Pros And Cons For Refugees

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

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.

Imagine that you are in an airport trying to flee your country because there is a war going on, all of a sudden you get stopped by a security officer saying that the country you are trying to go to does not allow refugees, What would you do? The debate about refugees has been around since World War Two when Hitler was trying to torture or kill all the jews and other people he did not like. Here in America we did not let refugees into the U.S. during the war and a bunch of them were killed, however some did survive. Some people think that we should let them into the United States of America well, others say they should not be allowed to enter the U.S. In the year of 2016 there was around thirty-eight thousand refugees that were allowed into the United States. There were a bunch of other refugees that applied to come to the united states but got denied, because the U.S. did not choose them or they did not pass the test to become a refugee. The idea that refugees should not be allowed into the united states because they could bring disease, they could be a criminal or a terrorist, and they use up our land and resources deserves some merit. However These arguments do not realise that if we bring them into the United States we could save their lives, or give them better living conditions. In this article I will argue that we should allow refugees into the United States, but only under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are they should be allowed into the united

Despite being granted a visa to enter Australia as a refugee visa (visa subclass 200) refugees must then satisfy other numerous criteria even more challenging. An example of this is apart from meeting national security requirements and health screening the minister of Australian immigration considers applicants must have a "compelling reason for giving special consideration to granting the visa”. Their connection with Australia, the capacity of the Australian community and the degree of severity of persecution they are faced with

Imagine this. You’re rapidly fleeing your home country, sprinting as your life depended on it, which it did. The memories of the terrible war, still pounding in your head. The piercing roar of the gunshots. The gruesome red blood, glistening in the sunlight. You need to go, go to a free country, a land where everything is safe and sound, and not demolished like your home. You need to go, you need to leave Syria.

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).

I'm an ambassador for amnesty international, campaigning for refugees rights. Amnesty works to protect the safety of millions of refugees who are forced to flee their homes to escape war, genocide and torture. The main debate of this issue is of national security vs human rights. Every Australian has their stance on this and for those that oppose it, often believe that “we are letting in terrorists”. This generalisation, based off ill-legitimate fear, is anything but true. In fact, it is just racist. According to the the Australian Parliamentary Library, between 70-100% of people who arrived by boat have been found to be refugees. This means, these individuals have been forced to leave their

Have you ever imagined that you would be having the feeling that you should not be feeling all because of something that can easily be prevented, or a feeling where you need to prevent a problem well ever since 1948 we have been bringing in refugees because of their problems well because of it now american citizens including me may have the worry of not having the job you want or having to get even more vaccines or not even that getting a disease that you don’t even know of or even having your country under attack because of possible terrorist coming in the united states blending in with the refugees. That why I feel Refugees should not be allowed into the United States because of deadly diseases, possible terrorist, and they will take up housing and jobs for america.

On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries. This action is called “Travel Ban.” What does it do? It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days. There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, also faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension. The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama Priority will be given to religious

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.

Why should we let this continue to happen? The treatment of asylum seekers is appalling and our government is doing nothing about. Not willing to let people enter either way and try to persuade them to go back to their country and majority of them get killed. They do not even have the right to have a lawyer. People now are worried about their life and do not seek freedom and that’s placed at our hands

To support the claim the policies are effective, Humphries offers us reports that fewer boat people are coming, people smugglers are charging significantly less as they can no longer grantee a definite arrival. Humphries makes a frivolous remark that the policies are also more humane, but disregards the fact that they may die once they arrive back to their home country: “There is nothing humane about seeing people die at sea” The logic in this conclusion is therefore flawed as it doesn’t consider a possible conclusion for turning refugees back and if we assume that the author is an intelligent person this may suggest that he is deliberately being selective in the information he makes available to the reader. In support of his clim that passengers themselves are sabotaging their own vessels Humphries relies on alleged conversations with seemingly relevant authorities: “I have recently spoken confidently with members of Task Force 639” By making reference to Australia’s military which he later refers to highly competent, Humphries is attempting to convince us that the source of information is truthful and highly reliable, however at the end of the day it is still secondhand evidence which might be deemed inadequate and by sceptics unconvincing. Relying on the case of Tariq, Humphries attempts to give credibility to his contention that there is a right and wrong way for refugees to gain entry to Australia. Previous policies might not offer equal opportunities to equally deserving refugees and that at any rate Australia had an obligation to protect it boarders. The limitation of this evidence is that there’s no indication whether the case of Tariq is commonplace or an

67% of female and 24% of male adult refugees have never had a paid job. This tells us that refugees are commonly uneducated. Which would make it hard to live, find work or survive in Australia. As many refugees don’t have work experience or know the national language which could make it challenging for refugees to survive. Therefore the stop the boats policy is justified because not only do refugees struggle to find their own employment they also make it very hard for us to find jobs.

International law under the 1951 Refugee Convention, permits the right to seek asylum and allocates a responsibility to provide protection for those who lie under the definition of refugee. Since then policies have been modified and used to suit the interests of the government. In particular, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Act 1999. Authorised the removal of undocumented ships in Australian territory and proclaimed that anyone aboard the ship can be forcibly returned and denied application of asylum. Other legislation, such as the Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1999 makes it illegal for a person to carry people who are not citizens without valid documentation. These policies allow the government to portray itself as strong on border protection and terrorism. This plays well to its core constituencies but is rightly lambasted by human rights organisations and civil liberty groups. Refugees are undocumented people fleeing from their country of origin, so there isn’t a variety of travel options to escape to safety. The policy disclaiming that ‘everyone who lands by boat doesn’t get to stay’ is ignorant to the concept of why people are forced to leave. It’s not a choice to be removed from your country, it's a matter of survival and safety. The core principle of the Refugee convention is that people are not forced to return to a country where they face the threat of persecution or danger.

Citizens often thought those people would bring terrorists, unemployment and infrastructure stress. However, refugees will be able to make out importance in affecting the potential social, cultural and economic contributionsupon their area of resettlement. Australia has a long history of accepting refugees for resettlement and over 700 000 refugees. As a consequence, Australia’s offshore humanitarian programme is heralded as one of the best in the world. Accepting more refugees and boat people into the country is one of the greatest contributions that can make to improving the world around us and enhancing our own living standards. In addition, by having more people in country there are more people to cooperate with, more people to trade with and more people to grow the market. They help supply the economy through participating in the labour market and bring with them diversity, new work approaches and funds. As our wealth and economy grows there is more money for the finer things in life.