When presented with the opportunity to write for Notes from Below, we were the only two applicants within our organisation. We both applied independently. We found out that we had both applied when our bids were accepted, and we were asked to write a joint piece.

It is very important to us both that we submitted identical bids; we both consider that the most significant aspect impacting us as workers is negative political language concerning our work, the groups we represent, and the impact of working within the ‘hostile environment.’ This is the Home Office’s set of administrative and legislative measures designed to create the hostile environment that is intended to deter migrants from coming to the UK.

Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony in Marxist philosophy explains how the ruling class shapes a society’s culture and values. As a result, the ruling class’s worldview becomes the cultural norm for the population. As the universal dominant ideology, the ruling-class worldview misrepresents the political, social, and economic status quo as inevitable, natural even, and perpetuates social conditions that benefit every social class, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.

In our respective professional careers as immigration lawyers, we have seen the implementation of multiple Acts and policies, many to make life as difficult as possible for those subject to immigration control. This included the introduction of a set of measures known as the ‘Hostile Environment’ with the idea of making life as difficult as possible for undocumented migrants. In May 2007, Liam Byrne, Home Secretary under a Labour Government, announced a consultation document which he said was about “trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally”, but it was under Home Secretary, Theresa May, in 2012 that it became more formalised. She implemented a set of measures, both administrative and legislative, to make life miserable for anyone without immigration status, some of these measures were not compatible with the UK’s obligations under international law. The implementation of these measures, and subsequent developments, has been reliant on the normalisation of the maltreatment of migrants amongst the populous.

The impact of government policy

What do you think has changed most since you started doing this work?

Isobel: Everything has changed, but it’s difficult to remember the individual changes. There is just a sense of things getting progressively worse. At the time that I started the work in 2000, it was after the commencement of the 1999 Act. I wasn’t massively into politics at the time, and this served as a bit of a political awakening for me.

It appeared to come at a time when there was a deluge of negative press about people seeking asylum. I felt that there was an atmosphere of fear being created by the press, which the government appeared to jump on. The Act resulted in an entirely separate support system run by the Home Office, which saw people forcibly moved to areas of the UK, where there was available housing stock. This moved people from communities and possibly from friends, this included people who had lived in places for years. So, people seeking asylum were being moved to where I was living in Huddersfield. People seeking asylum had previously been able to work and receive mainstream benefits, and they could choose where they lived. These were replaced with vouchers as part of the 1999 Act. The act resulted in the social separation of people seeking asylum from the rest of the population, which probably laid the foundations for future policymaking on asylum and was the first step to where we find ourselves today. I’m referring to the Rwanda situation; a scheme, which involved sending some people seeking asylum who arrive in the UK via irregular routes, to the east African country. The Government proposed that people seeking asylum be sent to Rwanda and would have their asylum claims processed there and, if successful, would be granted refugee status in Rwanda and would be able to live there. After the election of a Labour government in July 2024 this has now been overturned.

Maxwell: From speaking with veteran colleagues, it seems that government policy has never really been in our favour. I have noticed it seems to come in cycles. There is a spate of negative press to which the government then vows to legislate against people seeking asylum. When I first started in the sector, I thought it was a low point, but with recent context, I think it was probably more moderate.

I feel that in the time I have worked in the sector, since 2019, the political language used by senior politicians has become increasingly toxic. Now, the politicians dissenting from that are in the minority and often portrayed as being extreme.

The recent change of government from the Conservatives to Labour presents an opportunity for change. However, only time will tell.

How does this impact on you as a worker?

Maxwell: Well, there are obvious challenges, such as very fast-moving changes in law and policy, so there is a lot to get to grips with, but there are also less obvious things that impact us hugely as lawyers.

Managing our client’s anxiety and fear can be difficult. Many of the people who we represent have experienced trauma and have been ill-treated. When they reach the UK, they believe they have reached a point of safety. However, they face significant hostility during the asylum process. As legal representatives, we are often having to manage this. Recently, I had a client calling me and messaging me throughout the night because they were going to take their own life due to their experience in the asylum process. It is clear to me that those we represent are subject to significant hostility in the UK, often at the hands of the government and civil service, and this is hugely damaging. This makes supporting people in this role very challenging.

Isobel: In my mind, there is no doubt that the hostility of government towards those subject to immigration control, especially towards those seeking refuge, is transferred to us as legal representatives. This is sometimes overt; in recent times a former Home Secretary has called immigration lawyers ‘activists’ and ‘lefty lawyers’. In an interview in August 2022, the then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated:

We’ve got to change the definition of asylum. At the moment we use the ECHR, the European definition, and that is very broad. It’s become broader. Over time it’s exploited by lefty lawyers for lots of spurious reasons to keep people here.

It feels incredibly intimidating but doesn’t stop there.

Maxwell: We work with a number of statutory agencies, such as the Home Office, Children’s Services, the Legal Aid Agency, as well as the Court Service. Government policy clearly impacts their work, but there are also often high levels of hostility towards our clients and also towards us. There are times when you feel that relationships with agencies who are meant to be protecting our clients, such as social services in the cases of children, are often adversarial and hostile. There is sometimes a sense that social workers have a cynicism towards asylum seeking children based on their immigration status and their method of entry to the UK.

Isobel: To give you an example, I have such a strong memory of an interview I attended with a child at the Home Office in Liverpool. I was walking up to the interview suite with a 17-year-old Sudanese boy and his social worker. At the top of the stairs, there was an adult asylum applicant lying on the floor. He was sobbing loudly. Standing over him was a woman wearing a Home Office lanyard, so I assumed that she had been interviewing him. She looked at me and rolled her eyes. I felt incredibly embarrassed for my client. It was clear to me that she didn’t believe that her interviewee was genuinely upset. Her lack of sympathy and belief in him was palpable and my young client also had to witness that.

In June 2020, Freedom from Torture published a report about Home Office failings in decision-making and how these failings impact disproportionately on survivors of torture. The report concludes:

Home Office caseworkers who conduct interviews have a difficult job, dealing as they do with traumatic stories and vulnerable individuals every day. There is no doubt, however, that the culture within the Home Office has created an environment of disbelief, scepticism and suspicion that has crept into the interview room. Despite all the statements of regret from government ministers following exposure of the Windrush scandal, we are still waiting for the systemic overhaul that has been called for by so many of those with lived experience of the immigration process, and calls echoed by Wendy Williams in the Windrush Lessons Learned Review. Now is the time for political leadership to shift the culture and demonstrate that lessons have finally been learned.

The impact of the media

How is the topic of immigration framed in the media?

Maxwell: I think that there are two things we need to discuss in relation to immigration in the media. Firstly, the depiction of people seeking asylum. Secondly, the depiction of us as lawyers representing people seeking asylum. However, before we even discuss the narrative, I think it is worth mentioning that the media doesn’t even use the right terminology, which makes statements factually incorrect. It really bugs me, particularly considering how much the topic is discussed in the media. An example is the use of the word deportation to describe the process of people being administratively removed. Under UK law, deportation and removal are two different legal processes. Another would be referring to people as “illegal” asylum seekers - there is no such thing. It is not illegal to seek international protection under the Refugee Convention. Whether intentional, or accidental the misuse of terminology like this is dangerous misinformation that shapes the public’s perception of people seeking asylum.

My stomach sinks whenever I see an article in the news about a crime that has been attributed to a refugee, asylum seeker, or failed asylum seeker. A recent example is the Afghan refugee who committed an acid attack – a truly horrific crime, but a crime that had nothing to do with his immigration status. I remember the day I read this article. I felt so much dread. I knew what would be coming next from friends and family… “are these the type of people who you help stay in our country?”. The small minority of refugees who commit criminal offences in the UK should not influence the public perception of refugees en masse.

The people we represent are some of the most inspiring and resilient people I have met. Refugees go on to give so much to our society and enrich the communities that we live in. However, you never see anything about this in the media. I cannot recall the last time I saw a positively framed story about a refugee or person seeking asylum. The narrative of selective reporting is what shapes the public’s perception. It creates a real stereotype. Hate crime has been on the rise in the UK. Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit recently became a hate crime reporting centre, which I think says a lot.

Isobel: I agree. People seeking asylum are depicted as unsavoury or as criminals. The word illegal is a very frightening word if you have no understanding that in legal terms it’s completely incorrect. This impacts us, just because we advise them. We’re not depicted well, just because we represent them.

I remember last year there were several firms that were approached by undercover reporters who went to investigate advisers. It appears that in those instances, those particular advisers were giving advice that was not in accordance with good practice or ethical standards. However, the way these stories were sensationalised, and the fact that it was so widely publicised creates questions in people’s minds. Like you, my stomach sank, it was one more layer of hostility and this time directly about lawyers.

For me, the worst thing has been reading that immigration lawyers are ‘anti-British’. This was initially said by government Minister Andrea Jenkyns, but it is a language that is widely used. I think that the concept of Britishness is a complicated one, but these words really frighten me. I literally have nowhere else to go. I have no entitlement to any other nationality, and for me to think this just because of the work that I do is frightening.

###How does this impact you as a worker?

Isobel: The people that we represent are incredibly aware of how they are depicted in the media. You seldom have conversations about it, but when you do you realise the human impact of the adverse political language used against them. For example, people sometimes need to assure you of their worth and that they are going to be useful if they get their status. This makes me sad and has, of course, very little to do with whether a person would get their status in the UK, especially if they have claimed asylum on protection grounds. I’m sure that if you feel unwanted, this impacts all of your relationships with people in a perceived position of authority. This undoubtedly affects our relationships with our clients.

Also, the misinformation that people take from media stories is something that we have to grapple with when we are representing people and advising them on their status. They frequently get the wrong idea of a situation and their legal position due to poorly researched stories in the news.

Maxwell: I think that these are things that also impact us directly as lawyers. There are times when adverse media impacts directly on how you operate. It can make you highly critical of the advice you give. We operate an adviceline three days a week. The main purpose of the advice line is to offer advice to the large number of people who are unrepresented. As a newer advisor, there were times when I felt anxious to go on the adviceline. I have no concerns about the actual advice that I give, but I worry about how it can be misconstrued or taken out of context. It makes me worried that someone is going to try and catch us out for a cheap headline.

Recently, I was approached by a university student through a mutual acquaintance who wanted to ask me some questions about the asylum system in the UK for an assignment. I recall at one point during the meeting I suddenly started to feel paranoid about some of the questions I was getting asked because I was thinking about recent articles seeking to expose bogus lawyers. It was only a student asking a few basic questions for an assignment. I felt so stupid afterwards, but this is how it affected me. I think it is absolutely bonkers that as well-meaning and highly trained professionals we are having such suspicious thoughts about helping people. This manner of thinking has come directly from the way immigration lawyers have been depicted in the media.

The impact of the public and personal relationships

Does the work you do impact on your interactions with others?

Isobel: This is a massive thing for me, perhaps the biggest. It’s tough. A massive repercussion of the work we do is how it impacts our relationships.

I think that all work impacts your personal relationships to some degree, but there is this additional element that is tied up with the hostility towards the work we do that impacts our personal relationships with others. I realise it in all sorts of interactions; standing next to people in the queue at a supermarket who have a newspaper in their basket, meeting new people, meeting old friends, even in relationships with close relatives.

In 2014, former Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett wrote in the Daily Mail that ‘just because immigration is deeply controversial, that cannot mean that we should avoid talking about it.’ Conversations about immigration feel so pervasive. Everyone has an opinion about the group of people we work with. It is like voicing a hostile opinion is fair game, and these opinions extend to what we do.

Almost everybody has an opinion and these are usually incredibly polarised. You don’t get many people who are undecided about what we do. Some people may think what we do is great, but there are a significant number of people who don’t. This is really difficult.

Maxwell: How many times has somebody asked you about your job? And when you tell them, have they asked further questions about it to know more, to genuinely understand what we do? In my experience, it’s quite rare. Frequently, I noticed that people already have an opinion and don’t ask to find out any more. They’ve already got a perception and think they understand what you do.

I still love what I do, but I don’t like to talk about it as much as I used to. The other week I was out with a couple of friends and we met some other people. As a group we ended up talking about our jobs and I couldn’t really engage with the conversation. Of course, your good friends love what you do, but in social situations, I have to work out whether I have the energy to explain, and then potentially defend. It’s often a risk not worth taking.

Isobel: It feels like these interactions become a bit of a strange test, doesn’t it? Of course, I guess you could say that it separates the people that you really want to spend time with from those who you don’t, but this in itself is also sad. The natural reactions we have, further polarise our worlds and they maintain a distance between us all.

The impact of hostility on the workplace

How do all of these things impact the place of work and what’s the impact on the team?

Maxwell: I recall once we had a visitor in our office who worked somewhere down in London. They were really shocked to find we had such a big obvious sign on the front of the building. They told me that if our office was in London then we wouldn’t openly advertise the nature of our work to the public in case we were attacked.

Sadly, due to the nature of our work we have been targeted by the public. Graffiti will turn up from time to time on the building. A more serious example is when petrol was poured through our letter box and set alight. This took place around 15 years ago. More recently, a member of the public walked straight in off the street and entered the reception and interview rooms. The person then proceeded to hurl abuse at clients, staff and other professionals. Subsequently, our security was updated. The police ended up getting involved with this event. It really highlighted our vulnerability.

We are very fortunate to have an employer that will go to great lengths to ensure we have a safe workplace. However, it is worrying that such threats exist from the public. You can only do so much to prepare against attacks. It regularly causes anxiety for me. For example, I don’t like having to lock up the building in the evening when it is dark. Even though there will always be another member of staff doing it with you, closing up feels very vulnerable, especially when the attack is in our recent memory. I would argue that the government’s rhetoric and media narrative of people seeking asylum are at least partly responsible for these kinds of attacks. Hate breeds hate.

Isobel: On the flip side, this adversity creates solidarity between our team members. I’m very conscious that the conditions we work in create the close relationships we have with our colleagues. We talk very openly when we are struggling and we support each other. We are encouraged to engage in group reflection and personal therapy if we need it.

I think it’s really hard to talk about things with people who have no understanding of the work we do and it is for this reason that I value the solidarity we have as a team. It is really important in this line of work to be able to have the community that is fostered at Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit. We feel very united in the face of adversity. I feel very fortunate to work as part of a diverse team, and I feel that it is our diverse experiences and backgrounds that enrich our ability to support each other. We all share a passion for the people we represent and I consider that we all ‘get it’ and all feel very similarly about the way that hostility impacts us as workers.

Maxwell: As a young trainee in the sector, I have major concerns about the longevity of Legal Aid immigration and asylum advice. Civil Legal Aid rates have not increased since 1996. Whilst this problem isn’t unique to immigration and asylum, I believe this, combined with the demonisation of lawyers working in this field make it a very undesirable job for young people. From my experience, there are not many legal aid advisers in the north west below the age of 30.

One of the reasons why I think this exists is because it is now very difficult for organisations to take on new trainees. A trainee does not generate much income for the first few years of their career. Afterall, they are training. Margins are already incredibly tight for many organisations and they simply can’t afford to take on new trainees for this reason. This leads to the same limited pool of advisors moving around different organisations instead of new blood being brought into the sector. Almost all recent trainees at Greater Manchester Immigration Unit have been funded through the Justice First Fellowship, which is providing vital funding to breathe new life into the sector. However, the impact only goes so far. In fifteen to twenty years the older generation of advisors are going to start retiring and it is going to create a real labour shortage in the sector.

I know from experience a lot of trainees at other organisations will often move into the private sector not long after qualifying. You can’t blame people, times are hard. I have previously been offered minimum wage (and less) for Legal Aid roles in the sector. I have a university debt of over £70k, which minimum wage would never pay off. We are lucky at Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit because we are not completely reliant on our Legal Aid contract to generate income. We have various other streams of income from local authorities, grants, and donations. For example, the first three years of my employment are funded by the Justice Together Initiative. Our Director, Denise McDowell, is exceptional at securing grants and keeping our income diversified. As a result, I believe we are paid fairly and competitively for the sector.

The benefits of our funding model are also reflected in the standard of client care we can give to the vulnerable people we work with. We don’t quite have the same restraints as the organisations relying solely on Legal Aid income when working on complex fixed fee cases. However, that isn’t to say our margins are not tight. There are thousands of unrepresented people seeking asylum in the UK right now. We can’t help them all. The problem is only getting worse as many organisations previously holding a Legal Aid contract go under or are forced to move into more profitable private work.

For me, it means there is always a bit of a question mark over my future. It isn’t a popular area to go into. In my SQE apprenticeship cohort there is only one other student working in Legal Aid. I am the only student working in the asylum sector. If Legal Aid collapsed, the worst outcome for me would be a move into the private sector. But what about the clients who can’t afford private representation?

On 5th August 2024, Isobel and Maxwell sat down together in the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit office to review the comments from the editor regarding the final draft of this chapter. In the preceding week, there has been a wave of far-right riots across the country targeting people seeking asylum. On 5th August 2024, a source leaked an immigration lawyer ‘hit list’ from a far-right chat. Thirty-nine immigration lawyers, charities and groups were named as targets for attacks, to take place at 8pm on 7th August 2024 across the country. In response to this threat, Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit temporarily closed their offices in Liverpool and Manchester.