Refugees major essay

Elizabeth Brandon 4224 7705 Refugee Rights
Refugee rights and self-determination
How should refugees be handled? Do Australians have a right to determine who
enters their country, and if so, how should the country handle those who arrive in
Australia or its territorial waters without permission?
Internationally there is an estimated 15.2 million refugees, with 983, 000 seeking
asylum (Phillips, 2011). National policies become the determining aspect in which
countries refugees and asylum seekers decide to reside. Nations’ policies fall between
two varying sides; nations that allow large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers
such as New Zealand, and other countries that have firm policies in place to keep
asylum seekers out, evident in Australia’s mandatory detention policies. Australia’s
control of refugee and asylum seekers intake has damaged Australia’s commitment to
protect genuine refugees as cases of illegal immigration increases (Amnesty
International, 2013). Also such controls on refugee’s admittance into Australia have
damaged other aspects, most notably race relations between individuals born in
Australia and individuals born elsewhere (Due, 2008). Australia’s national anthem
states that, “For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”
(Department of Foreign Affairs, 2013). However, Australia’s strict policy towards
refugees contradicts this. The hostility towards foreigners or anyone that transgresses
from ‘white Australia’ is evident in Australia’s historical treatment of indigenous
Australians, a history of white assimilation (Due, 2008). The issue of refugees and
asylum seekers within an Australian context seems unlikely to be resolved
considering current issues of integration, finance and national security regarding
immigration is reminiscent of the past.
The overall purpose of this essay is to address the ways in which Australia
handles refugees. Firstly, I will identify how refugees and asylum seekers are
currently processed in Australia. Secondly, I will argue that under certain
circumstances, Australia does have the right to determine who enters the country,
however unless deemed a threat, Australia must protect all refugees and asylum
seekers accordingly under international law (United Nations, 2013). Thirdly, I will
identify alternatives to mandatory sentencing and highlight this point with examples
from the New Zealand government’s policies regarding refugees. In doing so, I will
show that Australia’s austere immigration policies, particularly towards refugees and

asylum seekers does not deter other refugees who decide to tempt the same fate,
therefore other alternatives to mandatory sentencing is required.
Australia’s Political Stance on Refugees and Asylum Seekers
The Australian government has initiated various policies and approaches to detracting
asylum seekers to the Australian border. Deterrence is the fundamental approach
undertaken by the Australian government, not only towards stopping asylum seekers
coming to Australian shores but also making it complicated for refugees to apply for
refugee status (Devetak, 2004). During the 90’s-2000’s, one method utilised was the
distribution of videos to countries where asylum seekers were most likely to originate
from (Briskman et al, 2008). The videos outlined the dangers of the journey, and of
native fauna such as sharks and crocodiles, whilst describing Australia’s strict
mandatory detention policies (Briskman et al, 2008). Yet, such videos did nothing to
underline the human rights abuses of those asylum seekers. Still, this method has not
impacted on the number of refugees and asylum seekers coming to Australia
considering the increase in arrivals in recent months (Parliament of Australia, 2013).
Australia’s policy of mandatory detention of all unauthorized non-citizens is one
approach to deter potential refugees from entering the country (Parliament of
Australia, 2013). Asylum seekers who have managed to arrive in Australian waters
will be automatically placed in detention whilst their applications for asylum are
processed (Devetak, 2004). As a result of increasing numbers of detainees in
Australian detention centres, the Australian government in 2001 signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nauru and Papua New Guinea, allowing
the creation of detention centres to provide accommodation and process the claims of
asylum seekers on Manus Island (Parliament of Australia, 2013). This process became
known as the ‘Pacific Solution’ (Briskman et al, 2008).
Claims for asylum are not processed under Australian law; instead Australian
immigration personnel and UNHCR officials are responsible for processing the
claims in accord with the Refugee Convention (Parliament of Australia, 2013).
During this time, there was a decrease in boat arrivals to Australia (Briskman et al,
2008). However, Galbraith (2003) argues that it is too naïve to assume that the
decrease in boat arrivals into Australia in 2001 was a direct result of the ‘Pacific

Solution’. In fact, certain international events such as the Saddam Hussein’s removal
from power in 2003 could have been one reason for the decrease in refugee arrivals in
Australia (Galbraith, 2003).
UNHCR’s (Parliament of Australia, 2013) data report validates that there was a
decrease in asylum seeker movements internationally, including the countries that do
not place refugee and asylum seekers into mandatory detention centres. Nonetheless,
refugee advocates and human rights groups condemned the ‘Pacific Solution’,
claiming that offshore processing breached international refugee law, is financially
burdening, and physically, mentally and emotionally harmful for detainees (Amnesty
International, 2013). Still, the Gillard government is undertaking the same defective
policy with strength and dedication.
Mandatory detention and offshore processing underlines powerful discourse and
representations of what refugees and asylum seekers have come to be identified and
depicted as internationally, and most notably in Australia. The policies put in place by
the Australian government to deter asylum seekers from entering Australia gives the
idea that the government has control over its borders (Devetak, 2004). However, such
strategies of deterrence label asylum seekers as ‘illegal’ and therefore ‘criminal’
(Devetak, 2004). Terrorist is another label given to certain refugees originating from
the Middle East. Support for this statement comes from Rajaram and Grundy-Warr
(2004) who argue that obvious lines between terrorist and refugee exist. Rajaram and
Grundy-Warr (2004) state that adding fear of terrorism to boats carrying refugees
from the Middle East is a cunning way of bringing race relations into the refugee
debate. As I shall highlight later in this essay, race and what it means to be Australian
underpins many of the discussions and debates regarding immigrants nationally.
The negative depiction of refugees is evident internationally as well. In 2001,
US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, associated immigrants as terrorists by stating,
“Let the terrorists among us be warned. If you overstay your visas even by one day,
we will arrest you. If you violate a local law, we will work to make sure that you are
put in jail and kept in custody as long as possible” (Nazarova, 2002: 1335). In this
way the refugee is outside the law. In an Australian context, the protection of
Australia’s shores from refugees and asylum seekers becomes an ethical point: if an
individual assists in illegal boat arrivals then that same individual is also assisting
illegal people smugglers (Rajaram and Grundy-Warr, 2004). Ultimately, from this

moral standpoint, the Australian government depicts the protection of our borders
from refugees as a problem that impacts all Australians and therefore demands
collective action in what political figures term ‘stopping the boats’.
The use of deterrence as a strategy to counter the amount of refugees coming into
Australia is not as effective as the government would have us believe. Croc, Saul and
Dastyari (as cited in Briskman et al, 2008: 113) argue that it is unacceptable to use the
grief and anxiety of some asylum seekers to deter others, and there is insignificant
indication that detention has served a deterrence function. Individuals fleeing
persecution are not likely to be deterred by the relatively lesser damage of mandatory
detention, and some detainees were in fact oblivious of their final destination
(Briskman et al, 2008). Ultimately, to reprimand one group of people to deter others
communicates to people, Australia’s unwillingness to protect people from persecution
and other harmful scenarios (Briskman et al, 2008).
Does Australia Have a Right to Determine Who Comes Into This Country?
In recent years, Australia has given rise to certain issues that have stemmed from the
‘War on Terror’ (Wazana, 2004). Such issues include border control, tighter controls
on immigration, and threats on national security, which have added to debates
regarding the conception of belonging and who is considered to be ‘Australian’ (Due,
2008). To return back to the issues that have stemmed from the fear of terrorism, if
Australia believes that they are a nation under attack, then Australia has every right to
control its borders (Due, 2008). Considering that Australia claims that certain
refugees are a threat to national security in the asylum seeker debate, Australia claims
the right to protect the nation. Part of protecting the nations borders includes various
actions such as closing national borders and choosing who comes in and out of the
country (Due, 2008). Yet, not everyone is so swayed by this point. Wazana (2004)
highlights the irony that exists when Australia claims that national sovereignty is at
threat when the Australian government has altered existing laws and accepted new
laws over the past decade, most recently to monitor and control the ‘free’ movement
of refugees. Therefore Australia’s claim that it has lost its ability to assert full control
over its affairs is exaggerated. Wazana (2004: 86) states that this “illusion of self-
preservation is important for the Australian collective imagination”. Ultimately,

Australian’s begin to believe that control over the nations borders is a defense tactic,
and in turn communicates the idea that the government has full control of the nation.
The idea of belonging and one’s ability to integrate into what is deemed the
‘Australian way of life’ is a topic regularly discussed when determining who comes
into Australia. Such discussions on refugee restrictions were evident in the media in
recent years when former minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews, restricted the
intake of African refugees (Due, 2008). Andrew’s claims lay on the foundations that
‘gangs’ of young African refugees, were a clear example of the failure of the
integration of Africans into the Australian culture (Due, 2008). This was evident
when Andrews stated that, “Australia has the right to ensure those who come here are
integrating into a socially cohesive community” (Farouque and Cooke 2007 as cited
in Due, 2008:2), reverberating Howard’s 2001 election campaign statement, “We will
decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” (Due,
2008). During the Tampa crisis, Howard further stated that “Every nation has the
right to effectively control its borders and to decide who comes here and under what
circumstances, and Australia has no intention of surrendering or compromising that
right” (Marr and Wilkinson, 2003: 245).
Andrew’s statements regarding restrictions of African refugees came shortly
after the death of Sudanese teenager Liep Gony, who came to Australia in 2000 from
Sudan (Due, 2008). Andrew’s comments were stated regardless of the fact that
Gony’s murderers were neither Sudanese nor refugees, and also regardless of fact
that, Liep was an Australian citizen and not refugee (Dubecki, 2007). Other media
articles reporting on Kevin Andrews’ strict control of African refugees intake and the
remarks regarding integration took an unsurprising approach. Even though few
articles (Jackson, 2007; Due, 2008) reported on the plight of African refugees, the
mass focused on the lack of integration of refugees, particularly African refugees into
the Australian lifestyle and the financial restraints of refugee funding (Due, 2008;
OzSoapbox, 2009; Houlihan, 2008). Whilst singlehandedly, claiming Australia’s
liberality and acceptance towards refugees and asylum seekers (Due, 2008).
The discussion concerning the threat of refugees extends to individuals who have
been granted admission into Australia. For example, in the media, Opposition Leader
Tony Abbott supported a ‘tracking’ initiative whereby asylum seekers on bridging

visas would be subjected to compulsory behaviour procedures which included
tracking (Farr, 2013). This initiative was in response to demands for stricter control of
refugees (Farr, 2013). Abbott argued that once asylum seekers were granted visas,
they were just vanishing into society and therefore the government had decreased
power of the system (Farr, 2013). This issue is exemplified in Abbott’s statement
"The Government has to maintain control of the system. This is a Government which
has not only lost control of our borders, it's lost control of boat people once they get
into our country" (Farr, 2013). The Opposition is seeking police registration of
individuals released from detention centres on bridging visas as they wait for their
claims to be accepted (Farr, 2013). The concern for ‘tracking’ of asylum seekers
stems from the a fear of individuals on bridging visas not keeping their commitment
of telling the Immigration Department when they move around and change residential
address (Brickman et al, 2008). When individuals fail to notify their change of
address to Immigration then the consequences include being placed back into
detention and can also harm their chances of refugee status (Brickman et al, 2008).
Ultimately, the depiction of refugees as criminals is highlighted once again and
another way for the government to look as if they have this issue under control.
Alternatives to Mandatory Detention
Australia, per year, is in the minority when it comes to resettling asylum seekers and
refugees (Mares, 2001). As stated by the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMMI) (2013) report, Australia assists a lot of
refugees in the resettlement process and for a nation with a small population this is a
feat that all Australians’ can applaud. Australia places second to the United States in
the ability to resettle refugees (DIMMI, 2013). However according to Mares (2001),
Australia is positioned at number thirty-three on the UNHCR’s list of overall refugee
population. Moreover, Australia did not even rank in the top forty nations for the
percentage of refugees per capita (Mares, 2001). The United States Committee for
Refugees identifies that the ratio of refugees to the aggregate population in Australia
is 1:1145 compared to Canada 1:1566 and Thailand 1:285 (Due, 2008). DIMMI
(2013) essentially ignores these ratios.
In 2011, Australia’s boat arrivals amounted to 4, 565 boats, which is swamped
by Pakistan’s 1.7 million and Iran’s 886 500 refugees (Parliament of Australia, 2013).

Whilst increases in the figure of boat arrivals containing refugees and asylum seekers
in Australia has been immensely documented, and exemplified in the figures above,
most of the assistance of refugees is seen in the developing world (Parliament of
Australia, 2013). Clearly, the Australian government believes that current policies are
effective in assisting and resettling refugees and asylum seekers. Yet, the figures
above tell a different story. Therefore, alternatives to mandatory detention and
offshore processing of refugees by Australia is needed, especially in considering
federal laws that influence the means in which asylum seekers are apprehended in
Australia.
A number of alternatives that Australia should consider in its attempts to assist
asylum seekers have been offered by many critics of mandatory sentencing. One
critic, Amnesty International (2013), argue for an independent review of each
refugees case to determine the situation of all asylum seekers, rejected or not and both
onshore and offshore. This review has been considered due to the notion that only the
individuals who are considered to be exceptional cases should be detained, resulting
in the release of other refugees from detention (Amnesty International, 2013). This
theory argues for the depletion of detention centres and for a more dignified and
effective means for asylum seekers in its replacement (Amnesty International, 2013).
Briskman et al (2008) suggest a protection model to be put into place, acting as a safe
house for these individuals, whilst their cases are reviewed.
The Australian government has demonstrated some commitment to reducing
the amount of individuals placed in mandatory detention centres. One attempt the
government has undertaken is the Residential Housing Projects (RHPs) (Amnesty
International, 2013). The government believes RHPs are a moral alternative to
detention for families, women and children in particular, as it allows individuals to
reside in a traditional western home-like environment (Amnesty International, 2013).
Targeting families, women and children who are deemed by the government to be the
most at risk in detention centres is a responsible initiative, however what about the
susceptibility of men in detention? Amnesty International (2013) argues that men,
most notably fathers and husbands are unfairly targeted when families are separated
by the government’s negation to relocate men in RHPs. The cost of RHPs is husbands
and fathers being separated from the family. RHPs also fail to consider the single men
in detention (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). Both Amnesty International (2013)

and Commonwealth of Australia (2009) argue that RHPs fail to tackle effectively the
indefinite nature of mandatory detention and in turn is not a valid alternative to
detention. Amnesty International (2013) argue that RHPs represent another type of
detention that not only entail similar monitoring and supervision as seen in detention
centres, but also produce similar negative effects on the mental, physical and
emotional health of detainees.
The Parliament of Australia (2013) and Briskman et al (2008) both share the
same assumptions regarding alternatives to detention, arguing that community based
solutions are a superior alternative to detention centres and RHPs. Community based
solutions allow detainees to reside in the community without monitoring and
surveillance. Under this alternative children are able to attend school and adults are
given the opportunity to attend community based education classes (Parliament of
Australia, 2013). Restrictions do apply to Individuals in community-based detention.
Individuals are not permitted to seek and take part in any form of employment. As a
result, non- governmental support from the Australian Red Cross, for example
provide community based detainees with a living allowance (Parliament of Australia,
2013). Another sanction placed on individuals is the requirement of reporting to the
Department of Immigration and citizenship regularly (Parliament of Australia, 2013).
Commonwealth of Australia (2009) highlights that community based alternatives to
detention have a high conformity rate. Yet community-based alternatives continue to
be under operated.
As stated before deterrence is the fundamental approach undertaken by the Australian
government to prevent asylum seekers from unlawfully coming into Australia. Instead
of providing alternatives to deterrence, the focus of deterrence can be understood and
realigned from a different angle. Support for this argument comes from Hyndman and
Mountz (2008) who suggests that instead of making Australia less appealing to
asylum seekers, Australia should put its attention to making other countries such as
Malaysia more suitable and adequate in compliance with human rights and refugee
conventions. One way of focusing the attention onto Malaysia and Indonesia is
increasing Australia’s funding to the UNHCR (Hyndman & Mountz, 2008). At
present, there are an insufficient number of UNHCR employees in Indonesia to
process applications, which has implications for resettlement (Merope, 2012). In a

recent article, Merope (2012) argues that if asylum seekers had an opportunity to be
relocated from Malaysia and/ or Indonesia within an equitable time, instead of waiting
for numerous years, there would be fewer motivations to come to Australia.
Moreover, Australia is the only nation to combine both onshore and offshore refugee
intakes, which means that for each asylum seeker trying to enter Australia; there is
fewer places for genuine refugees from overseas (Merope, 2012). This linkage of
offshore and onshore programs, not only gives the Australian public ammunition to
depict asylum seekers as “queue jumpers” but decreases the chances of asylum
seekers in Malaysia or Indonesia being resettled from there (Merope, 2012).
Assisting other nations in adopting more humane approaches to resettling asylum
seekers is an alternative that Hyndman and Mountz (2008) and Merope (2012) argues
is more effective than offshore processing. Still, Australia is undeniably a desirable
destination for asylum seekers and refugees and it seems naive of Australians and
Merope and Hyndman and Mountz to believe that asylum seekers would stop coming
to Australia due to increased funding and decreasing the time in which asylum seekers
are held in detention centres. Ultimately, it is the broader social, political, economic
and cultural frameworks that underpin the way in which countries such as Malaysia
choose to handle refugees.
Certain nations have demonstrated sound policies that attempt to resettle asylum
seekers into the community. For example, New Zealand’s policies in resettling
refugees are of significance considering that along with Australia, it is one of a few
countries that resettle refugees. However, unlike Australia, New Zealand is currently
in the early stages of implementing various national integration strategies in regards
to the resettlement and integration of asylum seekers (Grogan, 2008). Upon arrival,
refugees are situated in Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre, which entails the
assembly of individual settlement procedures for each person (Grogan, 2008). After
six weeks refugees are resettled into chosen communities throughout New Zealand
with access to an array of resources (Grogan, 2008). Some of the resources available
include programs such as the Settlement National Action Plan (Grogan, 2008). Along
side this is the Labour government’s formation of the Refugee Resettlement group
(RMS) (Grogan, 2008). This group facilitates with assimilating into the ‘New Zealand
lifestyle’, with lessons on New Zealand culture, as well as assisting with living
arrangements and tertiary education (Grogan, 2008). An important aspect is that

counseling and psychotherapy is extended to any individuals who need it. This
initiative highlights the interconnectedness of New Zealand’s services from the
government, to Housing New Zealand, Ministry of Education and the Manukau
District Health Board (Grogan, 2008). New Zealand’s policies exemplify the nations
conformity to the Universal declaration of human rights and signify a more
empathetic method to refugees and asylum seekers than Australia. Ultimately,
Australia should seek to better balance the states interests and the rights of individuals
as recognised in New Zealand’s approach.
Overall, Australia’s mandatory detention of asylum seekers is a hard-line strategy
used to deter individuals from entering the country. At its core, Australia’s policy on
deterrence is about unequal control and is at best an impermanent solution to what is
effectively a large-scale issue. This essay highlights strategies undertaken by the
Australian government by discussing the policies and depictions of asylum seekers,
and by arguing that Australia does have a right to protect its borders. Contemporary
media articles on Liep Gony and Opposition leader Tony Abbott have highlighted one
issue that needs to be resolved in the asylum seeker debate; that Australia needs to
find a better solution for the resettlement of asylum seekers. Ultimately, alternatives
to mandatory detention and offshore processing must incorporate the rights of the
individuals seeking asylum as realised in the New Zealand model. Still, it may be
years ahead until Australia begin to question how a policy of mandatory detention and
offshore processing is so misunderstood, yet still utilised concurrently. Until then, as
the number of asylum seekers and refugees increase, the heads of the federal
governing parties will continue to blame such increases on each other.

Reference List
Briskman, L, Latham, S & Goddard, C 2008, Human rights over board: seeking
asylum in Australia, Scribe Publication, Victoria.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, Immigration detention in Australia- Community-
based alternatives to detention, Parliament of the commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra
Department of   Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2013, National Anthem, Australian
Government, ACT, viewed 1st May 2013,
<http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs 2012, A new life
in a new home, DIMMI, Canberra, viewed 1st May 2013,
<http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/A_New_Life_3.pdf>
Devetak, R 2004, ‘In fear of refugees: the politics of Border Protection in Australia’,
The International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 8, no. 1, January, pp. 101-9,
viewed 1st May 2013,
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1364298042000212565#.UZ4Qu3Arx
SU>
Dubecki, L 2007. 'The pain of a senseless death in a safe suburb', The Age, 11th
October, viewed 2nd May 2013, <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-
senseless-death-in-a-safe-suburb/2007/10/10/1191695993796.html>
Due, C 2008, ‘Who are strangers? : Absorbing Sudanese refugees into a white
Australia’, ACRAWSA e-journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-13, viewed 1st May 2013,
<http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/59ClemenceDue.pdf>
Farr, M 2013, ‘Tony Abbott supports tracking asylum seekers living in the
community’, news.com.au, 1st March, viewed 2nd May 2013,
<http://www.news.com.au/national-news/tony-abbott-supports-tracking-asylum-
seekers-living-in-the-community/story-fncynjr2-1226588327679>
Galbraith, P 2003, ‘Refugees from War in Iraq’, Migration Policy Institute, no. 2,
Washington, viewed 20th May 2013,
<http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/MPIPolicyBriefIraq.pdf>
Grogan, P 2008, Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats? Refugee Resettlement, Integration
and New Zealand’s Settlement Strategy, Fulbright New Zealand, Viewed 2nd
May 2013,
<http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/axford2008_grogan.pdf>

Houlihan, L 2008, ‘Fears our crime being imported’, Herald Sun, 09 March, viewed
3rd May 2013, <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/fears-our-crime-
being-imported/story-e6frf7kx-1111115748842>
Hyndman, J and Mountz, A 2008, ‘Another Brick in the Wall? Neo-Refoulement and
the Externalization of Asylum by Australia and Europe’, Government and Opposition,
vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 249-269, viewed 5th May 2013,
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00251.x/full>
Jackson, A 2007, ‘For refugees, it’s been a hard, dazed journey into the light’, The
Age, 13 October, viewed 2nd May 2013,
<http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/for-refugees-its-been-a-hard-dazed-
journey-into-the-light/2007/10/12/1191696179105.html>
Oz Soapbox 2009, Sudanese crime in Melbourne plummets to new lows, OzSoapbox,
viewed 3rd May 2013, <http://ozsoapbox.com/melbourne/sudanese-crime-in-
melbourne-plummets-to-new-lows-at-sunshine-station/>
Mares, P. 2002. Borderline, Australia: University of New South Wales Press
Marr, D. and M. Wilkinson. 2003. Dark Victory, New South Wales, Allen and
Unwin’
May, S 2011, Refugees in Australia, Social policy connections, viewed 3rd May 2013,
<http://www.socialpolicyconnections.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/refugees-
australia-sally-may-oct111.pdf>
Merope, S 2012, Push v pull: the morality of offshore processing, The University of
Melbourne, viewed 6th May 2013, <http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-
morality-of-offshore-processing/>
Nazarova, I 2002, ‘Alienating ‘human’ from ‘right’: US and UK non-compliance with
asylum obligations under international human rights law’, Fordham
International Law Journal, vol. 25, pp. 1335-1417, viewed 6th May 2013,
<http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jmtoc/article.cfm?id=2002386570>
Parliament of Australia 2013, Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976, Parliament of
Australia, Canberra, viewed 3rd May 2013,
<http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentar
y_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals>
Phillips, J 2011, Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts?, Department of
Parliamentary Services, viewed 6th May 2013,
<http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf>
Rajaram, PK & Grundy-Warr, C 2004, ‘The irregular migrant as homo sacer:
migration and detention in Australia, Malaysia, and Thailand’, International
Migration, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 33-64, viewed 5th May 2013,
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0020-7985.2004.00273.x/abstract>

United nations, 2013, The universal declaration of human rights, UN, New York,
viewed 27 February 2013,
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml >
Wazana, R 2004, ‘Fear and loathing Down Under: Australian Refugee Policy and the
National Imagination’, Refuge, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 83-95, viewed 5th May 2013,
<https://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/refuge/article/viewFile/21320/19991>

Refugees major essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Refugees major essay

Similar to Refugees major essay (9)

Refugees major essay