Changing Support for Asylum Seekers: An Analysis of Legislation and Parliamentary Debates

Over the past 15 years asylum seekers have experienced increasingly restrictive policies as regards accessing state support. This paper traces these developments through changes in legislation and regulation, and analyses the political arguments used in the House of Commons by those advocating and those resisting these policies. The arguments are examined in light of the political ideologies of partialism and impartialism to try to understand how and why the relationship between asylum seekers and the state has changed over time. The paper concludes that impartialist arguments have been largely unsuccessful at influencing policy in this political arena partly due to the inherent need of the democratic state to put citizens above outsiders, and rejects the rational model of policy making