The Issue Of Asylum Seekers

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

Asylum Seeker policy has become key political battleground in recent times. This stems from the end of Australia’s ‘White Australia’ policy in the 1970s; a policy which saw restrictions placed on non-European migration for over 70 years (Crock & Berg, 2011). Following the conclusion of the Vietnam war, a myriad of boats arrived in Australia, carrying asylum seekers from south east Asia. This lead to a stark increase in public concern over the arrivals and consequently, the term ‘boat people’ was born and spread through the media and public/political discourses alike (Grewcock, 2009).

In the last few years the Australian society are debating whether asylum seekers should be given asylum in Australia. Asylum seekers are people who have fled their home to find refuge in another as a political refugee. Asylum seekers are not committing any crimes when arriving to Australia and they greatly contribute to the Australian society. How it is expensive to support asylum seeker’s welfare and some asylum seekers and some asylum seekers can cause overpopulation in Australia.

There is certainly room for improvement but much of the outcry around the closure of Manus Island represents Australians as inhumane and not doing our fair share. Australia has a humanitarian program intake of 13,750 refugees. In September 2015 it was increased by a further 12,000 in response to the conflict in Syria and Iraq. Australia resettles refugees referred by the United Nations who are most in need of resettlement. Since 2011, $258 million has been provided to deliver protection services, shelter, food and health support to vulnerable refugee

The religious and societal point of views differ quite a lot, which is why this contemporary issue is causing a lot of controversy. The religious approach is that Australia should give aid to asylum seekers and show hospitality as well as compassion. Whereas, most of Australians disregard asylum seekers and think that the government should stop giving them aid. Religious communities take on the gospel teachings and implement them into their views and how they practice it in society. While, societal views are based on selfish beliefs and the uncertainty that society has on asylum seekers. Societal views portray how asylum seekers are gaining more benefits than the general public, which is not true. Though, religious parishes put aside the asylum

Social justice issues can affect people in many different ways. It often depends on what the issue is. For example, if the issue is bullying, then people could get depressed or insecure and they could feel afraid to go to school and going out at all. However, if the issue is refugees or Asylum seekers then that could be quite different. Asylum seekers are people who are seeking international protection but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined. An asylum seeker must be outside of their country of origin in order to lodge an application for protection. The United Nations estimates there are 42.5 million people displaced by persecution and conflict around the world. These people become refugees, asylum seekers and internally

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, one of the countries which drafted the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has been criticized by its asylum seekers policies in recent years. This criticism comes from public medias and NGOs both inside and outside of the countries and exerts pressure for the Australian government and politicians. The discordant opinions toward Australia’s asylum seekers policies caused intense domestic as well as international relationship of Australia, and the medias play as an important inflammatory role during the recent process.

Asylum seekers are the world's number one problem and debate going on right now in most countries, Australia right now does not allow most asylum seekers in and turns them away bringing up one of the bigger questions in our time yet are asylum seekers people as well? Should we let them in? And do they pose a threat to Australia's economy? I think we should let them in

The asylum seeker “debate” is a contentious topic in Australian media. According to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is considered an inherent right for every individual worldwide, “to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” (United Nations, 2014). Article 14 is listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is accepted by many nations as the international standard of basic human rights and liberties. This report will assess the extent of Australia’s violation of these international standards, and consider their national approach to the treatment of refugees and individuals seeking asylum. It will provide evidence to expose the inconsistencies in Australia’s human rights commitments under international

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.

This film was shown to me by Sharleen Davids, whom as a Primary School teacher at Darlington Primary, it was made compulsory viewing. By means of assisting with teachers’ understanding of the circumstances of an asylum seeker. In essence, this film was beneficial; especially as a great proportion of the students at her primary school are refugees. Respectively, the film was produced by refugees advocate Jessie Taylor. Taylor travelled to Indonesia, where she met with asylum seekers. A collection of the stories she heard were shaped into a documentary named, ‘Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea’ (2006). The film makers involved created a stir with the ad line: 'The film that Tony and Julia don't want you to see’. (Peter Galvin, 2013) The

The importance of the subject lays on the fact that, today more than ever, the current humanitarian crisis caused by children and families fleeing the war zone in Syria worries the whole world. And lately, the Australia's policy towards asylum seekers arriving by boat has attracted the most attention. The former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said “Australia’s strong stance on asylum seekers, which includes a policy of turning back boats and offshore processing of refugee claimants, had stopped the people smuggling trade to Australia and opened up more places for those in genuine need” . Internationally, Australia has always been considered as a model in terms of immigration. Indeed, its broad immigration program, its discretionary offshore humanitarian resettlement program and the respect of its international legal obligations made mark in history. However, this ideology seems to belong to the past given the recent affairs. Asylum policies implemented by the Howard Government (1996-2007), and more recently the Coalition Government known as Operation Sovereign Borders, have tremendously reduced the flow of asylum seekers reaching Australia by boat. It is described as "inhumane, of dubious legality and

It prevents an asylum seeker applying for asylum in multiple member states and reduces the number of ‘’orbiting’’ asylum seekers.

As more migrants attempt to seek asylum in our country, more are detained in poor, unsanitary detention centres, some of them having worse conditions than the situation they were experiencing from where they originated from. The decision between allowing or stopping the boats is clouded between what is right for human beings and what is right for our country. If we allow the boats to arrive in our nation, our population may overflow, increasing unemployment and poverty due to lack of jobs however, if we stop the boats, asylum seekers will continue to live in poor conditions which is incredibly unjust. The nations surrounding Australia look upon our nation for help and guidance but if we don’t take in their refugees, what kind of a country are we? This is the hole we are trapped in.