My Initial Reaction Of My Life

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

This hinders public access and understanding of their entitled rights by the public. The humanitarian laws on Asylum seekers need to be change with precision and care in order to suit the current situation and protect their rights as it is not respected; in order to uphold Australia’s image as an advanced and democratic nation in this issue. This will give the refugees the rights that they deserve and the “fair go” that embodies our

The first part of the essay will draw upon knowledge gained from different legislations in Wales related to the case study. it will also include ASPIRE social work process model to interpret and demonstrate an understanding of Khalid's circumstances as an unaccompanied asylum seeker.

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.

Sadly, that's the harsh reality for many asylum seekers, seeking refuge in Australia as they are arbitrarily detained. Good morning or afternoon. It has been a profound honour to be invited to address you about the eloquently breach of basic human rights asylum seeker face while being detained in our shores. Mandatory detention should be abolished as it causes indiscriminate health risk. Instead, the Australia government should allow asylum seekers to settle into the community. We should be viewing asylum seekers as a humanitarian issue instead of a political one.

The 2011 SBS program, Go Back to Where You Came From (O’Mahoney, I, 2011) portrays the journey of 6 Australian citizens as they try to balance their beliefs against that of the ‘Boat People’ that they meet. In the show we are introduced to 6 individuals, Raye Colbey, Adam Hartup, Darren Hassan, Raquel Moore, Glenny Ray and Roderick Schneider. The aforementioned individuals are then sent footsteps of Asylum Seekers. This broadcast raises many issues with today’s society that needs to be addressed. The issue of Racism, Asylum Seekers, the lack of respect for others religion and beliefs are all raised to the forefront of today’s society and need to be addressed.

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.

“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.

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.

Another important stakeholder in this issue is the children themselves. Almost all of the children present in detention centres are asylum seekers whom arrived in Australia by boat, and are classified as ‘unauthorised maritime arrivals’ (Humanrights.gov.au, 2015). These asylum seeker children all held the same responses to some degree. Their responses were all surrounded by the main aspect of ‘Wanting to be free and safe’.

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

In this task, it will include a description of a range of services and a brief description of the three sectors and how it links to my service provider. It will also include two examples of multi-agency workers and how they communicate with each other to ensure clients’ needs are met. Finally it will have an explanation of the difference between universal services and targeted services and how they relate to my service provider.

390 F.3d 110. The BIA found her testimony to be “vague regarding key elements of her asylum claim” and “scant and generalized.” Id at 118. The BIA made this finding, based on her testimony, that she was raped during her incarcerations, but provided no detail corroboration about the incidents.” Id at 118. The appellate court ruled that the BIA committed error of law and misapplied the law. Id at 120. The Court went on to say that, by focusing narrowly on only parts of the applicant’s record that supported its decision, by raising too high the bar for an asylum claimant seeking to prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, by unreasonably evaluating the record, and by excessively demanding corroborative evidence. Id at 120.

The next area of focus presented itself after asking certain questions in this area. Mr. and Mrs. Lake discuss the emotional stress brought on by moving from California to Arizona last year and leaving their 23 year old handicapped son Brad behind in California. Brad resides in a group home where he has lived for the past 10 years. He is very accustomed to his environment there; his needs are put first and it is best for him to stay there. To cope they contact his’ group home weekly to evaluate his needs and concerns the home may have. In addition, plans are made so Mrs. Lake can drive or fly to California to attend important meetings and appointments with her son Bradley. She describes the stress of being so far from her son very hard. She states she relies on her husband, Christian faith, and Brads’ care-takers to help her cope. Observations of this couple show a very solid support system provided

                                                           vi.      Have you been prevented from socializing with others in a manner related to your petition for asylum or withholding of removal? Describe this in full detail.