-seeking applications – in 2023, around 61 per cent of asylum-seeking applicants had to wait more than six months for an initial decision (The Migration Observatory, 2024) – mean that connection-only policies could leave asylum seekers to subscribe to a type of digital inclusion dominated by forced passivity as they wait for confirmation of their refugee status. The condition and characterisation of the “connected” asylum seeker is presented as a positive and achievable goal for policymakers in the UK, but it overlooks the quality, sustainability, and suitability of such connections for such a vulnerable group. Ultimately, Linter’s study revealed that it is their agency that substantiates the value of a "digital connection." In other words, it is the social history, learned skills, and perseverance of asylum-seeking individuals that give meaning and power to their online connection; this may involve learning, socialising, and researching in everyday life.

Settling

Once an asylum seeker has secured their refugee status, digital inequalities do not disappear, and they continue to affect their standard of living. The intersectional factors of race, gender, sexuality, disability, and socio-economic circumstances play a significant role in digital inequalities between refugees and the rest of society. Buchert et al.’s (2023) study of migrant women (including refugees) demonstrates the need to consider the experiences of those enduring the compounding effects of multiple disadvantages. The study found that the social and material vulnerability of migrant women in Finland put them at greater risk of further digital exclusion. Lacking core language skills and Finnish-specific knowledge of welfare systems, migrant women were already under-resourced to effectively access digital services. As a result, they often relied on proxy relationships to access such services, which consequentially forced them to rely on "risky dependencies" for digital access to welfare, healthcare, and finance. These experiences are also shared by refugee women in London, who are more likely than others to be excluded from accessing digital skills courses and support sessions because of their commitments to childcare (Refugee Advocacy Forum, 2022).

Dhoest (2020) draws further attention to the offline cultural and social conditions in determining how the Internet is used and the extent to which the benefits offered are captured by refugees. In their analysis of the digital experiences of gay refugee men in Belgium, Dhoest recommends that digital integration policies in Europe should account for the complexity of non-digital identities, particularly because policies frequently misjudge non-Western concepts of sexuality. Thus, dismissing the safety that forms of disconnection can offer to openly gay men seeking refuge in relatively safer host countries. Such cases highlight that what is determined as digital inclusion and connectivity for policymakers in Europe should be evaluated against the historical, social, and cultural values of non-European and non-Western concepts of identity, risk, and connection.

Once people who have sought asylum are granted refugee status in the UK, they usually have a 28-day window in which they will transition from the Home Office’s support service to mainstream national welfare and housing support services. As a result, newly settled refugees are placed in a precarious position to secure long-term, suitable accommodation and seek provisions for any complex health needs. In such cases, both housing and healthcare provide insight into the policy gaps and oversights that limit refugees’ digital inclusion. Firstly, the Refugee Council’s (2021a) report into homelessness among refugees in London found that asylum seekers who had been recently awarded refugee status were at a significantly greater risk of homelessness. Furthermore, the provision and condition of temporary accommodation, as well as the limited and delayed access to financial support through the welfare system, mean that their digital connections are likely to be more unstable and of poorer quality, further limiting their access to the housing market. Should refugees be fortunate enough to secure social housing – currently, 41 per cent of new social letting applicants have been waiting for over a year to secure a property (Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, 2022) – there is a significant risk that conditions in socially rented properties may inhibit digital inclusion of the most vulnerable groups (Holmes et al., 2022). Secondly, further reporting by the Refugee Council (2021b) has highlighted that the inability to secure long-term accommodation and the digital infrastructure that comes with it only extends healthcare dilemmas for newly settled refugees. Without the privacy of domestic access and the reliability of private spaces for using digital services, refugees are forced to use online health platforms from a digitally disadvantaged position. Again, this will likely occur in public spaces and using low-bandwidth public access points (such as libraries and cafes) (Awad & Tossell, 2021).

Summary

This article has used the journey of asylum seekers and refugees as a narrative tool to explore the group's experience of digital exclusion. From the moments of fleeing from their home country to periods of waiting for the outcome of their asylum application and settling in a host country, this short piece explored the hurdles faced by asylum seekers and refugees as they migrate through transitory spaces in the search for somewhere safe to live. It is evident that transnational, national, and regional policy directives could still do more to reduce digital inequality between refugees, asylum seekers, and the rest of society. These policies and associated practices may address only one moment in the refugee or asylum seeker journey. They may also misjudge the identities, cultures, and circumstances of this migratory group, ultimately deepening the impacts of digital poverty. The pathway to digital inclusion for refugees and asylum seekers does not start at disconnection and end with connection. Instead, the complex social worlds of this group present a more granular and conflicted situation. In response, social and economic policies designed to help integrate refugees and asylum seekers should reflect this by placing their voices at the heart of designing and implementing policy in the UK and beyond.

Informed by the literature reviewed for this piece, the following policy recommendations are to help guide the practice of digital and social inclusion practices for asylum seeker and refugee communities across the UK:

• Free data, wi-fi and means to connect to the internet should be provided to asylum seekers and recently settled refugees, in places they will be living or in community spaces they can trust, to support their initial stages of re-settlement. This could be part of a wider improvement to the quality of temporary accommodation provision.
   
  
• Ensure that any digital inclusion effort encompasses the unique barriers to asylum-seeking and refugee groups. Notably, these should involve affordable access and professional translation services, building on trusted community resources.
   
• Consider aligning digital inclusion with wider social inclusion and integration practices for asylum seekers and refugees. Many of the factors that influence social isolation and exclusion – such as language barriers, financial insecurity, as well as mental and physical health illnesses – also impact the capacity for someone to be digitally included. Digital inequality should always be approached as an intersectional problem.

• Involve those with lived experiences in the policymaking process as a means of closing the gap between theoretical understandings of digital inequality and street-level realities of digital exclusion. Provide, platforms for social groups within asylum-seeking and refugee communities for whom their identity may compound their digital exclusion – such as women, older people, members of the LGBTQ community, and those with disabilities.

References

Awad, I., and Tossell, J. (2021). Is the smartphone always a smart choice? Against the utilitarian view of the ‘connected migrant’. Information, Communication & Society, 24(4): 611-626.

Borkert, M., Fisher, K. E., and Yafi, E. (2018). The best, the worst and the hardest to find: How people, mobiles and social media connect migrants in(to) Europe. Social Media + Society, 4(1): 1–11.

British Red Cross. (2023). Offline and isolated: The impact of digital exclusion on access to healthcare for people seeking asylum in England. [Online]. London: The British Red Cross. [Accessed 10 May 2024]. Available at: https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/we-speak-up-for-change/how-digital-exclusion-impacts-access-to-healthcare-for-people-seeking-asylum-in-the-uk#:~:text=Digital%20exclusion%20meant%20that%20many,or%20only%20using%20A%26E%20services.

Buchert, U., Wrede, S., and Kouveonen, A. (2023). Persisting inequalities in the digitalised society. Migrant women facing coercive dimensions of everyday digitalisation. Information, Communication & Society, 1-16.

Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities. (2022). Social housing lettings in England, tenants: April 2021 to March 2022. [Online]. [Accessed 2 May 2024]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/social-housing-lettings-in-england-april-2021-to-march-2022/social-housing-lettings-in-england-tenants-april-2021-to-march-2022

Dhoest, A. (2020). Digital (dis)connectivity in fraught contexts: The case of gay refugees in Belgium. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(5): 784-800.

Dufva, T., and Dufva, M. (2019). Grasping the future of the digital society. Futures, 107: 17-28.

Gillespie, M., Osseiran, S., and Cheesman, M. (2018). Syrian refugees and the digital passage to Europe: Smartphone infrastructure and affordances. Social Media + Society, 4(1): 1-12.

Gough, H. A., and Gough, K. V. (2019). Disrupted becomings: The role of smartphones in Syrian refuge and existential journeys. Geoforum, 105(1): 89-98.

Holmes, H., Karampour, K., and Burgess, G. (2022). Digital poverty and housing inequality. [Online]. Cambridge: Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, University of Cambridge. [Accessed 3 May 2024]. Available at: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publications/digital-poverty-and-housing-inequality/

Home Office. (2024). UK Government: Asylum support. [Online]. [Accessed 5 May 2024]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get#:~:text=Cash%20support,cash%20from%20a%20cash%20machine

Linter, C. (2022). Being (co-)present: Reflecting the personal and public spheres of asylum seeking in relation to connectivity. Ethnography, 23(1): 60-82.

Merisalo, M., and Jauhiainen, J. S. (2019). Digital divides among asylum-related migrants: Comparing internet used and smartphone ownership. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 111(5): 689-704.

Mervana, S. (2021). Jangala: Meet the team closing the digital divide by providing internet access to offline refugees. 21 July. Cisco Blogs. [Online]. [Accessed 1 May 2024]. Available at: https://blogs.cisco.com/csr/jangala-closing-the-digital-divide-by-providing-internet-access-to-offline-refugees

Nedelcu, M., and Soysüren, I. (2022). Precarious migrants, migration regimes and digital technologies: The empowerment-control nexus. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(8): 1821-1837.

Refugee Advocacy Forum. (2022). Going full circle. [Online]. London: Refugee Advocacy Forum. [Accessed 15 May 2024]. Available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Going-Full-Circle-1.pdf

Refugee Council. (2021a). Keys to the city: How the next Mayor of London can help end refugee homelessness. [Online]. [Accessed 30 April 2024]. Available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Keys-To-The-City-Report-Feb-2021.pdf

Refugee Council. (2021b). A note on barriers experiences by refugees and people seeking asylum when accessing health services. [Online]. [Accessed 28 April 2024]. Available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/A-note-on-barriers-experienced-by-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum-when-accessing-health-services_March_2021.pdf

Refugee Council. (2023). The truth about asylum. [Online]. [Accessed 5 May 2024]. Available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/#

The Migration Observatory. (2024). The UK’s asylum backlog. [Online]. [Accessed 10 May 2024]. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-uks-asylum-backlog/#

UNHRC. (1951). Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. UNHRC: Geneva.

UNHRC. (2023). Asylum in the UK. [Online]. [Accessed 28 April 2024]. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk

UNHRC. (2024). Who we protect: refugees. [Online]. [Accessed 28 April 2024]. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/refugees#:~:text=A%20refugee%20is%20someone%20who,that%20refugees%20are%20entitled%20to.