The regressive power of labels of vulnerability affecting disabled asylum seekers in the UK

Abstract

There has been some progress in the United Kingdom regarding official recognition of the existence and needs of disabled asylum seekers and refugees. However, references are commonly accompanied by euphemistic labels, particularly of 'vulnerability'. This should be understood in the context of systematic reduction of services and support available to the wider population of asylum seekers and disabled people in the United Kingdom. I argue that these processes reinforce each other and that both undermine a rights-based approach. Focusing on recent asylum and immigration policies, I explore how labels of 'vulnerability' obscure systemic oppression and distract from the rights and achievements of disabled people. The regressive elements of vulnerability discourse are presented as if better than nothing. Such discourse risks reinforcing hegemonic acceptance of distinctions of human worth, with detrimental impact for migrants and citizens alike.

The experience of meaning and value in occupations for forced migrants seeking asylum, and factors that facilitate occupational engagement: A meta-ethnography using a strength-based approach

“…Beyond identifying barriers to participation, understanding the meaning of occupation during the asylum-seeking experience and the factors supporting engagement, can pave the way for strength-based approaches that draw upon the resilience and capabilities of people from forcibly displaced communities. This approach avoids views that perpetuate 'other' or 'deficit-discourse' perspectives (Yeo, 2020).…”

Vulnerability, Disability, and Agency: Exploring Structures for Inclusive Decision-Making and Participation in a Responsive State

“…At the same time, the language of vulnerability and disability, and the stigmatisation and stereotyping that such concepts commonly entail, can be utterly disempowering and objectifying [ 6 – 8 ]. This is true particularly for persons with disabilities given that disability in many contexts continues to be approached in negative terms of fixing [ 9 : p. 81] a “disadvantage” or a “deficit” [ 10 ], along the lines of the medical approach to disability seeing disability as a result of a person’s impairment [ 11 ].…”

“…The committee therefore finds a violation of Article 5 (1) and (2) read alone and in conjunction with Article 19 of the convention given that the refusal constituted indirect discrimination as it "had the effect of impairing or nullifying the author's enjoyment and exercise of the right of living independently and being included in the community on an equal basis with others" [69:para. 9 (8)]. The committee bases its finding on the fact the State Party had failed to present the applicant with an alternative arrangement under Article 19 (b) of the convention, as a result of which the applicant had been deprived of "access to a practical option that could support his living and inclusion in the community", and thereby his rights under 19 (b) of the convention had been violated [69:paras 9(3) and 9 (8)].…”

Deprivation of Liberty in the Shadows of the Institution

“…For this reason, critics of the vulnerability 'zeitgeist' argue that this rationality can potentially damage the pursuit of social justice (Brown, 2011). The 'vulnerability' label is often resisted by writers within a disability rights tradition (for example, Scully, 2014;Yeo, 2020). Abolitionist approaches to legal capacity and disability-specific detention eschew it, opposing protective interventions not anchored in the 'will and preferences' of the person, often highlighting counter-productive outcomes of these interventions (Keeling, 2018).…”