Introduction

There are several key terms used in debates about asylum in the UK that need discussion as they are often ambiguous, contested and have different meanings dependent on who is using them. This chapter begins by outlining how these terms – ‘integration’, ‘resettlement’, ‘belonging’, ‘social inclusion’, ‘social cohesion’ and ‘community cohesion’ – are used throughout this book.

Thereafter, a number of key concepts that are central to the arguments, in particular the notion of ‘burden-sharing’, liminality and trust, are explored. The literature on forced migration already relates the concepts of ‘liminality’ and ‘trust’ to refugees in camps. Social exclusion of asylum seekers and the lack of the ability to re-establish normal routines, during what will be shown throughout this book to be a liminal period during dispersal, relates closely to the creation of a space for trust. Both concepts assist in our understanding of how asylum seekers experience compulsory dispersal. The transnational characteristics of social networks of refugee are then highlighted.

Perceptions of asylum seekers and refugees and the power to define who is portrayed positively or negatively are crucial. The question of whether there is a ‘refugee experience’ or whether all forced migrants are just ‘ordinary people’ is asked to discuss how refugees are currently perceived within the UK, with descriptions of refugees from the literature and past cases of dispersal provided to challenge contemporary labelling.

Key terms in contemporary UK asylum debates

There is no agreed definition of what integration means but it is popularly understood to connote a complex process that any newcomer to a country goes through in order to become a part of a new society (Castles et al, 2002). While popular attitudes often seem to be based on the assumption that integration is a one-way process, academics and experienced practitioners stress that it is a twoway process as it requires the host society to adapt in some way to accommodate the newcomer and allow access to employment and services (Castles et al, 2002). The latter view has been broadly accommodated by policies of multiculturalism wherein distinct group identities are considered legitimate and shared histories, cultures or languages are respected and diversity recognised in social policies (Finney and Simpson, 2009).