Asylum Seeker Language Analysis

The focal issue of this argument is when an Asylum Seeker arrives in Australia without a visa, they are required to stay in detention well beyond the period of time it should take to gather basic information about an asylum claim, health identity or security issues. This can lead to an asylum seeker often being detained for months and sometimes for years. Under the Migration Act (Cth.) 1958 there is no time limit on this detention and only very limited review by the courts is available. The ‘United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty’, rule 11 (b) (UNHCR) considers ‘detention as; confinement within a narrowly bounded or restricted location, where freedom of movement is substantially curtailed, and where the only opportunity

For many years refugees have been demonized by the country through the spread of fear and misconception. Furthermore, the disgusting treatment of refugees in the detention camps by the Australian Government has been roundly criticised by the international community.

As Australia accentuates their generosity and acceptance of those seeking refugee, long-established ideals of race and superiority from the past have a profound influence on the way migrants are treated and integrated into society. According to the article “The Refugee Crisis and Fear Populist Politics and Media Discourse,” author Peter Gale describes how fear for what is different has repeatedly lead to the persecution or forced adaption like the one which occurred in “contemporary

The detention of asylum seekers on offshore islands has becomes central to Australia’s border security program (Dickson, 2015). The offshore detention, processing and resettlement regime branded the ‘Pacific Solution’ was terminated in 2008; it was reconfigured and resurrected in 2013 (Larkin, 2017). Manus Island and Nauru were closed in 2008 by the Australian Labour government, bringing an end to the ‘Pacific Solution,’ the centres were once again used in 2012 to house asylum seekers by the same government that ended the practice years before (Dickson, 2015). The next year, in 2013, the Australian Coalition government made Australia’s asylum policy even sterner, with ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’, which placed all the control of asylum operations in the hands

The resettlement of refugees in Australia is a controversial topic; many people believe that they come here to commit crime, change our culture and steal our jobs. ‘The Happiest Refugee’ has enhanced my belief that refugees should be allowed to live in Australia. I believe that refugees are here to escape war and persecution; they are not criminals, nor do they want to change our culture or steal our jobs. Refugees are generally grateful for their new lives in Australia and they embrace our culture. ‘The Happiest Refugee’ is a source of evidence that supports this.

Another technique used in the documentary to challenge the viewers’ assumptions was the use of narration to present facts about the refugee situation. These facts and figures give the viewers a truthful and realistic picture of the situation. Some beliefs that exist in Australian society are that we are taking in too many refugees; they are criminals, they are taking over Australia, using Australian tax payers’ money and changing our culture. However, we are presented with facts and figures that change our assumptions. For example, more than 30 million people have fled their homes with nothing but the clothes they wear, boat smugglers charge up to and over $10, 000 US dollars, 13, 000 refugees are accepted annually only 2,000 of those refugees arrive by boat. Despite what many people think, like Raye who believed refugees in Australia are “handed everything on a gold platter,” life in detention centres is hard. In Villawood Detention Centre, over 9 months, three detainees committed suicide and 18 caused self-harm.

“My hope finished now. I don’t have any hope. I feel I will die in detention.”
Unaccompanied 17 year old, Phosphate Hill Detention Centre, Christmas Island, 4 March 2014. 
Few social justice issues in Australia have attracted as much attention and controversy in recent times as the issue of asylum seekers. An asylum-seeker ‘is an individual who has sought international protection and whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined’. In contrast, a refugee is an individual whose protection has been deemed necessary by the UNHCR or a State who is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. 
The issues surrounding asylum seeker has divide opinions and evoke strong emotional responses across the community. We are aware that asylum seekers are often vulnerable people, desperately fleeing civil unrest, warfare and persecution from across the world. We know that Australia is a destination of choice for many people seeking to embark on a new life in safety. And we know that there are people who will exploit the vulnerability of asylum seekers by offering them unsafe passage by sea to our shores. 
There were 584 children detained in immigration detention centres on mainland Australia and 305 children on Christmas Island. A further 179 children were detained on Nauru as at 31 March 2014.

Today 60 million refugees, and asylum seekers are internally displaced . This is almost double what it was 10 years ago. Mega conflicts in Syria and Iraq have displaced millions of people. These are conflicts that are pushing refugees and migrants into flight. The world is in the midst of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Yet Australia’s approach in recent years has been to punish people seeking asylum, while increasing the numbers of refugees it resettles. This contrasting approach threatens the long and proud history Australia has of successful integration of refugee communities. This report reflects what we have heard from refugees and people seeking asylum, and the people supporting them. We thank all of the people who contributed to this report. The past two years have been a dramatic and traumatic period for refugees, both at home and abroad. More people are seeking safety – from persecution, conflict, violence and violations of human rights – than at any time since World War II. In the past two years, we have seen lifeless children washing up on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. We have seen ordinary Europeans lining up to help refugees at train stations. We have seen Australians demanding successfully that their leaders let in an extra 12,000 people fleeing the crises in Syria and Iraq.

Political unrest and local war happens around the world all the time. Many people live in a dangerous situation and suffered from violence. Hence, large amount of asylum seeker undertakes a huge perilous, try to cross the ocean and arrive Australia. To deal with this issue, Australian government enacted mandatory detention policy and offshore processing policy, these policies become highly contentious in the community with many arguments and criticisms. This report will focus on the nature and purpose of these immigration policies and the impact towards the asylum seeker as well as the criticism form international. To propose some advice about how the future policies should be framed.

Unfortunately, the narrative concerning refugees and asylum seekers as presented in the media is an overall negative one. Most of the fear present in Australian society is aggravated by media coverage. When discussing the representation of refugees it is important to take into consideration the language that is used and often associated with refugees. In most discussions presented in the national news, refugees are represented as a threat to

In May 2004 the then immigration spokesperson, now Prime Minster Julia Gillard, said that ‘Labor will end the so – called Pacific Solution- the processing and detaining of Asylum seekers on Pacific islands- because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle’. Back then Labor party closed down the Nauru centre and processed all asylum seekers onshore and at Christmas Island. And now the Labor Party is implementing the pacific solution again and it is also known that unaccompanied children and minors are being sent offshore to process their papers. With the new legislation and new

Asylum seekers or refugees have fled their countries’ due to volatile circumstances such as war, or fear of prosecution. Upon arrival in Australia they are moved to detention centres. Detention centres hold people who have come without a visa, any non-national and all unauthorised boat arrivals (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014). These centres hold refugees for indefinite periods and in poor conditions. They are used as a spectacle to represent illegality and a threat to Australian society (Marfleet, 2007, p672).

The documentary, “Go Back to Where You Came From” plunges six Australians participants into the intense fear and desperate situations that forces them to confront their attitudes towards the refugee seeking experience. In such a powerful social experiment, using the “Survivor” and “Big Brother” modes of reality television, powerful emotions erupt. The documentary mixes “real life” with constructed situations to produce emotional breaking points around an audience’s attitudes, especially in the heartfelt interactions with refugee families thus privileging immigrants. An audience experience the “borderline” minds’ of the participants and the unstable world of refugees for themselves. They get caught up in the turbulent emotions and crises that are inflicted by the documentary through the clever use of evidence, rhetorical questions, inclusive language and sensationalism. The author rebuts the prevailing misrepresentation of immigrants as freeloaders by providing living testimonies of so called once, “boat people” now living in Australia who are not only grateful but are willing to relinquish all they have for Australia’s sake because of the act of benevolence Australia has showed to them and their families. This is evident in the following quotes of Andrew, “They came here to be more effective in the society…. Amar without a doubt is the kind of refugee we want” and in Amar’s quotes, “If they want to go fight, to protect Australia, I will go……Australia gives us a lot, so easy

Good morning delegates of the youth parliament and observing members. Today I stand before you to discuss an issue that continues to evoke high emotions and create deep divisions within Australian society. I refer to the matter of refugees and Australia's immigration policy. Not since the second world war has the world faced such an upheaval with so many people displaced. In 2015 there were 65.3 million people forcibly displaced from their homes because of conflict and persecution. Developing countries hold 84% of refugees while wealthier countries like Australia prioritise the need to reduce asylum seekers within their borders. The current policy contravenes the proper treatment of refugees and asylum seekers; because regardless of their mode of entry, once here Australia has a duty to provide protection.

Asylum seekers in Australia always been the focal point of negative political concern for a long time. To stop asylum seekers continue arriving in Australia by boat, Australia enforces the policy of obligatory detention of asylum seekers, unauthorised asylum seekers arriving by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea camp where operated by the Australian government (‘Asylum seekers: Australia’s shame’ 2017). However, this policy was reported as disgraceful because of the deficient living condition, indefinite and arbitrary of detention and lack of health care (United Nations 2017). Cohen (2011 p. 242) stated that moral panic could be more likely to develop in anything associated with 'immigration, migrants, multicultural absorption, refugees, border controls and asylum seekers’. Is Australia's response to asylum seekers an example of moral panic? By analysing the five criteria from the moral panic theory by looking at the Australian public reaction to asylum seekers with references support, it could be found that the reaction to asylum seekers in Australia is an example of moral panic.