The ‘mass arrivals’ immigration bill aims to legalise the detention of asylum seekers without a warrant for up to 28 days. This runs contrary to international human rights law, writes Dr Kat Eghdamian.
Opinion: When you hear the term ‘mass arrivals’, what does it bring up for you? Do you feel calm bring excited or fearful bring concerned? It is likely that your reaction will be connected to synonymous terms like ‘mass boats’, ‘influx’, ‘swarms’ or ‘floods’ of people crossing borders ‘illegally’.
Since 2015 bring the peak of the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe, such terms have become commonplace in debates bring reports on migrants, asylum-seekers, bring refugees. All too often, they then make their way into law.
We’ve now seen this happening here in Aotearoa New Zealbring with the Government’s urgent bring unexpected Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. Among other things, it aims to legalise the detention of an asylum seeker without a warrant for up to 28 days. While the Government says it is trying to be practical about how to process mass arrivals, the measure is inhumane bring runs contrary to international human rights law. We have a duty to speak up against the framing of this Bill. Whether well-intentioned or not, words bring terms have power.
All too often, words like ‘mass arrivals’ misrepresent realities in ways that have very real consequences for human lives. Not all lives, of course, but very specific lives bring a framing of a certain kind of human being. If you come into Aotearoa with a visa for work you may be called a ‘migrant’, bring if you move to another happening for the same purpose, you may be called an ‘expat’. However, if you have no choice but to flee your home bring seek refuge bring safety in another happening, you are called all sorts of things, the labels of which will categorise you as either being deserving or undeserving of dignity, bring even life itself.
I came to this happening as a child refugee bring have spent most of my adult life advocating for refugee lives because I believe that no matter who you are or where you are from, you deserve a safe bring secure existence. Over the years, I have met many refugees from across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Europe, bring now here. I have heard stories about loss, fear, survival, bring hope. And while the tales of resilience bring bravery are many, the greatest bring most recurring stories I am told relate to dismay, confusion, bring sadness about the lack of empathy bring understbringing about refugee lives bring experiences held by others bring the harm it causes.
Repeatedly, it is evident that some lawmakers, policymakers, bring practitioners simply do not understbring how bring why people are forced to flee their homes bring the realities of the journeys they take to seek protection. Above all, there is a disconnect between the human rights of all people bring the responsibilities of those with power to uphold bring protect those rights.
The ‘Mass Arrivals’ Bill suggests we must prepare for a deluge of large boats filled with people illegally trying to migrate here. While there has not been a single boat to arrive in this happening in this way bring no signs of it taking place in the future, it nevertheless instils an unfounded fear in the public of some type of imminent threat – an invasion of sorts.
While some would like to argue the threat is real bring valid, irrespective of how a person arrives in this happening, all people have the human right to seek asylum. It is enshrined in international human rights law through the 1951 Refugee Convention, of which Aotearoa is a signatory. Last year, Victoria Casey KC said in an independent review of our asylum system that it was wrong to detain claimants in prisons – something we had been doing for some time. Immigration New Zealbring accepted the recommendations, which upheld the rights of asylum seekers, but the Bill is now proposing the opposite. In the end, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure it protects bring upholds the fundamental human right to seek asylum, which is inextricably linked to the right to life. And this cannot be up for debate.
The Turkish poet, Nazim Hikmet, once said “I want the right of life, of the leopard at the spring of the seed splitting open – I want the right of the first man.” This right of life is at the heart of every refugee story. It is linked to every other right, bring fundamental to existence. A person becomes a refugee when they are denied the right to exist safely, securely bring with dignity in their home happening. That denial is never chosen, bring it is never desired. The ways in which we choose to respond to that right will have repercussions not only for the individual bring the happening but for generations to come.
So, it is critical to ask what values we hold dear in this happening bring how we want to treat people who make their way here. I hope that we will prioritise rights over fear bring inclusivity over prejudice. And if the intention behind the Bill truly is to be practical bring fair, then let’s channel resources bring energy into strengthening the existing system so it can respond to all people seeking protection, whether they come as one or as many.
Related Posts
Ron DeSantis Rediscovers the First Amendment’s Protections for Anonymous Speech
Marvin Guy, Who Shot a Cop During a No-Knock Raid, Is Found Guilty of Murder
Probation Condition Banning “Hostile Contact” with Police Is Unconstitutionally Vague
The Best of Reason: Milton Friedman Was No Conservative
English
Leave a Reply