Asylum Seeker Rights

Every year, thousands of people seek refuge in Australia after being forced to flee their homes. Under the UN 1951 Refugee convention, countries are obliged to protect refugees and basic human rights must be upheld. However, Australia is violating these laws. As of August 2013, a report by the Australian Human Rights

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.

Has United States or Canada been more effective with implementing and abiding by refugee rules and laws? Before discussing and comparing which of these countries had been more successful, the historical context of refugees needs to be explored. Although refugees have existed throughout the course of history, the definitions of what a refuge is had shifted and evolved over time. The League of Nations in the 1920s defined refugees “by categories, specifically in relation to their country of origin.” Up until 1950s, the League of Nations, which later became the United Nations, “established and dismantled several international institutions devoted to refugees in Europe.” After World War II, creating and facilitating solutions for refugees were of high importance internationally. This is evident in the first session of United Nations General Assembly in 1946 when it adopted the principle that no refugee who had “expressed valid objections to returning to their countries [sic] of origin ... shall be compelled to return.”

Australia, among many places, has legal restrictions and conventions in reference to the captivity and treatment of asylum seekers. These are seen through the ‘1951 Refugee Convention’ and it’s 1967 protocol. Legal guidelines are also seen in significant human rights treaties.

the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty guidelines issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, including the Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum

Australia has signed the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its subsequent protocol is the key legal document that defines who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of nation states. The 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol are signed and ratified by the Australian government in 22 January 1954 and the 13 of December 1973. This means that Australian must follow and develop new policy’s to help refugees. The 1967 protocol removed geographical temporal restrictions from the convention.

Asylum seekers are usually forced to flee their homeland due to poverty, war, terrorism and general inequality where they live and it should be in the interest of everyone to better their lives instead of mainly focusing on the criminalisation of people smugglers and asylum seekers alike. Policies and detention centres are created to increase border protection methods and decrease the illegal arrival of refugees into Australia, with little to no consideration for the refugees themselves or where they’re coming from. Instead of focusing time, energy and money into jailing people smugglers and detaining people from Australia, politicians and everyone alike should focus time into equalising all of the people of the world. If Australia and other countries focused more time on the legal migration of refugees then there would be less people smuggling occurring and legitimate methods could be used to transport people away from terrorism, war and inequality. The detainment of refugees has proven to also be surrounded by much inequality. Australia’s solution to the ‘problem’ of asylum seekers has been to send them offshore, keeping them detained in a facility until better solutions can be devised. Previous Commission reports have noted the prison-like nature of refugee facilities developed by the Australian government in particular, the Christmas Island IDC and have proposed concern, stating that it should not even be used for accommodating asylum seekers. The Commission has reported “particular concerns about some security measures, including high wire fences, walkways enclosed in cage-like structures, CCTV surveillance, metal reinforced officer booths with Perspex security screens, and metal grills on bedroom windows” (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012). Even Australia’s solution to the problem is surrounded by

The issue of Asylum seekers has been considered as one of the controversial issues in Australia due to the implementation of the Federal governments’ harsh and stringent policy against boat refugees, who flee from their countries because of violence or persecution. It is stated that this hard line approach aims to curb the influx of illegal immigrants thereby making Australian Immigration System credible and strong (Anderson & Iggulden 2016). According to Refugee Convention 1954, Australia, a signatory under United Nation(UN) Refugee Agency, is regarded as one of the generous country in dealing with the protection and rights of refugees and has created a meritorious history of accepting asylum seekers from all over the world (Refugee

Asylum seekers have long been the victims of war, poverty, famine and natural disasters. The term ‘asylum seeker’ refers to human beings seeking refuge from hardship or persecution. However, this issue has been playing a significant part in Australia and is continually increasing every year. Throughout the time this issue has arose many government officials proceeded in complicating matter worse by desperately attempting to remove the asylum seekers that are wanting to seek asylum into our country via boat. Recently with this years election Malcom Turnball tells Australia that we are the second most generous participant when it comes to the United Nations resettlement landscape of accepting asylum seekers. In addition the community has been in an uproar over letting them stay in our

The rights of refugees are outlined in several international documents. But what is the point of having rights if we are not aware of what they are and where to find them. One of the most important documents is Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries. Among the rights of refugees are the right to legal advice and to interpretation, the right to be treated equally and protection against discrimination, the right to education and

One of the basic rights that is established is the right to international protection when people are fleeing from serious harm in their country. This right is provided through national asylum systems. It is made sure that no advantages are taken of these systems through common minimum standards and procedures for asylum throughout Europe. These determine the process one needs to go through in order to obtain asylum and the requirements that need to fulfilled in order to be granted asylum.

As soon as a person in a refugee situation and flees to an international border, he or she is a defined as a refugee. The person’s refugee status is confirmed when the claim they put forward is assessed, either by a national government or an international agency, such as the UNHCR, and he or she is found to meet the definition of a refugee.

It is fair to say that my rationale for selecting this area of research was of course my own interest and learning but in addition, that this may help to add greater depth of understanding, tolerance in an area that is often used to discredit and negatively label asylum seekers and refugees. It also appears from my preliminary searches that there is dearth of information on this subject.

For several years the rule of law has been one of the most observed constitutional principles in deciding immigration applications in the UK, mostly in defending the important status of human rights which is another core constitutional principle of the UK. However, the Home Office ministers have been concerned about court and tribunals rulings which have prevented them from deporting people. Section 19 of the IA 2014 raises some important constitutional questions about the respective roles’ court and legislators in relation to human-rights matters. It has modified the way in which courts and tribunals determine public interest questions arising from immigration cases. Lord Lang stated that, “we are concerned about the lack of a definition of what constitutes a ‘genuine obstacle’ to a failed asylum seeker leaving the UK...” That it will be difficult to argue convincingly that UK immigration law has satisfied the requirements that are central to the

In accordance with data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) there are approximately 59.5 million displaced people globally as a result of conflict, violence, environmental degradation and human rights violations. Of these, approximately 19.5 million are classified as an asylum seeker or refugee collectively. Refugees are people who are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion (Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees). Whereas an Asylum seeker is someone who claims refugee status, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated. By no means a new concept, mass population movement has been known to both create and exacerbate conflict between neighboring states and challenge the integrity of the host state (Adelphi Papers 1992). However, widely perceived as a threat to both the nation of origin and state of asylum’s stability, the continued increase in the number of refugee and asylum seeker population among displaced people, has led to a spike in state level injustice, such as segregation, and state role in the promotion of stereotypes, and stigmas against these people.