Category: Civic Participation

The Problem of Digital Exclusion Among UK and US Asylum Seekers   

28/07/2023 

Background

Earlier this year, US Customs and Border Patrol re-introduced CBP1, a 2020 mobile phone app aiming to decrease waiting times, increase accessibility to asylum services, and “streamline the experience at the port of entry” more broadly (CBP, n.d). Similarly, the British National Health Service (NHS) moved significant resources to a mobile app that aimed to provide a “simple and secure” central hub for medical care (NHS, n.d.). According to UK health secretary Jeremy Hunt, the NHS app similarly claimed to “revolutionize the way [people] access healthcare” by offering faster appointments and ongoing remote resources (2018).

Yet in practice, CBP1 and the NHS app both made critical misjudgements about how their target audience would engage with them. CBP1 required a strong wifi connection, a mobile device, and an outlet to charge it – items often inaccessible to the app’s very target demographic (Rios, 2023). The NHS app, likewise, required an up-to-date device and strong wifi connection, which were prohibitively expensive for many (British Red Cross, 2023, p. 6). Other security features made these apps harder to access: CBP1’s facial recognition software was poorly trained on darker-skinned faces, thus making it harder to open for African and Haitian migrants, while the NHS app did not accept Application Registration Cards – the only government-issued IDs available to most asylees (del Bosque, 2023; British Red Cross, 2023, p. 6). Language created an additional barrier. While the CBP1 app is available in Spanish, it is not available in other non-English languages. And while NHS offers resources for a variety of language-speakers, the site and app themselves are English-only.

These examples reflect what many refer to as a digital divide, summarised by van Djik as the “division between those who have access and use of digital media, and those who do not” (2020, p. 1). Like other forms of marginalization, digital exclusion is multidimensional; an individual’s experience in the digital divide depends on their social membership categories and corresponding access to resources (Dunne, 2004). This policy brief, focusing specifically on asylum-seekers, recognises the complex interactions between other forms of marginalization. However, there are a number of barriers fairly unique to asylum seekers, which find common ground in both the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK).

This policy brief uses Amnesty International’s definition of an asylum seeker, or a “person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country.” For the purpose of this article, asylum seeker also encompasses refugees, who face similar persecution but apply for protection outside the host country (and therefore have legal status upon arrival). These terms are also different from migrant, which generally refers to people leaving their home country without the intent of seeking asylum. While migrants and asylum seekers are marginalised in similar ways, this brief focuses on the latter.

US/UK Comparison: Work and School 

Asylum-seekers in general face an uphill battle in pursuing work or education. Generally, access to technology itself is not an issue, as the majority of asylum seekers own and use mobile phones (Mancini et al., 2019). In both countries, kids often receive school-issued laptops, especially post-COVID. However, devices themselves are insufficient, as many studies cite functionality as a greater barrier than devices themselves. The issue of functionality often boils down to inequities in wifi and data, language, and digital literacy skills.

The expense of wifi and data repeatedly appears in subject interviews. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the single biggest barrier for US immigrant-origin children was reliable internet access (Workie, 2022). Access to the internet was one of the most important issues to UK asylum-seekers, and one of the most fickle, as the quality of their internet depended on the quality of their state-issued accommodation (British Red Cross, 2023). And while many draw on public libraries and cafes to study and telework – an imperfect fix given the lack of privacy –those spaces evaporated during COVID (McMullen, 2021). This made remote work and school doubly difficult, since multiple teleworkers under a single roof further strained broadband access and racked up data fees (McMullen, 2021).

Another substantial barrier is language. In both the US and UK, enrolling in school or finding work both entail an enormous amount of bureaucracy, including requests for obscure and confusing information (Harvey, Hastings, and Chowdhury, 2021). This paperwork is sometimes, but rarely, offered in a limited selection of non-English languages. Technology may be a boon, as online records can organise and maintain information about an asylum-seeker’s identity, such as financial and medical records (Colbertson et al., 2019). Alternatively, digital tools could help supplement in-classroom instruction, as the majority of educators who engage with immigrant-origin children are not ESL instructors by training (Bradley, Lindstron, and Hashemi, 2017; Abu-Ghaida, Lahire, and Silva, 2021).

However, the technological skills required in daily life can be overwhelmingly challenging for individuals unfamiliar with them, compounded by a language barrier even after acquiring basic proficiency (Lloyd et al., 2013). This daunting lack of visual information is intimately familiar to anyone who has made a telephone call in a newly-acquired language. This divide can entail lost opportunities for work or educational advancement, especially considering inexperience with basic skills such as email and videoconferencing (Workie, 2022). While some IT training exists, most kids aren’t exposed to it until they start school, at which point they face a double-burden of schoolwork in a new language and IT catch-up (Nanton, Dona, and Cestaro, 2022). Rarely do companies offer instruction in email at all, let alone in non-English languages.

While these issues are near-universal, the work-permit process in both countries provides an interesting contrast. In the US, asylum seekers can apply for a work permit 150 days after filing their asylum papers, with a 1-4 month turnaround time. Hypothetically, it’s possible to receive a work permit, sent in the mail as a physical card, within six months of applying for asylum. In the UK, asylum seekers receive a living stipend, but cannot work until their case is adjudicated. At that point, the stipend expires and the asylee receives a digital work verification card, with a 28-day deadline for finding a job and accommodation. Finding work is not easy, since asylees have limited funds at that point – the living stipend is modest – and digital work permit requires both an up-to-date device and expensive data to access (Taylor, 2022). As a result, some asylees have job offers rescinded when they are unable to prove their status during onboarding.

Thus, it is unsurprising that refugees and asylum seekers in both countries gravitate towards self-employment. This finding is well-grounded in current research, though cross-comparative studies of the startup environment are limited. In the US, it’s conceivable that fewer asylees rely on job-placement programs, which provide only six months of support and leads to lower-paying jobs with less-applicable skills (Kreisberg, de Graauw, and Gleeson, 2022). Since the majority of asylees in the US are Spanish-speaking from South and Central America, and there is a robust existing underground economy (Pisani et al., 2017), it makes sense that many prefer to avoid bureaucracy with under-the-table work. Stereotypical US values of self-reliance, innovation, and the “American Dream” might also encourage entrepreneurship. UK asylees also pursue self-employment, which continues even after they receive legal status; however, these businesses often become fragile and under-resourced due to the precarious nature of working without a permit in a small domestic market (Jones, Ram, and Edwards, 2014, p. 17). It is also possible that the UK’s greater social safety net reduces the need for informal services, further limiting potential business ventures. Thus, the role of technology could be twofold: helping asylees integrate into the formal economy, and establishing more profitable informal ventures.

US Recommendation: Cooperation Between Social Entrepreneurs and Job-placement Institutions

One challenge with refugee resettlement is the disconnect between short-term and long-term programs bridging the public and private sector (Kreisberg, de Graauw, and Gleeson, 2022). Since many digital education initiatives are spearheaded by social entrepreneurs (Benton and Glennie, 2016), it could be fruitful to integrate these philanthropic efforts into institutionalised resettlement programs. This cooperation could help scale programs appropriate to newcomers’ needs, while minimizing the tendency for the public and private sector to reduplicate one another’s work (Colbertson et al., 2019). Ultimately, while the informal economy should be an option, asylees should also have the opportunity and incentive to find good work in the formal economy. Especially for higher-skilled refugees, online classes in skills such as programming or IT could lead to stable jobs with more potential for growth.

UK Recommendation: Offer Physical Verification and Nurture Digital Entrepreneurship

Unless asylees gain the right work with a pending case, informal work is the only feasible option. This presents a problem, as informal arrangements in a smaller domestic market heighten the vulnerability to exploitation, which is further facilitated by digital media (Taylor 2022). Entrepreneurship, where asylees work for themselves, might reduce this risk, but it requires a host of resources and digital skills. Some UK asylee entrepreneurs do use technology for business purposes, such as online orders (Ram et al., 2022). Though Jiang et al (2021) find no relationship between access to technology and the success of early-stage refugee businesses, there could be a proxy benefit of integration into the community, which is the greatest predictor of long-term refugee entrepreneurial success. These could include university seed programs, with micro-grants specifically for asylee entrepreneurs with pending cases. Alternately, community-run initiatives could provide a space for networking, social support, and mutual tech skill transfers that are applicable to the professional world more broadly.

Both: Leverage Public Libraries

The fundamental barrier to both online courses and digital entrepreneurship is access to the internet. One workaround could be leveraging public libraries, which many asylees already know and trust. Expanding coworking spaces would enable remote work and sensitive calls, including telehealth appointments. In addition to public high-speed wifi, libraries may offer other tools such as IT help, adult classes, information about services, and a sense of community. As public institutions, they may also be better-equipped to receive funding.

Health and Society

The sociopolitical climates may be similar across certain dimensions. Contrary to popular belief, support for refugees is comparatively high. More than half of people in both countries view the contribution of refugees positively, while a quarter in the US and a third in the UK view them negatively (Kaur-Balagan, Peel, and Holden, 2023). In both countries, slightly more than one-third of respondents advocated closing their respective borders entirely, with fewer than one-fifth advocating deportation of existing asylum-seekers (Kaur-Balagan, Peel, and Holden, 2023). Yet, despite a lack of popular support, hard-line views are reflected in political stunts targeted at asylees, from UK chants of “stop the boats” to US chants of “build the wall.” Amid exposure to this rhetoric, alongside constant media coverage of the crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine, seeing one’s personal trauma reduced to headline news can be disorienting (Kaur, 2021).

The emotional toll of seeking asylum is increasingly mediated by technology. Part of being an asylum-seeker is trying to understand a new environment; in the digital age, the surplus of information can do more harm than good, as it may either drown out important notices or expose asylum seekers to harmful misinformation (Kaufmann, 2018). Other social categories can also come into play, as both women and those fleeing authoritarian regimes report heightened concerns about digital surveillance, from their home government to abusive spouses to potential traffickers (McMullen 2021; British Red Cross, 2023). Even tools intended for emotional support, such as social media or calls home, can increase the feeling of living two lives, or “being neither from here, nor from there” (Anderson, 2018). As a result, some asylees report decreasing their use of technology to preserve mental health (Bastick and Mallet-Garcia, 2022), suggesting that emotional labour could be a subjective-yet-important element of the digital divide.

One major difference between the US and UK is that of the healthcare system and, by extension, the feasibility of telemedicine. Telemedicine, or the remote provision of medical care via technology, could have a number of benefits for asylum seekers who struggle to access traditional, face-to-face healthcare. Traditionally, barriers to healthcare include lack of access to transportation, lack of providers (let alone culturally competent ones), and opportunity cost of leaving work (British Red Cross, 2023). Telemedicine could hypothetically address these complaints, as it’s faster, remote, and expands the pool of available practitioners (Grieco-Page et al., 2021). However, asylees may remain hesitant about telemedicine. In a US study of uninsured migrants, the majority of respondents mostly disregarded telemedicine, as they did all other services that required insurance (Bastick and Mallet-Garcia, 2022). The UK’s centralised and publicly-funded healthcare system means that insurance is not an issue; however, UK respondents reported concerns about privacy, data security, and potential surveillance (Bastick and Mallet-Garcia, 2022). These concerns were largely dismissed by the US sample, who believed tracking by other means was inevitable.

US Recommendation: Loosen Telehealth Restrictions

The two most-cited issues with insurance – expense and awareness – are workable within the existing framework. A good example is the COVID-era expansion of Medicare-insured telehealth, which allowed doctors to provide remote care beyond their geographical jurisdiction (HHS, n.d.). The policy also allowed audio-only visits, which presumably required less data and potentially even wifi-less phone calls. Many asylees actually are eligible for medicaid or refugee-specific healthcare, but don’t understand their own coverage and eligibility (USC, 2023). In these cases, clearly providing navigable information in a native language could help them access reimbursable telehealth.

UK Recommendation: Establish a Telehealth-Specific Privacy Framework

American concerns about licensing and expense are irrelevant in the UK, as there are no state-level jurisdictions and healthcare is taxpayer-funded. However, the centralised model of UK services could understandably increase concerns about data security in a large bureaucracy. While the NHS follows stringent guidelines about data security in general, these policies have not been updated for the digital world. Clear and enforceable guidelines specific to remote healthcare, which are clearly and visibly conveyed to asylum-seekers, could ease some of the apprehension around using them.

Both: Draw on the Existing Strength of Asylum Seekers

Asylees themselves are the authoritative source on what they need for success. Since one issue with large-scale digital literacy programs is the lack of manpower, especially language-enabled and culturally-competent educators, we can and should leverage asylee talent to address it. Even small-scale investments into digital literacy could have ripple effects, as asylees often depend on one another for information and resources (Harvey, Hastings, and Chowdhury, 2021). More formal avenues, such as teacher-training programs, could increase asylee employment and help integrate them into the broader community.

Conclusion

This policy brief has compared the digital experiences of asylum-seekers in the US and UK. Cross-country comparisons raise two important points: first, environment does matter, since it constrains the resources available, including the role of work permits and health insurance. Targeted, country-based solutions can benefit more people in less time. Second, these environmental differences only shape the digital divide, not create it. This brief has raised a number of common themes, including the necessity of reliable internet access, critical role of digital literacy, and an inherent connection between technology and host-community integration. Following Dunnes’ (2004) insights on multidimensionality, policymakers should recognise that these commonalities may extend to other marginalised groups, whose unique experiences stem from similar themes. By implementing research-based, long term measures based on shared principles of inclusivity, we can improve integration outcomes for asylum seekers in the digital world and beyond.

References

Abu-Ghaida, D., Lahire, N., K. Silva. (2021). Overcoming language barriers to include refugees in host country education systems. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/overcoming-language-barriers-include-refugees-host-country-education-systems
 

Anderson, J. (2018). Quoted in Angst, C. “The Transnational Experience: Neither from here, nor from there.” Duke University. https://igs.duke.edu/news/transnational-experience-neither-here-nor-there
 

Bastick, Z., and M. Mallet-Garcia. (2022). Double lockdown: The effects of digital exclusion on undocumented immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic. New Media and Society, 24(2), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063185
 

Benton, M., and A. Glennie. (2016). How Tech Entrepreneurs are Supporting Refugee Integration. Migration Policy Institute. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/digital-humanitarianism-how-tech-entrepreneurs-are-supporting-refugee-integration_en
 

Bradley, L., Lindstron, N.B., and S.S. Hashemi. (2017). Integration and Language Learning of Newly Arrived Migrants Using Mobile Technology. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.434
 

Colbertson, S., Dimarogonas, J., Costello, K. and S. Lanna. (2019). Crossing the Digital Divide: Applying Technology to the Global Refugee Crisis. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4322.html
 

Del Bosque, M. (2023). Facial Recognition Bias Frustrates Black Asylum Applicants to the US, Advocates Say. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/08/us-immigration-cbp-one-app-facial-recognition-bias
 

Dunne, R. (2004). Marginality: A Conceptual Extension. (2005). In M. D Rutledge (Ed.), Marginality, Power and Social Structure: Issues in Race, Class and Gender Analysis. Emerald Publishing Limited.
 

“Fact Sheet: Using CBP1 to Schedule an Appointment.” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2023-Jan/CBP%20One%20Fact%20Sheet_English_3.pdf
 

Grieco-Page, H.,Black, C.J.,Berent J.M., Gautam, B., and T.S. Betancourt. (2021). Beyond the Pandemic: Leveraging Rapid Expansions in U.S. Telemental Health and Digital Platforms to Address Disparities and Resolve the Digital Divide. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.671502
 

“A Guide for Helping Immigrants and Refugees Access Health Services”. (2023). Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California. https://mphdegree.usc.edu/blog/health-insurance-for-immigrants/
 

Harvey, M., Hastings, D.P., and G. Chowdhury. (2021). Understanding the Costs and Challenges of the Digital Divide through UK Council Services. Journal of Information Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211040664
 

“HHS Fact Sheet: Telehealth Flexibilities and Resources and the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.” United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/10/hhs-fact-sheet-telehealth-flexibilities-resources-covid-19-public-health-emergency.html
 

Hunt, J. (2018). Quoted by Nick Bostock in GPOnline. https://www.gponline.com/nhs-app-end-8am-scramble-gp-appointments-december/article/1486518
 

Jiang, Y.D., Straub, C., Klyver, K., and R. Mauer. (2021). Unfolding refugee entrepreneurs' opportunity-production process — Patterns and embeddedness. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106138
 

Jones, T., Ram, M., Li, Y., and P. Edwards. (2014). The Contribution of New Migrant Entrepreneurs in the UK. Center for Entrepreneurs. https://centreforentrepreneurs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CFE-CREME-Contribution-of-New-Migrant-Entrepreneurs-in-the-UK.pdf
 

Kaufmann, K. (2018). Navigating a new life: Syrian refugees and their smartphones in Vienna. Information, Communication & Society, 21(6), 882–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1437205
 

Kaur, G. (2021). Migrants and Refugees Face an Invisible Trauma We Can’t Ignore. Time Magazine. https://time.com/6108188/refugees-migrants-trauma-instability/
 

Kaur-Balagan, K., Peel, C., and S. Holden. (2023). Global Attitudes Towards Refugees. Ipsos. https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-attitudes-towards-refugees
 

Kreisberg, A.N.,de Graauw, E., and S. Gleeson (2022). Explaining Refugee Employment Declines: Structural Shortcomings in Federal Resettlement Support. Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab080
 

Lloyd, A., Thompson, K.M., Kennan, M.A., and A. Qayyum. (2013). Connecting with new information landscapes: Information literacy practices of refugees. Journal of Documentation, 69(1), 121-144.
 

Mancini, T., F. Sibilla, D., Argiropoulos, M., Rossi, and M. Everri. (2019). The opportunities and risks of mobile phones for refugees’ experience: a scoping review. PLoS One, 14(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225684
 

McMullen, C. (2021). Migrant Integration Services and Coping with the Digital Divide: challenges and opportunities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Voluntary Sector Review, 12(1), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080520X16076177287917
 

Nanton, R., Dona, G., and C. Cestaro. (2022). Innovative Technologies and Digital Equity: Supporting Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking and Refugee Children to Achieve Digital Proficiency. Centre for Migration, Refugees and Belonging, University of East London & Refugee Council. https://repository.uel.ac.uk/item/8qx5y
 

“NHS App.” National Health Services. https://digital.nhs.uk/services/nhs-app
 

Offline and Isolated: The impact of digital exclusion on access to healthcare for people seeking asylum in England. British Red Cross, 2023. https://www.redcross.org.uk/offline-and-isolated
 

Pisani, M., Guzman, J., Richardson, C., Sepulveda, C., and L. Laulie. (2017). Small business enterprises and Latino entrepreneurship: An enclave or mainstream activity in South Texas? Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 295-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-017-0203-6

Ram, M., Jones, T., Doldor, S., Villares-Valera, M., and H. Li. (2022). What happens to refugee-origin entrepreneurs? Combining mixed embeddedness and strategy perspectives in a longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(16), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2021.1991970

“Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, and Migrants.” Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/

Rios, L. (2023). The New US Border Wall is an App. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/06/16/1074039/border-wall-app/
 

Taylor, L. (2022). UK digital residence checks lock out refugees, slavery victims. Context. https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/uk-digital-residence-checks-lock-out-refugees-slavery-victims?utm_source=news-trust&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=context&utm_content=article
 

Van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Workie, E. (2022). “Bridging the Divide for U.S. Children in Immigrant Families.” Talk given for Migration Policy Institute, 24 February. Webinar available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/multimedia/bridging-digital-divide-us-children-immigrant-families