refugees and immigrants 101
/
On Q and A on Monday night, George Brandis, Australia’s Attorney-General was asked “do you believe that asylum seekers that come to this country commit any offence?” He responded “Yes”, he was then asked what offence they commit, to which Mr Brandis said “against the migration laws”, and when asked which laws he responded “people are entitled to seek asylum in an orderly manner”. So the senior legal officer of Australia doesn’t understand the law in Australia and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugee 1967 (Refugee Convention and Protocol) that Australia is a party to. The words “orderly manner” are not written in any of these. Australia has international obligations under various treaties[1] to protect the rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, irrespective of how they arrive, where they arrive and whether or not they arrive with a visa. The Refugee Convention recognises refugees have the lawful right to enter a country to seek asylum, regardless of actions that would ordinarily be considered as illegal, such as how they arrive or if they hold valid travel and identity documents.
Monday night on CNN, Trump supporter and political commentator Kayleigh McEnany in defending the travel ban on seven majority Muslim countries recently imposed in the United States (US) said that one life lost to a refugee or immigrant was too many and that would validate a ban on refugees and immigrants from those countries. If a person from Texas went to California and murdered someone, they wouldn’t stop letting people from Texa into California. If an Australian went to the United States and committed murder, the US would not ban all immigrants from Australia. If a Christian refugee killed someone, there would be no call to ban immigrants and refugees from their country of origin or of their religion. So the argument that one person committing a violent crime – terrorism, rape, murder – from one of these countries involved in the travel ban that Kayleigh put forward, is a blatant example of discrimination against them for their country and religion. Discrimination is treating, or proposing to treat, someone unfavourably because of a personal characteristic protected by the law. Article 3 of the Refugee Convention stipulates that Contracting States shall apply the provisions of the Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.
Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention and Protocol and the US is a party to the Protocol, which means they agree to apply Articles 2 to 34 of the Convention to refugees defined in Article 1. If the political “right” in Australia and the US wants to limit refugees then at least have a decent and factual argument. So here is a free lesson for you.
Under Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. The Refugee Convention, beyond Article 3, which disavows discrimination based on race, religion or country of origin, says in Article 4, Contracting States accord to refugees within their territories freedom to practise their religion. Contracting States under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention shall not impose penalties on refugees seeking asylum for illegal entry, and states that it is legal to enter a country for the purpose of seeking asylum. Under Article 32, Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in the country unless it is for reasons of national security or public order and with due process under the law.
In the US, the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner on the most common tourist visa is 1 in 3.6 million per year, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1011 times that at 1 in 3.64 billion, whilst the chance of being murdered by an illegal immigrant is 1 in 10.9 billion, which 3027 times as much as a foreign tourist on a visa.
Specifically for Mr Brandis, under Australian law and the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), an asylum seeker is an ‘unlawful non-citizen’ where they enter Australia without a valid visa (section 228B). However it is not a criminal offence to arrive in Australia without a visa. Also to the Attorney General, beyond “orderly manner” have not having a legal basis, if you mean asylum seekers should arrive by plane and with a valid visa, here’s some information from the real world. It’s not always safe or possible for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents, travel through authorised channels and apply for the appropriate visa due to the fact they are refugees. By definition, refugees are persons fleeing persecution and their safety and lives are at risk. In many cases they are being persecuted by the governments from which you want them to get these documents. Refugees may also be fleeing their homes and country with minimal notice and unable to access what is required. Studies have also found that between 85% and 90% of asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat have been found to be genuine refugees compared to around 40% of asylum seekers who arrived by plane with travel documents and a valid visa.
For every good reason there is to lie – political benefit, forwarding an agenda - there is a better reason to tell the truth – people’s lives, security and peace.
[1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.