Paper short abstract:

Examining the state's provision of support to destitute refused asylum seekers, this paper argues that in discharging its duty of care to those it decides are vulnerable, the Home Office subjects them to coercive control. Those most dependent on the state's care are most vulnerable to its abuse.

Paper long abstract:

When people claim asylum in a foreign country, they lay bare their vulnerability and make a claim for care from the state. In the UK, as in many other western countries, the current politics of migration shapes a culture of suspicion and disbelief, leading many cases to be wrongly rejected. Yet, even when protection is refused, that is seldom the end of the story, and many will submit fresh claims for asylum. In the meantime, however, refused asylum seekers, forbidden to work or access benefits, become destitute: refused asylum, they are refused care. To become entitled again for the Home Office’s ‘asylum support’, in most cases they must either submit a fresh asylum claim, or evidence health problems so severe that they could not be expected to leave the UK. This paper is based on 18 months' ethnography in various support organisations, as well as in-depth life stories with people seeking asylum. I first analyse the complex process of applying for asylum support, showing how human vulnerabilities – destitution, and physical or mental ill-health – get packaged up as evidence according to the categories imposed by the legislative framework. I then turn to the support itself, provided in poor-quality housing often in isolated districts, with an allowance of c. £35 per week on a pre-payment card. I argue that, precisely in discharging its duty of care, the Home Office subjects people to a form of coercive control. Those most dependent on the state’s care are most vulnerable to its abuse.