Australia has had a long history of receiving individuals and groups who are seeking asylum as well as unfortunately a long history of turning those away who are perceived as different. (McKay,Thomas & Blood 2011).Even though the white Australia policy was abandoned decades ago it still lives on as a strong resonance in the conservative right of politics (Westoby & Ingamells, 2010). Community fear about Australia’s border seem easily triggered, which has prompted the term ‘paranoid nationalism’ to be used to describe the heightened refugee politics of the Howard years linked to discrimination and maltreatment of asylum seekers which still lives on today (Westoby & Ingamells, 2010). This paper will use the term asylum seeker to identify those who have arrived at Australian shores seeking refuge without a valid visa. I aim to consider throughout this paper this history of how asylum seekers have been constructed as the ‘other’ and to examine the role of public discourse and political, legal and media responses, such as the implementation of detention centres, as creating and reinforcing the position of asylum seekers as different and not belonging. It will be therefore argued that while we have come a long way from the treatment the Howard government gave asylum seekers, we have not come far enough. Two key areas being the use of ‘othering’ and the implementation of detention centres need to be challenged if we are to take the responsibility of providing refuge for asylum seekers seriously.
Historical Context
There have been three main waves of asylum seekers in Australia’s history with the first wave being motivated by the Indochinese crisis and the second comprising of asylum seekers mainly from South China and Cambodia (McK...
... middle of paper ...
...W. (2011), ‘Any one of these boat people could be a terrorist for all we know!’ Media representations and public perceptions of ‘boat people’ arrivals in Australia’, Journalism, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 607-626.
Phillips, J. (2011), ‘Asylum seekers and refugees: What are the facts?’, Background note, Parliamentry library, Canberra.
Pickering, S. (2001), ‘Common sense and original deviancy: News discourses and asylum seekers in Australia’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 169-186.
UNHCR (2010), ‘Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries 2009: Statistical Overview of Asylum Applications Lodged in Europe and Selected Non-European Countries’, Geneva, UNHCR.
Westoby, P., & Ingamells, A. (2010), ‘A critically informed perspective of working with resettling refugee groups in Australia’, British journal of social work, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1759-1776.
I, along with many other people believe that as a human we deserve Human Rights, regardless of who we are of what our background is, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe in. However this is not the case. In Australia we are believed to be a multicultural community and a diverse society. Nevertheless the way Asylum Seeker and Refugees are being treated is
Historically, Canada has held a world renowned reputation as nation with a magnanimous ideological approach to providing asylum to those individuals subjected to marginalization and persecution in their homeland – regardless of their nation of origin (Ismaili, 2011, p.89 & 92). Indeed, providing sanctuary to refugees who would otherwise experience significant hardships ranging from blatant discrimination and racism to torture and genocide, has very much become an institutionalized aspect of Canadian society. However, recent changes to Canada’s immigration policy delineated in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Bill C-31 may have perhaps put this ideology in peril (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001).
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
In Adelman’s Canadian Borders and Immigration Post 9/11 and Hugo’s Australia Immigration Policy: The Significance of the Events of September 11, both authors explore the effects of 9/11 on the Canadian immigration and refugee policy and on the Australian asylum seeker policy respectively. To arrive at their findings, both authors use media coverage, public opinion, and examination of post 9/11 impacts on the policies of both states. Additionally, Adelman uses new legislations that Canada adopted after the attacks while Hugo uses the justification of the Australian government for their change in policy. Attempting to reason states’ actual purpose for introducing controversial immigration policies is problematic. Adelman and Hugo’s method of analysis and hurried conclusions show that the dilemma that arises in explaining immigration trends, including policies.
The term government policy is any cause of action implemented by the government to change a certain situation and to tackle a wide range of issues in all areaslikefinance,education,statewelfare,immigrationlaw(https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/government-policy).For the purpose of this essay, I will be talking more about government policies in relation to refugees and asylum seekers and its implication for social work.
They have been found to have detrimental psychological effects, as they leave refugees in a state of limbo, fearing their imminent forced return, where they are unable to integrate into society. This emotional distress is often compounded by the fact that refugees on TPVs in Australia are not able to apply for family reunification nor are they able to leave the country. Family reunification is a well-established right in Sweden, as well as most western countries. Moreover, it is a human right protected under the ICCPR whereby refugees have the right to family (Article 23) and the right to freedom from arbitrary interference with family life (Article 17). As a result of living in a state of uncertainty and heartache caused by family separation, refugees on TPVs face a “700 percent increased risk of developing depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in comparison with PPV (permanent protection visa) refugees (Mansouri et al. 2009, pp. 145). Denial of family reunification under TPVs is likely to cause more asylum seekers to engage in illegal means to arrive in
Bhabha, J., & Young, W. (1998) Through A Child's Eyes: Protecting the Most Vulnerable Asylum Seekers. Interpreter Releases 75 (21), pp. 757-791.
Within Australia, beginning from approximately the time of European settlement to late 1969, the Aboriginal population of Australia experienced the detrimental effects of the stolen generation. A majority of the abducted children were ’half-castes’, in which they had one white parent and the other of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Following the government policies, the European police and government continued the assimilation of Aboriginal children into ‘white’ society. Oblivious to the destruction and devastation they were causing, the British had believed that they were doing this for “their [Aborigines] own good”, that they were “protecting” them as their families and culture were deemed unfit to raise them. These beliefs caused ...
Many people in the UK coupled with media stories, tend to portray asylum seekers as bogus individuals who are here purely for economic gains (Teater 2014). This has led organisations such as Refugee councils and Refugee Action
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.
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 ...
Reflection (Choose a quote or series of quotes and respond. Locate your reflection in evidence and LANGUAGE not in feelings)
When lines of identity inevitably blend, relative jurisprudence must be exercised. Lines make excluding circles and methods of excluding people from asylum; our international community divides into unwelcome and welcome nations. As discourse, cultural identity means translating beliefs and feelings from one culture to another. In the process of translation, a screen of cultural values filters understanding of the values and experience of the “other.” The simple word “refugee” evokes images and stories particular to a collectively defined identity, invoking “an image of the radicalized other” (Daniel 272).
In Australia, politicians condemn refugees, as they perceive them as a threat to society’s values.
This book draws on New Zealand’s unique approach to refugees in helping victims of war and conflicts by offering them a chance to start a new life. The author has extensively discussed the concern of refugees who are obliged to leave their homeland, escape war and persecution because of cultural or religion beliefs. In relation to social transformat...