ASYLUM SEEKERS

Asylum Seekers

Asylum Seekers

Article 1: Pacific solution 2.0: border protection and asylum seeker protection

The authors have pointed out the social issue regarding the policies related to the asylum seeker protection in Australia in this article. The authors assert that, the issue of asylum-seeker in Australia has been among the most controversial issues for eleven years. Before 2010 policies regarding border protection were put forward according to which the asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat, called as Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs), are relocated to adjoining countries where their assertions regarding refugee status are evaluated. However, the rise in the number loss of lives of asylum seekers arriving to Australia via boat transferred the focus of the public debate from the protection of the border to the safeguard of the lives of IMAs. The federal government assigned a panel of experts to prepare a report to give the finest approach by which Australia can stop asylum seekers to come to Australia by putting their lives in danger in perilous boat passages (Perera & Govinnage 2012, pp.33-37).

The authors have studied the expert panel's report (referred as Houston report), which was published on August 13, 2012. The Houston Report suggested an alteration of Australian policies to make sure that IMAs did not gain a benefit in attaining safety as compared to, those who followed typical migration ways. In this article, the authors have scrutinized the outcome of a core suggestion that has been quickly put into action by the federal government. The suggestion is of the restoration of processing facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (Perera & Govinnage 2012, pp.33-37).

The authors in the article mention that the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) asserts that States cannot stay away from their international law responsibilities by relocating asylum seekers to a third country. Debatably, Australia transfers asylum seekers to other countries for the evaluation of their assertions for protection. By doing so, Australia is outsourcing its responsibilities. Even though, the Houston Report affirms that its suggestions are supposed to be executed in conformance with international responsibilities of Australia, such conformance will be intricate to reach in practicality. Additionally, putting national interest in precedence to international compulsions possibly will make it hard to sway other countries in the region not to go behind suit (Perera & Govinnage 2012, pp.33-37).

The authors comment on the "no advantage" principle mentioned in the Houston Report that executing this principle principally ...