A statement on new Home Office guidance regarding access to citizenship

Within our small therapeutic community of exile at the Baobab Centre, naturalisation is an event to be celebrated, announced in community meetings, and appreciated by all, staff and young people, as a key moment in the journey to rebuild shattered lives. That it often comes for our young people many, many years after arriving to this country without family and as minors, after waiting (on average) close to 2 years for a first decision, then (on average) another 2 years for a decision that finally grants some protection – after many years, therefore, of both legal and internal emotional uncertainty, of living at the margins of society – only makes it a more important event. Finally, they smile, feeling for the first time that equal access to opportunities, and to a stable and secure base from which to develop and mature, is now a real possibility. 

In our joking parlance, in the way our community uses sad jokes to sustain our resilience, we also celebrate this key moment of their integration into British society as “being vaccinated against the whims of those in power” – as finally receiving the ultimate protection against the malignancy of an asylum system that has systematically thrown up obstacles to their development: a system that greets them by disbelieving them on their age (for 30% of our young people), throwing all sorts of essential personal certainties into doubt; a system that refuses them proper care and accommodation (even for those who have escaped the profound inappropriateness of hotel accommodation); a system where access to higher education, without citizenship, is nearly impossible given the fees involved – a system that, in the words of our psychotherapists, at every turn seems designed “to cripple”, inhibit and distort their internal development.   

This is the context in which the latest malignant effort of the asylum system – news that guidance on accessing citizenship has been changed to remove any possibility of any naturalisation at any point in life to anyone arriving via “irregular means” seeking safety and asylum – must be understood. The majority of our population escaped violence and ongoing human rights abuses in the only way they could. Most arrived by irregular routes. Any politician with half a sense of understanding public opinion and the sense of responsibilities that being in office demands would see that the UK public at large does not want cruelty in the asylum system, but control; not chaos, but efficiency; not bullying of vulnerable people, but productive integration into society. To create a class of permanently marginalised residents is not just inhumane – it is bad policy and even worse politics.  

There is an ample literature, to which some of our clinicians at the Baobab Centre have contributed, on how the current asylum system, by creating legal uncertainty and marginalisation, leads to significant mental health issues and significant developmental difficulties. For young people, long waiting times for certainty lead to a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders, poor mental health, difficulties in maturation and an erosion of children’s sense of belonging and stability – with long-term consequences on school achievements and socialisation, caring for themselves and building relationships. In our therapeutic practice, what has been shown to work, to sustain their rehabilitation and build on their resilience after their traumatic experiences of violence and loss, is “building seven different bridges” – with one key area of linking being with the local, national, and transnational communities. Eroding further efforts at bridge-building with the national community will only enhance their marginalisation and vulnerability. 

We may be a small charity, serving the needs of a small group of young people, but we stand for our community and in defense of their right to equal opportunity. Having, for 90% of them, been recognised as having a need for asylum protection and being genuine refugees, they deserve as much a chance as anyone to make a life for themselves here. We can promise this to our young community members: we will defend your rights as vigorously as we can. Incredibly, a government led by a former member of the legal profession seems to have decided to ignore the international legal instruments that the UK is party to, from the 1951 Refugee convention (and its articles 31 and 34) to the 1990 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (including its different dispositions in favor of children’s best interests as a primary consideration – articles 3, 22 or 39 – and against discrimination “of any kind, irrespective of… national origin” – Article 2). We, on the other hand, will make sure that those rights continue to offer protection for all on a non-discriminatory basis.