Why do asylum seekers still take the high risks to come to Australia by boat or some illegal ways while they know the journey is dangerous and will possibly get them expatriated? I am writing to you with the concern about the rights of refugees and asylum seekers and how harshly Australian Government treated them. The documentary “Go Back to Where You Came From” Series 1 has presented a deeper insight of how desperate and harsh conditions of life are as a refugee by six ordinary Australian participants of varying ages and backgrounds, with strong opinions about the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. The issue of asylum seekers is an important issue of human rights. The main parties of the Australian Parliament are currently engaged in a heated debate on the issue of the refugees and asylum seekers. Should the Australian Government keep stopping the boats or start welcome and letting more asylum seekers into Australia? …show more content…
Asylum seekers in Europe arrived Australia in thousands of boats but nobody complained as long as they were White. Since many refugees are Black and Brown who are with different physical characteristics to most Australians, some Australians feel somewhat resentful that those “migrants” settled in their homeland. Australia as a developed and international country, the culture and economy have always been benefited from those immigrants that all over the world. The presence of people from different cultural backgrounds in Australia has greatly enriched the society. Immigration must be non-discriminatory and not based on nationality, religion, origin, gender, language, age, sexuality, disability or social
In 1850’s The White Australian Policy began to try and create anun-racial Australia. It was used against anyone who was non-European and those who were different colour races by refusing to allow them to enter the country. This policy succeeded and continued until the end of World War II. After WW2, Australia could no longer hold its position of isolation from the rest of the world. The war produced a refugee crisis that drove Central Europeans from a decimated Europe.
This caused a debate on the White Australia Policy. In 1980, 12915 Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, the fluctuation in number caused both government to improve financially, according to the Migration Heritage Website. In 1981, 43400 refugees arrived in Australia with most refugees using the resettlement programs,than by boat and the refugee intake was approxiamately 8000 a year for a decade,in the same year the last Vietnamese refugee boat arrived in Australia. In 1982, refugees accepted into Australia were nearly 60000 with most of them travelling by plane. In the late 1980s,it became more difficult to leave Vietnam and several countries limited on how many people are allowed to
‘The Tampa Decision: Examining the Australian Government’s prerogative power to detain and expel unlawful non-citizens in 2001’ The executive power of the Commonwealth has largely been neglected, both by the High Court and by commentators, receiving scant attention in comparison with the Commonwealth 's legislative and judicial powers. However, it was just fourteen years ago, in 2001, when a Norwegian cargo vessel MV Tampa being denied entry into Australia after rescuing 438 asylum seekers sparked one of the most controversial yet illuminating civil cases in Australian legal history. The result was a civil suit (Ruddock vs Vadarlis 2001) in which the Federal Government successfully appealed the initial ruling to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, where it was found that the government does indeed possess a prerogative power to prevent the entry of non-citizens into
This caused the White Australian Policy to be introduce and a Universal Migration Policy brought in by Gough Whitlam. Many immigrants took over Australian jobs causing there to be rise in unemployment, but there also was a strong economic growth. The Australian Government only approved of immigrants who are skilled or have professional expertise to entering Australia in the 1970s. In the 1970s and 80s Australia did not accept any European immigrants, but accepted refugees that were escaping from war torn Indo-Chinese countries. These countries included Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (Australian Government, The changing face of modern Australia- 1950s-1970s).
Throughout Australia's history, asylum seekers and refugees have had a significantly important and positive effect on the nation and its society. They both have had fundamentally important impacts on Australia. Refugees and asylum seekers have two distinct meanings, an asylum seeker is an individual who is seeking protection in another country but their claims have not yet been accepted and are in a review phase they will not be allowed in the country and are denied work rights. While a refugee is a person who has fled their country of origin due to many internal problems and is unable to return, their claims have been accepted by the country that they have sought asylum for and is been let in the country. Some of the important and crucial
There is an analogy of Australia either ‘turning the tap on or off’, which means either responding to or ignoring potential immigrant influxes. There were very powerful ‘pushes’ of migrants from Afghanistan, Africa and Iraq but they are very rarely answered, or ‘turned on’. The other side, however, involves small ‘pushes’ coming from advanced, predominantly white nations such as Scandinavia. These are met with large scale effort and funding to attract these potential immigrants, as they were apparently more prosperous and beneficial to the Australian society. Britain was always the large ‘reservoir’ from which Australia sourced its population.
The treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in Australia is unacceptable and with mandatory detention it makes matters even worse. The treatment that families and children go through is a monstrosity. All of the reasons that have been listed is why ‘If I could change one thing about Australia’ it would be changing the way refugees are treated here and making them feel safe in Australia by connecting them to the
Since 1992 and under the Migration Act, asylum seekers that arrive to Australia without a valid visa must be held in an immigration detention until they are granted a visa or removed from the (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016). Although this law is effective, it is obvious that this is not the best option for the country, and is not working as planned. If an asylum seeker arrives to Australia without a visa, or ‘unauthorised’, they must be held in mandatory detention whilst their refugee claims are decided, (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2005) along with their health, identity and security check to be completed. These processes can be lengthy and difficult, meaning that the asylum seeker or refugee may be held in detention for much longer than needed.
Introduction Australia is said to be a multicultural and multiracial country. So why can’t we, as a country and as a nation, say yes to immigrants fleeing from a different country? As immigration to Australia is supposably apart of our history and it would be wrong not to continue on with the actions of our ancestors. Paragraph 1 As of 2014 – 2015, Australia accepted 13,750 refugees in total. Paragraph 2 • What are refugees and asylum seekers?
Australia has been labelled as the country of mateship, fair-go and tolerance, but the mistreatment of Asylum seekers in Australia denies these values. In our anthem we sing “For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”. It ironic isn’t it? As when Asylum seekers arrive in Australia we do not offer a hand of mateship instead we use punitive matters such as sending them to mandatory detention, which shows how xenophobia is manifested in Australia (Ariyawansa,
In Australia, refugees and asylum seekers are treated like the enemy in a war: the target of a highly resourced, military-led “deterrence” strategy complete with arbitrary detainment, detention camps, guards to terrorise them, forced deportations and the violent suppression of those who protest. Australia is failing to meet the standards required when regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. It is fact that asylum seekers make up less than 3% of Australia’s annual immigration yet the idea is being distorted to that of which they will overpopulate a country that prides itself on being a multicultural society. I want to shed light on the misconception that asylum seekers are not ‘legal’ when in actual fact it is a human right to seek freedom.
Prior to World War II (WWII), immigration processes were very selective. However, the aftermath of WWII left the Australian economy weak resulting in the immigration processes adapting to allow for a more immigration-accepting economy. Strategies such as guaranteeing employment, housing and education were applied to influence the international migration population. These strategies impacted the past Australian economy by influencing immigrants to come to a low populated Australia.
Disputes about the Refugee influxes include racial discrimination, displacement of people, homelessness, overpopulation and many more however along with these come positive effects that migrants have on a nation, such as enhancing our vibrant multicultural population, introducing skills and capital introduced into Australia, new businesses developed by refugees, refugees contributions to technology and increased access to and knowledge of international business
Research has showed that the most substantial concern in the UK today is immigration, with the number of asylum applications substantially increasing over the past two decades. There is a big misunderstanding when it comes to asylum seekers and people have many misconceptions (predominantly fuelled by media platforms) about why people are applying for asylum in the UK and whether it is really ‘chance or choice’. Whilst there has been an increased awareness and support for asylum seekers, this essay critically analyses each government since 1996 and their contributions/aid, or lack thereof, to those seeking asylum. There is a belief that asylum policy since 1996 has seen more continuity than change. Looking at government policies since 1996,
This is how it got to the demolishment of the system of asylum policy, it also showed many weak points in the Dublin regulation. and in such cases it is often seen that the fundamental human rights are the ones being ravaged the most and in no way is it an exemption in our case. as we see in the first article of the declaration of the human rights: All persons are born free and have the same dignity and equal rights. They are gifted with intellect and a conscience and all should act with one another as