exploring the asylum-migration nexus in the context of health professional migration

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Geoforum 39 (2008) 223–235

Exploring the asylum-migration nexus in the contextof health professional migration

Emma Stewart

Department of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde, 50 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XN, United Kingdom

Received 24 August 2006; received in revised form 5 April 2007

Abstract

The current global migration regime is extremely complex and characterised by a polarisation of flows. Increasing numbers of indi-viduals fleeing conflict regimes and seeking asylum are faced with restrictive immigration regimes whilst at the same time, highly skilledmigrants are welcomed and encouraged to contribute to developed economies. This paper explores the asylum-migration nexus that hasemerged as a result of restrictive immigration policy by drawing upon a survey of 300 health professionals in the UK. First, the empiricallens of health professionals fleeing conflict regions is employed to map the contours of the asylum-migration nexus. Second, the impli-cations of highly selective asylum flows to Europe, in terms of economic and social characteristics, are considered. The paper concludesby highlighting concerns that Western refugee policy regimes are worryingly failing to fully meet moral obligations to protect individualsseeking asylum whilst also inadvertently supporting brain drain flows.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Asylum-migration nexus; Health professionals; Conflict regions; UK asylum policy

‘‘On asylum, we want fast-track processing and
removal of as many unfounded applicants as possiblewith more detention and the use of electronic taggingwhere there is a risk of asylum applicants disappear-ing.’’ (Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister, 22nd April,2005, Daily Mail).‘‘We need to make the immigration system fair andeffective in managing immigration for the benefit ofthis country, the people in it and those who comehere.’’ (John Reid, UK Home Secretary, 21st June,2006, BBC News Online).‘‘The government has no real idea how many illegalimmigrants there are in the UK, nor even how manyasylum seekers whose claims have been refused haveleft. The case for a dedicated border police force,24-hour security at major ports and embarkationcontrols is now becoming unanswerable.’’ (David
Cameron, UK Conservative Leader, 24th August2005, BBC News Online).

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.04.002

E-mail address: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Over 50 years after the international legislative frame-work was designed and implemented to protect refugees,the institution of asylum is increasingly under attack. Themost notable shift has been the decline in asylum worldwide(Crisp, 2003). Countries are either closing their borders torefugees completely or introducing policies to dissuade indi-viduals from entering their territory. Developed countrieshave taken the lead on this with many less developed coun-tries following suit. This has led to growing concerns thatasylum is under threat in the current era of global geopolit-ical changes and social transformation (Castles, 2003). Atthe same time skilled migrants are welcomed and encour-aged to enter developed countries. Demographic pressureand demand for skilled professionals in advanced econo-mies are the primary drivers behind these flows. This cur-rent situation exemplifies what King (2002) has referred toas a ‘polarisation of migration flows’ in Europe.

Shrinking generosity in granting asylum is most appar-ent in the countries of Europe. Despite the existence of

mailto:[email protected]

1 In this geographical context the focus is upon asylum policies thatrespond to spontaneous arrivals as opposed to proactive policies, such asthird country resettlement from refugee camps.

224 E. Stewart / Geoforum 39 (2008) 223–235

legal instruments to protect individuals fleeing persecutionsuch as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, asylum policies promotedat the national and EU level present challenges to theseconventions (Sales, 2005). Not only are there mechanismsat the European level to restrict or manage asylum migra-tion into member states but there is also rising anti-asylumrhetoric within European states (Lloyd, 2003; Schuster,2004). The current regime is said to be driven by a ‘crisisof control’ (Bloch and Schuster, 2005). And this is mostexplicit through measures to control borders and excludenon-citizens from accessing state goods, such as welfareprovisions.

National governmental responses to refugee flows reflectgeopolitical desires to secure the nation state. In the UK,for example, there have been consistently and increasinglyrestrictive immigration controls, legitimized on the basis ofdeterring ‘bogus’ asylum applicants (Bloch, 2000). One canunderstand the underlying ideology of such national legis-lation as a powerful tool to exclude ‘others’ from thenational territory through a policy of deterrence. This isevidenced by the UK Government’s pursuit of deportation,dispersal and detention as normalised, essential instru-ments in the ongoing attempt to control immigration(Bloch and Schuster, 2005). And in light of recent legisla-tive changes destitution can also be added to this list ofexclusionary mechanisms (Refugee Survival Trust, 2005).

At the same time, governments have performed aremarkable change of immigration policy over the last 10years with regard to highly skilled migration. Countriesare beginning to realise the growing demand for skilledworkers in advanced economies due to declining fertilityrates and ageing populations. The increasing shift to hightech industry and the rise of advanced producer servicesprovided by TNCs also demands increased flows of skilledmigrants. Countries like the UK have therefore begun torecognise that skilled international migration is a key ele-ment of globalisation (Glover et al., 2001). The result hasbeen growing competition to recruit students and highlyskilled workers. Some have argued that this has resultedin ‘brain strain’ in much of the developed world (Lowellet al., 2004) whilst others have forcefully argued that thisrepresents a new era of brain drain (Bhagwati, 2003).

The resulting immigration policy regime is thus charac-terised by fragmentation and polarisation. This is exempli-fied by the current UK five year immigration strategywhich identifies two types of migration: economic and asy-lum migration. In the foreword of this policy document theformer Home Secretary of the UK, Charles Clark, stated‘‘Migration is vital for our economy. Moreover it is ourmoral duty to protect those genuinely fleeing death or per-secution’’ (Home Office, 2005a, p. 7). The dichotomybetween economic migration and asylum flows is thusexplicitly constructed and reinforced by the UK Govern-ment’s discourse and policies on migration.

One feature of the dichotomised migration regime hasbeen the selective opening or closing of legal immigration

channels at either end of the migration system. As dis-cussed, legal routes that facilitate economic migration arehighly selective whilst refugee policy has become increas-ingly restrictive. And one key result of this polarisedregime, which is characterised by restricted legal migrationchannels, has been the growth in the importance of the asy-lum-migration nexus. This term has been applied in the lit-erature to convey the idea of an overlapping relationshipbetween irregular and asylum migration (Papadopolou,2005). Thus asylum flows operate in connection with othertypes of migration. For example, one response to increas-ingly restrictive asylum regimes may be for individuals toseek entry to a country through alternative channels (e.g.illegal routes) (Black, 2003; Black et al., 2006). This con-cept thus usefully identifies the interconnected relationshipbetween asylum and other types of migration flows andchallenges the traditional, disjointed approach to theoris-ing migration flows.

The paper seeks to critique current restrictive immigra-tion regimes by developing further understanding of theasylum-migration nexus. To achieve this, first throughthe lens of health professionals fleeing conflict regions,the contours of the asylum-migration nexus are exploredin more depth. Next, the implications of highly selectiveasylum flows to Europe, in terms of economic and socialcharacteristics, are considered. As a result, the intricaciesof this unique sample group are valuably employed to pro-voke insights into the asylum-migration nexus as well asilluminating the failings of current asylum policy in theUK and EU.

2. Multiple facets of the asylum-migration nexus

2.1. Asylum and irregular migration flows

Recent theoretical understandings of the evolution ofthe asylum-migration nexus have focused upon the link-ages between asylum and irregular migration flows. Similarto irregular migrants, asylum seekers are increasinglyforced to employ the services of smugglers to facilitate theirjourney to Europe and may travel through transit coun-tries. A combination of pre-border controls in Europe,including visa requirements, carrier sanctions and readmis-sion agreements, make legal entry extremely difficult. Thesefactors ‘‘make false documents and an obscure route ofentry almost a requirement for would-be asylum seekers’’(Black, 2003, p. 36). Thus the development of the asy-lum-migration nexus, in the EU context, can be directlytraced to the establishment of restrictive asylum policies,which individuals are forced to circumvent.1 As explained‘‘in order to be in a position to make a formal asylumclaim, individuals must increasingly adopt technically ille-

E. Stewart / Geoforum 39 (2008) 223–235 225

gal strategies to get to that point’’ (Black, 2003, p. 36). Andcapitalising on this ‘closed door’ to Europe have beensmugglers who arrange illegal travel and fake documentsfor asylum seekers (Koser, 1997).

Next, having been forced to use the services of smug-glers to insert them through loopholes in the system, asy-lum seekers, like irregular migrants, may travel through atransit country (Papadopoulou, 2004). Indeed researchhas found that a rising proportion of asylum seekers aremoving to Western Europe via transit countries, wherethey often spend significant periods of time (Koser andPinkerton, 2002). This has resulted in the boundariesbetween asylum and irregular migrants, in terms of mobil-ity strategies, being questioned. Finally the blurring ofmigrant boundaries is also evident in relation to policyresponses to migration. Indeed, Hyndman’s account(2005) highlights how the detention and processing of asy-lum claims and enemy combatants blurs the distinctionbetween suspected criminals, terrorists and refugeeclaimants.

The focus upon irregular, and particularly illegal, migra-tion flows in relation to asylum is reflected in the popularpress. Having monitored six newspapers in the UK overa three month period, Buchanan and Grillo (2004) notehow 51 different labels were employed to describe individ-uals seeking asylum in Britain, and these most notablyincluded derogatory terms such as illegal refugee and asy-lum cheat. This analysis also documented a consistent blur-ring of the distinction between asylum seekers andeconomic migrants. Such media coverage of the asylumissue and persistent connotations to illegality has fostereda moral panic in relation to the reporting of asylum inthe UK (Finney, 2005). Indeed a perusal of recent newspa-per headlines in the UK demonstrates how moral panic iscreated (Fig. 1). Disproportionality, hostility and volatilityare all key tools employed to create and maintain moralpanic, which serves to perpetuate the myth that the major-ity of individuals fleeing conflict regions use illegal routesor are linked to criminal activities. And as a result of this

Fig. 1. UK press coverage of asylum and moral panic.

discourse, governments can legitimately maintain restric-tive immigration and asylum policies (Hyndman, 2005).

As discussed above, the operation of restrictive asylumpolicies has led to strong parallels existing between themobility strategies of asylum seekers and irregularmigrants. Most interestingly, this situation has resulted inextreme selectivity in the arena of asylum migration. Ithas been noted that ‘‘wealth has become an increasinglyimportant factor since the 1990s when the cost of seekingasylum in the west escalated’’ (Van Hear, 2004, p. 9). Thusclass and socio-economic background play an increasinglyimportant role in shaping forms, patterns and impacts offorced migration due to the significant costs of seeking asy-lum. It has been convincingly argued that the ‘‘capacity fora would-be migrant to navigate the international migrationorder will be largely shaped by his or her endowments ofeconomic or social capital’’ (Van Hear, 2004, p. 6). Theimplication then is that only the most educated wealthiestindividuals, who possess both social connections and finan-cial resources to pay smugglers, have the ability to fleepersecution.

The importance of class and socio-economic back-ground is pivotal in furthering theoretical clarity of the asy-lum-migration nexus. The asylum regime is predicated onthe importance of upholding human rights provisions forthose individuals seeking sanctuary. By contrast economicmigration is fundamentally driven by the capitalist system,whereby individuals migrate to improve their economicposition and human capital. A fuller understanding ofthe asylum-migration nexus challenges this artificial dichot-omy between human rights and economic opportunities.Indeed, one outcome of the current restrictive asylumregime in the European context is that forms of capital,such as socio-economic background, enable individuals toactivate and demand human rights provision. In contem-porary migration regimes the importance of human capitaland skills, therefore, results in preferential access to humanrights protection. Conversely, individuals that lack humancapital are restricted in terms of human rights provisionsthat can be accessed. And the overall impact of this com-plex situation is to undermine the current regime and raisequestions over the ethics of immigration policies thatfacilitate differential levels of access to human rightsprotection.

These understandings lead to a nuanced vision of theasylum-migration nexus beyond the illegal/legal dichotomy(Hyndman, 2005). It also includes challenging dominantpublic discourse to highlight the various shades of legalityand illegality (Ruhs and Anderson, 2006). This means rec-ognising that immigration status is not static but ratherthere is a fluidity of migrant categories. And this is partic-ularly evident in the arena of health professional migration.The privileged position of skilled health professionalsenables individuals to easily switch from one migrant statusto another. Overseas health professionals can enter the UKthrough multiple migration channels, with the option oflater ‘switching’ to alternative categories. For example an

2 Crawley (2006) has observed how the recent report of the GlobalCommission on Migration (GCIM) principally addresses the issue ofasylum in relation to irregular migration.


individual that has entered through the family migrationchannel can subsequently be granted a work permit (Rag-huram, 2004). This illustrates the dynamic nature of migra-tion channelling in the arena of health professionalmigration, which provides an ideal locus to further extendunderstanding of the asylum-migration nexus.

Finally, it should be noted that the positive selection ofrefugee flows, which are normally composed of the youn-gest and better-educated individuals, has clear implicationsfor the development of regions (Lukic and Nikitovic,2004). Not only do flows impact upon the demographicdevelopment and economic recovery of a source regionbut such flows also represent a drain of highly qualifiedindividuals. The selectivity of asylum and refugee flowstherefore deprives the sending country of valuable labourand skills. This brain drain then negatively impacts uponthe development of the source region. And this is particu-larly pronounced in the arena of health professional migra-tion (Chikanda, 2006; Ray et al., 2006). This growing bodyof empirical evidence has thus led to recognition of an asy-lum-development nexus and the need to explore more fullythe developmental impact of refugee related migrations(Nyberg-Sorensen et al., 2002).

2.2. Moving beyond irregular flows

The remaining literature on the asylum-migration nexushas hinted at the similarities between asylum flows andother types of migrant (e.g. labour or student migrants)by furthering understanding of the role played by socialnetworks. Developed from early migration theory on chainmigration, social network theory identifies the importanceof family, friends and community organisations in relationto migration decisions. Social networks are said to influ-ence migrant selectivity (i.e. whether an individual migratesor not), timing and choice of destination. Research com-missioned by the UK Home Office has documented theimportant role of social networks in relation to asylumflows. First, social networks were found to influence thetiming and choice of destination but not migrant selectivity(Koser and Pinkerton, 2002). Second, the presence of fam-ily or friends in the UK played a part in determining whyone third of respondents came to the UK rather thananother country (Robinson and Segrott, 2002). These find-ings highlight the similarities between the migration deci-sions taken by asylum seekers and other categories ofmigrant.

More recently the importance of social networks in rela-tion to asylum migration has been challenged. For somegroups the choice of asylum destination is determined moreby powerful individual needs than existing social networks(Collyer, 2005). Post-entry restrictions can mean thatstrong family ties are considered of less value than eco-nomic concerns. And this means that weaker ties of ethnicor religious affiliation may become more important thansocial networks. Such hypotheses, which parallel under-standings of other forms of migration, add further weight

to the need to challenge the highly fragmented conceptuali-sation of migrant categories.

Literature has also pointed to the linkages between ref-ugee flows and periods of student migration. Historicallythere have been groups of students who fear returninghome due to changing events, such as Iranians in the UKafter the initiation of the Iran–Iraq war (Black, 1993).Additionally, a changing political environment in Chinahas forced Chinese students to stay in Canada, Australiaand New Zealand (Liu, 1997). Building upon this work,one recent paper has documented the way in which Chinesestudents in Australia and the US transformed migrantcommunities into asylum seeker networks (Gao, 2006).The active politicisation of community networks facilitatedmembership of a particular political party, which wasessential in meeting refugee criteria. This is one of manyempirical examples that highlight the ways in whichmigrants strategically move between categories when facedwith restrictions to their migratory plans (see alsoRaghuram (2004) for a discussion of family migrationstrategies).

Despite considerable advances in the understanding ofthe asylum-migration nexus it has been argued that the‘‘position of those fleeing violence and persecution butdoing so outside the law is understudied both theoreticallyand empirically’’ (Black, 2003, p. 44). In addition, thispaper suggests that those fleeing violence and persecution‘inside’ the law (but outside the confines of the 1951 Refu-gee Convention) are also understudied. It is thus recom-mended that in order to advance understanding of theasylum-migration nexus, there should be an additionalfocus upon the ways in which asylum flows connect withother legal forms of migration. This means moving beyondan investigation of the asylum-migration nexus in the con-text of irregular flows, which has been the primary focus ofnational and international bodies.2 The paper aims to buildupon this valuable work, to identify how asylum seekersemploy alternative legal channels (excluding the official ref-ugee route) to negotiate restrictive immigration regimes.The aim then is to sketch a nuanced understanding of theasylum-migration nexus, in the EU context, by furtherblurring the boundaries between categories of migrants(Hyndman, 2005).

To summarise, the aims of the paper are two fold. First,the paper maps the contours of the asylum-migration nexusby employing the example of health professionals fleeingconflict regions. This case study is particularly valuablegiven that the issue of forced migration in relation to thehealth sector has been largely overlooked (Ray et al.,2006). And second, this example provides an empiricalbasis to provoke insights into the failings of current UKand EU asylum policy.


3. Uncovering the asylum-migration nexus

The paper draws upon a large, quantitative sample ofhealth professionals3 fleeing conflict regions. For a numberof reasons it was considered best to describe the resultingsample population in this way. First, the term ‘refugee’was not used as many of those involved in the researchdid not satisfy the official 1951 Refugee definition. Forexample some were ‘forced migrants’ (i.e. although theyfled persecutive conditions, they did not have official refu-gee status). And second, the participants were defined as‘health professionals’ because not all were doctors. Differ-ent types of health professionals were included in the sam-ple such as dentists, ophthalmologists, radiologists, generalpractitioners and psychiatrists.

The term ‘conflict region’ is employed to convey thenotion that certain locations worldwide are the locus forconflict and civil unrest. A fairly broad notion of conflictis adopted here. Conflict is considered to refer to clashesbetween different states, between states actors and citizensor between groups of citizens within states. The term regionis used as oftentimes such conflicts can occur outside of(nation) state boundaries. It is thus problematic to confineconflict within the borders of nation states.

Before outlining the details of the empirical sample, it isimportant to contextualise the study in light of state regu-lations and immigration policies (Raghuram, 2004). Itshould be stressed that this study took place from 2001to 2002. In terms of relevant medical regulations, all over-seas doctors must register with the General Medical Coun-cil. For the majority of doctors (from outside the EU) theirmedical qualification from their country of origin is notrecognised. The most common route to GMC registration,therefore, is for each individual to sit a series of examina-tions including the International English Testing System(IELTS), and the Professional and Linguistic AssessmentBoard (PLAB) Parts I and II. Immigration legislationimplemented prior to this time period, which is particularlyrelevant to this case study, includes the 1999 Immigrationand Asylum Act. This piece of legislation implementedthe policy of UK-wide dispersal of asylum seekers andintroduced new powers to detain asylum seekers. Further-more, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002removed the right to work for all asylum seekers in theUK, which could have potentially influenced migrationdecisions of health professionals seeking asylum (Iredale,2005).

Since the study was conducted there have been changesto immigration and medical employment legislation. InJanuary 2002, the UK Government launched the HighlySkilled Migrant Programme. This is a points based immi-gration system that encourages entry of skilled migrants

3 This sample does not include nurses. As such, the paper does not coverissues specifically related to this group including gender, immigrationlegislation, sectoral labour shortages and occupational outcomes (Iredale,2005; Raghuram, 2004).

to benefit the UK economy. Most notably this Programmegives extra points to general medical practitioners. Further,in March 2006, new immigration rules for PostgraduateDoctors and Dentists were implemented. These changeswill undoubtedly impact upon the asylum-migration nexusin the context of health professional migration, and specificconjectures related to these will be discussed later. At thispoint, however, it is worth stressing the specific temporalcontext of the sample (i.e. between 2001 and 2002). Finallyit should be noted that the sample is geographically limitedto the UK, with clear implications in the EU context.Knowledge of the specific temporal and geographical con-text of the study is important in sketching out the develop-ment of the asylum-migration nexus.

Turning now to the sample, the contact details of alldoctors registered in the UK are recorded and publiclyaccessible in the British Medical Register. The most conve-nient and practical way to access this professional groupwas to distribute a postal questionnaire. There are around180,000 registrations in the British Medical Register. It wasdecided to contact 1000 individuals, which meant that0.56% of the register were contacted between July andOctober 2001. Thus unlike previous work on the topic, thisstudy is based upon a large quantitative sample. The gen-eral lack of data in this area further adds to the importanceof this survey and its conclusions (Stewart, 2004).

For each doctor record within the British Medical Reg-ister the details available include medical qualification, yearof qualification, year of registration and contact address.For the purpose of sampling, place of qualification wasused. A systematic quota sampling approach was adopted.A quota of 200 individuals was set for each region. Thecontinent classification used in official Home Office publi-cations was adopted, namely Europe, Africa, Middle Eastand Asia. A list of countries was also specified for eachregion. The countries chosen were those recorded in theHome Office Asylum Statistics publication as major send-ers of asylum applicants during the period 1985–1993(Home Office, 2000). Countries on the United Nations listof refugee source regions were also sampled (UNHCR,2000). Individual names were randomly selected from theregister until the quota for each region was met. Afterthe pilot stage, the list of countries was refined to increasethe chances of contacting a representative sample of indi-viduals fleeing conflict regions.

The questionnaire was directed to overseas doctors andsurveyed individuals on various aspects of their personaland professional lives. The questionnaire included fourkey sections: the first gathered background informationon the overseas doctor, the second and third sections inves-tigated professional employment experiences as well asmigration experiences. The final section covered local expe-riences within the UK. The questionnaire was predomi-nantly based on closed questions which gatheredcategorical data. A small number of open-ended questionsalso gathered in-depth data. Coding the questionnairesin SPSS facilitated the main data analysis. Due to the

Table 1Country of origin of questionnaire respondents

Country of birth (total = 319)

Country of origin Number(% of Total)

No of IMGsin UKa

Questionnaire sampleas % of total IMGs

Iraq 62 (19%) 1248 5India 48 (15%) 15093 0.13Sri Lanka 40 (13%) 1422 3Nigeria 35 (11%) 1529 2Sudan 28 (9%) 395 7Poland 12 (4%) N/A –Pakistan 12 (4%) 2693 0.4FR Yugoslavia 12 (4%) N/A –Iran 10 (3%) N/A –UK 8 (3%) – –Elsewhere 52 (16%) – –

N/A – not available.a International Medical Graduates in Workforce of UK (Source: Mul-

lan, 2005). Source: Stewart Questionnaire Survey of Health Professionals(2001–2002).

Table 2Asylum applications in UK (2001)

Countryof origin

Number of asylumapplicants in UK (2001)

% of totalapplications in 2001

Iraq 6705 9.4Sri Lanka 5510 7.7Nigeria 870 1.2Sudan 390 0.5Pakistan 2860 4.0FR Yugoslavia 3190 4.5Iran 3415 4.8

Source: Asylum Statistics, Home Office (2002).


constraints of the data (categorical data), v2 analysis wasemployed.

In the main survey a response rate of 34% was achieved.A number of envelopes were returned that did not reachthe addressee, which accounted for part of the non-response. From the 319 responses, there was an even distri-bution between the four continents in terms of place ofqualification which reflected the sampling strategy. Thedoctors who responded to the questionnaire originatedfrom many different countries. The sample can be directlycompared to the total stock of International Medical Grad-uates (IMGs) currently working in the UK (Table 1). Thetop five respondent countries sampled represent between0.13% and 7% of each respective nationality of IMG cur-rently working in the UK.

Comparisons can also be made between the question-naire respondents and asylum applicants in 2001 (Table2). Of the ten source countries identified by respondents,seven were listed in the Home Office Asylum Statistics Bul-letin. Given that the aim of the survey was to sample indi-viduals fleeing conflict regions it was decided to focus theremaining analysis on those respondents from the sevencountries. As such, respondents from India, Poland andelsewhere were excluded from the subsequent statisticalanalysis.4 The refinement of the questionnaire respondentsmeant that the total sample employed for the remainder ofthe paper amounted to some 199 individuals.

This sampling strategy resulted in clear heterogeneity interms of the countries of origin. For example each countryhas differential migration regimes, as well as divergentpolitical, social and economic contexts. It should therefore

4 It was decided to exclude India and Pakistan from the analysis as theRegister specifically identifies individuals trained in Kashmir, a well-known conflict border region.

be stressed that this will have undoubtedly shaped themigration strategies of those surveyed. For example it islikely that health professionals migrating from Sri Lankaand Nigeria would be more likely to receive Permit FreeTraining in the UK than individuals from Iraq or Iran.This is primarily due to historical linkages in the field ofmedicine between the UK and particular nations (Robin-son and Carey, 2000). Thus, not only will the context ofthe country have influenced the migration motivation ofrespondents but the migration channels and regime willhave also shaped individual migration strategies.

Finally, in terms of the socio-demographic compositionof the sample, interesting observations can be made. Some80% of the sample were males, whereas only 20% werefemales. This is important given that female health profes-sionals have been found to employ differential migrationroutes (Raghuram, 2004). Around 22% of the sample hadbeen living in the UK for less than 10 years with 42% hav-ing been in the UK between 10 years and 20 years. Theremainder of the sample had been in the UK for more than20 years. This feature highlights the potentially differingmigrant strategies employed over time, whilst also estab-lishing that the study is firmly rooted in the legislative con-text up until 2002.

4. Investigating health professional flows from conflict

regions

The artificial distinction made between refugees andother types of migrants can be traced to the historical leg-acy of international migration law (Karatani, 2005). Inter-estingly Crawley (2006) argues that political discourse,which is translated into immigration policy, perpetuatesthe myth of distinct categories of migrant by distinguishingbetween ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migrants. Within the UK, immi-gration is the responsibility of the Immigration andNationality Department (IND) of the Home Office. AndUK legislation similarly identifies distinct migrant catego-ries, with this official body differentiating between the fol-lowing categories:

• the work permit system,• a number of smaller work-related categories,

Table 4Migration motivation of questionnaire respondents (total = 173)

Migration motivation Number (% of total)

Refugee 47 (27%)Training/economic 60 (30%)Refugee/economic 66 (38%)Non-response 26

Source: Stewart Questionnaire Survey of Health Professionals (2001–2002).

Table 3Migration channel of questionnaire respondents (total = 199)

Migration channel Number (% of total)

Work permit 75 (38%)Student visa/permit free training 50 (25%)ELR/refugee status 29 (14%)Family/citizenship ties 18 (9%)Other (including tourist visa) 27 (14%)


5 Although environmental factors are not included in the 1951 RefugeeConvention, this question was theoretically informed (e.g. see Black,1998).


• students,• tourists,• the asylum system,• the family settlement system (Glover et al., 2001,

p. 19).

The corresponding channels employed by the question-naire respondents are indicated in Table 3. As shown, thelargest percentage of the sample entered the UK by gaininga work permit (38%). The next largest group entered as stu-dents (25%). Despite the fact that all questionnaires weresent to individuals from conflict regions, only 14% had offi-cial refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. Initiallythese appeared to be unexpected results. Nonetheless, thishighlighted that individuals from conflict regions employeddiverse channels to enter the UK, suggesting early evidenceof fluid categories and the asylum-migration nexus. Toinvestigate the migration history of individuals, the ques-tionnaire also recorded motivation. The results of this con-trol question are discussed below.

4.1. Migration motivation

The migration motivations of respondents wererecorded in a multiple response question. Before presentingresults these must be problematized. First, the perceivedimportance of motivations may fluctuate over time. Moti-vations were recorded retrospectively so these could poten-tially differ from reasons stated before the migration.Accordingly the varied significance of factors over timewas neglected by this question. There are also temporalambiguities in matching health professional motivationswith the provisional nature of conflicts. It is thus unclearfrom the responses whether individual motivations werein direct response to an acute conflict event, if individualsmigrated in anticipation of particular events or if motiva-tions accumulated over time and finally culminated in adecision to migrate. Despite these caveats however, migra-tion motivation proved to be a useful tool in analysing theresults. And in contrast to officially defined categories, therespondents selected motivational factors. The questionalso permitted a number of motivations to be chosensimultaneously.

The respondents stated three main migration motiva-tions. The first group stated ‘refugee’ reasons that includedfactors such as civil war, human rights violations, political

regime threats and environmental factors.5 The secondgroup were motivated by a desire to gain higher levels oftraining or for economic reasons (including unemploy-ment). This was not surprising given the occupationalgroup that was sampled. The third group noted ‘refugee’reasons as well as economic factors as being equally impor-tant in their decision to leave their country of origin.

As shown in Table 4, those who moved for primarily ref-ugee reasons made up 27% of the sample. This representednearly double the number of people who had obtained offi-cial refugee status (compare with Table 3). Further, thosewho stated refugee reasons as equally important or contrib-utory in their migration decision amounted to 38%. Thismeant that 65% of the total respondents noted civil war,human rights violations, the political regime in countryof origin or environmental problems as being the primaryor contributory factor in their decision to migrate. Thiscompares with only 14%, who had been granted official ref-ugee status. This variable hints at the existence of the asy-lum-migration nexus.

4.2. Channel and motivation

The results thus far have gone some way towards begin-ning to document an empirical example of the asylum-migration nexus. The following sections aim to furtherunderstand the characteristics of health professionals flee-ing conflict regions. To begin, the analysis aims to discoverwhether motivation of a migrant influenced the specificchannel taken to enter the UK. Table 5 cross-tabulatesmigration channel with motivation. Chi square analysisindicates that there is a statistically significant relationshipbetween channel and migration motivation (v2 = 41.751,p = 0.000). Unsurprisingly, individuals in the training/eco-nomic category typically used the work permit system orpermit free training/student visa. The refugee category alsotypically employed the official refugee channel. Howeverrefugee and economically motivated individuals employeda variety of routes (not dissimilar to the training/economiccategory) including the work permit/student channel or theofficial refugee route. So although all individuals departedfrom conflict regions, the migrant’s motivation significantlyinfluenced which channel was used to enter the UK.

Table 5Migration channel and motivation (total = 173)

Channel Motivation

Refugee(N = 47)

Training/economic(N = 60)

Refugee/economic(N = 66)

Work permit 15 (32%) 25 (42%) 28 (42%)ELR/refugee status 26 (55%) 5 (8%) 9 (14%)Student visa/permitfree training

3 (6%) 20 (33%) 21 (32%)

Family/citizenshipties/tourist visa

3 (6%) 10 (17%) 8 (12%)

v2 = 41.751 (p 0.000)(DF = 6)


Table 6Migrant types

Channel Motivation

Refugee Non-refugee

Work permit Type 1 Type 5ELR/refugee status Type 2 Type 6Student/permit free training Type 3 Type 7Family/citizenship ties Type 4 Type 8


Table 7Migrant categories

New label Description Types included

Categorya

Refugee motivation, non-refugee channel Types 1, 3 and4

Categoryb

Refugee motivation, refugee channel Type 2

Categoryc

Non-refugee motivation, non-refugeechannel

Types 5, 7 and8

Note: Type 6 has been excluded from this new classification. Source:Stewart Questionnaire Survey of Health Professionals (2001–2002).


This mapping of the asylum-migration nexus raises sev-eral considerations. The simple cross-tabulation of chan-nels with motivations demonstrates that refugeemotivated individuals do not necessarily use the officialasylum route but can utilise other legal means of migration.Conversely, despite leaving conflict regions very few indi-viduals used the official refugee route if they were not solelymotivated by refugee reasons. For professional individuals,such as health professionals, a variety of options are avail-able when circumstances force the seeking of asylum.Nonetheless, the findings from this specific case study high-light two particular concerns. First, this points to apparentinvisible brain drain flows from conflict regions. And sec-ond there appears to be selectivity in terms of refugee pro-tection afforded by Western refugee policy. These issueswill be returned to later.

4.3. Migrant types and categories

In order to map the contours of the asylum-migrationnexus, a framework was developed to identify trends inthe dataset. For the remainder of the investigation, a broaddistinction was made between ‘refugee’ and ‘non-refugee’motivated migrants. The aim was to facilitate further anal-ysis of the questionnaire whilst not reconstructing boundedgroups or reinforcing categories. The ‘refugee’ labelincluded all respondents who mentioned refugee reasonsas primary or contributory motivational factors. The‘non-refugees’ were all those sampled who did not mentionrefugee factors. So although the health professionals sam-pled were from conflict regions there were two distinctgroups, those who stated refugee reasons and those whodid not. By cross-tabulating the two variables (motiva-tion · channel), eight migrant types were identified (Table6).

These types are not a comprehensive list of migrants. Inaddition many of these categories are not exclusive. Thisexercise serves to identify the contours of the asylum-migration nexus by outlining the variety of migrants withinand outside official migrant categories. In order for thesemigrant types to be usefully deployed in further statistical

analysis, new categories were created (Table 7). Categorya was defined as refugee motivated individuals who usednon-refugee channels. This included types one, three andfour from Table 6. Category b was refugees who used theofficial refugee channel (Type two in Table 7). Finally cat-egory c included non-refugee motivated migrants who uti-lised non-refugee channels. Types five, seven and eight wereincluded in this category. Due to the small number ofrespondents in Type six, this was excluded from the newcategorisation. The three categories represented refugeeand non-refugee motivated migrants who had left conflictregions but taken diverse channels.

The construction of these categories was vital to investi-gate whether refugee motivated individuals who entered byrefugee or non-refugee channels were significantly differentto non-refugee motivated individuals who used non-refu-gee channels. This provided a tool to compare characteris-tics of refugee motivated individuals who used the refugeechannel (category b) with refugee motivated individualswho did not use official channels (category a) and non-ref-ugees who did not use refugee channels (category c).

A statistical analysis of the three approaches is pre-sented in Table 8. This table compares the v2 results forseveral basic variables recorded in the questionnaire. Thisis calculated for motivation (first column), the channelapproach (second column) and the use of the new migrantcategory (third column). Of the nine variables in the table,the motivation category identifies four of these as being sig-nificantly different between refugee, refugee/economic andtraining/economic motivated individuals. This suggestedthere were several similarities between these three groups.The channel factor produces five statistically significant dif-ferent variables. This highlights the importance of consid-ering channel in the migration of individuals fleeing

Table 8Comparison of migrant motivation, channel and category

Comparison of v2 results

Variable Motivation three categories (v2-value) Channel (v2-value) Category (v2-value)

Gender Significance (15.119) Significance (35.583) Significance (10.570)Age NS (0.807) Significance (29.293) NS (5.504)Marital status NA N/A NS (3.847)Years in the UK NS (0.608) Significance (32.027) NS (8.605)Age at survival NS (0.740) NS (2.576) NS (3.522)Entry to UK Significance (0.023) Significance (14.389) NS (4.891)Migration channel Significance (41.751) – N/ACountry of birth N/A N/A N/AContinent of qualification Significance (0.000) Significance (39.807) Significance (42.509)

Note: N/A means not applicable as minimum expected cells counts not met. Significant level (p < 0.05). Source: Stewart Questionnaire Survey of HealthProfessionals (2001–2002).


conflict regions. However some caution must be exercisedbecause as already discussed, the same channel can poten-tially be used by very diverse migrants.

Finally the combined category of channel and motiva-tion demonstrates that two of the eleven variables are sig-nificantly different. So it appears that a migrant with aparticular motivation (refugee) who selects a particularchannel (refugee) is not likely to be different from a migrantwith the same motivation but who takes another channel(non-refugee). In conclusion therefore it seems that chan-nel, and not motivation, is a better indicator of differenceswithin the sample in terms of socio-demographic character-istics. This analysis highlights the benefits of examiningmultiple migration channels as a means to understandinghow individuals respond to restrictive asylum policies.

4.4. Mapping the asylum-migration nexus in the context of

health professional migration

The asylum-migration nexus in the context of healthprofessional migration to the UK can be represented by a

FORCED

Medical Student NOT-FORCE

(Source: Stewart Questionnaire Survey

Type 3

Type 7

Fig. 2. Health professionals fleeing

graphical representation (Fig. 2). There are two dimensionsto the spectrum of health professionals fleeing conflictregions. The vertical arrow of the spectrum represents thelevel of choice in the decision to migrate. The beginningpoint is where the migrant, although leaving a conflictregion, does not mention refugee motivating reasons. Themigrant is therefore classified as not-forced. At the finalpoint of the arrow are migrants who have been forced tomigrate, stating refugee factors as the primary reason forleaving their country. Various points along the arrow rep-resent degrees of ‘being forced’ to leave a country of origin(i.e. refugee reasons as secondary or contributory factors).This is not measurable but indicates the interacting motiva-tional forces that impact upon each migrant’s decision. Thehorizontal arrow indicates the career level or position ofthe overseas doctor. The starting point is a medical studentwith the ultimate goal (hypothetically) of obtaining a con-sultant post. Again points along the arrow represent thedifferent employment levels achieved by a doctor.

As outlined, there is a diverse spectrum of individualsfleeing conflict regions which indicates the various ways

Consultant D

of Health Professionals, 2001-2002)

Type 1 Type 2 Type 4

Type 5 Type 6 Type 8

conflict regions – a spectrum.


in which immigration legislation can be circumvented(Black, 2003). A sample of case studies, which illustratethe in-depth personal experiences of individuals in such cir-cumstances, is presented in Fig. 3. First, there are fourtypes of individual whose migration was directly influencedby conditions in the source region. For example, Type onewere health professionals, such as Dr Osbert, who wereforced to leave their country but who gained entry to theUK through a job or training position. Otherwise theywere forced to stay in the UK due to unfavourable condi-tions in their home country. Medical or postgraduate stu-dents may have felt ‘forced’ to leave their country butgained entry to the UK as a student (Type three). In somecases, like Dr Elma, this migrant type intends to return totheir country but this does not happen due to refugee, eco-nomic or personal reasons. Next there were health profes-sionals fleeing conflict regions who gained entry to the UKby means of their spouse (Type four). This is evidenced inthe case of Dr Cicely. Finally there are individuals whoentered the UK through the official asylum route, like DrMohammed (Type two).

For health professionals that were not influenced byevents in their region of origin, there were four types.Health professionals who chose to leave their country towork in the UK gained a work permit (type five). Someindividuals, either employed as doctors or students, origi-nally came to the UK for non-refugee reasons but felt‘forced’ to stay due to conditions in their country of origin(Type six). There were also students who chose to enter theUK, being granted a student visa or permit free training(Type seven). Finally there were health professionals who

Type 1 Dr Osbert is a surgeon from Europe. He initially stayed for four years in origin. However when the situation in his country deteriorated in the late any clear plans except to leave his country. On his second visit, he therefoa permit free training visa when it became clear that he could not return towas able to quickly secure another medical post. His professional idenpreferred to capitalise on the channels that were readily available to hiprofessional life. Type 2 Dr Mohammed is a gastroenterologist from the Middle East. He completreturned to his home country. Some 20 years later when he was forced to fhis family to the UK. Initially he planned to find employment in the UK toasylum due to the stigma attached to this immigration status. He also feventually advised by the Refugee Council to apply for asylum, which hestatus. He hopes to return to his home country when peaceful conditions re Type 3 Dr Elma is a radiologist from Africa. She came to the UK for training pafter three to five years in the UK. But after this time had passed she was was raging in her home country. Since Dr Elma was training in the UK anapply for refugee status. She also considered that her career opportunitiesto her home country in the future. Type 4 Dr Cicely is a psychiatrist from the Middle East. She fled her home coregime in 2000. Her family initially migrated to New Zealand and stayed tas a doctor in the UK and was granted a work permit. She therefore ahusband. She did not consider applying for asylum as her family did not meventually hope to visit her home country she does not think the family wilHealth Professionals, 2001-2002)

Fig. 3. Health professionals fleeing

chose to accompany their spouse or who had family resid-ing in the UK (Type eight).

The types located within this spectrum correspond withthe descriptors above and represent a broad classificationof certain types of migrant. It is expected that migrants willfall outside these defined classifications and be located atdifferent points within the spectrum. As a result, there aremany ambiguous categories within which questionnairerespondents were located. Nonetheless this spectrum use-fully illustrates the varying levels of individual choice (interms of migration motivation) but also employment char-acteristics (e.g. level of employment) which can influencethe final migration strategy adopted. The spectrum alsoidentifies an empirical example of the asylum-migrationnexus. And it is apparent that there are thin boundariesbetween individuals that migrate for economic reasonsand those who are forced to flee their home country (Rayet al., 2006).

5. Implications of the asylum-migration nexus

5.1. UK context

Having mapped the contours of the asylum-migrationnexus in the context of health professional migration, thediscussion now turns to a critique of the current immigrationregime in the UK. There are three main areas of concern thatcan be derived from the case study. First, the current UKasylum policy regime does not appear to fully protect indi-viduals fleeing conflict regions. Next the focus of the currentregime upon fragmented categories of migrant may fail to

the UK during the 1990s but subsequently returned to his country of 1990s he decided to return to the UK. When he left he did not have re initially entered the UK on a tourist visa. This was then changed to his home country. Due to his previous period of work in the UK he tity meant that Dr Osbert did not consider applying for asylum but m. He now intends to stay in the UK, at least for the rest of his

ed his postgraduate medical education in the UK (during 1980s) and lee his home country, due to political persecution, he decided to bring support his family. He felt strongly that he did not want to apply for elt this would be detrimental for his children. Nonetheless he was reluctantly did. Dr Mohammed and his family were granted refugee sume.

urposes in the late 1990s and planned to return to her home country warned by family and friends not to return due to the civil war which d had a secure immigration status she did not consider it necessary to were very limited if she returned. She does not think she will return

untry with her husband and children due to the oppressive political here for six months. However, her husband soon got a permanent job pplied for residency, along with her children, as dependents of her igrate directly from her home country to the UK. Although she does

l ever return on a permanent basis. (Source: Stewart Interviews of

conflict regions – case studies.


capitalise fully on the potential benefits of skilled individualsto the UK economy. Finally the system also fails to recog-nise the negative impacts of brain drain upon sending coun-tries. Each point is discussed below.

As it stands UK policy has employed numerous mea-sures in the past decade to deter asylum applicants andthereby reduce inflows (Hassan, 2000). Empirical resultsfrom this sample indicate that although migrants fleeingconflict regions may have been deterred from applyingfor asylum this does not stop entry to the UK. Individualsrather seek other, alternative routes of entry that can beirregular or regular. This reaffirms that restrictive asylumpolicies are ineffective and that flows are re-directedthrough alternative routes (Zetter et al., 2003). As notedearlier, from 7th March 2006 the Department of Healthhave implemented new immigration rules for PostgraduateDoctors and Dentists. The result of these changes has beento remove the provision of Permit Free Training Visas foroverseas doctors. This means that health professionals flee-ing conflict regions will no longer have the opportunity ofemploying this immigration route. Results from thisresearch would suggest, however, that closing this channelwill be unlikely to diminish flows but rather further chal-lenge the resilience of migrants’ agency in seeking out alter-native channels. Indeed, one channel in the UK whichcould be potentially employed by health professionals flee-ing conflict regions is the Highly Skilled Migrant Pro-gramme (HSMP). Further research is needed toinvestigate this potential response as well as additionalroutes employed by health professionals. For example theprivate sector is playing an increasing role in UK healthprovision through the introduction of teams of overseasclinical staff (OCTs).

The restrictiveness of the UK asylum policy regime per-petuates common misconceptions that pervade the pressand public consciousness such as the notion that asylumseekers are ‘bogus’ (Buchanan and Grillo, 2004). At theforefront of such arguments is the idea that asylum seekersare not fleeing conflict regimes but are masquerading aseconomic migrants. The case study presented in this papereffectively challenges this by suggesting that the opposite isthe reality in many cases. The restrictive asylum regime inthe UK has perversely forced individuals fleeing conflictregions to masquerade as economic migrants. This not onlyeffectively counteracts long-standing misconceptions ofeconomic migrants abusing the asylum route but alsopoints to another failure of UK immigration policy. Onemain aim of the five year strategy is to capitalise on the tal-ents and skills of migrants for the benefit of the UK econ-omy (Home Office, 2005a,b). The invisibility of healthprofessionals fleeing conflict regions may result in a lackof assistance being provided to individuals (e.g. in termsof career development). Due to their mode of entry suchindividuals are likely denied assistance that is provided tobona fide refugees. This is not only detrimental to the indi-vidual concerned but also wider UK society which couldbenefit from an individual’s skills.

As noted above strict immigration controls do not pre-vent movement from conflict regions. But rather the resultof the restrictive UK regime is the selectivity of refugeeflows. In this instance only those health professionals withsocial or economic connections can enter the UK to workor to study. Flows from conflict regions are thereforehighly selective and favour highly skilled and educatedindividuals (Lukic and Nikitovic, 2004). Given that a largeproportion of refugees in the UK are highly qualified(Bloch, 2004), the asylum-migration nexus is likely operat-ing in the arena of other professions. This highlights con-cerns that UK asylum policy is inadvertently supportinginvisible brain drain flows and this clearly has implicationsin relation to constructing an ethical immigration policy(Mensah et al., 2005; Bueno de Mesquita and Gordon,2005).

5.2. European context

The empirical results have highlighted the worrying fail-ure of asylum policy to meet moral obligations to protectindividuals seeking asylum. And it could be argued thatthis is not specific to the UK case study. At the Europeanlevel only individuals with economic and social connectionscan negotiate entry into Europe (e.g. by paying smugglers).And so taking this argument to its logical conclusion, thismeans that the poorest and most vulnerable individuals areforced to remain in their country or become internally dis-placed. In the current regime this group is not able to seekasylum in a European country. So Western refugee policyis such that it currently privileges the most educated andwealthiest refugees who have the resources to migrate,whilst the majority of refugees are located in less developedcountries. So to summarise ‘‘the better endowed can buy abetter quality of asylum. Others have to settle for lessattractive and less secure forms of migration and destina-tions, notably internal displacement’’ (Van Hear, 2004, p.28). Thus the ultimate victims of restrictive asylum regimesin Europe are the unskilled, bona fide individuals in lessdeveloped regions who cannot capitalise on their economicor social capital. This raises serious questions surroundingthe effectiveness of refugee policy at the European and UKlevel.

Indeed, questions concerning the ethical stance of immi-gration policies can be directly derived from the operationof the asylum-migration nexus. As illustrated by the empir-ical case study, there is clear cross over between migrantcategories. This demonstrates the ineffectiveness of currentmigration channels to empirically capture the strategiesemployed by migrants. But most worryingly, the channelsopen to potential migrants inadvertently privilege theimportance of human capital. The result, then, is to restrictaccess to human rights provisions to only those migrantswith specific socio-economic backgrounds. Indeed, ECRE(2006) has voiced concerns over the lack of regular waysfor refugees to enter Europe which denies individuals theirlegitimate right to seek asylum. There is thus a need to


create legal channels for people fleeing persecution to enterEurope, a need to create ‘borders with doors’ for refugees,in order to address the current system which underminesthe humanity of the rights.

6. Conclusion

The paper has gone some way towards advancing under-standing of the asylum-migration nexus beyond discussionof irregular migration, in the EU context. The closing ofimmigration channels does not apparently reduce flows ofrefugee migration but rather forces individuals to seekout alternative routes and gateways. The case study ofhealth professionals who have migrated from seven differ-ent conflict regions to the UK illustrates that individualswho are motivated by refugee factors either wholly or inpart do not exclusively or even mainly employ the officialrefugee channel. There is a reciprocal claiming of migrantcategories as asylum seekers employ the channels of eco-nomic migrants to flee conflict regions. The paper thus con-tributes to the knowledge of how the asylum-migrationnexus operates beyond the irregular domain.

Having undertaken this project, important reflectionsmust be highlighted in relation to the case study. The lim-itations of this study pertain primarily to the specificities ofthe sample group. Despite the large sample, a particularoccupational group was the basis for the research. Thesocio-economic status of this group undoubtedly shapedmigration decisions and determined mobility strategiesand outcomes. Thus the conclusions drawn from this casestudy cannot be used to generalise the migration historiesof all asylum seekers in the UK. But rather this specificflow represents one important, and somewhat overlooked,facet of the asylum-migration nexus. What the survey doesnot answer, however, is why migrants strategically movebetween particular channels. One could consider forinstance whether occupational affiliations are favouredabove less tangible factors such as stigma when determin-ing migration strategies. Additional work in this areawould develop understanding of the role of migrants’agency in relation to the operation of the asylum-migrationnexus.

Finally there are valuable findings from this case studythat have wider applicability in the arena of refugee migra-tion research. First the paper documents the diverse waysof uncovering the migration strategies and experiences ofasylum migrants. So although it is vital to continue inves-tigations of bona fide refugees and the official refugeeroute, research agendas would also benefit from a broaderapproach to this group of migrants. Three different sugges-tions are outlined below.

First the mobility strategies of refugees in other coun-tries, such as America or Australia, may be more fullyunderstood by research that investigates the migration his-tories of overseas health professionals in each respectivecountry. Alternatively this approach could advance beyondthe specific occupational group of health professionals and

be extended to other segments of the population. Thiswould include other professional groups such as nurses,engineers and teachers but also semi-skilled professionals.Finally, an investigation of migrants from a known conflictregion, such as Somalia, could focus upon all individuals invarious occupational segments of the population, asopposed to only those who have been granted refugee sta-tus. Employing such approaches would undoubtedly dee-pen understanding of the asylum-migration nexus as wellas extending the conceptualisation of refugee migration.There is much to learn about the coping strategies of asy-lum seekers amidst the current restrictive regime and instriving to do so the theoretical understanding of the asy-lum-migration nexus can be equally advanced. Both goalsare desirable.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a University of Dundee stu-dentship. The author is grateful for the comments of MarkBoyle that helped to advance the paper, along with threeanonymous reviewers. Finally this paper was only madepossible by the individuals who willingly responded tothe postal questionnaire. My special thanks extend to theseones.

References

Bhagwati, J., 2003. Borders beyond control. Foreign Affairs 82 (1), 98–104.

Black, R., 1993. Refugees and asylum-seekers in Western Europe: newchallenges. In: Black, R., Robinson, V. (Eds.), Geography andRefugees: Patterns and Processes of Change. Belhaven Press, London,pp. 87–103.

Black, R., 1998. Refugees, Environment and Development. AddisonWesley Longman, Harlow.

Black, R., 2003. Breaking the convention: researching the ‘illegal’migration of refugees to Europe. Antipode 35 (1), 34–54.

Black, R., Collyer, M., Skeldon, R., Waddington, C., 2006. Routes toillegal residence: a case study of immigration detainees in the UnitedKingdom. Geoforum 37, 552–564.

Bloch, A., 2000. A new era or more of the same? Asylum policy in the UK.Journal of Refugee Studies 13 (1), 29–42.

Bloch, A., 2004. Making it work: refugee employment in the UK. Asylumand Migration Working Paper 2. Institute for Public Policy Research,London.

Bloch, A., Schuster, L., 2005. At the extremes of exclusion: deportation,detention and dispersal. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (3), 491–512.

Buchanan, S., Grillo, B., 2004. What’s the story? Reporting on asylum inthe British media. Forced Migration Review 19, 41–43.

Bueno de Mesquita, J., Gordon, M., 2005. The International Migration ofHealth Workers: A Human Rights Analysis. Medact, London.

Castles, S., 2003. Towards a sociology of forced migration and socialtransformation. Sociology 37 (1), 13–34.

Chikanda, A., 2006. Skilled health professionals’ migration and its impacton health delivery in Zimbabwe. Journal of Ethnic and MigrationStudies 32 (4), 667–680.

Collyer, M., 2005. When do social networks fail to explain migration?Accounting for the movements of Algerian asylum-seekers to the UK.Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (4), 699–718.

Crawley, H., 2006. Forced migration and the politics of asylum: themissing pieces of the international migration puzzle? InternationalMigration 44 (1), 21–26.


Crisp, J., 2003. Refugees and the global politics of asylum. In: Spencer, S.(Ed.), The Politics of Migration. Blackwell Publishing, London, pp.75–87.

ECRE, 2006. Europe’s Role in the Global Refugee Protection System. TheWay Forward, An Agenda for Change. Brussels, European Council onRefugees and Exiles.

Finney, N., 2005. Key Issues: Public Opinion on Asylum and RefugeeIssues. Navigation Guide. Information Centre about Asylum andRefugees (ICAR), London.

Gao, J., 2006. Organised international asylum-seeker networks: formationand utilization by Chinese students. International Migration Review40 (2), 294–317.

Glover, S., Gott, C., Loizillon, A., Portes, J., Price, R., Spencer, S.,Srinivasan, V., Willis, C., 2001. Migration: An Economic and SocialAnalysis. RDS Occasional Paper 67. Home Office, London.

Hassan, L., 2000. Deterrence measures and the preservation of asylum inthe United Kingdom and United States. Journal of Refugee Studies 13(2), 184–204.

Home Office, 2000. Asylum Statistics: December 2000 United Kingdom.http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds. Accessed 25 January 2001.

Home Office, 2002. Asylum Statistics: December 2002 United Kingdom.http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds. Accessed 3 December 2002.

Home Office, 2005a. Controlling Our Borders: Making Migration Workfor Britain. Home Office, London.

Home Office, 2005b. A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work forBritain. Home Office, London.

Hyndman, J., 2005. Migration wars: refuge or refusal? Geoforum 36, 3–6.Iredale, R., 2005. Gender, immigration policies and accreditation: valuing

the skills of professional women migrants. Geoforum 36, 155–166.Karatani, R., 2005. How history separated refugee and migrant regimes:

in search of their institutional origins. International Journal of RefugeeLaw 17 (3), 517–541.

King, R., 2002. Towards a new map of European migration. InternationalJournal of Population Geography 8, 89–106.

Koser, K., 1997. Social networks and the asylum cycle: the case ofIranians in the Netherlands. International Migration Review 31 (3),591–611.

Koser, K., Pinkerton, C., 2002. The Social Networks of Asylum Seekersand the Dissemination of Information about Countries of Asylum.Home Office Research Findings 165. Home Office, London.

Liu, X.F., 1997. Refugee flow or brain-drain? The humanitarian policyand post-Tiananmen mainland Chinese immigration to Canada.International Journal of Population Geography 3 (1), 15–30.

Lloyd, J., 2003. The closing of the European gates? The new populistparties of Europe. In: Spencer, S. (Ed.), The Politics of Migration.Blackwell Publishing, London, pp. 88–99.

Lowell, B.L., Findlay, A.M., Stewart, E., 2004. Brain strain: optimisinghighly skilled migration from developing countries. Asylum andMigration Working Paper 3. Institute of Public Policy Research,London.

Lukic, V., Nikitovic, V., 2004. Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina inSerbia: a study of refugee selectivity. International Migration 42 (4),85–110.

Mensah, K., Mackintosh, M., Henry, L., 2005. The ‘Skills Drain’ ofHealth Professionals from the Developing World: A Framework forPolicy Formulation. Medact, London.

Mullan, F., 2005. The metrics of the physician brain drain. The NewEngland Journal of Medicine 353 (17), 1810–1818.

Nyberg-Sorensen, N., Van Hear, N., Engberg-Pedersen, P., 2002. Themigration-development nexus evidence and policy options state-of-the-art review. International Migration 40 (5), 3–47.

Papadopolou, A., 2005. Exploring the asylum-migration nexus: a casestudy of transit migrants in Europe. Global Migration Perspectives 23.Geneva, Global Commission on International Migration.

Papadopoulou, A., 2004. Smuggling into Europe: transit migrants inGreece. Journal of Refugee Studies 17 (2), 167–184.

Raghuram, P., 2004. The difference that skills make: gender, familymigration strategies and regulated labour markets. Journal of Ethnicand Migration Studies 30 (2), 303–321.

Ray, K.M., Lowell, B.L., Spencer, S., 2006. International health workermobility: causes, consequences, and best practices. InternationalMigration 44 (2), 181–203.

Refugee Survival Trust, 2005. ‘What’s Going On?’ A Study intoDestitution and Poverty Faced by Asylum Seekers and Refugees inScotland. RST, Oxfam UK Poverty Programme.

Robinson, V., Carey, M., 2000. Peopling skilled international migration:Indian doctors in the UK. International Migration 38 (1),89–108.

Robinson, V., Segrott, J., 2002. Understanding the Decision-making ofAsylum Seekers. Home Office Research Paper 243. Home Office,London.

Ruhs, M., Anderson, B., 2006. Semi-compliance in the migrant labourmarket. COMPAS Working Paper 30. University of Oxford, Centre onMigration, Policy and Society.

Sales, R., 2005. Secure borders, safe haven: a contradiction in terms?Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (3), 445–462.

Schuster, L., 2004. The exclusion of asylum seekers in Europe. COMPASWorking Paper 1. University of Oxford, Centre on Migration, Policyand Society.

Stewart, E., 2004. Deficiencies in UK asylum data: practical andtheoretical challenges. Journal of Refugee Studies 17 (1), 29–49.

UNHCR, 2000. The State of the World’s Refugees, Fifty Years ofHumanitarian Action. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Van Hear, N., 2004. ‘I went as far as my money would take me’: conflict,forced migration and class. COMPAS Working Paper 6. University ofOxford, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.

Zetter, R., Griffiths, D., Ferretti, S., Pearl, M., 2003. An assessment of theimpact of asylum policies in Europe 1990–2000. Home Office ResearchStudy 259. Home Office, London.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds

exploring the asylum-migration nexus in the context of health professional migration

Documents