Australia's immigration policies - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: AUSTRALIA’S IMMIGRATION POLICIES Australia’s Immigration Policies School Australia’s Immigration Policies Introduction Australia is generally a “nation of immigrants” (Iredale, Turpin, Hawksley, Go, Tangtrongpairoj & Yee, n.d., para. 13) with immigrants comprising 56 percent of the population or more than 21 million, as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as of June 2007 (Migration contributes, 2007). While immigration supplies the needed manpower and skills of the country, it also carries several concerns for the government that policy measures have to be implemented that run counter to international treaties. These policies may have caused harm to the health and well-being of the immigrants and citizens of Australia. Health Issues and Deportation of Citizen/Resident Ten percent or 4,000 of the annual migrants to Australia are carriers of hepatitis B virus, said Professor Boughton in 1988 (hepatitis vaccine researcher) (Daily Telegraph 1988, as cited in McCormack 2003). Syphilis has drastically increased due to migration since the 1960s (McCormack 2003). Leprosy- and tuberculosis-afflicted migrants also passed undetected during screening according to the Australian Health and Medical Research Council in 1987 (McCormack 2003). These cases of infectious disease carrying migrants and refugees alarm the government as mentioned in the Medical Journal of Australia (McCormack 2003). Dr. Rouch (Victoria Chief Health Officer) reported that 10 African migrants in Victoria were later discovered to have AIDS in 1989 (McCormack 2003). Cases of migrants bringing in diseases with them pose a grave concern for the government. Diagnosis, treatment and indirect cost (e.g. lost productivity, premature death) of the country for Hepatitis B is more than $50 million annually, as reported by Mr. Paul Gross (Director, Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment) in 1987 (McCormack 2003). The government is partly to blame for being lax in the screening process. But once discovered, the government resorts to deportation of immigrants instead of providing them with the necessary treatment. In the past, 19 Chinese (should be 20 but one escaped) with leprosy in Little Bay Lazarette hospital (Sydney) were shipped back to Hong Kong (The Age, 1896, as cited in McCormack 2003). On the other hand, immigrants already in the country eat up the health and welfare funds of the government. Karen Middleton mentioned in her article (entitled Migrants more likely on welfare) about a government report (from Labor Government and Bureau of Immigration and defunct Population Research) mentioning that a “higher proportion of migrants receive age or invalid pensions, sickness benefits, and the dole than do people born in Australia” (McCormack 2003, para. 22). The government also has a tough immigration policy on deportation of visitor’s visa holder after its lapse without any regard to the health considerations. Such is the case of Aziza Agha (79-year old Syrian) who was asked by the Immigration Department to travel to its office in the city for medical examination despite her fragile health condition (the examination is required by the immigration office after her visa expired and a request for another six-month extension for medical treatment was denied). Being afflicted diabetes, arthritis and iron deficiency, the doctor advised against traveling for medical check up but instead be conducted at home (Trevisiol & Marshall, 2005). Aziza died two days after visiting the Immigration office (Trevisiol & Marshall, 2005). Moreover, she was only given an extension on a monthly basis despite her condition (Trevisiol & Marshall, 2005). The Immigration office defended itself saying that its physician declared Aziza fit to travel back to Lebanon (Trevisiol & Marshall, 2005). A deportation notice was even issued and received by the family after her death (Trevisiol & Marshall, 2005). There are also instances that individuals accorded with citizenship are deported. In the case of Vivian Alvarez, she was deported to the Philippines despite being seriously ill (Trevisiol & Marshall, 2005). Cornelia Rau, already a permanent resident in the country, was afflicted with a mental ailment but detained for several months for being an “unlawful non-citizen” (Trevisiol & Marshall 2005, para. 12). Refugees and Asylum Seekers In accordance with the enforcement of strict immigration policies, refugees consisting of women and children are raided, detained and deported as illegal immigrants (Trevisiol & Marshall, 2005). The government puts on hold (already in effect) the processing of asylum applicants from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan (Immigration clampdown, 2010). This decision resulted from the discovery of a boat with 70 persons near Christmas Island which is the 38th to have entered the territory (Immigration clampdown, 2010). This is in line with the advise to Australia of United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees in Indonesia senior representative Manuel Jordao to handle the influx of asylum seekers in the country via Indonesia (Immigration clampdown, 2010). Around 4000 applicants would prefer to enter the country by boat instead of using the legal process (Immigration clampdown, 2010). Senator Chris Evans (Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) said that deportation to their countries of asylum seekers whose visas are rejected would definitely increase (Immigration clampdown, 2010). The “hard-line approach” of the government was meant to fortify the immigration system of Australia and may result to application rejection (Immigration clampdown, 2010, para. 16). All arrivals will be stationed in Christmas Island with assurance of health check-up (Immigration clampdown, 2010). People giving support to smuggling of people will be fined of up to a maximum of $110,000 and imprisonment of ten years under a proposed bill, said Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor (Immigration clampdown, 2010). The study by Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland & Markovic (2009) revealed that Australian policies on asylum seekers violates human rights and affects their psychological health. It was reported that undocumented individuals seeking asylum are detained while their petitions are being processed (Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009). The Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) allowed three to five years stay in the country since 1999 for asylum seekers in conjunction with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention while petitions are processed (Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009). The government under the Labour party announced in 2008 that it would revert to permanent protection visa to qualified applicants but those who pose risk shall be detained on a shorter time possible (Labor unveils 2008. as cited in Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009). Refugees with TPV status have restrictions that include: a) limited access to government support (e.g. full income support benefits, free English language tuition, interpreting and settlement services) (Taylor & Stanovic, 2004, as cited in Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009), and b) cannot reunite with family members (Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009). A permanent humanitarian visa granted before entering Australian soil would entitle the holder benefits and services accorded to permanent residents (Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009). Despite the international treaties on human rights ratified by the government (e.g. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR], International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR], 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC]) (Refugees, 2004, as cited in Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009), its practices on detention and temporary protection have violated those international treaties (Edwards, 2003; “By Invitation Only”, 2002, as cited in Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009; Asylum seekers, 2005). Impact of Immigration and Policies Immigration and the government policies affect both the migrants and citizens. It was reported as supported by documentation that the increase in multiculturalism and dwindling white population affected the mental health of residents (McCormack 2003). On the part of the government, its social and health funds are being spent for the migrants more than its citizens. Moreover, diseases entered the territories through the immigrants. Refugees and asylum seekers have suffered much from their plight. But more concern is given to children refugees. Those who arrive in Australia through boats include children (children account for half of refugees around the world) (Children in Detention, 2007). As of September 2005, of the 714 detainees (for violation of visa conditions and other immigration policies), 43 were children (Asylum seekers, 2005). The trauma these children underwent impairs successful resettlement, mental health and well-being (Asylum seekers, 2005) that would last for longer time. Two studies on detained petitioners revealed association of negative experiences (e.g. prolonged detention, stress, violence) and temporary protection to deteriorated mental health conditions (Steel, Silove, Brooks, Momartin, Alzuhairi, & Susljik, 2006; Momartin, Silove, Manicavasagar & Steel, 2003, as cited in Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009). Those experiences affect successful integration into the community (Marston, 2003, as cited in Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009). They experience “social isolation, a lack of control over life circumstances and a collective sense of injustice” (Marston, 2003; Mansouri & Cauchi; as cited in Johnston, Allotey, Mulholland et al., 2009, para. 10). The trauma experienced by asylum seekers along the way has cumulative psychological effect that affects the mental health (Asylum seekers, 2005). Asylum seekers may be traumatised by experiences they have lived through prior to their arrival in Australia, often chronic and repeated with cumulative psychological effects. These experiences include torture, death of family members, separation from family and community, hardship, hunger, etc. (Asylum seekers, 2005). Thus, their detention in Australia, coupled by vague future, resulted to “suicide and self-mutilation” (Asylum seekers, 2005, p. 1). Public health researchers found out numerous accounts of psychological harm experienced by persons detained for longer time in the immigration detention facilities (Silove, Steel & Mollica, 2001, as cited in Asylum seekers, Uncertain future and three-year temporary protection visa are added pressures to husbands who left their children and wives in unsafe areas of origin (Asylum seekers, 2005). Conclusion Australia is a signatory to several international treaties and conventions that would protect the rights and health of refugees and asylum seekers. However, the government imposes policies that run counter to the norms of the treaties. They refuse admission of refugees or deport those already on shore. Although the UN advised the government on the unusually large attempt of people to enter the country as refugees or asylum seekers, it is also the UN that has primordial interest in enforcing international humanitarian treaties. Australia is in the correct path if it imposes restriction on screening of immigrants for experience has proven that they contributed to the spread of diseases in the country. But it seems incongruent and unjustifiable that the government would deport individuals who are already citizens back to their native countries. Citizens who contributed their skills and knowledge to the economic development of the country should not be deported at a time when they are already sick but should receive treatment and assistance from the government. Using the argument that more money is spent for undocumented aliens or illegal migrants than the legitimate citizens is unjustifiable for shoving away migrants who want to live peacefully in another land. All governments should be willing to expend a portion of their revenue to humanitarian purposes. Refugees and asylum seekers might suffer physical harm and diseases before receiving legal status in the country. These physical ailments and injuries may heal in time. But the psychological and mental scar will remain for longer time in them, affecting their emotional stability, capacity to interact appropriately with other people, or integrating successfully in the community. The trauma will be more for children who are not emotionally equipped to manage such experiences. The trauma is also great for family members who see their father, mother, espouse or children, and relatives die during the journey with them helpless to do anything. Thus, those who successfully attained legal status in Australia and those still petitioning for such status must also be given psychological and emotional treatment in addition to financial and social support. The world is becoming one community and the people as citizens of the world. Australia has to take its share of the responsibility in lending assistance to suffering people who sought solace under its territory. And if it would be impossible for Australia to give legal status to migrants, at least, it should not deport them, but provide them treatment for diseases they have instead of deporting them, or grant them indefinite temporary visa that would run for years or decades until they are fully treated of the ailments or another country would be willing to accept them. References Asylum seekers - Mandatory detention. (2005). Public Health Association of Australia Inc. Retrieved 7 April 2010, from http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/policy_inthealth_mandatory.pdf Children in Detention - An Australian issue. (2007, June 14). Early Childhood Australia Inc. Retrieved 6 April 2010, from http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/early_childhood_news/speeches/children_in_detention.html Immigration clampdown: Processing asylum seeker claims from Sri Lankans and Afghanis suspended, (2010, April 9). The Sunday Morning Herald. Retrieved 9 April 2010, from http://www.smh.com.au/national/immigration-clampdown-processing-asylum-seeker-claims-from-sri-lankans-and-afghanis-suspended-20100409-rwcd.html Iredale, R, Turpin, T, Hawksley, C, Go, SP., Tangtrongpairoj, S.K. & Yee, M.K. (n.d.). Migration research and migration policy making: a study of Australia, the Philippines and Thailand. Retrieved 4 April 2010, from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b0rUohktXpkJ:apmrn.anu.edu.au/publications/APMRN_pub_1.doc+http://apmrn.anu.edu.au/publications/APMRN_pub_1.doc&cd=1&hl=tl&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefox-a Johnston, V., Allotey, P., Mulholland, K. & Markovic, M. (2009, February 3). Measuring the health impact of human rights violations related to Australian asylum policies and practices: a mixed methods study. BioMed Central Ltd. BMC Int Health Hum Rights, (9)1. doi: 10.1186/1472-698X-9-1. PMCID: PMC2649030. Retrieved 5 April 2010, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649030/ McCormack D. (2003 Fall). Immigration policy and health care costs in Australia. Eye on Immigration. The Social Contract, 14(1). Retrieved 1 April 2010, from http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com/2009/02/immigration-policy-and-health-care.html Migration contributes to over half of Australian population growth. (2007, December 8). workpermit.com. Retrieved 1 April 2010, from http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007-12-08/australia/immigration-increases-australian-population.htm Trevisiol M & Marshall W. (2005, October 1). Elderly woman becomes another victim of Australian immigration policy. World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved 1 April 2010, from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/agha-o01.shtml Read More