Reception Culture in the
Netherlands
Ellen Gamble
11125055
MSc Human Geography
Track: Political Geography
Ellen Gamble
Student Number: 11125055
Email:
ellen.gamble@student.uva.nl
Supervisor: Dr Inge van der Welle
Second Supervisor: Dr Virginie Mamadouh
Date: August 2016
Abstract
People fleeing persecution to seek safety is nothing new, however the subject of asylum seekers and their reception has become a controversial topic in Europe due to the rapid increase in asylum numbers and the portrayal of swarms of them arriving on European shores. The question is what should be provided for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees? This is question is the foundation for determining the reception culture of a country. Reception culture encompasses the entire process from arrival to resettlement. This research provides a better understanding of the different elements of Dutch asylum reception and
hospitality; and how refugees, volunteers, alternative projects, and COA perceive them. These perceptions and experiences highlight what is truly happening in reception locations, and what are the successes and failures in reception locations. By including all these voices in this research it contributes a unique outlook on the subject in both academic and political realms. In general, what can be gathered is providing asylum reception on a large scale is a difficult task, and for the most part this acknowledged by all participants. Nevertheless, by
exploring their opinions it helps to depict the improvements that need to be made.
KEYWORDS
Reception culture, hospitality, care, volunteers, refugees, citizenship, integration, COA
Acknowledgements
I have thoroughly enjoyed my time at the University of Amsterdam studying human geography, and this research thesis has been an amazing and huge learning experience for myself.
Firstly, I would like to thank all my participants for taking the time to speak with me about their personal opinions and experiences of reception culture. Secondly, I would like to thank my tutor and supervisor Dr Inge van der Welle for her guidance throughout the academic year, and for providing me with contacts to begin the process of my data collection. I have really appreciated all the effort and time you have taken to help me during this masters course.
Finally, thanks to my parents for supporting me throughout my year studying in Amsterdam, and motivating me when I was struggling to finish this thesis.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 3
1.1. The “Refugee Crisis” in Europe ... 4
1.2. EU Policy ... 5
1.3. Dutch Policy………..7
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 10
2.1. The Geographical Imagination of Asylum ... 10
2.2. Asylum Reception in Geopolitics ... 11
2.3. Reception Locations ...…14
2.4. The Other and Nationalism ... 17
2.5. Citizenship and Belonging ... 19
METHODOLOGY ... 22
3.1. Research Design ... 22
3.2. Data Collection Methods ... 24
3.3. Research Questions ...…25 3.4. Operationalization ... 25
3.5. List of Participants ... 26 3.6. Units of Analysis ... 26 3.7. Limitations ...…27 3.8. Positionality ... 29
3.9. Ethical Concerns ... 29 ANALYSIS ... 31
PART I: Regular Reception 4.1. Processes and Procedures ... 31
4.2. COA Reception Locations ... 33
4.3. Volunteers ...…39
4.4. Activities ... 42
PART II: Alternative Reception
4.5. Take Flight ... 46
4.6. Take Care BnB ... 48
4.7. Gastvrij Oost ...…49
PART III: Belonging 4.8. Integration ... 50
4.9. Labelling and Spaces of Exclusion ... 51
4.4.
Dutch Attitudes... 53
CONCLUSION ... 56 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 59 APPENDICES ... 66 APPENDIX ONE ... 66 APPENDIX TWO ... 67 APPENDIX THREE ... 693
Introduction
This research will explore reception culture and hospitality of asylum seekers and refugees in the Netherlands. The findings of this research are from the perspectives of those who have lived or are working in the spaces of asylum reception and hospitality. The
participants are a combination of asylum seekers/refugees, staff members and volunteers.
The participants involved were drawn from different reception locations and as such will be more likely to reflect the general reception culture in the Netherlands. The aim of this thesis is to investigate what defines reception culture in the Netherlands. Reception culture encompasses all aspects of the reception and welcome of asylum seekers into their chosen country of refuge. Hospitality is a large part of reception culture, however the fundamental difference between the two is that reception culture in most countries has guidelines and policies.
Whilst, hospitality cannot be so easily defined by government policies it is something that is embedded in the ethos of the country and the culture. Nevertheless, the current
government outlook upon asylum seekers and refugees will dictate both. Asylum seekers fleeing to Europe is not a new phenomenon, in fact Europe’s largest wave of forced
migration occurred during 1944-49 (Lynn, 2013). Presently, the number of people seeking asylum has risen due to civil war and violence in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Hence, asylum lows come in waves and are not continuous. For example, people whom have fled Syria stand at 4,844,111 and the majority has sought refuge in the countries Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon (UNHCR, 2016). In the EU the reception of asylum seekers has become a subject of concern and controversy in all member states; many have labeled it as a crisis due to the vast numbers, and illegal and dangerous ways of travel to which many people have been forced to resort.
Refugee studies became a prominent subject in the academic world during the 1980s, and currently has become a fundamental priority in the humanitarian agenda (Scalettaris, 2007). Refugee studies and migration theory still remains fragmented and cannot forecast future trends of migration and due to the fact economic and political change are
unpredictable (Coleman, 2015). The definitions of an asylum seeker, refugee, and migrant have been defined by the 1951 Geneva convention and are now implemented by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR, 2016). However, these terms have still
4
been disputed because in academia they were taken directly from international and humanitarian law and not by sociological analysis of empirical observations (Scalettaris, 2007). Therefore, as the terms have been derived from policy and not from anthropological and sociological analysis there is a disconnect between the terms and the realities of those experiencing forced migration. Nevertheless, these definitions are important political labels within national and international policy. Zetter (1998) states these terms have become the most powerful labels in the repertoire of humanitarian concern. In many ways this
statement is true as refugee, asylum seeker, and migrant each carry a different political significance, and can determine an individual’s rights of movement.
However, as pointed out by Scalettaris (2007) it is almost impossible to apply these distinctive definitions to separate classes of migrants, in fact they are labels designed to meet the needs of policy, and not to meet the needs and rights of the individual. Malkki suggests (1995; 496) “the term refugee has analytical usefulness not as a label for a special, generalizable kind of person or situations, but only as a broad legal or descriptive rubric that includes within it a world of socio-economic statuses, personal histories, and
psychological or spiritual situations”. Consequently, by encompassing so many important elements into term it can exclude important issues. One being the difference between the terms asylum seeker and refugee. By refugee being such a broad term it can be made adaptable for many people's situations. To be clear, asylum seekers are unauthorized arrivals that seek legal protection, but they are still under investigation to ensure they are a genuine refugee (Colic-Peisker, 2012).
T
hus, political labelling is extremely significant in determining the entitlements of the person who has fled persecution.1.1. The “Refugee Crisis” in Europe
World refugee numbers continue to grow due to various political, environmental and socio-economic conflicts with figures reaching 50 million since World War Two (Tomszewski, 2015) . The numbers of refugees has been increasing for a few years in Syria and North Africa, and it can be deemed to have escalated with the Arab spring in 2011. The wars in Syria, Libya and other Arab nations have resulted in a vacuum of instability, which has contributed to the increase of refugees (Kingsley, 2015). The UNHCR abides by the 1951 Refugee convention definition which is ‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted
5
for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’ (UNHCR, 2015). This is
internationally recognized and the EU has an asylum policy which only grants asylum to those once they reach their territories (Europa, 2015). North African and Syrian refugees who want to enter Europe have to take difficult and dangerous routes to claim asylum within the EU. Bialasiewicz et al (2009) argues the EU constructed borders are
discriminatory, easy for some whilst forming extra barriers for others.
Since 2005 the number of asylum seekers entering the EU has doubled (Government of the Netherlands, 2016), and the EU deals with asylum on a cooperative basis. As previously discussed, the ongoing civil unrest in Syria, Iraq and other nations has resulted in a surge of asylum seekers in Europe. There have been major peaks in asylum numbers; for example in 2001 there were 425,000 for EU-27 then in 2006 only 200,000. It then peaked again in 2012 to 335,985 applications (European Commission, 2015). First time applicants for asylum in the EU doubled from 563,000 in 2014 to 1.26 million in 2015 (Eurostat, 2015). One could argue that Europe, specifically the EU, could have been better prepared along borders in accepting people, particularly on the Mediterranean border. This is a huge increase for such a short period of time, and to some extent it is understandable that it is viewed as crisis. Yet, one of the reasons that this has been labeled as a crisis is because of the way the EU has dealt with the situation. There has been extensive criticism of the EU’s response to the surge of asylum seekers. Many of the criticisms have been aimed at the EU’s slow and splintered response. Part of the lack of response is due to the common asylum policy and the fact that asylum numbers are not evenly distributed across member states, thus there has been an unbalanced response by countries because of difference in resources and political agenda. For example, Germany accepted to most new asylum applications, which was 175,000 applicants or 61% of the EU's total asylum applications in the first quarter of 2016 (Eurostat, 2016).
1.2. EU Policy
The EU is an area of open borders, freedom of movement and member states share many of the same policies and values, therefore having a common asylum policy and a number of other documents to ensure all member states have high standards of protection for refugees
6
is understandable (EU common asylum policy, 2015). This common policy was developed between 1999 to 2005 with the harmonizing common minimum asylum standards. These EU policies ensure uniform standards, but the Dublin regulation establishes member states responsibility for particular considerations to applications, for example family reasons. For maintaining good reception standards the EU has certain directives and funds. The refugee fund was established in 2014 to help countries that face larger strains on their reception capacities due to larger influxes of asylum seekers into territories. This fund also helps resettlement and integration programmes (Europa, 2015). The reception conditions directive establishes EU common standards for living conditions and ensures applicants have access to housing, food, health care and employment (Europa, 2015).
As previously discussed, It has been portrayed by the EU that asylum seekers will be dealt on a cooperative level, in reality this is not the case. Southern member states, for example Greece, Malta and Italy, have received far greater numbers of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants arriving on their shores, due to the fact they are in closer proximity to the regions facing civil unrest and violence. Whereas, Northern European nations are
geographical further so experience less uncontrollable influxes of both illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Although, Northern European countries receive the highest numbers of asylum applications (Triandafyllidou, 2014). In many ways the common asylum policy has been ineffective in dealing with the arrival and reception of asylum seekers on a macro level. Triandafyllidou (2014) suggests some policy recommendations, such as joint processing of asylum seekers and a common asylum status for the EU, and can move in-between EU states freely if they wish to do so.
One of the most interesting paradoxes of European migration policy is the continuous enhancement and restriction of both EU citizens and third country nationals like asylum seekers (Kostakopoulou, 2000). One strategy EU members have now adopted to deal with the heightened numbers of asylum seekers is extraterrestrial policies. This is where asylum is processed outside the EU for the EU, which is usually in countries in the region closer asylum seekers' country of origin. The whole purpose of using extraterrestrial policies and creating organizations to secure external borders is to attempt to re-establish EU
boundaries outside the territory of the EU. To first prevent any illegal migration or mass flow of asylum seekers arriving on EU territory is to limit any possible means of arriving safely in Europe (Kmak, 2015). Only 0.5% of the most vulnerable asylum seekers were
7
allowed to enter the EU through a legal resettlement process (Kmak, 2015). Consequently, most are forced to travel via smugglers by dangerous boat journeys (Amnesty International, 2013). The EU will still provide reception for asylum seekers, even if they have arrived illegally. This illustrates there is still a relative sense of moral obligation to provide
protection and some level of care. However, by placing in preliminary strategies to prevent asylum seekers from even reaching Europe shows that political obligations and quotas to maintain asylum numbers overrides everything else.
The reasoning behind this initiative can be related to the increasing concerns with security and the support of populist rhetoric, thus resulting in Western countries creating stricter policies (Kmak, 2015). Despite these developments it is still being challenged by the scale of the refugee movement (Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013). These policies have been to some extent created to preemptively avoid issues such as housing asylum seekers (Sweeney, 2012). The EU's reluctance to accept high numbers of asylum seekers has resulted in countries like Jordan and Lebanon taking on the responsibility of large numbers of asylum seekers predominantly from Syria and Iraq. For example, Jordan’s population has swelled by 20% since the beginning of the Syrian civil war (Farid Al Qutob, 2016). Thus, to what extent is this really a crisis for Europe, specifically the EU? There is no doubt that numbers of those fleeing from persecution have rapidly increased to Europe. Yet, EU policy has become stricter and there have been disputes amongst EU countries on the amount of asylum seekers to accept.
1.3. Dutch Policy
This international legal document forms the basis of the work for UNHCR and is signed by 144 states (UNHCR, 2015). The UNHCR (2015) defines the terms refugee and asylum seekers, the rights of the displaced, and the legal obligations of states to protect them (UNHCR, 2015). These core principles are reflected in both the policy and practice of the Dutch asylum reception.
The Netherlands is one of the 28 members of the EU, thus adheres to the EU policies
concerning asylum and other international agreements. Nonetheless, the Netherlands under the Dublin regulation still has its own procedures to process asylum seekers. The
8
immigration and is the organization that processes, interviews and grants or denies
residency to asylum seekers. All foreign nationals seeking asylum must report to the IND at the center Ter Apel (Government of the Netherlands, 2016). If asylum seekers are entering the Netherlands by plane they must report to the Royal Netherlands Marehaussee. The central agency for the reception of asylum seekers (COA) are responsible for the reception, supervision and reception locations of asylum seekers (COA, 2016). Accommodation is the main aspect of reception and in the Netherlands there are three main forms of
accommodation. Asylum seekers’ center regular (AZC), emergency center, and the crisis reception (Government of the Netherlands, 2016). Currently, the crisis reception centers are not in use as they are only meant for 72-hour use (COA, 2016). The AZC centers are the primary forms of accommodation, which are built and prepared to accommodate large numbers of asylum seekers (COA, 2016). The emergency centers are used as temporary accommodation in the event of a shortage of regular centers such as pavilions,
multi-purpose halls etc. (see figure 1) (Government of the Netherlands, 2016). These were needed to be used during the months of August and September due to the unexpected surge in people arriving seeking asylum.
9
Time periods in which the procedure for the IND to determine whether or not to grant a residency permit; this usually takes approximately one week. As previously mentioned, the surge in numbers has not affected the time of the actual procedure, however it has
significantly lengthened the waiting time for the interviewing and assessment procedure. COA (2016) has stated the waiting time could take 6 to 15 months.
1) First interview to discuss the asylum seeker's personal details.
2) Time for rest and preparation, which includes information about the procedure and help from the lawyer.
3) Second interview, this is the interview when they can explain what they experienced and why they had to leave their country of origin. IND (2016) state this interview is set up for the asylum seeker to speak freely.
4) IND assesses the application.
5) Asylum residence permit or return. If an asylum seeker comes from a safe country or gets protection from another EU member state their application can be declared unfounded in an accelerated asylum procedure and are interviewed immediately.
The process seems relatively simply – asylum seekers arrive and are accommodated for in stages of different asylum centers, then go through an assessment process to decide their residency status. This is conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) they assess the asylum seekers account and the security situation to ensure that they genuinely need protection (Government of the Netherlands, 2016). If refugee status is granted the refugees, then have to wait in another center for them to given in temporary housing. If they are not granted refugee status depending on the security situation in their home country will be allowed to stay on a temporary basis.
10
Theoretical Framework
Reception culture is essentially how asylum seekers and refugees are welcomed, received and hosted in the country they have sought refuge in. The term encompasses everything to do with the care of asylum seekers, then if successful with their claim gained refugee status. This research looks into the specific perspectives of volunteers, refugees, alternative
refugee accommodation and a COA representative. This will highlight aspects of reception culture that tend not to be acknowledged in both academia and policy. Presently, there are international standards set by both the UNHCR and the EU common asylum policy for asylum reception and accommodation in the Netherlands. Therefore, it is important to note international human rights provide the basis of reception standards for all the 144 states that signed the 1951 Geneva Convention (UNHCR, 2001). By examining reception culture through an inductive approach makes this research unique, as it will allow insight into the first hand experiences of asylum reception.
2.1. The Geographical Imagination of Asylum
“Geographical imagination, essentially is the concept that evolves an appreciation of the role played by space in all aspects of human endeavor” (Norton, 1989; 190) . Therefore, the geographical imagination goes beyond just imagined spaces and places, but also extends to people. For example, ethnicities, religions and economic statuses are all associated with geographical locations. Hence, the imagination allows the individual to understand the role of space and place in his/her own biography (Harvey, 1973). In many ways geographical imagination is at the heart of many people’s ideas of what asylum seekers are, and how they should be accommodated for. This links to the idea of a spatially bound identity, and in the case of seeking asylum in a European country it can tend to result the casting of the non-European other. At this moment in time many asylum seekers are from outside Europe, therefore this stereotypical casting can result in negative interpretations of the people fleeing persecution. This is comparable to Paasi’s (1996) concept of spatial socialization. This is the process in which individuals and collectives are socialized as members of territorially bounded entities. They are essentially actively internalized into collective territorial identities and shared traditions (Paasi, 1996). Consequently, by collectively identifying a large group of people in desperate need it can lead to a lack of compassion and empathy in policy, media portrayals and public attitude towards asylum seekers. Whilst
11
also promoting the power and the ideals of Europe across the world that further exclude many others. . Otherness is key to Europe’s current policy towards both refugees and asylum seekers, which (Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2011) is critical of the European policy. 2.2. Asylum Reception in Geopolitics
In relation to political geography, the refugee and the asylum seeker no longer have the same ideological or the geopolitical meanings as they once did. One of the main changes has been how protection is provided to asylum seekers and refugees. This rethinking has led to a series of restrictive measures, which are now labeled as non-entrée or extraterrestrial policies (Chimni, 1998). These policies are used to deterritorialize the asylum system by providing protection to refugees and processing asylum claims outside of the state implementing the policy. It is arguable that asylum seekers and refugees as human beings fleeing persecution seem not to be prioritized by governments and international
organizations; this is especially the case when there are mass numbers. Gammeltoft-Hansen (2011) implies EU policy aims to be restrictive and the member states prioritize the
economic and political concerns over the protection of asylum seekers. However, political elites and international governmental organisations, such as the EU, have been arguing for reform of the current refugee regime stating it is inefficient and ill-suited for the refugee realities (Afeef-Fathimath, 2006). As previously mentioned, the EU commission has recently released the changes and reform to the common asylum policy (Europa, 2016). Whilst reform is ongoing it does not mean it in the interest of the asylum seekers. The recent crisis has been the catalyst for reform and is a way that more control can be extorted onto asylum seekers.
Furthermore, the framing of problems with migration and clandestine travel in the EU are strongly connected with a historically specific ethos towards outsiders (Millner, 2011). These attitudes towards outsiders is unified through the EU with the use of several common migration and reception policies, which makes its approach to asylum unique in comparison to the rest of the world. Millner (2011) highlights in the EU regional harmonization of security policies, has redefined such questions of inside and outside to new transnational areas. Nevertheless, the 1951 refugee convention is no longer the only international document that sets the rules, regulations and policy for protection and reception. For EU countries and others it is now based more on the national asylum systems and
12
it therefore allows the EU to create and implement their own policies, which can at times be stricter than international protocol.
Bigo (1998) suggests borders are political technologies reflecting a particular politics in a specific context, the increased numbers of asylum seekers to Europe thus reflects a stricter immigration agenda. Additionally, territorial strategies are designed to influence control and power over populations, and bordering practices can even displace specific populations (Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2011). Control measures, for example outsourcing and off-shoring asylum, these have become popular strategies for some European nations to deal with asylum. This seems to be a rarely commented on topic in refugee studies. One of the key methods in which outsourcing asylum seekers is achieved is through a third country initiatives, in which the transit process is transferred to countries on key migration routes. Gammeltoft-Hansen (2011) highlights there is a huge political allure to this policy, as it tackles high numbers of asylum seekers and can deny access if he or she has already found protection. The European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) helps to achieve outsourcing
successfully, which has been described by Gammeltoft-Hansen (2011) and other academics as the idea of creating a ring of friends. This fuels the concept of the other and the unknown across the border, and that it is more appropriate for countries within the region of the crisis to deal with those fleeing persecution. This also is way that the EU can maintain its image of control, and Jones (2011) contends Europe mobilizes its imagined image through political elites projecting the concept of Europe as a global actor. Moreover, by creating a ring of friends allows the EU to have a level of control outside member states.
A ring of friends can in some sense create safer and more stable borders; Paasi (1996) argues in the world system of territory there are two types of borders; stable borders and less stable borders. Stable borders are where representatives of states have signed and honored treaties recognizing sovereignty and several parties agree with the boundaries. Less stable boundaries are those, which are typically sources of territorial conflict. These concepts highlight the process of othering people, countries and territories. This is somewhat true in relation to current EU border policy and the distinctive difference between EU and non-EU. Paasi (1996) is clear to point out the other has to be labelled, legitimatized, and mythologized. The other is seen to live somewhere else, and this
narrative can have severe consequences on “others” being accepted in a new territory and space.
13
The EU is an area of open borders, yet these are only open and accessible to one who is a member state nationality. Asylum seekers do not tend to be welcomed at the EU open borders. They are viewed as the people on the other side of the border and tend to be described in a way that is used to dehumanize them and make them appear unworthy of human rights (Jones, 2012). This idea reflects the stereotypical dichotomy of certain borders; where the people who cross borders personify the representations of good and evil, civil and savage. Consequently, asylum seekers when entering the Netherlands are socially and physically tied to their political label and their home country. Peteet (2005) argues spatial strategies of the states to the production of a refugee population, which eventually becomes a population of space. This also, links to Paasi’s (1996) suggestions of we-ness and the concept of the other. Paasi (1996) argues the construction of we/they dichotomy utilizes the stereotypical ideas of the other. The othering narratives highlight the negative characteristics of the people outside, which result in reinforcing the superiority of the people on the right side of the border (Paasi, 1996). This theory is illustrated through the EU’s creation of border security organizations such as Frontex, which secures the EU’s external borders. The main reason for adopting such a policy is to effectively manage flows of non-EU nationals, including asylum seekers in the common area of the EU (Kmak, 2015). European countries seem to be in a race to have the most restrictive policies towards asylum seekers (Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2011). Which in many ways can be deemed true through the creation of border enforcement organizations. Frontex is used in the domestic space of non-EU countries to implement EU border policy. By implementing further border controls to places outside of EU power illustrates a strong sense of wariness about the surrounding countries and populations.
To take a geographical approach to how refugees and asylum seekers are presented in the context of globalized space is to look at Paasi's (1996) idea of spatial socialization. This is the process where identities and communities are collectively labelled at borders. Through particular border practices asylum seekers can be viewed as a negative migratory group, one that no longer is about individuals but is an unwanted community. Ramadan (2013; 66) states “refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants are often represented as a dark side of globalization, a security threat to nation-states that must be restricted by a violent and repressive geography of walls”. By creating walls whether metaphorical or
14
physical against asylum seekers it illustrates a sense of fear and lack of compassion. This is because they are viewed as unruly populations, and this can result in the disregard for their extreme vulnerability and instead reconstitute them as a security threat (Hodge, 2015). This shows the subjective view of the governments who have the power to accept asylum seekers into their countries, and that creating barriers to vulnerable illustrates those geographical and cultural boundaries that remove empathy and the sensitive needed to produce effective asylum policies and resources.
It can be said that part of the disconnect between policy and refugee realities is that emotional geopolitics is not fully considered. Geopolitics does not always include the key emotional and sensitive aspects of fleeing for asylum. These are important as they play a significant role in understanding the individual stories of asylum seekers. An example is a study by Yako and Biswas (2014) studied the acculturative stress resulting from adjusting to a new culture. Acculturation is the experience felt by people moving from one culture to another, which differs substantially to their own (Yako and Biswas, 2014). It was Pain (2009) to coin the term emotional geopolitics because adapting to a new culture and societal differences involves far more emotional aspects than political ones. As previously discussed, it brings a more insightful and empowering framework that is far more attentive to what is happening on the ground by the people who inhabit the spaces and places (Pain, 2009). A geographical perspective about those fleeing persecution and violence examines the connections between the movement of refugees and the social spaces through which they move (Rajaram, 2015). By fully taking into account the political, moral and emotional aspects of asylum it produces a better understanding of the effects of policy, refugee patterns and individual lives of being an asylum seeker.
2.3. Reception Locations
Reception culture of asylum seekers encompasses many elements including hospitality, services, processes, material resources, citizenship and belonging; accommodation is a key part to all as it is the main space reception is experienced. As previously mentioned, in the Netherlands there is accommodation provided by the government to asylum seekers upon arrival, which also includes catering and basic facilities, but what else should be provided? Bakker et al’s (2014) study of asylum accommodation and resources argues that if there is a lack of resources and a sense of insecurity about future opportunities during an asylum
15
seeker's stay in a reception center, it will impact on their ability to integrate with the host society. In the Netherlands the asylum procedure can be somewhat lengthy as it difficult to put a timescale on the procedures (Morris, 2012). However, Bakker et al (2014) states a lengthy stay in a reception environment where social interaction with the outside can be limited hinders the asylum seekers ability to regain the resources they need to integrate into the labor market and other aspects of life. Darling (2011; 264) states “the knowledge that accommodation is only ever temporary, subject to eviction, movement and inspection at any time, acts as a means to control and constrain those awaiting decisions”. Therefore, it seems accommodation for asylum seekers is no longer viewed as a space to care, but a space to contain. Feldman (2015) implies that aid agencies and governments rule over refugee populations in asylum accommodation. Asylum seekers are obliged to follow all asylum procedures and restricted to certain types of accommodation. Again, this links to hospitality, and how humanitarian actors seek to not only impose themselves in asylum populations, but also to be welcomed by them (Vestergaard, 2014). For hospitality to be successful in the space of an asylum center it has to be willingly accepted by the asylum seekers.
Reception locations whether it is for administrative purposes, activities or accommodation are meant to be spaces of care. Popke (2006; 507) argues, “care is more than simply a social relation with moral or ethical dimensions; it can also be the basis for an alternate ethical standpoint, with implications for how we view traditional notions of citizenship and politics”. In the environment of asylum accommodation care and supplies are provided because the person receiving it does not have official citizenship. Accordingly, citizenship is no longer viewed as a permanent and automatically granted thing, it becomes a temporary and undecided title. For example, Darling’s (2011) case study of an asylum drop-in center in the UK argues that even in a space of care it is still highly politicized. This establishes the drop-in center as a site of multiple negotiations and contingent positions not fully elaborated in other spaces of care. Consequently, this is amplified in spaces of care for asylum seekers (drop-in centers, emergency accommodation, refugee camps), relaying back to Paasi (1996) they are distinguished as spatial entities, which therefore emphasizes nationalism, citizenship, and the political limits of care.
Asylum accommodation is the space where hospitality is played out; Derrida (1999) argues politics of asylum involves limits and borders, calculations, and the management of limited
16
resources and numbers of people, national borders, and state sovereignty. Accordingly, hospitality can only be provided at its best if there are enough resources to make everyone feel welcomed and cared for. This idea of hospitality is confined to material factors, whereas ethics of hospitality has been constructed as a mind set or a stance of openness (Derrida, 1999). A government with more restrictive immigration policies and if there are growing negative public opinion can result in a lack of interest and resources into creating a
hospitable and homely environment for asylum seekers. This relates to the debate between moral and political obligations of accepting asylum seekers into a country. Not only are the political and spatial dimensions of hospitality important to acknowledge, but also on the social and cultural aspects of invitation, anticipation, and visitation. These are all significant in understanding reception culture, and gaining a greater awareness of the more obscure social aspects of asylum centers. Again, these concepts relate back to Pain's concept of emotional geopolitics, and looking into all aspects reception culture. From a academic geography standpoint by the conceptualization of the role of hospitality within a
background of politics has made an important contribution to critical geopolitics (Craggs, 2014). By using a geographical approach to hospitality it successfully also explores both the ethics and politics of citizenship, immigration, asylum, and integration (Craggs, 2014). Hospitality of asylum seekers and refugees can mean many different things to different people, and varies dramatically depending each countries political outlook. Gibson (2003; 370) states “the rights of asylum are often delimited and performed in international law, therefore situating hospitality within discourse of politics and social contracts”.
Consequently, hospitality in the context of asylum is a balancing act between political and moral obligations. Hospitality and care cannot just be left in the confines of politics, as it is a fundamental social and cultural concern when hosting asylum seekers and refugees. Reception and hospitality standards in the Netherlands are partly defined by EU policies, and as Darling (2011) states the basis for Dutch hospitality towards asylum seekers and refugees is based in law and international politics. The subject of hospitality tends to concentrate on what the most urgent and appropriate form, and articulation of political ethics (Derrida, 2000). The most appropriate form is usually the basic provision of shelter, food and beds for asylum seekers, but through this research it is clear hospitality is much more than that. Moreover by investigating reception culture through a geographical approach it allows this research to focus on the specific elements of the hospitality in the Netherlands. Thus, some could argue hospitality can be unique and is a part of a nation’s
17
culture and natural generosity as a host.
The responsibility of hospitality and welcoming asylum seekers into a country would be placed on the national government. Nevertheless, whilst the majority of the reception responsibilities are the host's national government, but volunteers and non-governmental organisations are sometimes needed for extra resources and support. To some extent, the presence of humanitarian aid is an indication of failure; a failure for the government to provide adequate protection, management, and resources to withstand high numbers of asylum seekers (Feldman, 2015). Therefore, what is the level of resources, services, and accommodation that should be provided by government? In the opinion of Feldman (2015) any presence of extra charity or humanitarian support shows a lack of ability to provide for asylum seekers. There are policies, laws, and regulations to ensure the basics are provided to asylum seekers, such as human rights, accommodation, access to support and services, and catering. However, in some ways anything more than the basic provisions given is considered to be generosity in the political landscape. For example, activities such as day excursions to museums, parks, cinema, which can be helpful for integration and a welcomed distraction for asylum seekers are not likely to be seen by many governments and some in the public sphere to be something they need to provide. Volunteers whom are there out of their own generosity, which is outside official politics, usually provide these acts of
generosity or services. Consequently, the politics of such help may be seen in the way of generosity, which can establish relations of reciprocal exchange, obligation, and rightfulness (Darling, 2011). Accordingly, the general concept of hospitality and generosity has no boundaries to give to others and strangers, but hospitality in the political environment has its limits.
2.4. The Other and Nationalism
The concepts of hospitality, generosity and hosting are also linked to the idea of the other and nationalism. Cohen (1994) argues national identity is created through this familiar-stranger dichotomy, and the identity is constructed through the interaction with familiar-strangers, foreigners, and the other. Accordingly, the asylum seeker becomes the unmarked body of the stranger (Gibson, 2003). The stranger from some points of view can impede on the host nation’s sense of identity, and those who are from a different place can be seen as swamping the nation (Gibson, 2003). Both asylum seekers and later refugees are labeled as strangers, and thus the process of welcoming and acting hospitable to them can be varied and limited.
18
Ahmed (2001) contends the national subject only imagines its own generosity in welcoming some others not all, thus this imagined idea of generosity just allows the genuine ones to stay. For example, the UK government was only wiling to accept 20,000 Syrian asylum seekers (2015) when there are approximately 5 million Syrians who have fled (UNHCR, 2015). For these reasons, it can be argued that generosity and hospitality has strict limits towards asylum seekers and refugees.
Kant (1991) highlights the idea that hospitality is framed in the language of citizenship, rights, laws, and the conditional right to visit. On the other hand, Ramadan (2011) implies that hospitality is meaningless if people do not strive for a complete willingness to
acknowledge and welcome otherness in their home nations. To achieve hospitality on a macro level in a country can be difficult due to national policies and the varying attitudes of the host nation. One of the key reasons for this is throughout history outsiders have been associated with risks (Sanchez-Mazas, 2015), in particular asylum seekers. This can be labelled as xenophobia, but Sanchez-Mazas (2015) describes this as the avoidance of the other. This avoidance by some of the host community members is because in certain areas they are facing societal changes, which are sometimes experienced as threatening.
The majority of these concepts all relate back to the idea of the other, and in this context the other is the asylum seeker. The relationship between labeling and policy has a significant influence of building bureaucratic identities (Nando et al, 2003) Through this relationship the political system manages and categorizes the other. By labeling someone as the other or the stranger, this instantly for the most part becomes politically negative. Moreover,
national character and nationalism are significant for the highlighting the other, and leads to the construction of we-ness (Paasi, 1996). We-ness is significant in the building of one’s identity and citizenship. There can be a big gap felt between the asylum seekers/refugees and the residents of the host country. Hence, nationalism and national character can create a strong sense of difference for any one is who is viewed as a stranger in a country. Labels also actively contribute to the definition of collective identities, and once a group of people have been identified as a community this determines their collective image, and what resources can be allocated to them as the strangers in a foreign land (Nando, 2003).
Part of the reason behind this is how asylum seekers are presented in mass media.
19
death tolls have become a daily matter in the Mediterranean (Kassar and Dourgnon, 2014); as a result, asylum seekers are dehumanized and not viewed as an individual. Diedrich and Styhre (2008) argue that in the Netherlands asylum seekers are systematically portrayed as helpless and poorly educated, even though in many cases they are well educated and skilled. If refugees were given the right support in terms of property and land, access to markets, and general services, then refugees will be a stimulus to economic growth and development rather than a burden (Kibreab, 1985). Asylum seekers and refugees being a burden links to the other and the stranger in the host nation, which represents a lack of understanding and integration between the host community and the refugees. Jacobsen (2011) determines there are three main obstacles to local integration for asylum seekers and refugees; real and perceived security threats, economic and social burdens (real and perceived), and
resistance to integration and pressure on authorities to segregate refugees. This can make reception locations space of exclusion. Asylum seekers recognize their disadvantaged position, thus engage actively and make efforts to integrate. Nevertheless, being labelled as the other and policies that can result in exclusion for normal society. So integrating as an asylum seeker into a new community and society is still restricted by both national and international government policy, and social inabilities to relate and connect with asylum seekers.
2.5. Citizenship and Belonging
Citizenship is the key to asylum seeker's finding a new home, and Lim states (2013; 1015) “citizenship is the enjoyment of rights of various kinds, about political and civic
engagements, about experiences of collective identity and solidarity; and about the possession of formal national membership status and nationality”. Asylum seekers'
citizenship identity and status are in limbo as they have fled their home country because of persecution, but still have not been fully accepted into the host nation. Conversely, it is now possible to discuss different types of citizenship as a practice in addition to just a legal status (Lim, 2013). The notion has now expanded to embody participation in the broader political, social, economic, and cultural community (Lim, 2013). So, in a sense belonging to a social, cultural, or ethnic group can bring a feeling of citizenship outside of the legal
meaning. Citizenship is also subjective to belonging to the public identity of a country., when being an asylum seekers your public identity is defined by a lack of citizenship. Therefore, choices about including new citizens and excluding others who have applied for
20
citizenship highlights a country’s identification (Wamer, 2012). Access to citizenship for an asylum seeker is dependent on national membership. However, Long (2011) suggests there is a contradictory logic of aiming to distribute universal rights, but is limited by the
exclusionary politics of nationalism. Which includes the exclusion of the asylum seeker in both the physical and political sense. Regardless of the fact there are international rights of the asylum seekers, there is a still a continuous tension between inclusionary citizenship and exclusionary cultural identity (Leggewie, 2015). Citizenship and belonging are closely intertwined. To gain citizenship is to establish a sense of belonging, and with belonging one can express a cultural identity.
Belonging is inherently political, and the struggles over belonging take place anywhere in which traditional power structures are contested (Taylor, 2009). The sense of belonging for an asylum seeker can be difficult as their status is politicized and undetermined. Also, as outsiders asylum seekers and refugees find considerable difficulty shifting their status to one more permanent (Rajaram, 2015). Connections to a national identity can be
significantly political, and can evoke several emotions linked to feelings of affiliation, being , and belonging (Howes and Hammett, 2016). Asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants can feel a heightened sense of exclusion if others surround them in the same situation. Taylor (2009) highlights those who experience a feeling of exclusion from a larger social formation, such as a national community, on the basis of race, ethnicity or nationality, might feel an affinity with others who are similarly excluded. Therefore, in spaces where groups of
asylum seekers have been separated from general society a sense of belonging can be found. Hence, belonging has several dimensions, especially in relation to asylum seekers and refugees. The practices and emotions associated with belonging include both legal dimensions, for example status as undocumented or documented migrants, and the
mundane, daily procedures of being rooted in a temporary and transnational site (Jackson, 2014). Consequently, belonging can no longer just be thought of in a political sense,
belonging should be seen as an emotional citizenship. Thus, for Asylum Seekers "emotional citizenship" is imbued with concerns linked to temporariness, insecurity, and
precariousness (Howes and Hammett, 2016).
From these academic texts and current political arguments one can contend there will always be an ongoing debate on what should be provided and how reception should be
21
conducted. UNCHR (2001) have acknowledged that hosting and providing reception for great numbers of asylum seekers and refugees can be a task, particularly with the various costs associated with housing which tends to be one of the most significant challenges. The economic burden of providing asylum, security concerns, inter-state tensions, and irregular migration are all issues that are associated with reception. Thus, whilst international agreements set the standards for basic reception, countries can still define their own reception culture through the Dublin regulation. Therefore this shows the importance of investigating reception culture in the Netherlands to examine how the Dutch define their own asylum reception. Furthermore, by taking a geographical approach to reception culture dimensions like hospitality, citizenship and labeling illustrate how and where reception culture is located and performed.
22
Methodology
This study of reception culture uses a qualitative research design and is best fit because qualitative research is characterized by the inductive and open-ended methods, which are the basis for this research's main method of data collection semi-structured interviews. Ritchie et al (2013) describes qualitative research as a naturalistic, interpretative approach concerned with exploring phenomena and taking perspectives from research participants. This research project is descriptive case, which is used to describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context, which it occurred (Yin, 2003). The focus of this project is in reaction to the recent increases in asylum seekers arriving in the Netherlands. By taking a qualitative research approach it allows an in-depth understanding of the world of the participants. Furthermore, it provides rich and complex data, which has relatively adaptable methods. A bottom-up approach is integral for flexibility when collecting data. Additionally, the inductive logic qualitative researchers use is to investigate and understand the lived experiences in the context, and the meanings associated with the perspectives of the participants (Maxwell and Reybold, 2015).
3.1 Research Design
It is important for myself as the researcher to acknowledge that the types of findings within this investigation are strongly connected to emotional responses. This needs to be included in the methodology due to the fact that the questions being asked involve some sensitive questions concerning one’s identity, citizenship, rights, and treatment. Pain (2009) highlights that emotion tends to be a neglected topic in geopolitics. Emotions need to be acknowledged in research as it establishes a better connection between the researcher and the participants, subsequently providing more in depth and meaningful findings. These experiences illustrate the ground level reality of reception culture. One needs emotional sensitivity during the research process as it provides insights about the people or groups being researched (Jansson, 2010). In other academic fields emotions have received a relative amount of attention (Jannson, 2010), however geographers have been somewhat muted in regards to emotions and how it impacts research (Bennett, 2004). Even once the emotional side of research has been acknowledged and discussed, their can still be concern over how to handle, work, and write about emption in a way that one is still producing critical research (Laurier and Parr, 2000). The topic of reception culture will bring up some
23
emotional aspects concerning the personal experiences of the participants. As the researcher I had to carefully formulate questions during in the interviews as to not be invasive. Data collection of any kind, particularly qualitative, draws the researcher into relationships and it is these relationships that shape the context in which emotions are experienced and expressed (Bondi, 2005).
This research is based on a typology approach, which uses the findings from multiple locations from various organizations, which altogether present an image of reception culture and hospitality of asylum in the Netherlands. Typology is the study of different types that can be used across different disciplines. It is used to classify participants or things by particular commonalities or certain differences. Additionally, narrative and biographical methods are integral to this research's typology approach, as it focuses on individual stories often as a way to study wider concepts (Ritchie et al, 2013). These wider concepts being hospitality, citizenship, belonging, process and service. Thus, individual stories told by those from different roles have each brought a different perspective. Participants’ accounts have shed light upon current reception centers (regular and alternative), policies and reception culture. By gaining a range of perspectives it has illustrated many aspects of the workings of government asylum accommodation and alternative organizations. The chosen participants are key sources of information about reception culture in the Netherlands.
It is important not to generalize, but by focusing a twelve participants responses one can draw out wider ideas and concepts. Bryman (1989; 172) argues the problem of
generalization is often perceived as the chief drawback to research on a smaller scale. Some findings are not readily generalizable to different settings due to the small-N problem (Steinmetz, 2004; Dube and Pave, 2003). The small-N problem being due to a lack of data. This criticism is not unfounded, but if one is investigating a selection of cases or people that are directly related to the subject at hand, then it will reflect the more general aspects of what is currently happening. Tsang (2014) argues this criticism is a significant one, but the purpose of social sciences is to elucidate and articulate the generalities of society. This research does not claim to be completely reflective of reception culture in the Netherlands; nevertheless this research portrays an aspect of reception culture experienced by the participants.
24
participants have ever lived or worked in a number of reception locations; including Nijmegen, Amsterdam Flierbosdreef, Oranje, and Amsterdam Haverstraat. Research can be described as a story; from one you can learn from all. Consequently, by using various locations each can present its own story, thus reflecting on general reception culture in the Netherlands in a broader way. Investigating a topic from different locations can become too abstract, however to avoid this issue Baxter and Jack (2008) suggest that boundaries must be implemented. The boundaries for this research ensuring all the questions are based on reception culture with a geographical approach.
3.2 Data Collection Methods
The main method of data collection was in-depth, semi-structured interviews
approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour, which were all recorded. By using the technique of semi-structured interview it allows flexibility during the conversation. Longhurst (2009) implies these types of interviews are essentially verbal interchanges by asking questions; although the interviewer prepares a list of questions or an interview guide hopefully interviews will still unfold in a conversational manner. Hence, other topics and subjects are brought up during the conversations. This is one of the greatest benefits of semi-structured interviews as it will bring up unexpected aspects of the chosen subject, which can make for more interesting data. I also took extensive notes during recorded interviews to ensure all information was taken down. Initially, the research was supposed to be solely based on primary data collection, however due to unforeseen circumstances I have had to include secondary data to gain more information about COA and alternative groups Grastrvij Oost. Whilst, this information was not collected by myself this does not diminish its importance. The combination of both provides a fuller picture of reception culture.
The analysis of the data was manually transcribed and all interviews have been coded. The coding process was used to highlight the key themes and patterns within the data. I used the program Atlas.ti to systematically code the data. Atlas.ti is a productive method of coding data as it is quicker and produces a uniform strategy for coding. After the key themes and patterns had been coded, I then grouped together each of the themes. The groupings of these themes will how the results will be presented in the analysis and discussion. Moreover, during the analysis of the data I will be also referring to academic literature to link my finding to key academic arguments.
25
3.3. Main Question
How do COA, refugees, volunteers and alternatives in the Netherlands perceive reception culture?
Sub-Questions
1.
How important are volunteers at reception locations?2.
How differently is hospitality defined between COA, refugees, volunteers and alternatives?3.
Do alternative projects and accommodation provide support to significantly contribute to reception culture?4. How has the Netherlands reacted towards asylum seekers? 3.4. Operationalization
Concepts
Dimensions
Variables
Measures
(Indicators)
Reception culture
Reception
locations
Government/regular
asylum centers
COA centers
Alternative asylum
reception
Take Flight, Take
care BnB, and
Gastrvij Oost
Hospitality
Care
Services and
support
Access to
education,
employment and
help
Access to resources
and people
Contact and
integration with
the local Dutch
community
Citizenship and
belonging
Cultural
difference and
spaces of
exclusion
26
3.5. List of Participants Participant 1
Volunteer at Red Cross welcome store for refugees and COA Amsterdam Flierbosdreef asylum center. Writes about refugee stories on his online blog.
Participant 2
Volunteer at the Nijmegen COA asylum center. Marshall is of Iranian descent, and specifically works as a translator for Iranian asylum seekers.
Participant 3
Refugee-resident of the Netherlands works in Utrecht and lives in Amsterdam. He gained residency in 2015.
Participant 4
Co-coordinator at the Amsterdam Flierbosdreef COA center. Participant 5
Volunteer at Red Cross welcome store for refugees and COA Amsterdam Flierbosdreef
Participant 6
Refugee-resident in the Netherlands, and currently lives in Amsterdam. He gained residency in 2015.
Participant 7
Refugee-resident in the Netherlands, and currently lives in Amsterdam. She gained residency in 2015.
Participant 8
Refugee-resident in the Netherlands, and currently lives in Amsterdam. He gained residency in 2014.
Participant 9
Ex-volunteer at the Haverstraat asylum center and created refugee art project 'Take Flight'. Participant 10
Ex-volunteer at the Flierbosdreef asylum center and created refugee art project 'Take Flight'.
Participant 11
COA Press Officer
3.6. Units of Analysis
I was still able to research the original units of analysis, which are refugees, volunteers and COA representative. The only difference is that they were all from different locations of asylum reception centers or some participants who were refugees whom were fully resettled in the Netherlands. Equally, these participants are looking back on their experience through a retrospective lens of reception and hospitality in the Netherlands. Which may be comparatively different to asylum seekers who are still in the asylum
27
procedure. Volunteers were more accessible for me as a student researcher than staff members, as there are social media volunteer pages, which are easy to contact. By having my units of analysis come from a variety of reception locations, whilst it does not produce one in depth case study, it does illustrate Dutch reception culture on a broader platform. The main sampling strategies I used for this research was snow ball sampling, in which I had to actively use the relationships I created through my initial participants to gain access to other participants. Units of sampling are both voluntary and snowball samples, everyone I interviewed were self-selected to speak to me. Snowball sampling was crucial for the data collection of this research and is usually used in a research context concerning hidden populations that are difficult to access. Although, refugees, volunteers, and staff members are not hidden populations, to access them within an institutionalized environment, for example in a government asylum center can be difficult. Subsequently, access through conventional channels instead requires introductions provided by trusted insiders (Wright and Stein, 2005). I did not have the connections needed or the time to create relationships to gain access to the COA centers in the way I would have liked to. Accordingly, I resorted to snowball sampling through my first participant. Snowball sampling has been criticized for sometimes being unrepresentative. One of the consequences of snowball sampling is the results being biased and therefore does not allow the researcher to make claims of generalities from the sample (Griffiths et al, 1993). Despite this, it is important to
remember that in certain circumstances they are far more likely to be representative than drawing directly from the institutional setting (Wright and Stein, 2005). As some
participants can be express their opinion more freely, in this case all participants were interviewed outside the environment of reception centers.
3.7. Limitations
Initially I thought there would be an issue with language barriers, as I am a native English speaker and do not speak Dutch. In fact, for the most part there were no problems with the communication between the participants and myself. The refugees (who were all Syrian) I interviewed were either proficient or fluent in English. On the grounds of my previous assumptions about the language abilities of the refugees were somewhat misled, possibly due to the media perceptions and my own associations with the terms asylum seekers and refugees. However, in fact the language barriers I did have were with one of the Dutch participants (participant 5) who was a volunteer at the Flierbosdreef asylum center. This
28
participant was still very willing to talk with me despite the language barrier. Therefore, to solve this issue I asked one of my Dutch friends to translate during interview. Obviously, this meant I could not acquire everything I wanted to know in English. It was beneficial for me that the majority of my participants could speak English. However, all of my
participants were not speaking their native language could mean their ability to convey their opinions and experiences.
The most significant problem I experienced during data collection period was access to reception centers. I contacted COA centers Arnhem Zuid, Utrecht, and Amsterdam
Flierbosdreef over an 8-week period from March to May, through emailing and calling the centers. Originally I wanted to focus on just one COA center, and for this research to be a detailed case study that could reflect wider concepts of reception culture in the
Netherlands. I also tried to gain access to other independent asylum centers, like Gastrvij Oost, but this center already had five research masters students and it is only a small center with 30 refugees in residence. Initially, I also wanted to visit the refugee welcome store, again this closed during my data collection period so I could no longer use this location as a case study. Consequently, I had to use various connections to speak to refugees, staff members, and volunteers who live and work at various locations.
Due to the circumstances during the data collection period it was difficult to get a significant amount of interviews from one location. Unfortunately, the COA asylum centers that I originally wanted to research were unable to accommodate my investigation or felt the topic was too sensitive to interview asylum seekers (see appendices for email
correspondence with COA). The first location I contacted was the COA Arnhem-Zuid asylum center. This center accommodates for asylum seekers who are still awaiting legal refugee status and are waiting for their interview with the immigration lawyer, so they can then be permanently resettled in the Netherlands (COA, 2016). The reasons COA stated for denying me access to research this particular center is they felt that the asylum seekers current situation is too sensitive for me to interview and observe them (see appendix 1). I then contacted the COA Utrecht asylum center; this one is categorized as a regular refugee center (AZC). Thus, this center accommodates refugees who have gained legal protection status, and are now waiting to be resettled somewhere else in the Netherlands. I chose this center as the residents have been through the asylum process and been successful. Therefore,
29
discussing topics, such as, citizenship, belonging, and general reception culture is less of a sensitive issue for them. Again, after calling and emailing, COA stated they were not interested in helping me with my investigation (see appendix 1). Problems with access to COA, and general policy issues are also reflected in the findings of this research. Initially, I wanted to gain access to these centers through official gatekeepers, and be able to the visit most days for approximately three weeks. However, due to the circumstances I had to gain access through unofficial sources.
3.8. Positionality
When interviewing relationships that involve other people, and particularly from different backgrounds raises issues of positionality and identity negotiations that can sometimes produce problems (Janssan, 2010). Nonetheless, it can still be difficult to speculate on how my positionality affected the research, particularly with regard to my race and gender. My appearance could give some reasons for the refugees to suspect me, but in general it did not feel like that it caused any was a noticeable difference between us. I am a white British female researcher, thus the participants could be suspicious of my questioning, due to possible associations of my race and nationality with media investigations, policy makers or immigration checks. Furthermore, particularly the refugees may have also found it
somewhat difficult to relate to myself as a British citizen because I have never been through a traumatic migration experience close to theirs. Positionality of the researcher can
contribute to the general findings of the research. Nencel (2014) highlights the research text becomes a co-constructed space that reveals the interaction between the researcher's assumptions, positionality and the voices, stories and experiences of the participants. Moreover, the relationship between the researcher and the research subjects is assumed beforehand; whether these are non-hierarchical or collaborative. In the case of this research thesis it was collaborative. The data for thesis would have been very difficult to collect if the participants had not agreed to meet me at either a agreed location or their home.
3.9. Ethical Considerations
There are a myriad of issues that are significant to consider when conducting interviews as a part of a research exercise (Merod, 1999). Interviewing refugees, alternative reception organisations, COA representative and volunteers there are several ethnical issues. Ethics inform the disciplinary debate about researchers relationships to their counterparts. De Castro (2015) suggests research ethics encompasses norms of social conduct, which
30
pertains to the delineation of acceptable from unacceptable behavior in research. Furthermore, research is defined as a systematic investigation, which is designed to contribute to generalizing knowledge (De Castro, 2015). Hence, ethics are critical to acknowledge when you are then going to generalize the findings. However, ethics in the mode of self-policing is only one indication of what has been the broader turn to critical examinations of ethical, moral, and normative structures and agencies (Albro, 2015). For this research, the ethical issues have for the most part been self-mediated, and it is
important that the interviews were not invasive due to the sensitivity of the topic. The key ethical concerns for the subjects usually evolve primarily around valid consent and risk-assessment. The privacy and respect needed to address such issues means there needs to be designs put in place to ensure all participants are comfortable and protected. I guaranteed informed consent by asking before every interview begins. All my participants are
31
Analysis
Part I: Regular Reception
4.1 Processes and Procedure
The Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) is the government agency that examines and grants refugee residency to asylum seekers. Once registered as an asylum applicant at a reception location, the procedure only officially begins once they have been granted their meeting with the immigration lawyer. The IND have categorized this into five steps:
Step 1: Report to alien police at Ter Apel to verify identity and details.
Step 2: Preparation period for 6 days to get information about asylum procedure, submit asylum application, appointment made with lawyer and medical checks.
Step 3: Initial interview, detailed interview, intention and decision.
Step 4: Extended asylum procedure, transferred to different reception location as IND need more time.
Step 5: Residence or departure(Source: IND, 2016)
In comparison to the stories told by the participant refugees and the other opinions of the COA press officer, alternative projects and volunteers the details of the process on the IND website do not drastically differ. In spite of this, the time frames for waiting for the asylum procedure to begin differ greatly to what the IND have officially stated. All of the
participants stated a number of different time periods for how long it took them and others to get an appointment with the immigration lawyer. From the data collected and the information from IND resources it is only since the last six months of 2014 into 2015 that the asylum process became a lengthy one.
“The procedure starts when you hear and get a post saying you have an appointment with the lawyer” (P3, Refugee-Resident)
