November 29th, 2024 at 05:41 am

More People at Risk of Deportation from Australia Under Labor Bill

The Australian government intends to draft legislation that will give it unprecedented authority to forcefully remove non-citizens from Australia. The recently presented Migration Amendment Bill, scheduled will be in parliament this week, would:

• Allow the government to send more people to third nations
• Provide immunity from lawsuits by those hurt during deportation.
• Expand its powers to reconsider protection decisions, potentially returning previously found refugees to their home country and
• Impose strict visa terms for those who remain.

The government claims the regulations are to protect the Australian community.

However, the broad new removal powers do not apply only to non-citizens with criminal records, who are frequently mentioned in political speeches and media reporting.

They could use it to deport a diverse range of persons, including refugees and asylum seekers, who lived and contributed to the Australian community for many years. It has the potential to divide families and communities, wreaking havoc on Australian citizens and permanent residents who are left behind. The bill has already sparked widespread alarm among affected areas.

How did we arrive here?

This bill was submitted in reaction to the High Court’s decision in YBFZ v Minister of Immigration earlier this month.

YBFZ (the plaintiff’s alias, a 36-year-old stateless refugee) is the latest in a string of cases resolved by the High Court after its groundbreaking ruling in a separate case, NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, in November 2023.

In that instance, the court ruled that the government’s policy of indefinite immigration detention was unconstitutional since it was a type of punishment that could only be inflicted by courts. The verdict resulted in the release of 224 persons from jail.

Following that ruling, the government enacted legislation authorizing monitoring measures, such as ankle bands and curfews, for many of those released. Any infraction of those conditions may result in criminal charges and imprisonment.

The YBFZ case challenged the visa conditions. The High Court found that these constituted unconstitutional punishment as well.

The following day, the government introduced the Migration Amendment Bill.

The bill’s additional powers may have a far broader impact than those released as a result of the NZYQ case. Furthermore, Future lawsuits could overturn the bill’s controversial sections.

There is an urgent need for parliamentary oversight of this law so that its entire implications, including any potential unconstitutional features, can undergo public evaluation before legislators vote.

Expanding the Ability to Deport Individuals Offshore

The legislation allows forcible deportation of non-citizens to undefined third nations without proof of community harm.

Certain visas would expire immediately if a person received permission to “enter and remain in” another country with a “third country reception arrangement” with Australia under the new limitations. Australia may detain them until removal.

Boat-arriving asylum seekers in Australia can be transported to Nauru. These statutes extend this jurisdiction to “bridging visa R” (BVR) holders. Detainees who cannot leave Australia receive these visas. They may be stateless, owed protection, or rejected by their own nation.

After the NZYQ ruling, detainees received this visa. The government can grant the visa to a much larger number in the future. Many community members on other bridging visas could be transferred to this visa and moved abroad.

Some may be legitimate refugees whose claims were denied. This includes people denied protection owing to the flawed fast-track process, which limited their ability to provide vital facts to protection petition decision-makers.

At the expense of the Australian government, the measure may allow prisoners to be in foreign countries without dignity. The law doesn’t need a permanent solution for indefinite imprisonment.

The negative impacts of Australia’s offshore regime on Nauru and Manus Island are widely known.

The offshore processing system has also come with a significant financial cost to Australian taxpayers.

Evading Accountability

The measure seeks to protect the government from being sued for activities done to support a person’s deportation from Australia or treatment in a third country.

Historically, civil liability suits have been an important accountability measure for people sent offshore.

For example, dozens of refugees have obtained court orders to be transferred to Australia for urgent, life-saving care that is not accessible on Nauru or Manus Island.

Many people have sued the government for damages. In 2017, Manus Island detainees and the federal government reached the largest human rights settlement in history, following a claim of wrongful detention and incompetence. Other cases are ongoing.

By preventing future legal challenges, the government would effectively eliminate one of the few proven constraints on its power in this area.

Sending Refugees Back into Harm

No safeguards prohibit people sent to a third nation from being returned home, where they may face persecution or other grave consequences.

The bill also expands the government’s jurisdiction to rethink protection judgments, allowing refugees to return home.

Non-visa holders have this ability under the Migration Act. The law will expand it to include persons with specific bridging and other visas, specified later in the guidelines. This would include individuals who have been part of the Australian community for many years.

Changing government policy should not terminate or change refugee status, which should give long-term protection.

Reintroducing Ankle Tracking and Curfews

Draft and rules attempt to reinstate visa restrictions, including curfews and ankle tracking.

If the immigration minister believes a non-citizen would harm the Australian community by committing a serious crime, these rules may apply.

The Human Rights Law Centre has highlighted concerns about what the law would allow.

The government continues to predict people’s future conduct and impose punitive regulations that limit their freedom and health.

Since there is going to be enforcement of limits without court action, the modifications may not meet the High Court’s YBFZ case requirements.

The law is the latest attempt to rush migration policy without public input.

The courts examine hasty legislation and often rule against the Commonwealth, which burdens this tactic.

There must be a discussion of these issues to keep Australia’s immigration policy fair, just, compassionate, and legal.

ALSO, READ

• FIRSTLY, CANADA WORK VISA 2023: NO LMIA || VISA & ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED
• SECONDLY, BECOME A TEACHER IN CANADA | PERMANENT RESIDENCY | MOVE TO CANADA
• THIRDLY, LIST OF COUNTRIES WHERE UAE EXPATS CAN GET AN E-VISA
• THEN, CANADA OFFERS NEW INVESTMENT PROSPECTS IN IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT SERVICES
• ALSO, CHECK THE NEWLY UNVEILED CANADA’S ‘WORLD’S MOST BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED’ PASSPORT
• ADDITIONALLY, CANADA OFFERS NEW INVESTMENT PROSPECTS IN IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT SERVICES
• MORE SO, CHECK THE NEWLY UNVEILED CANADA’S ‘WORLD’S MOST BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED’ PASSPORT
• AFTERWARDS, PLASTIC FACTORY JOBS IN UK WITH SALARY BETWEEN £15 – £20 PER HOUR
• MOST IMPORTANTLY, FACTORY JOBS IN BELGIUM FOR FOREIGN 2023/24 ($18 – $23 PER HOUR)
• FINALLY, THE BEST AND WORST COUNTRIES FOR SCHENGEN VISAS FOR TRAVELLERS REVEAL