The debate about asylum seekers in Australia is contentious and politically charged, but research commissioned by Amnesty International has found that anti-asylum seekers sentiments are not actually fuelled by racism.
Australia pride itself on its strong human rights record and its standing as a good global citizen. However deeper analysis and according to recent situation that how boat people are being treated shows that Australia has failed to fulfill with its international human rights obligations in a number of areas. This is making the things complicating and has tendency towards receptionist and relativist arguments as regard as these international obligations. Especially, much of the focus in Australia and the country’s
…show more content…
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
Upholding human rights is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable society. In 1966, Australia and a majority of the world’s nations signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the atrocities committed in World War II this seemed like a positive step for ensuring acknowledgement and respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. However, the means of enforcing human rights is not a straightforward process. In response to ratifying the ICCPR, Australia set up the Australian Human Rights Commission. However, after a number of failed attempts, it has not followed through with implementing a
The research draws attention to different newspaper commentators and evidence found by the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre that displays an overall negative and ill-informed opinions regarding asylum seekers. Further investigation revealed that many Australians, because of political jargon and journalistic hate-mongering, aren’t fully informed on asylum seekers, their human rights, and the expectation that Australian, as a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, will assist them when they have been forced to flee from
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
Different Australian government officials all have contrasting views towards asylum seekers. However, the Turnbull government is set to disobey the Australian people’s wants, and keep the asylum seekers away.
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.
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.
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.
“The thing to remember is that we are all the same inside,” said a young man he spoke to. This is a very important statement because it could actually be the key to preventing further racism. If all Australians could believe this way, we would live in a more peaceful society. Many would argue that Australia, with its large population of overseas born people is a non racist nation. We have suburbs in Sydney which delight all cultures and signify multiculturalism at its best. The Italian’s in Leichardt, Lebanese in Auburn/Bankstown, and Chinese in Cabramatta and Chinatown in the city. Governments and local councils might encourage festivals and awareness through entertainment and local media e.g. Chinese New Year festivals. This is a display which shows that Australian’s are indeed quite accepting of other races. Governing policies such as the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act (1975) aim to ensure that “everyone is treated equally, regardless of their race, colour, descent or nationality or ethnic origin”. According to the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship we are processing applications for asylum seekers from war torn countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The Asylum Seeker Assistance Program is a scheme that has been set up by the government to assist these people with income support, and advice as they wait to gain refugee status. This
Every year, thousands of people seek refuge in Australia after being forced to flee their homes. Under the UN 1951 Refugee convention, countries are obliged to protect refugees and basic human rights must be upheld. However, Australia is violating these laws. As of August 2013, a report by the Australian Human Rights
Human rights are the right that any individual is entitled under their government, and it can be provided in divergent forms. Thus in Australia, there are no set of ‘Bill of Rights’, comparable to many other western countries that share similar legal values and standards. The American ‘Bill of Rights’ states that the government ensures the freedom of speech and religion, protection from torture and punishment, and the fair procedures of law . There has always been a great debate on whether Australian government should acquire a constitutional Bill of Rights. I believe that it is not necessary to obtain a Bill of Rights as it is not necessary for Australian legal system, and further, it can bring confusion, greater debate and litigations. There are other forms of human rights law introduced into Australian legal system which sets boundaries for the government to respect individual rights. Consequently, it proves the unnecessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia.
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.
Asylum seekers have been escaping their hostile countries for decades now, but where are they fleeing to? Not to Australia. With the Australian government forcing asylum seekers to Thailand and other foreign countries, it is lessening the number we, as Australians, have to "deal with", at least that is the government’s plan. Many Australians believe that asylum seekers and refugees don't deserve to come here to Australia, however if those Australians were to be forced to flee Australia due to war, they would support them coming. The point being made is that asylum seekers deserve as much as any Australian. Australia is a free country, and we want the entire world to believe that, so why are we trying to relieve asylum seekers of the joy of
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.
Asylum seekers in Australia always been the focal point of negative political concern for a long time. To stop asylum seekers continue arriving in Australia by boat, Australia enforces the policy of obligatory detention of asylum seekers, unauthorised asylum seekers arriving by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea camp where operated by the Australian government (‘Asylum seekers: Australia’s shame’ 2017). However, this policy was reported as disgraceful because of the deficient living condition, indefinite and arbitrary of detention and lack of health care (United Nations 2017). Cohen (2011 p. 242) stated that moral panic could be more likely to develop in anything associated with 'immigration, migrants, multicultural absorption, refugees, border controls and asylum seekers’. Is Australia's response to asylum seekers an example of moral panic? By analysing the five criteria from the moral panic theory by looking at the Australian public reaction to asylum seekers with references support, it could be found that the reaction to asylum seekers in Australia is an example of moral panic.
Refugees coming into the country has been a problem for our country for a long time. The issue of refugees coming to America first surfaced during World War II, when millions of Europeans fled their homes for a better future. Since then, there has been a large amount of dispute over this issue. This became a much bigger problem after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and with concerns of future acts of terrorism in the country, this topic has become a big controversy. I believe that the United States should accept refugees under the following conditions, minors should come into the country with an adult, there should be a higher security in case of terrorists, and we should have more job opportunities aimed towards refugees so that they have a