Asylum Seekers in Australia - Literature review Example

Asylum Seekers in Australia Institution Course Module Instructor’s name Date of submission Asylum Seekers in Australia Despite the progress of the 21st Century, the society still grapples with issues of violations of fundamental human rights in various countries as a result of wars, natural calamities such as famine and floods and political and religious discords among other factors, which compels people to move and seek protection elsewhere (O’Neill, 2010). As a result, the international community under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows for individuals the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries (Silove et al., 2001). Asylum seeking entails an individual seeking protection from another country or sovereign authority following persecution for their religious, social or political affiliations in their own home country as described by Temple & Moran (2011). Australia is among the few countries with mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and the only country that allows mandatory detention of children (Lusher & Haslam, 2007). This report seeks to critically analyze mandatory detention of asylum seekers as an issue of social justice and common good. Mandatory Detention of Asylum Seekers According to Lusher & Haslam (2007), Australia’s Migration Act 1958 makes it obligatory for any person in Australia who is a non-citizen- except in an excised offshore place, who does not have a legal visa to be detained. These people can only be released if they are given a valid visa or they are deported out of Australia. Despite the valid reasons Australia has for implementing the mandatory detention policy, the policy has brought Australia under heavy criticism since the practice does not only contravene the rights to liberty but also allows for detainment of children despite the physical and psychological implications it has on them (AMA, 2011). The law on mandatory detention of asylum seekers in Australia was established in 1992 and amended in 1994 to emphasize on indefinite detention. Mandatory detention of asylum seekers in Australia is done for undetermined and prolonged duration of time (Loue & Sajatovic, 2011). Kneebone & Rawlings-Sanaei, (2007) indicates that among those detained under the mandatory detention are those who arrive in the country by air or waters without valid visas, encompassing those seeking protection from persecution in their own countries and students with cancelled visas as a result of contravening terms and conditions of their visas. In addition, individuals that have overstayed their visas, those with visas that have been cancelled owing to their character and suspected illegal foreign fishers as echoed by Lusher & Haslam (2007). Mandatory Detention as an Issue of Justice or the Common Good Mandatory detention of asylum seekers is an issue of justice or common good owing to the impact it has not only on the individuals seeking asylum but also on the society in general. It is an issue of social justice because it does not ensure fair treatment of all persons regardless of their race, nationality, origin and creed and more significantly, it is in direct breach of laws guiding the society in relation to safeguarding the rights and freedom of people (Temple & Moran, 2011). The Australia’s mandatory detention violates the country’s responsibility as a member of the international community and as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to protect non-citizens, those seeking refuge and those seeking asylum (AMA, 2011). The law on mandatory detention is further an issue of justice since it fails to honor the responsibility of the Australian government to respect and guarantee rights of all people encompassing non-citizens within its territories and jurisdiction. As an issue of common good, the mandatory detention practice can be viewed as an extreme response that indiscriminately deny asylum seekers their fundamental human rights and more significantly, it contributes to prolonging and exacerbation of trauma that asylum seekers go through prior to and during their escape (O’Neill, 2010). Mandatory detention as an issue of common good makes it difficult for asylum seekers to have the benefit and security of normal life since they are unable to secure effective resettlement, which influences their overall productivity and hinders their optimal functioning psychologically, socially and physically (Loue, & Sajatovic, 2011). The People Or Groups Who Have A Stake In The Issue Of Mandatory Detention Of Asylum Seekers And Their Perspectives On It, And Why Some Stake Holders Do Not Want The Situation To Change The issue of mandatory detention of asylum seekers implemented in Australia encompasses varied stakeholders among them the Australian government, the human rights groups and stakeholders in the public health. The human rights groups which include both local and international organizations and people and the stakeholders in the public health sector who form part of the stakeholders in the issue of mandatory detainment, are more keen and concerned with matters pertaining the safety, basic human rights and living conditions and standards of asylum seekers (Temple & Moran, 2011). These groups have been on the fore front in pushing for amendments to the mandatory detention laws and urging Australia to be accountable to their responsibility as signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in regards to detaining children and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in regards to detaining adults for prolonged and undetermined duration of time (Lusher & Haslam, 2007). According to human rights groups such as the UNHCR, human rights activists and stakeholders in public health sector such as the Public Health Association of Australia and Australian Medical Association among others, mandatory detention of asylum seekers is an extreme response which subjectively denies individuals their rights to liberty, security and living in an environment that foster self-respect and human dignity (AMA, 2011). According to (AHRC), the process of asylum seeking is not criminal nor is it illegal and therefore when one is detained for seeking asylum, the self-respect and dignity of the asylum seeker is significantly lowered. In addition, detaining them violates Australia’s responsibility and commitment to offer asylum seekers asylum from persecution. Based on reports by human rights groups on the issue of mandatory detainment of children, since children can also be detained under the Australian mandatory detention law, this breaches the children’s right to an environment that facilitates self-respect and dignity and at worse, does not work for the best interest of the child detained since the law does not facilitate recovery from trauma experienced during their flight to host country (Silove et al., 2001). In other countries, mandatory detention of children should be implemented as a last resort. However, in Australia, the law is implemented as a first resort, which does not take the interests of the children into account making the law inhumane and one that lowers the dignity of the children and therefore, makes them prone to psychological and physical torment (AMA, 2011). Based on stakeholders in the public health sector, the practice or the policy of Australia’s mandatory detention of asylum seekers is an issue that does not only affect and impact on the asylum seekers alone but also, it has varied implications on the Australian society as a whole. More often than not, individuals who are seeking asylum have undergone trauma prior to and during their escape to a place they deem safe and taking them through mandatory detention prolongs and worsen their trauma, which hinders their overall productivity and wellbeing as members of society (AHRC). Detainment denies them right to enjoy normal life and successful resettlement, which are basis for effective and efficient mental and physical growth for both children and adults (O’Neill, 2010). Asylum seekers are usually under immense trauma following events they may have witnessed in their home country such as war, death, sexual violence, and famine, deplorable living conditions and separation from family, food scarcity and hate which may have impacted on their health both physically and mentally (AMA, 2011). As a result, taking them through mandatory detention worsen their physical and mental wellbeing, which incapacitates them as productive members of the society. This is because; the detained asylum seekers become unsure about their safety and their future and at worse about their loved ones who may be holed up in the country of origin or living in the same or different detention camps (Kneebone & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2007). This uncertainty about their future and safety and those of their loved ones can be attributed to actual suicides, Para suicides and acts of self-mutilations by asylum seekers in mandatory detention camps as indicated by Silove et al. (2001). Despite the issues raised by human rights groups and stakeholders in the public health sector, the Australian government has been reluctant to review the mandatory detainment of asylum seekers and when it has developed reviews and amendments, it has been slow in implementing them (Kneebone & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2007). There are valid reasons why the Australian government as a stakeholder on the issue of mandatory detainment does not want the situation to change. The main reason for the reluctance to change the issue of mandatory detainment is due to the rise in the number of illegal immigrants seeking better life prospects in economically viable country such as Australia. These illegal immigrants compete with legal citizens for the available resources making the resources scarce (Lusher & Haslam, 2007). On the other hand, there is the possibility of asylum seekers getting lost in the system owing to the large numbers of people seeking asylum (Kneebone & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2007). To ensure that individuals are not detained for a duration that breaches their rights, mandatory detainment in Australia is done based on a case by case analysis (Loue & Sajatovic, 2011). The mandatory detention of asylum seekers is deemed necessary by Australian government particularly when the asylum seeker is assessed and found to pose unacceptable threat to the community of Australia and the identified threat cannot be managed in a less restrictive manner (AHRC). Among possible threats an asylum seeker may pose includes terrorism risk. Analyze the Issue In Terms Of the Principles That Promote Human Flourishing, (Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs) Australia is considered as one of the countries with the toughest immigration detention systems globally since their detention is not only mandatory and has no specified time limit but also, those detained are not allowed to challenge the need for their detention in a judicial court (Lusher & Haslam, 2007). This hinders the ability of the detainees to flourish. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, human beings cannot be productive fully and they cannot fully function and flourish unless certain needs are met. According to the Maslow’s theory, different people have different needs and they flourish based on the total satisfaction of these needs (Tang et al., 2002). These needs are satisfied chronologically beginning with physiological needs such as food, water, sleep, air and clothing (Tay & Diener, 2011). In relation to mandatory detention, asylum seekers detained are not fully able to meet these needs owing to the scarcity of such resources and the deplorable conditions that exists in some of the detention camps. The second category of needs includes safety where one has the need for safety for things that make feel safe and secure such as health, employment, property and resources (Tay & Diener, 2011). Safety needs for asylum seekers detained under mandatory detention are not fully met since they not only are restricted in terms of movement but also, their future materially and health wise is uncertain, which hinders their overall flourishing as human beings and as members of society as supported by Tang et al. (2002). The third category of needs is the need for social belonging where one desires to have reliable and stable relationships, friendships, family and sexual intimacy (Tang et al., 2002). As echoed by Tang et al. (2002), people under mandatory detainment are denied means of meeting these needs since they are environments where they cannot fully develop social support systems and they are inaccessible to people who can fulfill their needs for social belonging such as friends, community and family. The esteem needs are the other category which entails needs for self-esteem, self-confidence, achievement, and respect by and of others (Tay & Diener, 2011). These needs occur after the needs for social belonging, safety and physiological needs have been fully met. For people under mandatory detention, meeting the esteem needs in order to flourish becomes hard since they are unable to meet the previous needs. The environment they are exposed to does not foster self- respect and dignity which affect negatively their self-esteem, self-confidence, achievement, respect by and of others (Tang et al., 2002). The self-actualization needs entails the ability of individuals to be creative, spontaneous, solve problems, lack prejudice and accept facts which are difficult to accomplish for asylum seekers under mandatory detention (Tay & Diener, 2011). Their experiences prior and during their freight to host country and their detention makes it hard for them to perceive society as fair and instead, they become irrational, bitter about the social systems in the society and their perceptions about their status as members of the society is prejudiced. Response to Mandatory Detainment of Asylum Seekers Despite the few but valid reasons for implementing mandatory detention of asylum seekers, the negative impact mandatory detention has on asylum seekers and its wider implications on Australian society are enough evidence for developing alternative ways of dealing with asylum seekers other than detaining them indefinitely. Mandatory detainment exercised in Australia contravenes several fundamental human rights laws and principles to which Australia is a signatory and committed to respectively among them the non-refoulement principle which suggest that refuges and asylum seekers should not be returned to the country of origin where they may be unsafe or their rights are at risk (AHRC). In contradiction, under mandatory detainment, an asylum seeker can only be released if they are offered valid visa or returned to country of origin (Silove et al., 2001). Silove et al. further notes that, mandatory detainment does not foster right to liberty and security, it does not allow detainees to challenge the legality of their detention and it supports detention of children as first resort instead of as a last resort. A suitable response to mandatory detainment is the utilization of community based alternative systems such as the use of bridging visas, temporary visas and community detention which are not only efficient and effective in facilitating immigration processing, they are cost effective compared to funding detention camps and they foster enhanced acquiescence with immigration processes as supported by AHRC. In addition, they facilitate overall physical and mental health of asylum seekers, they attract less filing of compensation claims for unfair confinement and more importantly, community based alternative systems allow swift transition to life in host country (AHRC). References AHRC. Immigration detention and human rights. Australian Human Rights Commission, Accessed on 27th August 2012 from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/detention_rights.html#alternatives AMA. (2011). Mandatory detention is harmful to the physical and mental health of asylum seekers. Australian Medical Association Position Statement, Accessed on 27th August 2012 from http://ama.com.au/node/7075 Kneebone, S., & Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (2007). New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead. New York: Berghahn Books. Loue, S. & Sajatovic, M. (2011). Encyclopedia of Immigrant Health. Melbourne: Springer. Lusher, D., & Haslam, N. (2007). Yearning to Breathe Free: Seeking Asylum in Australia. Sidney: Federation Press. O’Neill, M. (2010). Asylum, Migration and Community. London: The Policy Press. Silove D, Steel Z & Mollica R (2001). Detention of asylum seekers: assault on health, human rights, and social development. Lancet, 357:1436-1437. Tang, T. L. P., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & West, W. B. (2002). Effects of war-related stress on the satisfaction of human needs: The United States and the Middle East. International Journal of Management Theory and Practices, 3 (1): 35-53. Tay, L. & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and Subjective Well-Being around the World. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (2): 354–365. Temple, B., & Moran, R. (2011). Doing Research With Refugees: Issues and Guidelines. London: The Policy Press. UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Accessed on 27th August 2012 from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Read More