The Recognition, Respect and Support of These Human Rights - Essay Example

? Impartiality is the only Satisfactory Response by a in the Modern World to Asylum Seekers who Approach its Borders Course Date Impartiality is the only Satisfactory Response by a State in the Modern World to Asylum Seekers who Approach its Borders It is universally recognized by the democratic states that all people in the world were born and enjoy human rights. It is legally recognized that just by the virtue of birth that every individual is entitled to be treated in manner that upholds respect and comfort to the person. The rights accorded to an individual by birth are unquestionable and undeniable. These human rights cannot be denied from any individual and cannot be alienated from them either. The right to be treated with respect is equal to all people irrespective of their skin color, race, religion, or culture. Such human rights are being incorporated into the legal systems of many democratic countries. This, however, has not come spontaneously, but through protests, campaigns and pressure from support groups and organizations. The problems associated with asylum seekers and their handling in liberal democratic countries has become an international problem1. Whereas such campaigns and major steps are being made towards the recognition, respect and support of these human rights, some countries regularly abuse these rights. Such cases are reported in countries without legislation that can protect these rights. In a few instances where the legislation exists, it has proven difficult for these nations to implement. People are progressively becoming more aware of their rights. The importance of these rights is being recognized, and there have been major changes in the legal structure of many democratic countries to accommodate the human rights acts. It is, however, worth to note that, more needs to be done to ensure human beings enjoys their life to the fullest. There has been an increasing concern over how refugees and asylum seekers from underdeveloped countries are treated in the developed countries where they seek asylum. This concern has been greatly on Australia, which admits refugees as well as asylum seekers from all lifestyles. The country welcomes and accepts refugees and asylum seekers running away from their countries to avoid persecution. According to Matthew Gibney’s “The Ethics and Politics of Asylum,” there are an estimated twenty million refugees in the world. If the nations where these people seek asylum cannot accommodate them, they have a tough luck. Many people are seeking to enter the developed countries as asylum seekers. Some of the people who seek asylum in developed countries are illegal immigrants taking advantage of the policies and legislations that allow asylum seekers to immigrate freely to other countries. It has become evident that various countries are putting restrictive policies on immigration to prevent illegal immigrants from developing and underdeveloped countries from entering their countries. Democratic governments have had difficulties in differentiating asylum seekers from economic immigrants into their countries2. The number of human refugees is increasing by the day and the lack of will from the community to accommodate them has brought enormous suffering to them. Asylum has become one fundamental issue in the politics of democratic countries. In 1993, the German parliament amended the basic law in an effort to curb the entry of asylum seekers into the country’s territory. The move by the parliament was aimed at slowing down the entrance of asylum seekers into the nation. In 1994, the Clinton administration in the United States, conducted a military intervention in Haiti Island, in a bid to re-establish a regime that did not produce refugees and asylum seekers. This was after much criticism on the U.S policy that allowed veto of refugees and asylum seekers on boats going to Florida. When the Norwegian Freighter, the Tampa, attempted to land in Australia, the Australian government restricted it on the ground that it was carrying refugees and asylum seekers3. Forbidding of the Tampa by the Australian government raised a heated international controversy, as it was considered as an abuse of human rights. In less than two years later in 2003 in Britain, there was already a heated debate on the number of asylum seekers. The British administration argued that the number of refugees and asylum figures had reached unparalleled levels. This was despite the fact the then Prime Minister Tony Blair had a well-monitored asylum policy in place. From the above reactions of the liberally democratic countries, it is evident that they have indirectly fallen victims of the problem of asylum. The rich democratic states in the world have in the last 30 years incorporated into their laws, restrictive measures on people seeking asylum within their territory. The restrictive measures are both internal and external. They include visa regimes, carrier sanctions, as well as airport contact officers as the external measures to restrict entry of asylum seekers and refugees4. The asylum seekers who are already in these countries are unfairly treated by being given limited access to decent housing and other welfare amenities. Ironically, these countries are executing these policies whereas publicly claiming to recognize and uphold the permissible duty to take care of refugees and other people seeking protection. This is in line with the 1951 “UN convention on Status of Refugees,” as well as the 1967 Protocol, which calls for nations to take care of refugees and asylum seekers. The debate surrounding the asylum seekers in liberal democratic countries should be viewed as a global problem where the refugees and asylum seekers have been described as front-runners in seeking life chances and economic opportunities. The global economy is increasingly deteriorating and economic opportunities are becoming scarce. This factor of a deteriorating economy has made the efforts of formulating an asylum policy challenging. It is challenging for these countries where people run to seek asylum to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and people willing to migrate for economic reasons. The western countries, which accept asylum seekers, are pressed in a difficult situation in their efforts of establishing a policy that would not be besieged by applications of people seeking asylum. Majority of the people seeking to settle in the western liberal democratic countries, which are signatory to the “1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” are asylum seekers, economic migrants, refugees and family migrants. The definition of the term refugee by UN has been blamed for the high number of people migrating to the western countries. Majority of the people migrating, are from poor developing and underdeveloped countries running to these developed countries, to seek economic opportunities5. The United Nations hold that a refugee is a “an individual who owing to a ‘well founded fear of persecution’ for reasons of political opinion, race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group are outside their country of nationality and are unable or, as a result of such fear unwilling to return to it.” This definition is adopted by many nations under the umbrella of the United Nations. The definition has put much emphasis on three features used to identify a refugee. A refugee, according to the definition, must be displaced from their home country. The application of this feature is that people displaced internally within their country do not fall under the category refugees and do not, therefore, require any protection or assistance from other liberal democratic countries. The second character that a refugee should be attributed with is the fact that he or she is running away from his mother country because of fear or risk of persecution. The same definition continues to emphasize that a refugee must have the risk or horror of maltreatment because of political, race, religious, ethnic group, or attachment to a specific social assembly. The definition of refugees and people seeking asylum as people fearing persecution reflects on the times of cold war where refugees were regarded as victims of oppressive regimes. The definition of the term refugee has raised questions and liberal democratic nations have adopted a new definition that includes people displaced forcefully from their homes even without crossing international boundaries. During the war in Bosnia, UNHCR evacuated people while still in their country. This is an indication of how assistance and protection can be provided to individuals who are still in their countries if they are faced with danger. The definition of the United Nations can exclude many people who are expelled from their countries without facing any risk of persecution6. This is evident, as people evicted by the deadly Ebola virus in Zaire may not be considered as refugees seeking asylum in other countries. This definition of refugees has greatly affected asylum policies in the western countries who may lock out genuine asylum seekers, but who may not be included with their definition of an asylum seeker or a refugee. Gibney argues that the issue asylum and immigration policy can be approached from three viewpoints. The first viewpoint holds that the liberal democratic states can help refugees and asylum seekers partially. In this approach, the states in question are morally obligated to serve the needs of their citizens first before assisting the asylum seekers. The second approach, which Gibney supports, is where states accommodate and assist asylum seekers on humanitarian grounds. According to this approach, the states have a duty to assists the asylum seekers if only the collective cost of doing so is low. According to this approach, the help accorded to asylum seekers is pegged on financial discretion of the developed countries. Gibney asserts that as per this humanitarian policy, if the host state does not want to help the asylum seeker on the ground of cost, they have no option but to send the asylum seekers back to their country. The third approach to asylum and refugee policy is impartiality. This policy advocates for liberal states to recognize and uphold the rights of all individuals. This policy includes equal treatment of asylum seekers in foreign countries. These asylum seekers and refugees should be treated equally to the citizens of that country. Their human rights should be respected and their dignity upheld. Since the 1970s, there has been increased concern over how genuine asylum seekers can be distinguished from economic migrants7. There has been increased application for asylum in the western countries, as well as, Australia and North America. This increased demand has made it challenging these states to maintain a credible policy that would assist only the genuine asylum seekers. Impartiality requires these liberal democratic states to accommodate asylum seekers without undermining their rights. They need to safeguard their human rights by providing them with decent services including housing and security. The governments of these states fear such a policy, as it might create room for economic immigrants into their territories. The asylum seekers are people who would like to lead a normal life. While there might be people who seek asylum without being genuine refugees, it is worth noting that genuine refugees would also like want to be involved in gainful employment. People locked out by certain policies like the partiality policy, might be genuine refugees escaping risk of persecution from their countries. The liberal democratic countries should use the employees’ countries of origin to determine whether the refugees are genuine or are economic refugees. For instance, it should be appropriate to accord help and protection to refugees from countries such as Iran, Syria, Somalia, and Afghanistan8. Such countries should be expected to produce genuine asylum seekers. It should be therefore, necessary for the democratic countries in the west to apply impartiality in helping and protecting these refugees/ asylum seekers. It is, however, vital for the immigration officials to operate with vigilance, as many people from un-developed and under- developed countries, look forward to such opportunities to apply for asylum. They run to these developed countries for economic reasons. The United Kingdom and the United State are the key destinies for these people. Some conditions in a country, does not guarantee its citizens to apply for asylum. For instance, a military coup may not necessarily put the lives of the citizens at the risk of persecution, and it would be inappropriate for them to rush and seek for asylum. There have been various restraints on some political parties or trade unions, and economic immigrants take this opportunity to apply for asylum in the developed countries. In some countries like Australia, there are acts, which prevent people from entering the country without legitimate documents. People who enter the country without legitimate documents are referred to us unlawful non-citizens. However, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 14 (1)” asserts that every individual has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. This is in concurrence with the provision of the Refugee Convention, which provides for a right of asylum for refugees escaping fear or risk of persecution. People seeking refugee in the country must be assessed to ensure they deserve refugee status. The assessment of the asylum seekers is based on the Migration Act 1953. The Act empowers the courts to decide on the merit of the asylum seekers, while applying the rule of procedural fairness and natural justice9. The asylum seekers, who are assessed and determined to be genuine asylum seekers, are allowed to apply for Visas. Asylum seekers, as noted before, are people running away for the fear of persecution. Application of the partiality policy in selecting people to enter the developed and democratic countries leaves the lives other people in danger. The consequence of locking out some refugees may be the loss of their lives. The policy applied to lock out asylum seekers, should be critically assessed to ensure the people in genuine need are not denied the help. This calls for impartiality approach, which recognizes and respects the human rights of the asylum seekers. There cannot be a compelling reason why the liberal democratic states should select people to enter their boundaries or not. All human beings are equal, require, and deserve equal treatment. It is legal and moral duty of these states to allow the asylum seekers to seek refuge within their territory. In the United States, the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, controls the entry of foreigners into the country10. People seeking asylum in the country are thoroughly scrutinized before being given the permits. People migrating to the United States have been termed as the major cause for population increase in the country. The policies followed are stipulated in the immigration and nationality act, which was constituted in 1952. Before the law came into place, there were other statutes governing immigration. The controversy surrounding the immigration policies in the western countries, have been accelerated by the ever-changing market economies. The problem of an effective policy to govern immigrants has been derailed by the change in governments and other authorities. Changes in governments come with different policies concerning immigrants and asylum seekers. These states should respect the rights of asylum seekers. These human rights cannot be denied from any individual and cannot be alienated from them either. The debate that surrounds the asylum seekers in liberal democratic countries should be viewed as a global problem where the refugees and asylum seekers have been described as front-runners in seeking life chances and economic opportunities The right to be treated with respect is equal to all people irrespective of their skin color, race, religion, or culture. Such human rights are being incorporated into the legal systems of many democratic countries. This, however, has not come spontaneously, but through protests, campaigns and pressure from support groups and organizations. Impartiality should be applied and allow all asylum seekers to immigrate to their countries of choice. People should be allowed to migrate to where work is and negotiate the best terms and contracts. The demand for an effective policy that governs the immigration of asylum seeker is real. The asylum seekers’ security and welfare should be provided by the liberal democratic countries. It is also vital to have a policy that differentiates genuine asylum seekers from economic immigrants. The certified refugees should be treated equally with the citizens of the destination country. According to Gibney, the policies, which favor partiality and impartiality, should be abandoned. The humanitarian approach should be adopted as it favors. Under the humanitarian approach, the asylum seekers are assisted and protected by the government if the government can afford. However, this approach exposes the asylum seekers to danger of being returned to their home countries, where had run from. Bibliography Elliot, B. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999, p 41 Frank, B. Tampering with Asylum: A Universal Humanitarian Problem. Columbia University Press, Columbia, 2007, p 145 Julie, F. U.S. Immigration Laws Under the Threat of Terrorism. Prentice Hall, New York, 2005, p 165 Matthew, G. The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, P 1-35 McMaster, D. Asylum Seekers: Australia's Response to Refugees. Melbourne University Publish, Melbourne, 2001, p 128 Peter, M. Borderline: Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Oxford University Press, London, 2001, p 254 Read More