Australia's Asylum Policy

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.

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.

In May 2013, the Government made some extension in policy to apply to asylum seekers who arrive by boat anywhere in Australia. Under this system, Asylum seekers who have arrived by boat must be transferred to the third country. Additionally, if these people transferred to third country then their claims of protection will be processed under this country’s law. Reciprocally, if asylum seekers who arrive by boat are allowed by the minister to remain in Australia, then their claims will be processes under Australian law. However, as of June 2013, Australian Government has not yet started processing any claims by asylum seekers, who arrived after 13 August, 2013. This was the step taken by former government maybe under the pressure of its own people who are Australians. As far as Australians are concerned, it is true that Australians are racist and they won’t people of other countries to come and live in their country. Racism can be seen in clubs and pubs where those Australian see other people with angrily and heatedly. Even though, Racism factor is present in Australia; but still it is a beautiful and safe country. Meanwhile, as far as the Australians views are concerned in regarding to asylum seekers who arrive on boats or any other way to

The term ‘illegal immigrants’ is a term used by the media to manipulate public opinion and thereby attempt to change or shape government policy. Asylum seekers are not terrorists wishing to corrupt the Australian way of life, but simply victims of western imperial aggression seeking safety in Australian

Australia has a legal obligation towards Asylum Seekers and Refugees as it is a signatory to the UN Human Rights and Refugee Conventions. Furthermore, Australia has a moral obligation based on its membership of the world community.

The piece written by Michael Gordon in The Age on October 19 2011, argues that ten years after the Australian federal election that sparked the asylum seeker controversy, asylum seekers are still being demonised and alienated by both of Australia’s major political parties. Gordon writes in an assertive, controlled and a somewhat concerned tone throughout the article with his target audience aimed at ‘The Age’ readers who have considerable knowledge and understanding of the ongoing debate. Current parliament members from both federal parties could also be his target audience as Gordon provides a solution to the crisis, in that the failure of the Malaysia

Australia in terms of immigration, has had a poor history of dealing with people travelling into the country, shown in the beginning of hand picking the majority of Australia 's population. However as the decades have rolled on, whether it be forced or by choice, Australia has become looser and more free in access and treatment within the country and importantly, less discriminatory. In order to see these improvements, the start must be shown, in which is generally summarised by the White Australia Policy.

“Nobody knew what was awaiting us in Australia.” This statement by an interviewed person by Jerzy Zubrzycki, named Lydia, suggests Australia was simply not well known in the DP camps of Europe. Thus Australian officials advertised Australia as a “…country of salvation and new beginnings, and an escape route from the wartime devastation and postwar Communist perils of Europe.” This subversion directly appeals to DPs, however with “new beginnings”, there were many differences between Australia and Europe that were often unexpected by migrants. Chub presents this stark contrast between reality and the highly publicised version of Australia, including “…the trees and birds [which] were different…even the frogs croaked differently to those in Ukraine…” These representations suggest Australia was a homeland that was also pastoral and nostalgic in a European sense. On the other hand, these representations suggest attention was more towards representing Australia as a desirable resettlement destination, rather than successfully integrating immigrants into the Australian community. The features of the Australian immigration policy, and other factors including distance made it an unattractive resettlement destination. For these reasons, Australian officials may have felt the need to ‘sell’ Australia.

Following Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s comments on the ‘danger’ of ‘uneducated and illiterate’ refugees and immigrants being accepted into Australia, debate resurfaced regarding the issue of asylum seekers and immigrants in general, and whether refugees deserved to be resettled in Australia. In an opinion piece for The Age newspaper, Kon Karapanagiotidis argues that Peter Dutton’s claims are false and that on the contrary, refugees and immigrants have much to contribute to Australian society. His arguments are fashioned in a heavily emotive tone, and overall the piece is compelling and compassionate while also heatedly opposing Dutton’s views.

Immigration has always been a controversial topic in Australian society; who the government should and should not let into the country. Over the years Australia’s immigration policy has evolved and changed with the changing of attitudes and beliefs in society. The current immigration policy for Australia is a lot less discriminatory than past policies like the “White Australia policy” and the “Populate or Perish policy”. After federation in 1901 the Australian government created the Immigration Restriction Act.

Devastated by war and violence, a mother listens to the desperate cries of her young one’s yearning for the feel of solid land underneath their feet. Imagine living in a world where you are forced to leave your country and seek refuge in another, all because of a war that you did not start, yet are forced to endure the consequences of. A world where mothers, daughters, fathers and sons have no choice other than to travel across a dangerous ocean where they are at risk of being raped by pirates or drowning in endless sea of blue, never to be seen again. This world is soon to arrive on Australia’s door step. This beautiful country that we call home prides itself on being a safe haven for asylum seekers.

Different Australian government officials all have contrasting views towards asylum seekers. However, the Turnbull government is set to disobey the Australian people’s wants, and keep the asylum seekers away.

By rejecting the decision of the UNHRC to allow Nystrom back into Australia, the Australian government upheld its power to make its own laws and adhere only to Australian legislation, including the Migration Act 1958, which sets out guidelines regarding the treatment of non – citizens within Australia. This is emphasised in another statement made by former Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, “All non-citizens who wish to enter or remain in Australia must satisfy the requirements of the Migration Act and Regulations, including the character test." (Chris Bowen, 2012). Thus, the upholding of Australia’s sovereignty is another positive as a result of the government’s

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.

Migration in a globalized society is no longer determine by the dichotomy of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. Many people who’re looking to migrate for a multitude of reasons and likewise governments throughout the world are looking to bring in people who add to the labour market and for ‘cultural exchange’ purposes. I interviewed my French neighbour Pierre. His decision to move Australia on a working holiday visa (417 visa) was a combination of a desire to explore the world, find employment and that Australia was a willing participant for his migration. Pierre has discovered cultural differences, namely an openly casually racist society and the realities of a labour based migration system. Pierre’s migration experience has similar characteristics