Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Turnbull Government Planning Harsh Laws for Asylum SeekersAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 3168
- 3 Comments
Turnbull Government Planning Harsh Laws for Asylum Seekers
The gods must be crazy!
Coke bottles falling out of the sky!
The planets out of alignment!
An orange-haired lunatic being taken “seriously” as a candidate for president of the United States (don’t blame me, I voted already and not for him!!!!)
Sometimes it surely seems that the world has gone off the deep end, doesn’t it?
And late last week, the media was flooded with reports about the Turnbull Government’s intention to introduce amendments to the Migration Act that would have the effect of imposing a lifetime ban or exclusion on all adults detained at the Manus Island and Nauru Detention Centres after 19 July 2013.
News reports indicate that the ban would cover even genuine refugees, even people have chosen to return to their home countries, and even people who are later seeking to come to Australia only on visitor visas. No kind of visa ever.
Minister Peter Dutton is quoted in the news reports as stating that the new laws that will be proposed (next week) were: “partly designed to prevent refugee advocates from marrying asylum seekers and bringing them to Australia on a partner visa”.
One might pose to the Minister a question as to exactly how common that scenario really is. Exactly how common is it for refugee advocates to marry asylum seekers? How often are refugee advocates, or is anyone else, including the media, permitted to travel to Nauru and Manus Island anyways? And if the concern is that marriages between asylum seekers and refugee advocates are not “genuine”, isn’t the existing framework in the Migration Act adequate to address that concern?
What about someone like Mojgan Shamsalipoor. the young Iranian woman who fled to escape from abuse, met a young man whose family had also come to Australia as refugees and fell in love with him and married him? We posted an article about her story on this site a few months ago. Should they never be allowed to live together in Australia?
The news reports indicate that the former Greens spokesperson on immigration, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has raised questions as to whether the proposed ban is in breach of international law and the Refugees Convention.
Isn’t the Senator right about this? How can it be that if a person has a genuine claim for protection under the Convention that Australia can, consistent with its obligations as a signatory, ban the person for life?
Isn’t it really really really wrong to “demonise” refugees?
Maybe, just maybe, both sides of politics could come to accept that refugees can make wonderful contributions to society. One need look no farther than Albert Einstein, who sought refuge in the United States from persecution by the Nazis.
Or how about the hugely admirable Deng Thiak Adut, who was once a child soldier in the Sudan, taught himself to read, went to law school and is now acting as an advocate for refugees himself?
Do not retrograde legislative initiatives like this do even more harm to Australia’s international reputation and standing in the world community? Are not the offshore detention policies bad enough?
What do you think?
Note: This article is of course reflective of the personal views of the author and is posted as a vehicle for discussion by members of the migration advice profession. It is not intended as a statement of the views of the Migration Alliance.
Comments
-
Friday, 04 November 2016In my opinion it is because of the extreme views of people such as Senator Hanson-Young who constantly block any reasonable changes to the refugee program, that the Government takes such extreme measures.
The truth is that Australia has a generous refugee policy with the latest program providing 19,000 places per year.
The reality is that for any refugee program to be successful, it must have limits as it is simply not possible, or economically viable to have an open door policy (as the likes of Senator Hanson-Young propose), as this is not sustainable in the long term.
I don’t think that it is unreasonable for a country to administer a refugee program through legitimate channels, for legitimate refugees and to minimise or eliminate refugee’s entering through illegal channels, brokered by people smugglers.
What many don’t seem to realise is that every spot which is taken by an illegal boat arrival, is one less spot available to legitimate refugees who are waiting in refugee camps.
Reasonableness is required in this debate and progress will be slow while there is such a large political divide between opposing parties and while politicians sabotage the debate in a selfish effort to score political points or increase their public profile. -
Monday, 07 November 2016
In case there is any doubt about just how destructive this ill-conceived legislative proposal will be to Australia's international reputation, this editorial that appeared in the New York Times over the weekend should dispel those doubts. It appears under the headline: Australia Doubles Down on Cruel Refugee Policy:
"The government of Australia has come under withering criticism for its harsh anywhere-but-here approach to refugees and other migrants who attempt to reach the country by boat. But instead of revisiting a cruel and costly policy — which involves sending everyone intercepted at sea to offshore prisons — Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has decided to double down.
His administration intends to propose legislation this week that would bar anyone who seeks to enter Australia without authorization and by boat from ever setting foot in the country. That would ban, among others, the approximately 1,200 people currently being held in camps in Nauru and Papua New Guinea from finding a legal way to even visit Australia, where some have relatives.
Mr. Turnbull billed the lifetime ban as a stern message to smugglers. “They must know that the door to Australia is closed to those who seek to come here by boat with a people smuggler,” he said last Sunday during a news conference. “It’s closed.” But his initiative targets refugees who are scrambling to find a haven amid the largest displacement crisis since World War II.
Australian lawmakers should oppose this proposal. Draconian immigration measures are often passed without due consideration for the human toll and opportunity cost they represent.
The United States adopted a similarly austere policy when it passed a sweeping overhaul of immigration laws in 1996. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act said that anyone who lived without authorization in the United States for more than a year would have to wait 10 years before seeking to be admitted lawfully. This made it nearly impossible for American citizens to sponsor foreign-born spouses who were subject to the 10-year ban for permanent residency.
A blanket ban on migrants who attempted to reach Australia by boat would surely deprive Australia of talented people. Take, for instance the remarkable Afghan photojournalist Barat Ali Batoor, who was admitted lawfully to Australia in May 2013 — the year Australia began its zero-tolerance approach toward smugglers — after he documented a harrowing failed attempt to reach the island by boat in a series of haunting photos. How would the country benefit from barring skilled and energetic immigrants like Mr. Batoor?
Bill Shorten, the opposition leader in Parliament, reacted to the proposal with reasonable skepticism, saying it seemed “ridiculous to me that a genuine refugee who settles in the U.S. or Canada and becomes a U.S. or Canadian citizen” after being barred from Australia “is banned from visiting Australia as a tourist, businessman or businesswoman 40 years down the track.”
Beyond being ridiculous, this is a cruel, shortsighted and shameful position for a nation that has historically welcomed refugees."
Immigration blog
Hear hear Michael. This has gotten beyond the pale. When I read abt what a cold heartless country we have become it makes me weep.
I cannot imagine how someone like Peter Dutton sleeps at night knowing that he plays politics with people's lives purely to wedge Labor and suck up to the likes of Pauline Hanson.
Where are the statesmen like Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam in Australian politics these days? It seems that anyone with a modicum of decency gets shouted down ... a la Sarah Hanson Young ... it really does make me weep.