Compare and contrast Australia’s policy refugees and asylum seekers with that of two other countries. A refugee is a person that is fleeing their country because they have suffered or fear persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion, or they are fleeing war. An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their country but has not yet been accepted as a refugee. These people flee to different countries and they all have different policies against them. Australia’s policy may differ from other countries but sometimes they may be alike. Australia’s current policy regarding refugees and asylum seekers is that, Australia believes that if a person is going to be persecuted in their country, they may seek asylum in Australia. …show more content…
Article 5 states that, ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ This article has been violated in detention centres Australia send the asylum seekers to. Asylum seekers receive degrading treatment and are treated as lesser and children are not allowed an education. Another violation is Article 25 which says that, ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’ This article has been completely violated by locking the asylum seekers up on an abandoned island with little to no basic care and the violence and unrest cause people to feel unsafe. However Australia has upheld some human rights against refugees. Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker policy are perceived by different groups differently. Some individuals state that the treatment of the asylum seekers in detention centres are inhuman and are a violation to the human rights. Some organisations have worked towards making them better and trying to change the way Australia has been treating refugees. Sweden’s policy regarding refugees and asylum seekers is that in 2013, Sweden granted automatic housing to Syrian refugees who were fleeing the war. Sweden offers permanency to refugees, to encourage the refugees to work and learn the language. Sweden wants the refugees to be included in society and not secluded from the rest of the country. When refugees arrive in Sweden they are appointed a lawyer and registered and two or three weeks later they will schedule an interview with the refugee and officials will make a decision within three
The Majority of refugees or asylum seekers come by plane, on a working visa or illegally. They face problems coming to Australia such as anxiety attacks, panic attacks, dissociation or numbing, sleeping problems, irritability and emotional distress. These are just some of the illnesses or problems that can occur on the boat and plane trip here. These mainly occur when the asylum seekers or refugees think about the issues or problems that they will face when coming across the border or is they get sent back o...
Australian people should be opening arms to the Face of Mercy and to the Refugees that are
An extraordinary 65.3 million Refugees have been displaced around the world. In 2015 Australia took 12,000 of them. But where are Australians placing these Refugees? Australia is deporting these Refugees to a third country, either on Manus or Nauru Island. These Islands have reports of inhumane and cruel treatment towards Refugees For those who aren’t fully aware of what Refugees are; they are people whom come to Australia illegally without the appropriate visas. They cannot obtain these visas because of the reasons they are fleeing their country … their Government. None the less it should be the Australian Government they fear. The concepts of refugees are kept hidden away from us by our own Government in reflection of their Governments own self-interest. This tragedy is classified as a modern day witch hunt.
In doing so, we are also blocking out people who have the potential to bring even more cultural diversity into the community. If we honestly believe that we are a generous and multicultural nation, it’s time we show it by empathising with our fellow human beings. In order to improve the conditions in detention centres there must be a change to our unnecessarily harsh system. We need rules to be enforced, such as; a maximum 30 day time limit, and the people that are detained must be let out within this time frame. Within this time, health, character and identity checks must be completed. Shutting down isolating and remote detention centres. Speeding up the processing system. Asylum seekers must be given the opportunity to communicate with the outside world and have full access to legal advice and counselling. This means that telephones, internet and external activities need to be an option. Unaccompanied minors also need to be a priority. It is time that Australia treats our neighbours with all the dignity and respect that they finally
Though Australia is perceived as a democratic country whose government is open to public scrutiny, this belief is erroneous. The Australian Government’s apathy towards asylum seekers is neglectful of the fundamental human right to liberty and a sense of safety. Australia will need to overturn these inhumane laws to move forward as a country. If you believe Australia is a country of equality and acceptance then you are deluding yourself.
After the Vietnamese ’boat people’ started arriving in Australia, the Australian attitude towards refugees and asylum seekers has been very effective at integrating them.
Although, asylum seekers and refugees are given a few options if they feel as though their rights are being breached, like they can apply to tribunals and courts to view their visa related decisions, they can also make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission about their human rights being breached in immigration detention centres, yet they do not have control over who enters the country, the government is not obliged to comply with the recommendations that are made. Although the government had made few attempts to comply with the human right obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees by introducing new policies and prioritising the safety of the children in these detention camps, there are currently still many breaches towards their rights that the government continues to adapt, therefore they are still constituting a breach of international law
According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugee is a term applied to anyone who is outside his/her own country and cannot return due to the fear of being persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a group or political opinion. Many “refugees” that the media and the general public refer to today are known as internally displaced persons, which are people forced to flee their homes to avoid things such as armed conflict, generalized violations of human rights or natural and non-natural disasters. These two groups are distinctly different but fall ...
As a signatory to the UN 1951 refugee convention, we have already agreed, not to return asylum seekers or to detain them indefinitely. In 2001, the Tampa incident brought disrepute to us as we failed to take the right action. Another wave of backlash irrupted when Indonesian fishing vessel codenamed SEIV X sank in northern waters. The UN is highly critical on the practice of mandatory detention over long periods. As a law abiding nation, we need to keep our citizens well informed of our obligations under UN convention so that we can collectively meet our obligations in true spirit. Once Australians realise that we are providing over 200,000 migrant visas annually and the asylum seekers would occupy less than 2% of it and irrespective of the fears mongered by politicians, almost 93% of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the have been recognized as “genuine” refugees by Australian authorities and the popular “country shoppers” or “economic migrant” stories do not represent the reality, it is not difficult to develop a national consensus on this ongoing, unavoidable issue in an overpopulated world with a massive imbalance in resource
Controversy has surrounded Australia’s boat arrivals since 2001, when the Howard government took office. Howard instituted Operation Relex, a policy directing the Royal Australian Navy to intercept and board suspected illegal entry vessels, or SIEV’s (Turning Back Boats). Initially widely accepted, this policy was designed to discourage people from arriving illegally by boat. However, turning back small, overcrowded boats, and returning them just inside Indonesian waters, quickly became a safety issue (Turning Back Boats). According to the “Senate Select Committee’s Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident,” of the 12 boats intercepted from September 2002 to March 2003, four were turned back and three sank, killing two people (Turning Back Boats). Although Australia has a right to protect its borders from illegal aliens, over 90% of these asylum-seekers qualify as refugees (Turning Back Boats). Such a low success rate is reason enough to end the hazardous practice, but even more concerning are the detention centers where the remaining 10% are held. In 2001, the Howard government passed the Pacific Solution, authorizing the transport of asylum-seekers to island nations and offshore detention centers (Turning Back Boats). Since then, countless human rights violations have occurred at the Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru detention centers (Murray). The asylum-seekers, some children, are often detained in poor conditions for indefinite periods of time, subjected to enhanced screenings, and refused legal representation or the right to appeal (Australia). After Howard left office in 2006 the refugee policies stopped, and the Australian government worked to heal the damage done to the islanders and its international reputation (Turning Back Boats). However, under PM Tony Abbott, the asylum seeker policies returned in 2014 through Operation Sovereign
One of Australia’s biggest moral wrongdoings that has been continued to be overlooked is the providing of safety for refugees. Under the article 14, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. It is not in anyway, shape or form illegal to seek asylum from maltreatment. Australia is obliged under international law to: offer protection, give support, ensure that any individual is not sent back unwillingly to the country of their origin. A report made by
The Australian government has continuously been under the spotlight when it comes to the management of those who are fleeing their countries in search of opportunities and asylum. Regardless of how, when or where they arrive Australia is required under international law to ensure the human rights of those seeking asylum are protected, even if they arrive without a visa. Though if the refugees do arrive without a visa, those persons will be processed in detention camps under the ‘mandatory detention system’ which is in place to discourage unauthorised arrivals. Earlier this year the Chinese government openly expressed their concerns and criticized Australia’s asylum seeker policies in regards to the treatment of asylum seekers, especially children,
The conditions of Australia’s immigration detention policies have also been cause for concern for probable contraventions of Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR. Whilst in Sweden, asylum seekers are afforded free housing whilst their applications are being processed, Australia’s methods are much more callous. Under the Pacific Solution, maritime asylum seekers are sent to impoverished tropical islands with no monitoring by human rights organisations allowed (Hyndman and Mountz, 2008). The UNHCR criticised Australia’s offshore processing centres stating that “significant overcrowding, cramped living quarters, unhygienic conditions, little privacy and harsh tropical climate contribute to the poor conditions of… Nauru and Papua New Guinea” (Morales
The Australian government later on became in breach of international law as we were going against the UNDHR (that we are a signatory to) pertaining to the illegal detention of refugees. According to the UN high commissioner “The 1951 Convention specifically bars countries from punishing people who have arrived directly from a country of persecution (or from another country where protection could not be assured), provided that they present themselves speedily to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry. Monitoring (through reporting obligations or guarantor requirements) is often a perfectly viable alternative to imprisoning asylum-seekers”. Detention is only acceptable if it is brief, absolutely necessary, and instituted after other options have been implemented. With what the Australian government is currently doing with keeping refugees in detention we are as a result in breach of this. Last year (2016) between the months of July and November the average asylum seeker had been in detention for 500 days. Due to this we are in breech of the convention. Being in breach of this presents an enormous problem that faces Australian politics and may lead top prosecution at an international level. It was clear to see that both parties advocated for an offshore processing facility this is evident with the September 2001 introduction of the
On the other hand, refugees who came in 1970s found discrimination from Australian. They also had to follow government’s policy that asked for unskilled immigrants to return to their country.