The welfare state and the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have reached the age of majority

(1)

The welfare state and the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who

have reached the age of majority

Matilda Cadei Fritz Uppsala University

The Department of Government Bachelor thesis

Spring 2018

Word Count: 13 128 Number of pages: 33

Supervisor: Marcus Österman

(2)

2

Abstract

In recent years, the numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) arriving to Europe have drastically increased. Due to delays in the asylum procedure, many UASC have turned 18 years old before the asylum procedure has ended. These adolescents need access to welfare services but they often lose several social rights when they reach adulthood. In this light, I have investigated the social rights of UASC who have reached the age of majority by using Esping-Andersen’s theory of welfare state regimes. I find that the social rights of this group vary between Germany, the conservative welfare state regime, and Sweden, the social democratic welfare state regime.

However, in both of the countries, this group in general have limited access to welfare services.

This is problematic since social rights are crucial for incorporation in the society. The findings are in several ways in line with the main characteristics in the two regimes but in order to fully understand what determines the social rights of UASC who have reached the age of majority further research is needed.

(3)

3

1.0 Introduction

In 2015, more people than ever sought asylum in the European Union (EU). What is now well- known as the migration crisis refers to the 1.3 million people (Helminger and Martins 2017, 27) who crossed the EU border with hopes for a better and safer future. Many of those applying for asylum were children that entered the new country of residence without any family member (Eurostat 2018b). These children and adolescents have often experienced trauma, loss and separation, both in the country of origin and on the migration journey. Thus, this group is often considered to be especially vulnerable (Plener et al. 2017, 734 and McDonald 2015, 29).

In the new country of residence, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) face further risks such as anxiety, hostility and integration difficulties (Plener et al. 2017 734). Because of the increase in asylum applications in recent years, several EU members states are struggling with long delays in the asylum procedure (ECRE 2016, 3). The long asylum procedure is an additional challenge for asylum seekers and in some cases, asylum seekers have had to wait more than two years for the asylum decision (Shexo and Ljungberg 2017). In the past years, a majority of the UASC have been teenagers in the age between 16 and 17 when arriving to the country of residence (European Commission 2018c, 4). The long delays in the asylum procedure have therefore led to many UASC reaching the age of 18 before the asylum procedure has ended.

For those who reach the age of majority during the asylum procedure, the transition from childhood to adulthood is a further strain in their already challenging and uncertain lives. Reaching the age of majority often results in loss of rights that they were entitled to as children. Due to regulations in international law, children often hold certain rights regardless of their migration status. Even though the rights differ within the EU, many member states also provide UASC benefits and services such as education, accommodation and health care. However, UASC still need these social benefits after they have reached the age of majority and the change in social rights may, therefore, have far- reaching consequences for these individuals (Pasic 2017, 9).

Despite efforts made by the EU to harmonize asylum systems and reduce differences within the EU, the asylum system and the social rights during the asylum process vary greatly between members states (Archer 2015, 2). Since many of those who have reached the age of majority will stay in the country where they have sought asylum, at least for a long time, the social rights of these adolescents are of great importance. Social rights are the foundation for incorporation in the society (Anderson 2016, 112). Welfare is also a tool to reduce the risks of mental illness (Archer 2015, 2), it promotes integration and it counteracts alienation. Hence, the welfare state’s construction and policies are important for the existence and future of these individuals but also for the society as a whole (United Nations Population Division 2001, 4).

Furthermore, migration has been perceived as a challenge to the European welfare state, especially in welfare states with great redistribution goals (Nannestad 2004). At the same time, so has the ageing population. Europeans are only getting older and the elderly are depended on that a large part of the population is in the labour force since it guarantees that the pensioners will be provided welfare (Laurence 2002). In this perspective, with a successful integration process, asylum-seeking

(5)

5

adolescents are not only a challenge to the welfare state, instead, they could contribute to saving its existence.

1.1 Purpose and thesis question

My purpose is to examine the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people (UASYP). They are former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have reached the age of majority during the asylum procedure. My second aim is to investigate how different welfare state regimes affect the social rights of this group.

Many European welfare states are facing the challenge to integrate those who have arrived in recent years. Incorporation of adolescents in the society is especially important since they are in a working age and have the opportunity to contribute to the society. One may imagine that exclusion from the society during the asylum procedure, which can take months or years, could make the integration process for those who later have the right to stay more difficult. Inadequate social rights for this group could also decrease the motivation to integrate, which in turn may lead to alienation. Thus, knowledge about how the welfare state may include or exclude this group in the society increases the possibilities to form policies with an outcome that is desirable.

During a long time, the effects of the welfare state on immigrants’ social rights have been unexplored. Still, when the rights of immigrants have been investigated, immigrants have been referred to as one group without taking into account that there are different forms of immigration (Sainsbury 2006). Diane Sainsbury shows in her study that so-called welfare state regimes have different effects on the social rights of immigrants and that the entry categories, the form of immigration, are crucial in determining immigrants’ access to benefits and services (2012, 2).

However, in welfare literature, the group of unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people has only been examined as a part of the group “asylum seekers”. This is problematic since their social rights may differ both from the rights that asylum seekers hold who arrive in Europe as adults and the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. By examining the social rights of this group through the lens of the welfare state regimes it will contribute to a deeper and broader understanding of the welfare state as a whole.

By using two theories from Sainsbury’s research; the welfare state typology by Esping-Andersen and entry categories, I will examine how different welfare state regimes affect the social rights of this group. The question this thesis will answer is: How do the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people vary between different welfare state regimes?

To answer the question of this thesis I will investigate two major asylum destinations in recent years: Germany and Sweden. These two countries each represent one welfare state regime;

Germany which is a typical conservative welfare state regime and Sweden, a prime example of a social democratic welfare state regime. The social rights that will be examined are the access to education, accommodation, health care and the labour market.

(6)

6

1.2 Delimitations and definitions

In this thesis, I will only examine the differences between two out of the three welfare state regimes; the conservative welfare state regime and social democratic welfare state regime. Hence, the liberal welfare state regime is left out to future research. It is important to stress that I only investigate the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people. There are cases, mostly in Germany, where unaccompanied children are recommended not to seek asylum before they turn 18 and their social rights may differ to those who have applied for asylum as children (Müller 2014, 16).

Furthermore, the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will in many cases also be described in order to get a better understanding of their social rights when they turn 18. This is important since assistance for children sometimes may be provided for those in the age of majority.

Moreover, knowledge of the loss of rights increases the understanding of the situation of this group.

Throughout this paper, Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Young People will be referred to as UASYP. They are former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have reached the age of 18.

Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children are those under the age of 18 who have applied for asylum without any family member as a legal guardian. They will be referred to as UASC. In existing literature, terms as unaccompanied minors and separated children are also being used, however, those also include the children who have not applied for asylum.

In the following section, I will describe what has been done in previous research and present the theory of welfare state regimes more in-depth. Next, I will present the method of this thesis and after that, the empirical investigation will be presented. This is followed by an analysis and a conclusion.

2.0 Literature review

Previous research on UASC and UASYP has mostly been in the field of social work and psychology. Despite the experiences of trauma and the challenges of anxiety and hostility in the new country of residence, the transition to adulthood is an additional element that increases anxiety (McDonald 2015). Hodes et al. (2008) stress that the risk of mental illness increases as UASC get older, due to the uneasiness about the transition when they have reached the age of majority.

Furthermore, in a quantitative study in 2005, Wade et al. find that access to education and supportive accommodation, and the opportunity to develop are important keys to smoothen the transition to adulthood (Wade 2011, 2429). A study by the UN Refugee Agency and Council of Europe's Youth Department also stressed that the transition to adulthood had a serious impact in the well-being of UASYP and that their needs included education, labour, health care and appropriate accommodation (2014, 9-11). Access to these services is not only highlighted as important to improve well-being but also to promote inclusion of UASYP into the society (Guerra and Brindle 2017, 29).

(7)

7

In Diane Sainsbury’s book the Welfare States and Immigrant Rights: The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion, she finds that the welfare state regime, a theory developed by Gøsta Esping-Andersen, is crucial to explain the social rights of immigrants. In her investigation of six European welfare states, she also takes into consideration two theories from existing international migration literature;

entry categories and so-called incorporation regimes. The theory about entry categories is essential because it stresses that different forms of immigration “involve specific rights and restriction that can influence immigrants’ access to social benefits” (Sainsbury 2012, 15). Sainsbury writes:

“Ethnic “citizens” refer to immigrants of the same ethnic stock as the citizens of the country of settlement; this category, together with ex-colonial immigrants, often enjoyed citizen or near citizen status in the past. Immigrants who are EU citizens have gradually gained rights, approaching and in some cases exceeding the rights of co-ethnic immigrants and immigrants from former colonies. At the other extreme, asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants have minimal claims to entitlements” (2012, 15).

Notwithstanding this, Sainsbury chooses to investigate asylum seekers as one group. This is problematic since it does not provide us with the full picture of asylum seekers’ social rights. As I mentioned in the introduction, there are stratifications within the group of asylum seekers. UASYP have less access to welfare benefits than UASC, but may be entitled to more benefits than asylum- seeking adults which means that UASYP have to be examined as one group.

It should be highlighted that Sainsbury’s theory of incorporation regimes is not going to be included in this thesis since it is more useful when social rights are investigated among those who have a more secure resident permit than asylum seekers. The theory is based on the idea that incorporation regimes can exclude or include immigrants in the society in several ways. An incorporation regime can have open or closed borders that regulate immigrants’ ability to enter the country. However, incorporation regimes can also exclude or include immigrants in the society by making social rights attached to the residence permit (2012, 16-19). Hence, social rights may for example vary between those who have a citizenship, a permanent residence permit and those that do not hold a residence permit at all. Since this thesis only aims to investigate one group who has entered the country of residence and who are in the asylum procedure, Esping-Andersen’s theory is more useful.

The theory about welfare state regimes can help us understand the social rights of UASYP because according to Esping-Andersen (1990), the core ideas in the welfare state regimes affects the whole system which leads to different social policies in the three regimes. The welfare state regimes’

influence on social rights has been seen as crucial for a long time in order to understand people’s access to social benefits and services (Art and Gelissen 2002). In addition, what will be described later on in this section, Esping-Andersen (1990) highlights that the traditional family plays different roles in providing welfare in each welfare state regime, not at least in the conservative and the social democratic welfare state regime. This makes Esping-Andersen’s theory even more relevant for this study since different views on the role of the family may have different outcomes in social policies for those who lack family support.

(8)

8

2.1 Welfare state regimes

In 1990, Gøsta Esping-Andersen published his book The Three worlds of welfare capitalism. In his study, he identifies three different welfare state regimes; the conservative, the social democratic and the liberal welfare state regime. According to Esping-Andersen, the welfare state is characterized by three cornerstones in which the three regimes differ; the level of decommodification, the level of stratification and the relationship between the market, the state and the family. Firstly, decommodification refers to people’s dependency on market forces. Low levels of decommodification mean that people are not depended on the market in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living and vice versa. Secondly, stratification assigns that social policies may reduce but also create inequalities within the population. Finally, in the three welfare state regimes, welfare functions are administered differently between the state, the market and the family (1990).

It is important to note that Esping-Andersen’s welfare state regimes are only ideal types and there are differences within the three categories. However, the typology highlights important prime differences between the welfare states (Sainsbury 2012, 10) which is helpful since the variation may affect the social rights of UASYP.

The conservative welfare state regime

In the conservative welfare state regime, most entitlements are based on contribution through work.

The level of social protection is mostly determined by the employment situation. The welfare is generally provided through social insurance schemes which protect the workers (and their families) in case of loss of income but exclude those who are not contributors. However, the social services that are provided for the insured are generous which means that those in the labour force may be independent of the market (Esping-Andersen 1990). Furthermore, the conservative welfare state regime is characterized by relatively high levels of stratification. In contrast to the social democratic welfare state regime, it is not the state’s responsibility to encourage social mobility. Status differentials are rather seen as something that should be preserved. Esping-Andersen writes:

“It [the conservative welfare state] sought in fact to achieve two simultaneous results in terms of stratification. The first was to consolidate divisions among wage-earners by legislating distinct programs for different class and status groups, each with its own conspicuously unique set of rights and privileges which was designed to accentuate the individual's appropriate status in life” (Esping-Andersen 1990, 40).

The conservative welfare state regimes are mostly found in Continental Europe where the Catholic Church and the traditional family have played central roles (Esping-Andersen 1990). It is also strongly influenced by a male breadwinner structure, where women are responsible for the caring of children and the participation of women in the labour market is low (Lewis 1992). In addition, a core value in Catholicism is the duty to help the poor and the vulnerable.

Esping-Andersen argues that the construction of the welfare state affects the labour market.

Compared to the Lutheran work ethics that influence social democratic welfare state regimes, the conservative welfare state regime has promoted the ability to exit the labour market, such as early retirements. In addition, it has not promoted integration on the labour market. Instead, labour

(9)

9

policies have been inactive which has led to low incentives for other groups than middle-aged men to enter the labour market (Kalyvas and van Kersbergen, 2010, 197-198).

The social democratic welfare state regime

The social democratic welfare state regimes are mostly found in Scandinavia and are characterized by universalism where the main objective is equality through redistribution. Social benefits are mainly based on citizenship but have according to Sainsbury (2012) been extended to also be based on residence status. The benefits that are provided are generous and of “middle-class standard” and they are mostly provided through services which are available to all residents (Esping-Andersen 1990, 50). Hence, the social democratic welfare state regime has low levels of stratification. Esping Andersen writes:

“The social democrats pursued a welfare state that would promote an equality of highest standards … This model crows out the market, and consequently constructs an essential universal solidarity in favor of the welfare state. All benefit, all are dependent and all will presumably feel obligated to pay” (1990, 51).

The social democratic welfare state regime promotes individual independence from the state and the family which means that the state is responsible for the caring of the children (Esping-Andersen 1990, 51). It is characterised by a dual breadwinner structure where men and women share the responsibility for both paid and unpaid work and there are high levels of women participation in the labour market (Lewis 1992).

Furthermore, in contrast to the conservative welfare state regime, the social democratic welfare state regime maximizes labour supply. It promotes integration on the labour market and the state has worked as an employer which has benefited women’s access to the labour market (Esping- Andersen 1990).

2.2 Hypotheses

As will be further developed in the methodology section, I have chosen to investigate UASYP’s access to education, accommodation, health care and the labour market. The social rights of UASYP in the social democratic welfare state regime are in a theoretical perspective hard to predict which makes the empirical investigation even more important. The social democratic welfare state regime promotes equality and universalism but social entitlements are based on citizenship or residence. As a result of this, two opposite hypotheses can be drawn.

When the welfare state was established, the issue of migration was not a challenge. Hence, when the base of entitlements was citizenship, it did not exclude any group in the society. However, when the levels of immigration have increased, one can assume that the goal of equality also includes those who do not have a citizenship or a residence permit, in order to prevent large class differences in the society. Since the social democratic welfare state regime strives for equality, one could expect that UASYP have access to social benefits and services such as education, accommodation and health care. In addition, the promotion of independence from the family also indicates that UASYP could have generous access to youth benefits such as living in youth facilities

(10)

10 with socio-educational support. Hence, one could expect that the thoughts of equality and universalism would lead to that:

1. a) UASYP in social democratic welfare state regimes have full access to education and health care and have the right to be accommodated in youth facilities where socio-

educational support is provided.

On the contrary, UASYP may not be entitled to the generous benefits due to the fact that the bases of entitlement are citizenship or residence. A system with generous benefits is dependent on a large part of the population being contributors. A generous and universal system should in this perspective only benefit those who have a secure residence permit and surely will stay in the country, since they, in the long run, will contribute to the welfare state. Hence, from this point of view one may assume that:

1. b) UASYP in social democratic welfare state regimes do not have access to education and they are only entitled to basic health care and accommodation where socio-educational support is not provided.

Regarding the conservative welfare state regime, maintenance of social status and high levels of stratification could lead to that UASYP do not have the right to education since education is a tool for social mobility. In addition, when entitlements are based on contribution, those who are outside the labour market are disadvantaged. Since only 1 in 8 immigrants that arrived in Germany between 2013 and 2016 had found a job in 2016 (Martins 2016), one may assume that the labour market participation rates are low among UASYP. Therefore, I expect that the access to health care is very limited. However, because of the Catholic social idea to help the vulnerable and the poor, I assume that UASYP have access to some form of health care and accommodation. I also assume that when the family, and not the state, is responsible for the caring, UASYP are not entitled to care and support. In sum, I expect that:

2. UASYP in conservative welfare state regimes do not have access to education and they are only entitled to health care that covers basic needs. They should have the right to

accommodation, albeit without socio-educational support.

Finally, regarding the access to the labour market, it is important to highlight that much has happened since Esping-Andersen published his study. For example, the goal of full employment in Sweden (social democratic welfare state regime) is less prominent today than before (Sainsbury 2012 83-84). In Germany (conservative welfare state regime), reforms have been implemented in order to encourage groups who normally have not been in the labour force, such as women and students (Fleckenstein 2012, 848). However, one may assume that the historical view on labour market participation still influences today’s policies. The history of maximizing labour supply in the social democratic welfare state regime may lead to that UASYP have the right to work. On the contrary, UASYP may not have access to the labour market in the conservative welfare state regime since it has a history of inactive labour market policies. However, since the labour market policies in some ways are different today than when Esping-Andersen did his study, it is hard to make any

(11)

11 clear predictions on UASYP’s access to the labour market. Therefore, I leave the question open for the empirical investigation.

3.0 Methodology

In this section, I will first make a justification for my two case studies. Germany and Sweden are relevant and suitable for examination because the two countries have received high levels of asylum applications, they struggle with delays in the asylum procedure and the situation for UASYP have been highly debated. Yet, they each represent different welfare state regimes. Secondly, I will present my analytical tool that is the foundation for the investigation. Finally, the main sources that have been used to answer the thesis question will be described.

3.1 Justification of the case studies

In 2015, 1.3 million people sought asylum in the European Union (Helminger and Martins 2017, 27). The highest levels of applications were filed in Germany, who received 476 000 asylum applications. Sweden, on the other hand, received 163 000 applications (SCB 2016) and 1667 asylum applications per 100 thousand local population, which in relative terms were the second highest numbers in the EU. In Germany, 587 sought asylum per 100 thousand local population which was the sixth highest score in the EU (BBC 2016).

Furthermore, in 2015, 95 205 UASC filed an application in the EU and of those were 55 860 adolescents in the age between 16 and 17 (European Commission 2018c, 3-4). Sweden received the highest numbers of asylum applications from UASC with 34 295 applications and in Germany, the number was 22 225. However, due to stricter asylum laws and implementation of border controls in Sweden (SVT Nyheter 2016), the number of asylum applications from UASC decreased drastically to 2160 in 2016 (Eurostat 2018a). On the contrary, the number increased in Germany and 35 935 UASC filed an application in 2016 (Steinwehr 2016). The levels of asylum applications from UASC have after 2016 decreased in both countries and in 2017, Germany received 9087 applications from UASC whilst 1137 applications were filed by UASC in Sweden. As in the whole EU, the majority of the UASC who have filed an application in Germany and Sweden have been in age between 16 and 17 years old (Eurostat 2018a).

In Sweden, the most common nationalities among the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been Afghans, Syrian and Somali (Migrationsverket 2015, 18). The situation is similar in Germany but nationalities such as Eritrean and Iraqi have also been frequent (Steinwehr 2016).

One of the reasons to that many UASC turns 18 years old during the asylum procedure is the fact that there are major delays in the asylum procedure. Germany and Sweden share this struggle.

According to the German government, the average length of the asylum procedure was 7.8 months in 2017 and 7,1 months in 2016. At the same time, reports from media have shown that the average time was over 10,7 months in 2017. The length also varies between asylum seekers with different origins. In 2017, Afghans had to wait for 13,1 months before the asylum decision had been taken, whilst Syrian had to wait 6,1 months (Kalkmann 2017, 18-19).

(12)

12 The average length of the asylum procedure in Sweden was in December 2017 16,6 months and in December 2016 10,5 months. The asylum procedure for unaccompanied children has been even slower than for adults. At the end of 2017, the length of the process was 19,3 months which is an increase from 12 months at the end of 2016 (Joseph et al. 2017, 19-20).

Since 2015, the debate about immigration has been intensified in both Germany and Sweden and right-wing anti-immigration parties have gained more support in both of the countries (Marmorstein 2017 and Taub 2017). In Germany and Sweden, the debate has not only been about regulating the inflows and controlling the borders, much focus has also been on UASC and UASYP. A highly debated issue has been the age-testing of UASC since there is a belief that many of the applicants are older than what they claim (Lagerwall 2017). Moreover, politicians in Germany have argued that the social benefits are too generous for UASC and UASYP, which has been criticized heavily by NGOs (Plener et al. 2017). In Sweden, the situation for UASYP has been up for debate after reports showing that several UASYP have committed suicide (Horvatovic 2018).

What we have seen is that, in an immigration perspective, Germany and Sweden share several similarities. However, the two countries differ significantly when it comes to welfare state regimes.

According to Esping-Andersen, Germany represents a prime example of a conservative welfare state regime whilst Sweden is a prototype of the social democratic welfare state regime (1990).

In Germany, the employees are covered by the Bismarckian social insurance scheme which is financed by contributors. It is built on the ambition to protect those on the labour market and their families. Since there are separate insurance funds for different working groups, the German welfare state has maintained class and status differentials. In addition, even though the social benefits in Germany are generous, they have only had small redistributive effects. This is explained partly by the construction of benefits, and partly by how the system has been financed. Not all working groups have been contributors and there is also an income ceiling for the contribution which high- income earners have benefited from. Moreover, the principle of subsidiarity is inscribed in the German constitution. This means that the responsibility for welfare services mainly is held by the family, local communities and civil society organizations whilst the state should guarantee that these providers live up to their role and missions (Sainsbury 2012, 54-55).

The German welfare state has also been characterized by a strategy of “welfare without work” since it has facilitated exit from the labour market (eg. early retirement) and labour market policies have been inactive. However, as I have mentioned, labour market reforms have been implemented the last decades, such as the Hartz legislation, in order to increase the incentives to enter the labour market (Fleckenstein 2012, 848).

Furthermore, the goal of equality and universal benefits in Sweden differ from the German Bismarckian model. This may be demonstrated by the universal child and parental benefits, health care, education and employment services. Compared to the conservative model, the private sector has had a less prominent role until the 1990s. Furthermore, the Swedish welfare state has been characterized by strong redistribution. Benefits to all citizens have provided security for the whole population. Consequently, the income gap between the working and the non-working has been

(13)

13 reduced (Sainsbury 2012, 83-84). Sweden has also had a goal of full employment and the labour participation has been high. Even if the goal of full employment is less prominent today, the active labour market participation is still a characteristic of the Swedish welfare state (Sainsbury 2012 83- 84).

It should be pointed out that even if one could argue that Sweden has moved away from the social democratic welfare regime that it once was, both those on the labour market and those who are not contributors have access to benefits. In addition, the income differences are smaller in Sweden compared to conservative welfare countries and many services are still provided to the whole population (Sainsbury 2012, 83-84).

3.2 Analytical tool

The analytical tool describes the variables that will be examined within the term “social rights” and what each variable represents. The social rights that will be examined in this thesis mainly derive from what previous research has stressed to be important for a smooth transition to adulthood;

access to education, to appropriate accommodation, to health care and to the labour market (Wade 2011 and UNHCR and Council of Europe’s Youth Department 2014). These social rights promote inclusion and integration of UASYP in the society and are therefore the social rights that are of most importance to answer the thesis question.

Few would question that education is a social right for children. However, since many of the UASYP have not finished school in the country of origin it is important to investigate what access they have to upper secondary school, even if they have reached the age of majority. The access to upper secondary school is significant not only for the individual but also for the society since a degree often is necessary for further education and it may be a requirement for certain employments. Nevertheless, the right to attend upper secondary school is not the only important measurement to investigate access to education. I will also examine if UASYP have access to language courses since that is a fundamental necessity for the integration process. The access to vocational training will also be included in this thesis. That is important because it may increase the employability of UASYP and it could be valuable if they do not have the right to attend upper secondary school.

Since UASYP lack family support and are considered to be an especially vulnerable group, they have other needs than other asylum seekers. Hence, in the examination of the right to accommodation, it is not only important to focus on if they are granted a place to live. It is also crucial to investigate what types of accommodations they are entitled to, and if UASYP live with adults since the extent of support and care that is provided often is determined by what kind of housing UASYP are accommodated.

Furthermore, when the access to health care is examined, I will focus on what forms of health care UASYP are entitled to. In other words, I will investigate if UASYP are entitled to comprehensive health care services or if they only have access to health care that covers basic needs.

(14)

14 Finally, I will look at the access to the labour market. Not only has labour been highlighted as important to UASYP’s well-being and integration, access to the labour market is also fundamental in order to promote self-reliance. However, even if one may have the right to enter the labour market, there may be practical problems such as difficulties to obtain an employment permit.

Hence, I will first investigate if UASYP have the right to work and second, what the requirements are to be able to integrate on the labour market.

Table 1. Analytical tool

Social rights Operationalization

Education Access to:

-

upper secondary school

-

language courses

-

vocational training

Accommodation Does the state provide accommodation for

UASYP?

What types of accommodation is provided?

Do UASYP live with adults?

Access to health care What forms of health care are UASYP entitled to?

Access to the labour market Do UASYP have the right to work? What are the requirements?

3.3 Major sources of information

In Claire A. Archer’s (2015) study she investigates the differences in social rights between asylum seekers, admitted refugees and third-country nationals based on the theories in Daine Sainsbury’s work. Archer’s study has inspired this thesis because in a similar vein as her, I have mainly used reports from the European Migration Network (EMN) and the Asylum Information Database (Aida) to answer the question of this thesis. An important source is also the website of the Migration Office (Migrationsverket) in Sweden.

According to the European Commission (2018a), that coordinates the EMN, “The European Migration Network (EMN) plays a key role in providing policymakers and the wider public with up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable information on migration and asylum”. EMN was first established by the European Council in 2008. They publish reports and studies concerning migration and asylum in Europe. This includes analyses about the outcomes of migration and asylum policies and recent developments in the area. For example, EMN produce annual reports on migration and asylum, country fact sheets and studies on relevant topics (such as UASYP). In every member states, so-called National Contact Points are established which are located within the national agencies that are specialized on this matter (European Commission 2018b). Hence, it is the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge) in Germany

(15)

15 and the Migration Office (Migrationsverket) in Sweden, that provide the EMN with the country- specific information.

Another important source is the Asylum Information Database (Aida) which is led by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). They produce reports and statistics on asylum issues concerning the asylum procedure, reception conditions and detention. The information they provide covers 23 European countries with the purpose to give relevant information in order to improve asylum policies and the situation for asylum seekers (Aida Asylum Information Database).

Since Germany is a Federal Republic, social rights may sometimes differ between the Federal States. In order to provide a general overview of several social rights, I have chosen to focus on the federal level. Moreover, my purpose has been to provide the reader with up-to-date information, in that regard, EMN, Aida and the Migration Office, are valuable sources since they publish reports and information continually. However, as has already been discussed, UASYP are often a forgotten group who not seldom are analyzed within the group “asylum seekers”. Consequently, finding information has at times been a challenge, especially in Germany, which has pushed me to use sources older than 5 years. Nevertheless, this has only been occasionally and when other sources have not been available.

4.0 Empirical results

In this section, I will first present the findings in Germany, followed by the results in Sweden.

Under some circumstances, UASYP are entitled to the same benefits as when they were children.

To fully understand the social rights of UASYP, it is therefore important to have knowledge about the first steps in the asylum procedure for UASC and what institutions and authorities that have the responsibility for the child. Because of this, I will start each presentation of the country-specific information with an overview of the reception procedure for UASC.

4.1 Germany

Overview

As all German children, UASC are covered by the Children and Youth Welfare act (Deutscher bildungsserver 2018). It is the Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in the municipality where the UASC have had the first contact with authorities or where they have been detected, that has the responsibility of the UASC (Mandl et al. 2011, 10).

During the initial process, the clearing procedure, the role of the Youth Welfare Office is to draw a general picture of the child’s situation and to discuss which needs the minor has in order to become an independent adult (Müller 2014, 36). In this process, the child is also assigned a legal guardian (Müller 2014, 34) and the age of the minor is determined (Parusel 2009, 30). Is it clear that the unaccompanied asylum seeker is a minor, he or she is entitled to assistance.

In the Social Code Book VIII, the act which regulates the general and common provisions on social security, it is stated that: “All young persons have the rights to assistance in their development and

(16)

16 upbringing to become independent, socially competent adults” (Müller 2014, 36). The different types of assistance are described by Müller:

“Social Code Book VIII makes provision for a wide range of assistance and support for upbringing and education including advice for upbringing.., social group work.., the appointment of a care assistant.., socio-educational family support.., upbringing within a professional day-care team.., full-time care..., residential care and other types of supervised residential care facilities.., as well as intensive socio-educational individual care...” (2014, 35).

During the clearing procedure, it is decided whether the child or youth are going to file an asylum application or not (Müller 2014, 16). UASC over the age of 16 have the right to take their own legal decisions which means that he or she can file an asylum application without the permission of a legal guardian (Müller 2014, 18). UASC who file an asylum application will be granted a permit to reside in the federal state during the asylum procedure and until the asylum procedure has ended (Müller 2014, 30). However, asylum seekers do not have the right to travel freely between Federal States (Kalkmann 2017, 66).

Education

It is the Federal States that are responsible for the education system and therefore there are regional differences. It should be stressed that this makes it difficult to give a comprehensive overview.

However, in general, UASYP have very limited access to upper secondary school (Müller 2014, 20). In most of the 16 Federal States, upper secondary education is compulsory until the adolescents are 16 years old (Kalkmann 2017, 73). UASC that arrive in Germany at this age, therefore, do not have the right to upper secondary school. Consequently, UASYP lack the opportunity to take courses that they miss from their country of origin and cannot graduate school (Mandl et al. 2011, 20 and Kalkmann 2017, 73). The limited access to education has been widely criticized by local NGOs since these adolescents rarely have a school degree from the country of origin (Kalkmann 2017, 73-74). Notwithstanding this, it exists vocational education after the age of 16. According to Mandl et al. (2011, 15), this is difficult for UASYP to access due to lack of information, the restriction to move freely between the different Federal States, costs for transportations and challenging living conditions at the collective accommodations.

Language education in Germany is often provided through integration courses. These courses are not accessible for asylum seekers which means that UASYP are depended on whether education is granted in their Federal State or if language courses are available locally (Müller 2014, 41).

All asylum seekers have the right to vocational training if they have obtained an employment permit. Furthermore, whilst residence permits for asylum seekers are valid for 6 months, the vocational training contracts generally extend between 2 and 3 years. Thus, both Kalkmann (2017,74) and Müller (2014, 40-41) highlight that it is difficult for employers to offer vocational training for asylum seekers because of the risk that the asylum application will be rejected.

(17)

17 Nevertheless, youth welfare assistance may be extended after the UASC have reached the age of majority: “if and so long as the individual situation of the young person renders this necessary“.

Youth welfare assistance may be provided to UASYP until the age of 21 (Müller 2014, 44) or under special circumstances until the age of 27 (BumF). The Youth Welfare Office is responsible to provide “socio-educational assistance” which “promotes their school education, vocational education, integration into the workforce and their social integration“ (Müller 2014, 41). Hence, for some UASYP education and vocational education may be provided through the Youth Welfare Office. In order to be entitled to youth welfare assistance after the age of majority, it does not only has to be considered necessary, UASC normally have to apply before the 18th birthday together with a legal guardian (BumF).

Accommodation

All asylum seekers are entitled to accommodation, Müller (2013, 22) writes: “As a matter of principle asylum seekers must be accommodated”. However, it is in many ways difficult to provide a general picture of the access to accommodation for UASYP in Germany because there are not only differences between the Federal States, but also within the Federal States (Müller 2014, 37).

For UASYP, just like access to education, the great change is normally not when they turn 18 years old. Rather, the big difference in access to youth facilities is between those under and above the age of 16.

During the clearing procedure, all minors should be accommodated in so-called “clearing-houses”

which are specialized to provide support for USAC. Despite this, UASC over the age of 16 are accommodated in initial reception centres for asylum-seeking adults if it is not crucial for them to live in an clearing-house. Those who are sent to initial reception centres, do not have the right to intensive socio-pedagogical support as those under 16 years old. This fact has been widely criticized by experts (Müller 2014, 37).

After the clearing procedure, there are three types of special housing for children: residential homes, foster families or centres that administer socio-educational individual care (Müller 2013, 22).

According to Mandl et al. (2013, 12) and reports from the European Youth Portal (2013), children between 16 and 17 are generally placed in accommodation centres for adults, while those under 16 are placed in facilities with specialized support. This indicates that most UASC have to stay in the accommodations for asylum-seeking adults when they reach the age of majority. Housing for asylum-seeking adults are generally in collective accommodations (Kalkmann 2017, 66 and Müller 2014, 38). However, in some states, asylum seekers may be placed in decentralized accommodations such as apartments (Kalkmann 2017, 66).

As mentioned in the overview, UASC may be entitled to “residential care and other types of supervised residential care facilities” by the Youth Welfare Office. This means that this can be provided to those who are granted extended youth welfare assistance after they have reached the age of majority (Müller 2014, 35).

(18)

18 Access to health care

Since most UASC are entitled to youth welfare assistance, health care for UASC is based on their need for assistance and it has to meet all the requirements that the child has. This means that psychological care also is included (Müller 2014, 40). Hence, UASYP who have extended youth welfare assistance are entitled to health care with full coverage.

Nevertheless, since most children only are entitled to youth welfare assistance until they are 18 years old, there is a great change in access to health care when they reach the age of majority.

According to the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act, asylum seekers are entitled to health care in case of

“acute diseases or pain” with the exceptions for pregnant women and women who have recently given birth (Kalkmann 2017, 74-75).

Even if the law is not limiting health care to emergency cases it is according to Kalkmann (2017, 74-75) often interpreted that only “absolutely unavoidable medical care” should be provided. In order to have access to health care, asylum seekers need a health insurance voucher which is provided at the initial reception centres or at the Social Welfare Office. Reports show that it is not unusual that asylum seekers have been denied health care or that is has been delayed, due to the fact that those working at the Social Welfare Office do not have the competence to determine whether the asylum seeker needs medical treatment or not (Kalkmann 2017, 74-75).

For traumatized asylum seekers or those who have experienced torture, special treatment is available, but they are not always granted therapists (Kalkmann 2017, 75). However, local incentives to help asylum seekers who suffer from mental illness exist in some federal states (NPCE 2011).

Access to the labour market

The rules to access to the labour market are the same for all asylum seekers, including UASYP.

During the first 3 months of the asylum procedure, asylum seekers have no access to the labour market. In addition, they do not have the right to work while they are staying at initial reception centres where they can stay for up to 6 months. Since July 2017, the Federal States have the authority to obligate asylum seekers to stay at the initial reception centres for 24 months but only one Federal State, Bavaria, has implemented this rule.

After this waiting period is finished, asylum seekers have the right to work. However, in practice, there are several constraints. Asylum seekers have to apply for an employment permit which requires that they can prove that they have a real job offer. Job centres also have to do a “priority review”, during the first 15 months of the asylum procedure. This means that the job centres have to examine if there is anyone else who is more suitable for the job. This mostly refers to German citizens or those with a “secure residence permit”. However, the majority of the Federal States have suspended this rule (Kalkmann 2017, 72-73).

(19)

19

4.2 Sweden

Overview

When UASC arrive in Sweden they are provided care and accommodation temporarily in the municipality (ankomstkommun) where they had their first contact with a Swedish authority (Migrationsverket 2017b). After the child has applied for asylum, he or she is sent to a designated municipality (anvisningskommun) which is assigned by the Migration Office. It is the designated municipality that has the long-term responsibility of the UASC. According to the Social Service Act, the municipality should examine the child’s needs, make decisions for what support that should be provided, arrange an accommodation and make sure that the child has access to education (Migrationsverket 2018b). The Municipality also have the responsibility to provide all UASC with a legal guardian (Migrationsverket 2017f). Finally, it is the Migration Office that assesses the age of the adolescent (Migrationsverket 2017d).

Education

It is the municipality that has the responsibility to guarantee that all asylum seekers have the same access to education as the other children and adolescents in the region (Migrationsverket 2018a).

All UASYP have the right to attend upper secondary school if they started before the age of 18 years old (Skolverket 2017a).

Before entering upper secondary school, adolescents have to attend so-called introduction programs which include language courses and relevant courses that the adolescent may miss from the country of origin (Skolverket). The introduction programs are available for adolescents between 16 and 20 years old (Skolverket 2017b). If UASYP have started an introduction program but not continued to upper secondary school before the age of 18, they do not have the right, according to the Reception of Asylum Seekers Act (Lagen om mottagande av asylsökande), to start upper secondary school.

However, the law does not restrict the municipality to let UASYP start upper secondary school even after they reached the age of majority (Skolverket 2017a).

Asylum seekers between 16 and 20 years old also have the right to choose a vocational introduction instead of an introduction program. The education contains elementary courses that the UASC or UASYP may be missing from their country of origin, vocational programs and internships. The vocational introduction is aiming to make the adolescents qualified for further vocational training or for them to be employed in the future (Skolverket).

Accommodation

In the designated municipality, three types of accommodations are provided for UASC; formal foster care family homes, residential care homes and supportive accommodations. Supportive accommodations are for adolescents between 16 and 20 years (EMN 2017, 28-29), hence, UASYP may be placed in supportive accommodations. It is normally provided for those who have lived in a family home or residential home and are on their way to become independent adults (Socialstyrelsen 2016, 2).

According to Swedish law, UASYP are to be seen as adult asylum seekers. The Reception of Asylum Seekers’ Act (Lagen om mottagande av asylsökande) states that asylum-seeking adults

(20)

20 have the right to accommodation. It is the Migration Office that has the responsibility to provide accommodation for adults which means that the designated municipality loses its responsibility for unaccompanied asylum seekers when turning 18 years old. However, the municipality may continue to give assistance to the UASYP if they are considered to have special needs. This is only voluntary and not mandatory (SKL 2018).

Since UASYP are seen as adults, they are generally provided accommodation in the same way as asylum-seeking adults. If the UASYP do not have the ability to stay with friends or relatives, they can be provided accommodation by the Migration Office. These are either in apartments or centres (Joseph et al. 2017 54-55). However, UASYP do not have the right to choose where in the country to be resident (Migrationsverket 2017c). This has been highly debated in Sweden, since the accommodations that are provided by the Migration Office may be in another municipality than the one the UASYP have been living in as a UASC. If the UASYP have started upper secondary school or introduction programs before their 18th birthday, they have the right to continue education in the new municipality (SKL 2017) However, according to Swedish Public Radio, the possibility to continue education is made more difficult by the fact that UASYP themselves are expected to find a school placement in the new municipality (López 2017). It has been widely criticized that UASYP often have to move when they turn 18 years old since they normally have lived in the designated municipality for one or two years. Thus, they have to move away from the everyday life that they have constructed, which have negative effects on their well-being (Sandberg 2017 and López 2017).

Swedish media has also reported that some UASYP chooses to live in the streets rather than moving to another municipality (Hedström 2017 and López 2017).

Due to the fact that many UASYP have become rooted in their designated municipality, the Swedish Government decided in 2017 to give municipalities temporarily financial support with the purpose that designated municipalities should have better opportunities to provide accommodation for UASYP. One reason to this could be to give the UASYP the chance to finish their studies.

However, it is still the designated municipality that decides if they, together with the social services, wish to accommodate UASYP or if UASYP should be under the responsibility of the Migration Office (Regeringskansliet 2017).

Despite the financial support, media reports show that several municipalities do not let UASYP stay since they argue that the financial support will not be sufficient to cover the costs. It is also shown that in few municipalities some UASYP have been given the right to stay whilst others have had to move to an accommodation provided by the Migration Office (Wollner 2017 and Mi Skoog 2018).

Access to health care

All children in Sweden, including UASC, have free access to health and dental care but when they turn 18 they have the same access to health care as asylum-seeking adults. This means that they are only entitled to necessary medical and dental care in case of emergency. It is the local county council (landsting/region) that are responsible for health care. The county council decides what the words “necessary” and “emergency” means and what medical care that should be provided.

However, parental care and gynaecological care are provided to all asylum seekers (Migrationsverket 2017e). The costs for health care are relatively low for adults and UASYP; 50

(21)

21 SEK for visiting a doctor, 25 SEK for a therapist meeting and the costs prescription drugs may not exceed 50 SEK (Joseph 2017, 59).

Furthermore, Doctors without borders in Sweden has highlighted that several health centres (vårdcentraler) deny them care for mental illness and only ¼ are asked about their well-being when seeing a doctor (Cederberg 2018).

Access to the labour market

As in the German case, UASYP have the same access to the labour market as asylum-seeking adults. In order to be entitled to work, a proof is needed that states that the asylum seeker is excepted from the obligation to have a work permit. In that case, the asylum seeker receives a so- called AT-UND which means that he or she has the right to work during the asylum procedure. To receive an AT-UND the asylum seeker needs to prove his or her identity. The AT-UND is in general valid until the asylum seeker is given a residence permit (permanent residence permits do not require a work permit) or has to leave the country (Migrationsverket 2017a).

Furthermore, it is important to stress that the Migration Office states that asylum seekers, including UASYP, should if it is possible, earn themselves a living or use saved money to finance their living in Sweden during the asylum procedure (Migrationsverket 2017a). However, the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet has reported that it is difficult to get access to the labour market during the asylum procedure because asylum seekers need a coordination number (samordningsnummer) which in general takes 2 months to get (Efendic 2016). In addition, the Swedish employer’s organization Svenskt Näringsliv has highlighted that the identification documents are left at the Migration Office during the asylum procedure which makes it difficult to prove the asylum seekers identity which is needed to get an AT-UND (Johansson 2016).

5.0 Analysis

As we have seen, the social rights for unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people differ in Sweden and Germany. In this section, I will show that the results in some extent are in line with the key characteristics of the two welfare state regimes. I will also analyse the consequences of the fact that UASYP hold few social rights in both of the countries and that there are not only restrictions in theory but also in practice. Furthermore, I will discuss surprising results and demonstrate that there may be other explanations to UASYP’s social rights. Finally, I will give policy recommendations and highlight two limitations of this study.

On the whole, the results in Germany confirm hypothesis 2; UASYP have limited access to education, they are usually accommodated with asylum-seeking adults and the health care they are entitled to only cover basic needs. Since UASYP normally do not hold a school degree from the country of origin, the limited access to education makes upwards social mobility difficult. That education is not a right for those who have passed the age when compulsory school ends are in line with the idea in the conservative welfare state regime that people’s social status should be maintained. Since UASYP in general are not accommodated in youth facilities and only have access

(22)

22 to basic health care, it suggests that UASYP are disadvantaged when entitlements are based on contribution and the traditional family works as a caregiver.

However, the situation is somewhat different for those who have access to extended youth welfare assistance, which they are only entitled to if that is considered necessary. In those cases, UASYP have the right to education through the Youth Welfare Office, that also may provide them housing and full health care coverage. This indicates that in conservative welfare state regimes where the Catholic idea of helping the most vulnerable is strong, those with special needs are getting social protection.

In Sweden, the empirical results neither confirm hypothesis 1a or 1b. The study shows that there is a conflict between the goal of equality and citizenship as a base of entitlement. Whilst thoughts of equality benefit UASYP, citizenship or residence as the base of entitlement strongly holds UASYP’s access to services and benefits back. Compared to Germany, UASYP have better access to education and they can graduate from upper secondary school if they started before the 18th birthday. However, the health care they are entitled to only cover basic needs. Thus, UASYP are not entitled to the same universal health care as the Swedish citizens. Moreover, UASYP do not have the right to stay at youth facilities. Whilst some continue to stay at accommodations for adolescents where they are provided care and support, others have to live in asylum centres for adults. This suggests that the idea of independence from the family not benefits UASYP as much as hypothesis 1a expected. Instead, the access to youth facilities and therefore also socio-educational support highly depends on whether the designed municipality continues to have the responsibility of the UASYP.

The results of the examination of the labour market are interesting because even if much has happened since Esping-Andersen published his book, the access to the labour market corresponds with the theory of the welfare state regimes. In Germany, with its history of inactive labour market policies, it is difficult for asylum seekers to enter the labour market since they have a waiting period of at least 3 months and some job centres may carry through a priority review. In contrast, asylum seekers in Sweden have the right to work as soon as they have filed an asylum application and after they have obtained an AT-UND. In addition, the Migration Office in Sweden urges asylum seekers to work. This suggests that the history of maximizing labour supply in the social democratic welfare state regime leads to asylum seekers, at least in theory, have access to the labour market. According to this, the welfare state regime continues to have an effect on the labour market. As Esping- Andersen argued, the idea behind the welfare state regime influences the whole system which not only leads to different outcomes in social policies but also in different relationships between the state and the labour market.

Furthermore, the findings show that UASYP hold few social rights in both the conservative welfare state regime and in the social democratic welfare state regime. The limited access to education in Germany is of great concern but also the fact that UASYP in Sweden only have the right to continue upper secondary school but not to start it. This, together with the exclusion of asylum seekers from the labour market, mostly in Germany, may have far going consequences both for the individual and the society as a whole. To graduate upper secondary school does not only give

(23)

23 access to higher education and increases the chances to be employed, the school itself it is also a natural meeting point in everyday life. The same applies to labour. In school or in the workplace people create bonds which is a good way for immigrants to connect with citizens and to learn about the country's culture and norms. Employment and education may have positive effects on people's self-esteem and individual development which in turn can increase the motivation to integrate. In addition, the limited access to health care, including psychological care, is another policy that makes it difficult to integrate. This group often suffers from mental disorders and to be able to integrate, well-being is crucial. By not giving UASYP access to the labour market, the right to education, nor health care with full coverage, UASYP do not have the tools to be integrated into society. UASYP is an important group with the potential to contribute to society but the existing social policies risk to make the alienation of this group permanent.

Even when UASYP have access to benefits and services in theory, there are several obstacles in practice. For example, vocational training in Germany could be very valuable for UASYP since they do not have the right to attend upper secondary school. However, the difficulties in practice often exclude them from this possibility. The same applies to the labour market and the educational system in Sweden. Even if the Migration Office urge asylum seekers to work, bureaucratic rigidity makes it difficult for asylum seekers to access the labour market in practice. In addition, when UASYP in Sweden have to move to another municipality it becomes an obstacle for them to continue upper secondary school. Hence, social rights do not always guarantee UASYP the access to benefits and services and it is, therefore, important not only study what social rights UASYP have in theory, but also how the access to benefits and services work in practice.

A surprising result in this thesis is the situation for UASC in Germany when they turn 16 years old.

For example, they have the right to take legal decisions when they are 16 years old. This is questionable since it is difficult for a child to have knowledge about what decisions that are in their best interest, especially in a country where they may not speak the language nor have knowledge about the rules and laws. In addition, unaccompanied children are in a critical situation and the decisions they take may have far-reaching consequences for their future since it includes taking the decision on whether to apply for asylum before the age of majority or not. Moreover, UASC at the age of 16 are often placed in accommodations for adults. To assert that 16 years old have other needs than adults is not controversial, especially those who have experienced trauma, loss and separation. Hence, it is highly surprising that they are treated as independent adults even before the age of majority and it could have clear negative effects on their well-being and integration process.

This paper suggests that welfare state regimes could have an effect on the social rights of UASYP, however, one could imagine that the welfare state regime is not the only explanation. For example, the support for anti-immigration parties has been rising in the latest years. Consequently, traditional parties are fighting to win back the voters which may lead to stricter asylum laws and less generous benefits for UASYP. In addition, theories of welfare nationalism may also be an explanation to the few rights that UASYP hold. The welfare state may be seen as something that only should benefit the ethnic citizens, those whose ancestors once built the welfare state. Countries may also have different views on the meaning of childhood and adulthood which could have effects on the

The welfare state and the social rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have reached the age of majority