The For International Refugee Law

For instance, they have to have a good background and they have to be watched in the United States to make sure they aren’t part of a terrorist attack. Also, some refugees are in serious danger from the country they are in now and really need a place like the United States to go to because of war and terrible events happening. Everyone in the country may not agree with what is going on and want to have the same culture as the United States. For example, Luma in Outcasts United didn’t believe in women being looked down in Jordan and as she visited the United States she decided she liked the culture and ended up staying here. There is two different sides in the government right now and they’re letting the refugees in but regulating them strictly, the other side is not letting them in at all.

The article, “Refugees: Who, Where, and Why” by Catherine Gevert is about different refugees in the world, where they are from and why they became refugees in the first place. The first concept the author talked about was, around the world, many refugees have had to flee, to escape to safety after being mistreated in their own country. Refugees are protected by law and given basic civil rights when going to different countries. Another key point she talks about is where these people are and in the article shows us that refugee camps are located throughout the world, but are not the best living conditions. Many refugees go here for asylum. Furthermore, some reasons people can become refugees are because of, war and “ethnic cleansing”, also known

The United Nations approach on the treatment of refugees is as follows. the Convention relating to the status of Refugees 1967 Protocol defines who a refugee is and explains what Rights countries should afford to refugees. A refugee is a person who is outside of their own country and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their; race, religion, nationality, membership of a group or political

8 CFR § 1208.13 (2) Establishing asylum eligibility (2) Well-founded fear of persecution. (i) An applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996 interprets the provisional details and definitions for immigration into the United States, but more specifically, U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part I, Section 1158, Asylum gives the authority to apply for asylum to “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States,”…”, irrespective of such alien’s status, to apply for asylum”…” (8 U.S.C.S. §1158(a)(1)).

Throughout the years, there have been articles about asylum seekers resorting to violence due to discontentment with the Australian government regarding the assessment of their refugee status. These are evident cries for help which sparks off debates on the government’s abilities to find a successful solution to the asylum issues. Australia has been criticized due to the requirements of compulsory immigration detention for ‘all unlawful non-citizens, (including asylum seekers)’ (Phillips & Spinks 2013, p.1). The other controversial issue of Australia regarding the asylum seekers is also the claims that it has been avoiding it’s responsibilities under the United Nations refugee conventions by making it hard for asylum seekers to claim

(Human Rights Law Centre, 2011). It is stated that immigration detention is not used to punish people, but instead it is administrative function whereby those people do not have a valid visa were detained and assessed and if proven to be legal they have a rights to stay and if not they will be immediately removed from the country. The concern is to reconcile what the requirements of the UN and those of the Migration Act.

The IRPA is a Federal legislation that outlines the current government’s position and approach to issues pertinent to the intake, protection, and settlement of immigrants and refugees. Considering the broad scope of this policy, my discussion will focus only on refugees. This paper will explore the influence of political ideology that lead to the recent IRPA policy changes following a Syrian toddler’s death in September, 2015, whose family was struggling to seek refuge in a safe country. I will analyse the congruence of the intent of the IRPA with its implementation, and whether the policy making approach is inclusive or not. Recommendations suggested in conclusion, will focus on improving the content and implementation of the Immigration and Refugee Policy, as well as making the policy making process more inclusive and

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.”

This policy was challenged by a resettlement group in Indiana that works with, among other people, Syrians. And a judge, a local judge in—a federal court judge in Indiana enjoined the policy, saying that this was unfair and discriminatory. And just recently, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—not

A refugee is a person who was forced to leave their country. Whether it be from warfare or natural disaster, their homes are no longer safe to live in, so they need to relocate elsewhere. Once someone sets foot on the journey of becoming a refugee, they become vulnerable and dependent with no sense of what the future will bring. In an attempt to accommodate them, first world countries with the resources necessary to assist these refugees, are struggling to determine whether or not they should step-in and help. Some argue that taking them in could come with excessive consequences, while others believe they could be assets. Although there may be a few consequences, they are outweighed by the benefits and undeniable severity of the situation.

The most commonly accepted definition of a ‘refugee’ is set out in the United Nations 1951

Article seventeen of the new protocol extends the reach of refoulement such that denial of entry to refugees aboard public or private transport, into a state by a state organ, will be considered an act of expulsion regardless of where the denial takes place.

The migration crisis has reached a level where Europe must take a stand and must present a viable plan, expressing the future goals the European government believes will help solves this crisis. The International Organization for Migration said, between January and November 2015 more than 750,000 migrants are predicted to arrive in Europe from across the Mediterranean. As a union, Europe is showing the world that they are not a cohesive organization prepared to face the future with respects to the mass migration. The policy concerning migration at the European Union level states that each nation has the right to their own migration policies, while adhering to the European migration institutions, which are not fully established. So far, many of the migrants coming to Europe are settling in Italy and Greece; many hope to be able to reach Germany as their final destination.

For many, the United States is more than nation of freedom. By September of 2016, 84,995 refugees had been admitted to country, the largest amount since 2002. All of which are fleeing persecution and harm from their country of origin. However, hundreds are denied entry to the U.S., not for suspicion of being a terrorist, or for criminal charges, but because a judge doesn’t deem a threat serious enough. Should the criteria for asylum be altered to allow immigrants who suffer from other forms of maltreatment to gain asylum?