It seems the asylum issue is not confined to Australian politics, it seems this attitude of decoupling human rights from responsibility is becoming the new normal.  Gareth Evans ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine comes to mind in respect of providing asylum to those fleeing persecution.

What I noticed in the Australian context was that refugees (I am going to call them that given 90% are) coming from Afghanistan cannot seek asylum on route as the countries they pass are not signatories to the Refugee Convention.   Therefore, Australia is the next port of call.  So they make risky trips to find a country to give them safe haven.  In our politics they attempt to make them illegal by excising the Australian mainland and islands from the migration zone.  So it is the Australian way to side step international law in my viewpoint.  Therefore, the refugees are turned into unauthorised illegals and criminalised, it seems.  Yet in truth they are innocent people fleeing, in the case of Afghanistan, a war zone, within which my country contributed to destabilisation through violence, and doesn’t see it has a responsibility, at the very least, to accommodate those innocently displaced.  Our approach is to not go there (denial) and turn it into a political issue in order to win an election.  Most people I am speaking with here have turned off, they don’t want to vote for either party.   In my opinion we do indeed have a responsibility to protect and only this concept can be evoked in the absence of a morality that does not need to feel forced to help others.  In a normal world which is not so well understood these days, compassion would naturally take them in.  In the case of the countries on route, I would recommend that the United Nations organise through wealthy member countries a financial incentive for third world countries to house them (not in detention) but in community as part of a global humanitarian commitment to refugees.  I am sure those travelling by boat would choose countries closer to home so they can return when the violence subsides.  I know refugees personally and all of them do not want to leave their countries, they have no choice but to flee as their lives are in danger.  Imagine seeing your family gunned down in front of you, or hearing missiles raining down or having your children dragged off to fight.  It has been described as hell, and I am sure it would be.  I think of Syria in this moment. 

In our reality here in Australia we can’t imagine what it is like to flee for your life with only the clothes on your back.  We can’t imagine staring death in the face and witnessing atrocities.  We only see it on television as voyers rather than participants.  We live a sheltered life where our security has come from materialism in an established society that is shielded from world conflicts.  It helps being an island.  We haven’t understood what it is like to feel vulnerable with nothing.  I am speaking of a collective consciousness that has simply no idea, yet I sense that may be changing.  The material divide is based on theoretical assertions of sending the boats back, or even sillier, buy them up so people smugglers don’t get them (in Indonesia) revealing mentalities devoid of real experience to empathise with those in real need and a directive to actually solve the problem for the best interests of all.  I wonder what love would do next…

Eleanor Roosevelt contributed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR), I wonder what she would think today?   The whole apparatus of the UDHR was to put in place a code of ethics and shared values to ensure the world wars never happened again.  The objective was to design a universal declaration embodying fairness and inclusivity as a means to ensure global stability and dignity.  The only problem is that it is not enforceable, only a guideline.  It seems people need enforcement as these values do not seem to come naturally.  I assume it is because of the focus of money and detached emotional mindsets that compartmentalise rather than integrate a sense of humanity, thus feeling for the other.  I feel it is time to learn that we are indeed each others keepers and we are one world.  What we do to another we do to ourselves, as we are not separate in truth, we are one species on a earth ship in space and time.  Until we learn that values are not just pretty words on declarations but actually the glue that binds the social fabric into a world society that lives and works in harmony, we will continue to spend lots of money on inventing new ways to keep fear out.  It is much cheaper to take responsibility and face fear in my view.  This is where real security is born.

We may want to focus on why refugee flows are happening? what are the root causes? and what is our responsibility as global citizens? what is our part in creating the problem?  That is what responsibility looks like, it starts to think more deeply about the root causes.  Because until they are addressed the real problem will not stop.  It is not possible to stop the boats in the Australian case.   Until all Nation States begin to seriously commit to create a international order where all adhere to universal values and take responsibility for shared global problems, they will just end up getting into quagmires that cause unnecessary human suffering and global conflict.  I know it may seem impossible now but I am sure nature will sort us out, and who knows maybe we become climate and economic refugees.  No-one thinks of that.  Although some will be shaking on Wall Street and across Europe.  Natural justice has a habit of kicking in to help us to connect to deeper truths.

So let’s hear form an ‘ol American lawyer on his views reflecting his ethics.

 http://www.asylumist.com/wp-content/plugins/as-pdf/generate.php?post=3316

In the last couple posts, I wrote about how the asylum system is being strained by a significant uptick in the number of credible fear interviews and for other reasons. I concluded that the “new normal” for asylum seekers will be longer delays. This means longer separation from family, and greater stress and uncertainty.  Today, I want to discuss some ideas for alleviating this problem.

The most obvious solution is probably the least likely–throw money at the problem. Of course we live in a time when politicians are falling all over themselves to cut spending. But if you will indulge an old (well, middle aged) lawyer, I’d like to suggest some reasons why the asylum program is worthy of more financial support.

For one thing, there are over 45 million displaced people world-wide (this includes refugees and internally displaced people). As a world leader, the United States has an important role to play in the humanitarian realm. If we do not assist refugees and asylum seekers, other countries will follow suit. Fulfilling our international obligations is part of what makes us a world leader.

Second, while it obviously costs us money to resettle refugees and asylees, over the long run, I believe that most of these people greatly benefit our nation. Some of those we help (such as many of my clients) are men and women who assisted us in our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we wish to maintain credibility with future allies, we cannot abandon those who helped us in the past. More generally, many asylum seekers are successful, talented people who will make important contributions to our country.

Third, we have created many of the messes that led to the large number of displaced people in the world today. That is particularly true in Central America where we toppled governments and supported dictators pretty much willy nilly. It’s also true to a lesser extent in Indochina and the Middle East. I am not saying that in many cases we did not have legitimate geo-political objectives, but since we (inadvertently) helped create the mess, we should help clean it up. 

Finally–and this is probably the most important reason in my opinion–helping people in need is simply the right thing to do.

So for all those reasons, our asylum program deserves sufficient funding to fulfill its purpose without undue delays. The program assists incredibly vulnerable people, fulfills our international obligations, helps us maintain our leadership position in the world, and brings to the United States many ambitious, intelligent, and highly motivated people who will make our country a better place. Thus, my number one solution for reducing delays in the asylum process is to devote more resources to the system.

Some other–less expensive–thoughts on how to solve this problem:

– Issue work permits immediately: If the Asylum Offices know that cases will be delayed more than 150 days (the waiting period before an applicant can file for her work permit), why bother to make people wait? When the Asylum Offices know that a case will be delayed, they should allow the applicant to obtain a work permit immediately. This might require some creativity when it comes to the current law, but it should be do-able, and it would alleviate some of the pressure on asylum applicants.

– Prioritize cases based on family separation, past harm, and strength of the case: While such an evaluation would necessarily be imperfect, giving priority to cases that meet certain criteria would be better than doing nothing. Especially in cases of family unity, moving certain cases more quickly would make a big difference to the more needy applicants.

– Help Mexico: Many asylum seekers come through Mexico, a country that has been making some efforts to improve its asylum law. I wrote about this two years ago, but with all the problems in Mexico, we have not heard much about this lately. If Mexico could fully implement an effective asylum law, asylum seekers could be required to ask asylum in Mexico instead of passing through to the U.S. Something tells me that Mexican asylum law will not be up to speed in the near future, but if our goal is to reduce the number of people seeking asylum in the United States, one way to do that is to assist Mexico in getting their humanitarian act together.

– Eliminate or reform the Cuban Adjustment Act: As I have written before, I am not a fan of the CAA–I think that Cubans should apply for asylum like everyone else. But if we are going to keep this law, it should be reformed. Presently, for various reasons, many Cubans end up in the asylum system while they wait for adjustment under the CAA (they have to be here one year before they can adjust status and obtain their U.S. residency). Since they will obtain status based on the CAA, there is no need for them to have any involvement with the asylum system. It is a complete waste of resources. I don’t think this is a major factor in creating delay, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt to segregate Cuban cases from other asylum cases, as there really is no reason for them to be using any asylum seeker resources.

– Eliminate forced family planning asylum:  The largest number of asylum seekers in the U.S. come from China. One reason for this is because we have a law offering asylum to victims of forced abortion and forced family planning. The anecdotal evidence suggests that a high percentage of these cases is fraudulent. If the special provisions for Chinese asylum seekers were eliminated, it would likely reduce the number of applicants and the instances of fraud.

So there you have it. We seem to be in a time of change for the U.S. asylum program. I am hopeful that our system is flexible enough to deal with the current (hopefully temporary) changes and that we will continue to serve as a refuge for people fleeing persecution. It is our responsibility and our privilege. And it is the right thing to do.