Free Migration Agents

Sponsor a refugee: A $35 donation pays one visa application fee

Please consider donating to AFFMA on behalf of your friends and relatives this year. While donations of any amount are greatly appreciated, a gift of $35 will pay the visa application fee for one refugee. Unlike most charitable organisations, AFFMA is run entirely by volunteers. Every cent of your donation will go to keeping our door open to the refugees that we serve. This year, give a refugee a chance for a new life in Australia.

Donations can be made directly to AFFMA through PayPal by accessing the following link:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=C9PXK25WLWR7J

Volunteering – a truly enriching experience

As someone who has volunteered for organisations small and large, responding to issues ranging from refugees to mental health, I can say without a doubt that volunteering is one of the most rewarding experiences you can have.

Being a part of social change and fighting against discrimination and inequality in a post-truth world is one of the most important things you can do. The United Nations General Assembly declared 05 December International Volunteer Day to raise awareness of the power of volunteer work in building a more peaceful and equitable society. Participating in social change through volunteering allows you to be on the right side of history and contribute to a world in which everyone is treated fairly and with respect.

Recently, AFFMA was recognised for its incredible achievements and was awarded the 2016 Regional Volunteer Team of the year. We were also nominated for the State Volunteer Team of the Year award. Being a part of the AFFMA team makes you a representative of a highly respected organisation and allows you help make Australia a better place. It can give you a first step into the refugee and NGO sector and teach you invaluable skills.

If you would like to be a part of the AFFMA team, visit our website to register your interest. http://www.FreeMigrationAgents.org.au/

Vijhai Utheyan
BCrim&CJ (UNSW)

Donald Trump, President-elect 2016 – what will this mean for refugees across the globe?

The outcome of the US election on 08 November 2016 provoked shock and anger throughout the world. The prospect of a Trump presidency could not be more troubling for refugees and advocacy groups.

Given the rhetoric used throughout his campaign, it seems likely that Trump will decrease refugee intakes, particularly from Muslim countries. A candidate for Trump’s cabinet has reportedly been photographed holding a proposal to ban all Syrian refugees from entering the country. There are already 4.8 million Syrian refugees and 6 million internally displaced Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. This plan would eliminate the possibility of the US resettling any of these people. The document also outlines a plan to create a Muslim registry, similar to the Bush administration’s National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). As president, Trump will be responsible for determining the ceiling for refugee admissions. In 2016, that ceiling was 85,000 people, and 46% of refugees admitted to the US were Muslims. Trump’s attitudes towards Muslims suggest that the ceiling will be significantly lower under his administration.

On 13 November, a deal was announced whereby a number of refugees living in Australian offshore detention centres would be resettled in the United States. With Trump as president, it is questionable whether he and the rest of the GOP would allow these refugees to come to the United States. However, if the refugees are sent to the US before Trump takes office in January 2017, it may be difficult for him to remove them.

If Trump’s election campaign is any indication, his presidency will have a disastrous effect on refugees. The only saving grace could be his unpredictability. Trump has already backtracked on many of his promises and beliefs; with any luck, he will change his mind about immigration as well.

Megan Sturges
BCom/BArts (Macquarie)

Australia and the US – a solution or a further deferral of Australia’s international obligations?

Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull stated that the refugee resettlement deal between Australia and the US is a “one-off agreement and it will not be repeated.” There is no word on the number of refugees being moved to the US, but the arrangement seeks to prioritise the “most vulnerable” families on Nauru.

The US resettlement offer will be made to people being held in offshore detention centres, including those who are currently in Australia for medical treatment, but not to refugees and asylum seekers who have accepted offers to be resettled elsewhere. Those who do not accept the US resettlement deal will have the option of obtaining a 20-year visa to Nauru or returning to their countries of origin.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the government would still rely heavily on Nauru for border protection purposes. He further asserted this deal would send a “very clear message to all people that you will not step foot on Australian soil.” The measure has gained bipartisan support, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten saying Labor welcomed the US resettlement deal.

Refugee advocacy groups are pleased with the deal, but say more details are needed concerning timeframes and the exact number of refugees to be resettled. Of growing concern is whether President-elect Donald Trump will honour the deal, which was negotiated by the Obama administration.

Ariza Arif
BA(UNSW), LLB (MacqU)

Sponsor a refugee: One $35 donation buys one visa application fee

Please consider donating to AFFMA on behalf of your friends and relatives this year in lieu of holiday gifts.

While donations of any amount are greatly appreciated, a gift of $35 will pay the visa application fee for one refugee.

Unlike most charitable organisations, AFFMA is run entirely by volunteers. Every cent of your donation will go to keeping our door open to the refugees that we serve.

This festive season, give a refugee a chance for a new life in Australia.

You can donate directly to AFFMA through PayPal by clicking this secure link:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=C9PXK25WLWR7J

Children in immigration detention centres: the forgotten children

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) gives children a set of rights relating to their treatment, education and to their basic needs. The CRC is composed of 54 Articles that specify how children (under the age of 18) should be treated. Australia is one of many States that have signed and ratified this convention (in Australia’s case, this occurred in 1990). One of the basic fundamental principles of the CRC is to promote the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in all decisions that directly affect them. In doing so, the CRC amplifies the responsibility States take on by signing and ratifying CRC, ensuring they have an OBLIGATION to uphold EVERY child’s international rights.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has produced a national inquiry (The Forgotten Children) into children in immigration detention. The Commission has acknowledged that in recent years the government has transferred many children into community based alternatives to closed detention. However, the Commission continues to voice concerns regarding the impact of Australia’s mandatory immigration detention system on children and draws into question whether Australia is meeting its international obligations.

Under Australian law, there is no specific time period allocated in relation to children being detained. Further, the movement of children within or across the immigration detention network is often justified as a way to facilitate adequate healthcare or other services to accommodate the child’s needs. However, it should be noted that there are families still held in Nauru and Christmas Island, and children are being born in detention. Following this, mental health and the wellbeing of children need to be closely examined. The Australian Human Rights Commission reported that 85% of children and parents indicated that mental and emotional health was a direct result from the detention environment.
Chart 13: Responses by children and parents to the question: How has your emotional and mental health been impacted by detention? (Australian Human Rights Commission – https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/forgotten-children-national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention-2014/4-overview#a4-6)

The immigration minister’s conflict of interest

The domestic protections for unaccompanied/separated refugee and asylum seeker children vary across states and territories within Australia. The focal point of this section will outline the Immigration (Guardianship Children) (IGOC) Act 1946 (Cth) and Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act).

Firstly, the central problem is the conflict between the Immigration Minister’s ‘responsibility as guardian under the IGOC Act and the Minister’s roles under the Migration Act’ towards unaccompanied/separated refugee and asylum seeker children. This conflict creates significant ambiguity in relation to the rights of the vulnerable group. Thus unaccompanied/separated minors suffer greatly by the Minister being the legal guardian pursuant to section 6 of the IGOC Act and their ‘prosecutor, judge and gaoler within the complicated matrix of the Migration Act.’

Secondly, the statutes mainly hone in on protecting Australia’s borders in terms of who may enter and in turn the domestic law ‘underpins an expansive concept of persecution, a more child-specific understanding has not yet been adopted.’

Thirdly, numerous amendments in the Migration Act mean that the asylum seekers and the children that arrived without adequate documentation in Australia’s states and territories have been ‘excised from the migration zone and are prohibited from applying for protection visas in Australia.’ Legislative and policy frameworks that govern the care and protection of unaccompanied/separated refugee and asylum seeker children leads to unanswered questions of who becomes the main carer for the most vulnerable.

Australia’s deterrent measures towards refugees and asylum seekers should not be allowed to ‘deny the vulnerable or to override the needs of the embodied child.’

In conclusion, a wealthy and developed country such as Australia should be able to find other measures to indefinite detention of children. We have an obligation to protect and secure the safety and well-being of children and this standard of care as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should not be sacrificed for political purposes to ‘protect borders’ or to further discourage refugees seeking asylum in Australia.

Other images Children in detention have drawn:

Ariza Arif
BA, LLB.

Advertisements and jobs board – 31st of October 2016

External Notice:

Migration agents sought for participation in research on language, communication and forced migration.

We are seeking participants for a study examining language and communication in the context of Australian refugee applications and appeals, and policy. The study is being conducted by Laura Smith-Khan to meet the requirements of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Linguistics, under the supervision of Professor Ingrid Piller of the Department of Linguistics (ph: 0298507674) and with associate supervision by Dr Daniel Ghezelbash of Macquarie Law School and former board member at AFFMA.

As part of this study, we are interested to gain insight into the experiences of legal professionals and migration agents who assist in refugee applications and/or appeals in Australia. We are particularly interested in exploring the role of intercultural communication in these processes, as well as considering the way different stakeholders (such as interpreters, support people, decision makers and legal advisors) each contribute to the process. We hope that by critically exploring these processes, we can contribute to a discussion that will lead to improved procedures and outcomes in the future. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to participate in a semi-structured interview with the Co-Investigator, Laura Smith-Khan. This will be arranged at your convenience and can be conducted in person, at a suitable location, or over the telephone or via Skype.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes to 1.5 hours, depending on our discussion and on your availability. It will be audio-recorded (if you consent to this) and the researcher will also take written notes. With your prior consent, the researchers may also contact you after the interview with follow-up questions or to seek clarification.

Any information or personal details gathered in the course of the study are confidential, except as required by law. No individual will be identified in any publication of the results. Only Professor Piller, Dr Ghezelbash and Ms Smith-Khan will have access to this data. A summary of the results of the data can be made available to you on request and we will keep you updated on any publications that come out of this research.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary: you are not obliged to participate and if you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without having to give a reason and without consequence.

If anyone would like to participate, I ask them to please contact me directly by email [laura.smith-khan@hdr.mq.edu.au] or phone call (0401870250) and we can arrange a time to talk

WANTED: Lawyer

To begin in November/ December this year, a commercial law firm (to be) is seeking a permanent Principal solicitor with a minimum of five (5) years experience and expertise in property law, family law and contract law. This is a commercial opportunity for a self-motivated lawyer who wants to set up a thriving, commercial, legal business but lacks the funds to do so. There will be a substantial office rent reduction (inclusive of electricity, water and cleaning services) in exchange for supervision of two junior lawyers who will undertake legal duties in the nominated areas of law. You will have your own locked office space. The office is situated in a prime position on King Street in Newtown with no law firms nearby.

Please email your expression of interest to the CEO [info@affma.org.au]

Do you have a vacancy you wish to advertise? AFFMA’s Members can advertise vacancies free of charge. Please email [newsletter@affma.org.au] for further information.

WANTED: Volunteer Migration Agents

AFFMA is looking for migration agents who are willing to complete a Spouse visa application from beginning to end on a pro bono basis, either at their own office/home or at AFFMA’s office in Newtown. AFFMA is an Approved Voluntary Organisation by the OMARA. Migration agents volunteering with us can claim one CPD point for every three hours of pro bono work.

WANTED: Volunteer CPD developers and reviewers ( Online Private Study Booklets)

AFFMA is calling for expressions of interest from members interested in developing, reviewing and updating CPD materials in the following areas:

Protection and Humanitarian – Ethics and Professional Practice – Accounts Management – Business Management – File Management – Partner Visa – Code of Conduct – Ministerial Intervention – Winning at the RRT

For every three hours of volunteer work on CPD materials, you will gain one CPD point which will be reported to the OMARA.

If interested, please send an email with details of your area(s) of interest, availability and experience to: [info@affma.org.au]

The border force fallacy

Discussion focusing on refugee and asylum seeker policy

On October 10, 2017, Q&A aired an episode focusing on refugee and asylum seeker policy. Despite the divisiveness of the issue, a very productive conversation was had. Whilst in many Q&A episodes, panel members break out into huge arguments, both sides were extremely respectful and put forward their points in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Most of the discussion was centred around three of the government’s policies; the boat turnback policy, offshore processing and temporary protection visas (TPVs).

While panel members Frank Brennan, Jane McAdam and Shen Narayanasamy spoke about the detrimental effects of the policies and provided evidence to prove their points, Huy Truong provided a much needed personal aspect to the argument. Jim Molan, who was the architect behind the government’s ‘sovereign borders’ policy, unsurprisingly defended the government’s sovereign borders policies and claimed that the policy was something Australian’s should be ‘proud’ of.

Jim Molan claimed that Australia’s turnback policy has been hugely successful. This is easily refuted by the refugee advocates on the panel. Shen provided a fantastic response to this claim, “to say something has worked, it can’t include the institutional abuse of men, women and children.” Frank Brennan made the important point that it is impossible to safely and humanely turn boats back because if it is too dangerous for asylum seekers to make the journey by boat, it is obviously just as dangerous (if not more since it would be a longer journey) for people to be sent back. Shen pointed out that in 2013, 25,000 people arrived by boat, but 80,000 arrived by plane. Despite the numbers, policy makers seem to only be worried by those that arrive by boat. Huy Truong argues that there is no reason these days for people to have to get on to boats in the first place, since we should have agreements with Malaysia and Indonesia.

Important aspects of the discussion

One of the most important aspects of the discussion was about the economic impact of the current refugee policies in comparison to alternative policies. This was important because while people often discuss human rights issues and talk about the emotion and personal impacts on refugees that our current policies have, many of the voters have made a connection between refugees and their own personal economic problems. However, one thing that becomes clear from this discussion is that it is possible to have humane refugee policies and good economic outcomes for the country. In fact, offshore processing is actually far more expensive than it would be to settle the refugees within Australia in a timely manner, with the process taking place within Australian borders. Jane McAdam made the point that Australia spent more on refugees in 2013-2014 than the whole of the EU. The EU have much higher numbers of refugees, but also are more focussed on resettling refugees, rather than punishing them.

While offshore processing is far more expensive than onshore processing, the other important aspect of the economic impact refugees have once they are settled into the country is growth and diversity in the job market. Jane makes the important point that ‘the more people, the bigger the pie.’ In other words, with each extra person in the country, more growth and jobs are created, so the myth about refugees ‘taking peoples jobs’ is a fallacy. She also made the point that people who are second generation refugees, often are more successful than the general population, and are often more entrepreneurial. Huy is a perfect example of this, as he has started multiple businesses and hired many other people.

Temporary protection visas (TPVs)

The discussion also focussed on temporary protection visas (TPVs), and the mental effects that these visas can have on refugees. One questioner, Shukufa Tahiri, who was a Hazara refugee from Afghanistan, asked a question about mental illness and suicide. She made the argument that many refugees once they have arrived in Australia suffer with mental illness and even commit suicide because of the vulnerability of being on a TPV. Refugees on TPV’s never know when they could be sent back to the country that they fled, and it is easy to see how this could adversely affect refugees. This would also make it incredibly difficult to plan for the future. Frank also made the point that with the TPV system, residents were essentially made to be ‘second order Australians’ without the same rights as the rest of Australians. The other point that he made was that there is no sense in having TPV’s as a deterrence method (which is supposedly their intended aim), since it is not affecting those planning on coming to Australia, only those who have already arrived.

Overall, a very convincing argument was made for an end to offshore processing, TPV’s and the boat turnback policy. However, as Shen said “why can’t we have the conversation about doing it better?” Most of the conversation was focussed on what we are doing wrong, and this is important, however it would be much better if there was a political climate whereby solutions could be proposed and talked about, rather than simply refuting misnomers about refugees and asylum seekers.