Commentary On The Article 'Turn Back To Policy Success'

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.

The Coalition government declared that there was a ‘national emergency’ on Australia’s borders, in turn demanding a direct response to this ‘issue’ through a disciplined, focused and targeted military operation (Dickson, 2015). Thus, ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ emerged with its primary objective being ‘to stop the boats’ (Dickson. 2015). This new policy involved the military interception of ‘unauthorized maritime arrivals,’ thus sending the individuals found on the boats directly to Manus Island and Nauru (Fraenkel, 2016). From the inauguration of this revamped policy, no matter where an asylum seeker arrived from by boat, they were subject to transfer to either Manus Island or Nauru (Grewcock, 2014). The purpose of this policy was to ensure the removal of all boat arrivals attempting to breach Australia and in turn any possibility of resettlement for the asylum seekers in the nation (Grewcock, 2014). Thus, those accepted as genuine refugees would be permanently resettled in either Papua New Guinea, or Nauru, although the government of Nauru held that it would not be granting refugees

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.

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 immigration minister at the time viewed the actions of the refugees as a strategy to ensure entry to Australia. Despite being advised that there was no evidence that children had been thrown overboard many government officials and the media continued to spread this misinformation. The media's representation of asylum seekers and its power the influence the public’s opinion can become a tool for the systematic oppression of immigrants.

Innes (2010) argues that the negative discourse of asylum seekers as a threat to British society is portrayed in government literature

Gordon concludes and summarises his article by demonstrating how the government continues to commit to using mandatory detention and third-country processing to deal with the asylum seeker crisis. His tone during the later stages of the piece is informative, attacking and optimistic about changing how asylum seekers should be dealt with. Gordon offers a solution, that the Australian government can use the failure of the Malaysia deal to change its ideologies and “take a different path”. He asserts that even after ten years of consistent trouble with arriving boats and asylum seekers, the Australian government, both Liberal and Labor are missing the quality that has been ignored over the duration of the entire period, compassion. Their focus of policy is the illegal processing of people smuggling and the means of reaching Australia and Gordon demonstrates

The establishment by the Australian Government of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and similarly in Nauru was a direct action to prevent this. By making it clear internationally that anyone arriving without a visa in Australia by boat would have no chance of being settled in Australia it removed the financial incentive for people smugglers. It ensured that people smugglers had no product to sell. It was aimed at preventing people embarking on a trip across dangerous seas with the high risk of death. The success of this approach cannot be denied. In 2007-2008, while the Howard Government’s Pacific Solution was in place, only 25 asylum seekers travelled by boat to Australia. In 2010, when the policy changed and asylum seekers were transferred to Australia, 5000 people travelled by boat to Australia to seek asylum – a 19900%

Over the past couple years, the refugee crisis has gotten worse, but is this something Australia should be a part of? It might be hard but is it worth it in the end? Should Australia have a part in this and if whether the anti-immigration laws should be prohibited? In this speech, I will be discussing a range of diverse opinions and reasons on this subject. What I will be addressing will be the current problems of migration, Australia’s laws of migration

Australia has arguably the most restrictive immigration control in the world and has very tough policies in place for asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Under Australia 's system of mandatory detention, all non-citizens who are in Australia without a valid visa must be detained, including children. In 2012, offshore processing of asylum seekers commenced and detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island (Papua New Guinea) were established. This new system enforced policies that transferred asylum seekers who arrive by boat without a valid visa to a third country. Once the processing of asylum seekers was completed, those found to be genuine refugees will be resettled in Papua New Guinea or Cambodia, not Australia. The Abbott Government stated that no immigrant who arrives in Australia by boat will be grated a visa, no matter the legitimacy of their claim. In April 2016, the Manus Island detention centre was closed after the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea found it to be illegal. Current immigration Peter Dutton has made it clear that asylum seekers on Manus Island are the responsibility of Papua New Guinea and would not come to Australia. As well as the hundreds of immigrants in offshore detention centres, there are hundreds more in community detention in Australia. There are currently over 26,800 visa applications from those who are awaiting the outcome of their refugee application whilst living on a bridging visa in Australia.

In responding to the Vietnamese refugee crisis, the Australian government was resistant, ambivalent and at times pragmatic. The story, reinforced by the media, that Vietnamese refugees were welcomed with open arms is an enticing narrative, tempting us to believe that this country has demonstrated a willingness to treat asylum seekers humanely and with compassion. However, the reality is that Australia has rarely had a humane refugee policy. By the end of 1977, 2½ years

According to a surveyed that was taken last December 60 % said the government should increase that number of detention centre. This show the Australian society has a negative image of asylum seekers with same describing them as queue jumpers. Many Australian have fear of asylum seekers people there have different culture value and traditional. Most the asylum seekers are from Asia and Middle East so they are ethnically different to the white majority and the prejudice toward asylum seekers could be racially motivated. The Australian public have important because they have to decide if they support or disagree with the policy that the government introduce about asylum

One of the key areas beneficial to the role of a United Nations Representative in relations to refugees in detention is to understand Australia’s current stance on children in mandatory detention, and how Australian law is inconsistent with their international obligations. The Australian Government has continually justified the detention of asylum seekers and refugees as necessary in deterring future asylum seekers and refugees from attempting to entering Australia by boat. This justification, however, has been consistently challenged by literature that argues children are not a proven deterrent for future asylum seekers and there is no evidence to support this claim, therefore, there is no legitimate reason for children to be detained in mandatory