The High Court's Decision Plaintiff M61/2010E vs Commonwealth of Australia - Case Study Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: 29th April, 2011. Plaintiff M61/2010E (and M69/2010) v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) According to the stipulations of Australian Law, an individual entering the territory of Australia must have a visa that allows them to do so. Violation of this provision amounts to lack of protection by the Australian government. It also implies that the person in question could be sued for trespass. These provisions are stipulated in the Migration Act of 1958. (www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/) In the case of Plaintiff M61/2010E (and M69/2010) v Commonwealth of Australia (2010), the two plaintiffs claimed to be under the protection of the Australian government. This was based on the fact that they claimed to be refugees. The two were citizens of Sri Lanka. They had entered Australia via boats. They did so through Christmas Island. The Australian government officers were of the opinion that the two plaintiffs did not qualify as individuals liable for protection by the Australian government. The big question was whether they qualified as refugees or not. Over the years, it has been noted that individuals around the world are imposing themselves in countries such as Australia. These individuals enter these countries illegally and without the necessary permits. They pose security risks to these governments. They have, therefore, necessitated these governments to carry out searches on anyone entering the country. This check up is aimed at verifying the entry documents. It also ensures that the individuals entering these countries do not have any weapons with them. It has been noted that some individuals enter the country as asylum seekers posing to be refugees. There is a big difference between asylum seekers and refugees. A refugee is internationally recognized as a person in need of international protection due to a factor that has already been established. It could be a natural disaster or political instability in their home country that causes them to be in danger. This is as provided for by UNHCR. On the other hand, an asylum seeker is an individual who is seeking international protection but whose claim as a refugee has not yet been fully determined. Therefore, an asylum seeker only leaves his or her country in order to have a better life. However, a refugee leaves his or her home country because it poses danger to their lives. Immigration can be defined as relocating to a native land especially in search of a better lifestyle. Immigrants enrich other countries, while on the other hand their country continues rotting in poverty. Most of them are tired of poor living standards, and move to America so as to support the people relying on them. Most of the undocumented immigrants are determined to conquer any circumstances, as long as they get a chance to earn a living in these native lands. However, this comes with a price of living their entire lives hiding from the authorities. In this case, undocumented immigrants are pushed away from their homeland due to poverty and move to America in the aim of securing employment. Immigrant seem to have the dream of succeeding in life yet they lack this opportunities in their country and opt to find it in America. On the other hand, America has all that takes for a person to achieve the best in life. This motivates most parents to immigrate so as to secure the live of their children. The other factor that promotes immigration is the need of children reuniting with their parents who resettled in America. It is evident that, immigration is caused by political, social and economic factors. However, running away from homeland makes it worse because it enhances slow growth rate in immigrant’s homeland. Illegal immigrants are individuals who enter a country without fully abiding to the requirements in order to be able to do so. This implies that they may be aligned in a court of law and charged. Asylum seekers are considered illegal immigrants because they do not have the permits that they are required to have in order to enter a country such as Australia. This implies that they may be detained by the authorities and charged with trespass. There are also other individuals who are referred to as boat arrivals. They are those that arrive in Australia claiming to be asylum seekers but are usually people who are illegal immigrants. This is because they do not have permits to enter the country. The immigration department cannot grant them visas since they are trespassers. Statistics indicate that over the past year, boat arrivals increased rapidly. This is because they had realized that those who were classified under the boat arrivals were more likely to be approved as refugees. (www.lawyersweekly.com.au/.../2010/.../high-court-plaintiff-m61-2010e-v-commonwealth-of-australia-plantiff-m69-of-2010-v-commonwealth). As such they would be entitled to visas offered by the immigration department. This also implied that they were under the protection of the Australian government. This implies that individuals who are not necessarily refugees are likely to take advantage of the situation so as to be given the government’s protection. The case of the two plaintiffs falls under the category of the boat arrivals. However, this does not guarantee them government protection. This is because it is yet to be determined whether they were refugees or mere asylum seekers. It should also be established whether they had permits to the country. So far, it has been established that they had no visas to allow them to enter Australia. It was on this basis that the commissioner ordered that the two individuals should be detained. This was so as to allow for the determination whether they were refugees or not. It should also be noted that the two individuals were Irregular Maritime Individuals. As such, it would be extremely important to determine their intentions while in Australia. This is so as to ensure that these people do not cause a security hitch in Australia. They should also be detained while the government establishes whether they are individuals of good conduct. This can be established through counter checking with the countries where they receded for the past 12 months (High Court). Studies have indicated that some of the boat arrivals may pose the risk of bringing certain diseases into the country. This has necessitated health checks on all boat arrivals. (www.hcourt.gov.au/publications/judgment-summaries). This is so as to ensure that anyone in need of medical treatment receives it before transmitting it to the Australian residents. This also ensures that that the boat arrivals’ needs are taken care of in good time. It has also been established that the largest percentage of boat arrivals are refugees. However, that does not exempt the possibility of disguise. It is based on this realization that all the boat arrivals have to be detained. If found to be refugees, the boat arrivals would be attended to and taken care of. Over the years, since the Vietnam War, there have been numerous boat arrivals in Australia. It has been feared that they could be flooding the Australian government while sucking up the opportunities available to Australians. This has resulted in the need to clearly differentiate between asylum seekers and refugees. This will ensure that opportunists do not take advantage of the generosity of the Australian government. Socially, the Irregular Maritime Arrivals could pose huge danger to Australians. This is because of the already established risk of diseases transmission. In any economy, health care is extremely significant in ensuring its growth. However, if all these efforts are used up by the imposters who sneak into the country with communicable diseases, the Australian people will suffer a big deal. This means that extreme care must be taken on who enters the country. This justifies the need to detain any boat arrivals so as to ensure that their health problems are catered for before they spread to many other people around the country. Security is also extremely vital in any nation. This means that it is absolutely necessary that all the measures that enhance security are carried out. In relation to the plaintiffs in question, it would be necessary to determine their record in relation to security measures. This implies that they would have to be detained in order for such issues to be clarified. It also ensures that they do not pose unnecessary risk to the Australian people. (www.hcourt.gov.au/publications/judgment-summaries). Since the two plaintiffs did not have any authorization documents to enter Australia, they would be referred to as illegal immigrants. This implies that they would have to go through all the security checks as asylum seekers would. Therefore, it is completely lawful for them to be detained while awaiting establishment of whether they qualify as refugees. In case they do, the government would have to offer them protection. This is because they have the obligation to do so as provided by the agreement between Australia and UNHCR. (www.hcourt.gov.au/publications/judgment-summaries) Contrary to common belief, it is untrue that the refugees hosted in Australia are more than the natives. This is, therefore, not a recognized basis that should be used in the determination of the whether they should be hosted or not. This is because it has been proven by available statistics that they do not. It would also be inhuman to deny others refuge when in need yet the country has the capability to host such individuals. It is also not alright to denounce the plaintiffs without clearly determining whether they are refugees or not. It would be right to say that the HCI did not tamper with the process of issuing visas to the boat arrivals. This is because they only took the necessary measures so as to ensure that they were no risks imposed by the arrivals in Australia. (www.hcourt.gov.au/publications/judgment-summaries) This means they were only taking into consideration all the chances that these boat arrivals could have anterior motives as to coming into Australia. This also implies that they were only abiding and conforming to the stipulations of the law. This is because they were seeking to ensure that these boat arrivals provided explanations as to why they had no permits. Based on the fact refugees were allowed to apply for visas once already in Australia, it would mean that the boat arrivals case had to be carefully studied so as to establish whether they were genuine refugees or just asylum seekers. This could only be done while they remained detained. This is because it was what the law provided. Therefore, it would in okay to say that there was no hindrance of the strategies of the asylum claims on the HCI’s part. All over the world, people disguise themselves in order to take advantage of situations. This implies that it is extremely important to be able to come up with ways of differentiating people in genuine need from opportunists. This will ensure that individuals do not reap where they did not sow. This is the case represented by the plaintiffs. There is a possibility that they are genuine refugees. However, given the fact that they did not have the permits to enter Australia, it was necessary to determine their true identity. This could only be done while they remained detained. This was done to ensure that they did not pose any risks to those they came in contact with before such determination. (www.lawyersweekly.com.au/.../2010/.../high-court-plaintiff-m61-2010e-v-commonwealth-of-australia-plantiff-m69-of-2010-v-commonwealth). Though the law could oppress those that turn out to refugees, it is the only way to ensure that there are no unnecessary risks posed to the rest of the nation. The immigration has a duty to ensure that carry out their activities while abiding to the stipulations as provided by law. The government strategies must also conform to the laws that have already been established. Works cited High Court: Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved From www.lawyersweekly.com.au/.../2010/.../high-court-plaintiff-m61-2010e-v- commonwealth-of-australia-plantiff-m69-of-2010-v-commonwealth. Judgment summaries - High Court of Australia. Retrieved from www.hcourt.gov.au/publications/judgment-summaries. MIGRATION ACT 1958. Retrieved from www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ Read More