Asylum Seekers Religion and Nationality

Question: Discuss about theAsylum Seekersfor Religion and Nationality. Answer: Introduction An asylum seeker is discussed as an individual who have requested for protection to another country after fleeing from his or her own nation due to safety issues. Their reason for fleeing mainly involves the fear of persecution on a variety of grounds like wars, race, religion, nationality or may be due to the expression of feelings which are perceived by the nation to be criminalist. The reason of persecution may also be due to the membership of the asylum seeker with a particular social group or political opinion that is severely looked upon as a negative aspect for the ordinary citizens. Different countries have different policies which they follow for granting the seekers access to their nation. The asylum seekers often tend to flee away from their nation under various risky situations and therefore need a much secured position in the new nation so that they may take shelter in the new area without many obligations. However often it is seen that the asylum seekers are much harassed in the new nation due to the various policies that the new nation follows to rant his application. Different countries have their own ways of judging the claims formed by the asylum seekers upon which the seeker is persecuted (Yoshida 2017, pg. 195). Australia had been no exceptions and with the government and its ever-changing rules is making the situation more tensed for the seekers. They are always detained for a large period of time which has no specific limitations and hence have to wait for an indefinite period of time for their applications to be considered and acted upon. The law about the fast tracking of the asylum seekers for seeking security on Australia under the condition of their participation in phase 1 trial is critically demeaning on the ground of humanity. It indeed can be considered as a serious ethical concern on the behalf of a government who instead of providing protection to the emotionally and physically drained shelter seekers are exploiting their seriousness of homelessness for their own benefits. A person who has to leave his place of origin undergoes a severe traumatic situation when travels to another country (Corbett et al. 2014, pg. 393-398). This results in huge emotional breakdown and also increases the chance of life risks. Exploiting such emotional situations of the asylum seekers are a big question on the ethics and the moral virtues of the Australian Government. They have a full critically analyzed idea that the seekers in order to get their application fast tracked would be ready to take any chances for the sake of shelt er and would be ready to accept anything for the sake of that time. Thereby Australian government had wittingly applied this technique to indulging a large number of participants for testing out their lucrative researches on them. If the results of the phase 1 clinical trials are positive, it would bring out huge profits for the Australian government in terms of scientific discoveries. However, if the phase I clinical trials have a negative impact on the the patients, it would be very stressful to overcome such issues. Phase 1 clinical trials are mainly performed on participants who get paid for participating in the trials. Over the year, participants are showing very less eagerness in the fields of scientific research due to their uncertainty about the effect of the drugs or the doses that are applied on them (Anderson 2015, ABC news). In such cases, it is indeed becoming very difficult to attract citizens for making them participate in the different researches. On the top of that the participants are also being paid by the government for participation. The government has therefore taken the decision to make the offer to the asylum seekers so that they can not only save the funds for research but also would not have to be concerned over the collection of participants for conducting the research (McPhail, Nyamori Taylor 2016, pg. 947-984). The step taken by the government is very controversial. This is demanded so because of the negative aspects that the existing policies that the government have for the asylum seekers are so strict and stringent, it automatically creates a concern when they seem to release new laws for them. On detailed analysis of the past experiences, as portrayed by BBC new, a large number of controversial cases can be noted. Australias coalition government had initiated the Operation Sovereign Borders in order. As per the government, they had done it in order to control the entry of the asylum seekers coming by boat and to check the visas provided by them (Hodge 2015, pg. 122-131). The military vessels parent in the waters has sent a large number of boats coming from Indonesia back in lifeboats and dinghies (BBC News, 2014). The government had said that they had mainly done so because they wanted to prevent the asylum seekers being controlled by criminal gangs. They have declared that they have ev idences where large number of Indonesian asylum seekers has tried to come to Australia by water routes, where they had to pay a large number of money to different types of people smugglers and have noted many deaths in this scenario. However, there lies a big picture behind it. Critics suggest that mainly a deep root of racial discrimination have played a very big role in the Australians proposing the policies (Rollins 2016, pg. 16). They have analyzed that the main reason for the opposition caused to the form of asylum seeking is mainly because of the fact of racial discrimination among them. Although the government had claimed that they have been able to save the integrity of its borders, their main concern of prevention of entry of other races had been the main motive. Another point that can also prove that the government are not of keen on the well being of the asylum seekers are the conditions of the shelters that they are providing when the cases of the asylum seekers are detained for inquiry by the government judging their claims. They are mainly done in the islands like the Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and also the Pacific Island Nation of Nauru (Woodhead 2016, pg 1161-1181). There are many evidences which suggest that even when the asylum seekers are found to be claiming justly and are allowed to settle as refugees, they are not allowed to enter and settle in the mainland of Australia (Rollins 2016, pg. 7). They are forced to continue their stay in the islands mentioned and are prevented from entering other areas in Australia. Even when they are allowed to stay there as refuges, proper hygiene conditions are not mentioned (BBC News, 2014). The refugees who are settling here suffer from inadequate maintenance of hygiene, unrelenting heat, cramped conditions and also lack of facilities. After the closure of the Manus island seekers due to order from the Supreme Court, no proper arrangements were taken as to where the people should move. All these unplanned procedures along with the different carelessness proved that the government was really reluctant over the issues of asylum seeking. Therefore it can be critically argued that the law which had been taken by the government will not benefit the asylum seekers in any way, rather will result in pushing the people into a zone of risks. The examples which are stated above already shows anti-asylum seekers feelings by the government which inevitably questions the real ethical and moral virtues that need to be exhibited by a government of a nation. They mainly show no concern for the asylum seekers rarely considering them as human who are in desperate need of making their lives normal. After the closure of the Manus Islands detentions centre, they were moved to the Christmas islands where already detentions centers were present. In course of time, reports came to pour about the increasing number of seekers becoming ill and are facing death. This was mainly because their health was being severely compromised while they are kept in detention (BBC News, 2014). Even children are also not given proper arrangement so that they can be able to live a better quality lives. All these led to the critics to provide their insights that the government had not been enough responsible to shower humanity on the asylum seekers and had been extremely selfish while handling the differ decisions of them. These had resulted in raising concerns over the immigration policies of Australia which even included children under detention (Sanggran, Haire Zion 2016, pg. 13-14). It thereby can satisfy the argument that is based on the concern whether the law published by the government for making the applications fast racked for the asylum seekers if they participate in phase 1 trials of lucrative pharmaceutical industry. The previous examples which are cited above gives a clear indication that the Australian government has no keen towards the development of health and life of the asylum seekers who are detained or are given the permissions to stay. They treat them as minority groups and often had exhibited an attitude of carelessness and a strong neglect. In this scenario, their initiative of taking them into phase 1 clinical trials with the bribe of making their application first paced is thereby criticized. This is mainly because it would act as giving stalks for fishing thereby providing an opportunity for the fish to have the stalk and at the same time getting caught by the fisherman. References: Anderson, S., 2015, Australias Treatment of Asylum Seekers May Damage UN Human Rights Council Bid, Gillian Triggs Says.ABC News. BBC News. 2014. Australia asylum: Why is it controversial? - BBC News. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28189608 [Accessed 28 Feb. 2017]. BBC News. 2014. Australia sued over asylum detainees' health care - BBC News. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28933493 [Accessed 28 Feb. 2017]. Corbett, E., Gunasekera, H., Maycock, A. and Isaacs, D., 2014, Australia's treatment of refugee and asylum seeker children: the views of Australian paediatricians.Med J Aust,201(7), pp.393-398. Henderson, C., 2014, Australias Treatment of Asylum Seekers From Human Rights Violations to Crimes Against Humanity.Journal of International Criminal Justice,12(5), pp.1161-1181. Hodge, P., 2015, A grievable life? The criminalisation and securing of asylum seeker bodies in the violent frames of Australias Operation Sovereign Borders.Geoforum,58, pp.122-131. McPhail, K., Nyamori, R.O. and Taylor, S., 2016, Escaping accountability: a case of Australias asylum seeker policy.Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal,29(6), pp.947-984. Rollins, A., 2016, AMA calls for independent scrutiny of asylum seeker health.Australian Medicine,28(8), p.16. Rollins, A., 2016, The AMA will speak up on asylum seeker health.Australian Medicine,28(5), p.7. Sanggaran, J.P., Haire, B. and Zion, D., 2016, The health care consequences of Australian immigration policies.PLoS Med,13(2), p.e1001960. Woodhead, M., 2016, Australian hospital discharges asylum seeker infant, into more controversy.BMJ: British Medical Journal,352. Yoshida, M., 2014, Australia's Treatment of Asylum Seekers. InProceedings of the General Meeting of the Association of Japanese Geographers Annual Meeting of the Association of Japanese Geographers, Autumn 2014(p. 195). The Association of Japanese Geographers.