In recent decades, there has been a global increase in the number of displaced people and people seeking asylum. The sheer magnitude and complexity of refugee movements has placed pressure on many destination countries to respond in ways which are sustainable, economical and respectful of human rights. One such approach has been the creation of detention centres to process asylum seekers. In this essay, an argument is made that while short-term detention of asylum seekers is justifiable, indefinite mandatory detention is a violation of human rights and therefore unacceptable. This notion is looked at in the context of Australia, and the human rights violations that indefinite detention has on asylum seekers who travel there.
Before delving …show more content…
171) attests, “current entrance restrictions of refugees and immigrants are a gross violation of human liberties.” Even supporters of exclusion and tight border restrictions, such as Michael Walzer, recognise that liberal-democratic states have obligations to refugees. These include an obligation to admit those in need and provide them with necessary resources or even territory, to allow them to participate in the economy and acquire citizenship, and to protect them from potentially being expelled by future states or governments (Walzer 1983). These arguments clearly demonstrate that we have a responsibility to asylum seekers and refugees, and that we must admit and process them in a way which upholds liberal values and respects human …show more content…
States are entitled to detain asylum seekers upon arrival to ensure they are not a threat. Following this, asylum seekers can be placed in the community while their refugee claims are being assessed. While in detention, it is important that asylum seekers be aware of the reasons for their detention and the length of time that they will be detained. Although detaining an asylum seeker could be viewed as a breach of the right to free movement, it is justifiable to momentarily hinder one person’s liberties in order to maintain and protect the freedoms of many. For example, it is okay to place asylum seekers in detention for a short period of time to make sure they are not a threat to national security, public order and just institutions. If this process is done quickly, an asylum seeker need not be in detention for very long at all and there is the assurance that the wider community will remain safe and its institutions protected. However, if this short-term detention did not occur, it may allow a non-genuine asylum seeker with disruptive intentions to enter a state and inhibit the liberties of other citizens by creating disorder. Ultimately, the goal is to maintain the rights of all human beings. People whose fundamental rights are being violated in their current country of residence clearly deserve the right to move
Before delving …show more content…
171) attests, “current entrance restrictions of refugees and immigrants are a gross violation of human liberties.” Even supporters of exclusion and tight border restrictions, such as Michael Walzer, recognise that liberal-democratic states have obligations to refugees. These include an obligation to admit those in need and provide them with necessary resources or even territory, to allow them to participate in the economy and acquire citizenship, and to protect them from potentially being expelled by future states or governments (Walzer 1983). These arguments clearly demonstrate that we have a responsibility to asylum seekers and refugees, and that we must admit and process them in a way which upholds liberal values and respects human …show more content…
States are entitled to detain asylum seekers upon arrival to ensure they are not a threat. Following this, asylum seekers can be placed in the community while their refugee claims are being assessed. While in detention, it is important that asylum seekers be aware of the reasons for their detention and the length of time that they will be detained. Although detaining an asylum seeker could be viewed as a breach of the right to free movement, it is justifiable to momentarily hinder one person’s liberties in order to maintain and protect the freedoms of many. For example, it is okay to place asylum seekers in detention for a short period of time to make sure they are not a threat to national security, public order and just institutions. If this process is done quickly, an asylum seeker need not be in detention for very long at all and there is the assurance that the wider community will remain safe and its institutions protected. However, if this short-term detention did not occur, it may allow a non-genuine asylum seeker with disruptive intentions to enter a state and inhibit the liberties of other citizens by creating disorder. Ultimately, the goal is to maintain the rights of all human beings. People whose fundamental rights are being violated in their current country of residence clearly deserve the right to move