Introduction

It has already been argued that social exclusion of asylum seekers occurs due to the structure for implementation and geography of dispersal. This chapter begins an exploration of the lived experiences of asylum seekers and processes of social exclusion resulting from their dispersal and claims for asylum. Each phase of the dispersal system is outlined using qualitative data from asylum seekers and refugees and then the overall impact of the dispersal and asylum systems is discussed. While NASS has been officially disbanded since 2006, many agency staff and asylum seekers still refer to it to describe the dispersal system and reference to it is therefore retained.

The earlier stages of the ‘refugee experience’ within countries of origin are considered to show how the focus on an administrative process did not allow for an understanding of the prior experiences and subsequent needs of asylum seekers. While this has now been partially addressed with the introduction of a single ‘case owner’ under the NAM introduced in 2006, there is considerable scope for improvement in understanding contexts of origin and how prior experiences of asylum seekers require consideration. The NAM involves ‘segmenting’ asylum claims into different categories according to their perceived ‘credibility’ with different procedures for assessing their claims. This involved greater control over asylum seekers during the process of status determination to enable them to be arrested if their asylum application failed. During dispersal this control was exercised by having asylum seekers attend reporting centres on a regular basis and by a ‘policing’ role written into the contract of accommodation providers (see Chapter Six). Detention on arrival became more common and those detained had their applications heard through fast-track procedures.

It is argued that the dispersal system is a study in liminality – or more precisely, ‘policy-imposed liminality’ – because the top-down, ‘one-size-fits-all’ character of dispersal has added an extra layer of liminality to the already difficult asylum process that asylum seekers negotiate. It is suggested that this has implications for the restoration of social, institutional and political trust and that asylum seekers resist this policy-imposed liminality using techniques that avoid direct confrontation with authority.