Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
This week as we mark the 10th anniversary of Tampa, the High Court is hearing a legal challenge to the Malaysian solution and an inquiry into suicide and self-harm in detention is underway. Meanwhile a new report hopes to change the direction of the debate on refugees.
The Malaysia solution has hit a snag called the High Court of Australia. The Government is now in very stormy waters, because the rule of law and the separation of powers do not readily yield to the sound bites of populist sentiment and the fear tactics of politicians.
The Malaysian solution is unprincipled, but it might just work — stopping the boats. If other countries try to replicate it, we will have to tear up the Refugee Convention and start again. And the plight of unaccompanied minors transported from our shores to Malaysia will be on our conscience.
This is not a regional solution to a regional problem, but a bilateral attempt at solving an Australian problem. To stop the boats, one needs to engage in measures contrary to the Refugee Convention. Church groups can not endorse something they know to be either unworkable or immoral.
Officially, the ban on journalists interviewing or filming asylum seekers in detention is for the detainees' protection. But it also stops them from sharing their stories with the public. Surely asylum seekers are capable of determining who is and is not acting in their best interests.
The Rudd Government promised positive reforms after a decade of 'boat people'-bashing from the previous government. Three years later, we are back where we were. To understand how this happened it is helpful to overview the changes under Labor and the gradual decline in 'key immigration values'.
Just as it should be the role of lawyers and refugee advocates to analyse the disadvantages and possible unlawful elements of this announcement, we must also consider the opportunities. The Malaysian agreement may also deliver good news for some asylum seekers and the refugee sector.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship say they can't tell me anything. The Inspector General of Intelligence and Security tells me to contact DIAC. As an immigration lawyer I find this frustrating. How much worse must it be for asylum seekers kept in detention with no end in sight?
A 46-year-old UK citizen who has lived in Australia for 40 years was removed to Britain this week due to a history of violence and other offences. It is problematic that someone who has already 'done the time' for their crimes can be punished a second time by migration law.
The reintroduction of the Complementary Protection Bill to Parliament this week ought be welcomed. Given the protests in Christmas Island, it is clear that the mandatory detention policy is also overdue for reform.
Renowned immigration lawyer Kerry Murphy explains how changes in government refugee policy are strongly coloured by community fears about migrants and refugees.
169-180 out of 200 results.