Constitutional Law for Migration Legislation- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theConstitutional Law for Migration Legislation Amendment. Answer: Migration Legislation Amendment act 2017 of the Australian law posits that the commonwealth still has the administrative power to make migration laws. Moreover, it is the mandate of the executive power to maintain and execute the laws of the Commonwealth, particular laws regarding aliens and immigration as articulated in the laws of Australia in Section 61 Chapter II of the Constitution. According to the act, the confinement of asylum seekers who enter Australia by boat is acceptable as articulated in the Migration, although through an unrestricted basis. Compulsory detention for unlawful arrivals came into effect in the year 1992 within the Migration Amendment Act, to ensure the systematization of migration rule[1]. Gerry Hand, who was the immigration minister at that time argued that detention would enable the dispensation of refugee entitlements, inhibit de-facto migration in addition to saving the cost of tracing individuals in the community[2]. However, with regard to the soluti on suggested by Cory De Flaky, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, to make strategic guidelines that include constructing an electronic fence in an attempt to curb refugees from entering Australia is not only inappropriate but counteracts human rights. With regard to scenario D on the case of Khushal Chakrabarty and his family, the minister and the commonwealth, in general, are not valid to prosecute Khushal and his family. Even though the fact remains that Part IV section 348 of the migration amendment act 2017 gives an agent of the Australian Border force the jurisdiction to detain any entrant who fails to produce legal documents including an Australian Visa documentation or a valid international visa, the circumstances that forced Khushal to seek refugee should not be overlooked. Khushal is seeking sanctuary after being targeted by the Hindu Nationalist militia, and hence his application to apply for asylum holds enough conviction on the ground that it offers sufficient proof of fear of persecution. Although the immigration act suggests that individuals who search for asylum but have arrived without a legal visa may be apprehended, the circumstances surrounding the entry of such refugees should be scrutinized before making a has ty decision[3]. Despite Khushal possessing neither of the required documents, his argument that he feared for his life and thus decided to look for refuge in Australia holds enough weight to consider that he had to enter the country without the necessary documents. Therefore, the authorities should reconsider the rule and amend it so as to put into consideration special circumstances that may hinder one from adhering to the rules. Khushal also arrives in Australia by boarding an Indonesian fishing vessel which confirms his fear of persecution from the Hindu militia. Part IV 354 of the act also gives the executive the power to hold immigrants in detention until their status is established. The minister of immigration has the power as prescribed by the Commonwealth law to detain any suspect in readiness for deportation. This implies that before any deportation commences, the reasons that led to an individual seeking refugee should be analyzed and a viable option suggested. The Commonwealth law should thus offer guidelines that need to be followed so as to probe whether refugees have genuine assertions or not. Department of Immigration and Citizenship posits that it is liable to deport any unlawful non-citizens according to Part V section 400 of the Migration Legislation Amendment act 2017. Making reference to Singh v Commonwealth (2004) 222 CLR 322 of Australia, any individual born in Australia by non-citizens is regarded as an alien until they are ten years old or older[4]. Referring to scenario D, Anayas daughter Kishori is legitimately an Australian citizen due to the fact that she was born there and having attained the age of 10. Her mother also possesses legal documents to live in Australia, and according to the Commonwealth regulations, they are not aliens. The executive power, therefore, is not liable to detain Anaya and her daughter basically because Khushal is seeking refuge in the country. The minister is thus expected to follow the constitutional doctrine that defines who an alien is and the legitimacy of being an Australian citizen[5]. It is also important to make it clear that the confinement of Mr. Khushal and his family is not in line with both the Commonwealth laws as well as according to the Chu Kheng Lim. The principles of Chu Kheng Lim stipulates that only a court can order the spontaneous detention of a civilian in custody after the judiciary finds out the presence of criminal responsibility[6]The Commonwealth also has the judicial mandate to involuntary detain a citizen. However, it is worth noting that since Mr. Khushal and his wife are not citizens of Australia, the court has the mandate to analyze the reasons that led to the denial of Khushals request for asylum. It is also worth noting that Anayas detention should not have taken place since she was in no way involved with the entry of her husband in Australia. This is because her husband was seeking refuge in the country and therefore instead of detaining her, the administration should have probed the situation without bias. In conclusion, the electronic fence that comprises perimeter protection sensors is not necessary in order to bar refugees from entering Australia through the North Australian coastline. The Commonwealth laws proposed to ensure that aliens and refugees are detained and deported is biased and does not relate to human rights. The ministers recommendation that refugees come to rob jobs and the general welfare of the people of Australia is misplaced. The minister should consider making effective solutions that will help distinguish genuine asylum seekers from individuals with ill motives other than generalizing all refugees to be evil people. The constitution of Australia should not consider this proposal for it is not only subjective but also daunts human rights. References: Australia. (1992). Australia's refugee and humanitarian system: Achieving a balance between refuge and control. Canberra: Australian Government Pub. Service, pp.13-26 Crock, M., Saul, B., Dastyari, A. (2006). Future Seekers II: Refugees and irregular migration in Australia. Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press, pp. 55-58 Germov, R., Motta, F. (2003). Refugee law in Australia. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press, pp.26-31 Glynn, I. (2016). Asylum policy, boat people and political discourse: Boats, votes, and asylum in Australia and Italy, pp. 12-19 Vrachnas, J. (2007). Migration and refugee law in Australia: Cases and commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73-74 Vrachnas, J. (2012). Migration and refugee law: Principles and practice in Australia. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45-52