Children Immigration Detention (Essay Sample)

NO CHILD’S PLAY: CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION
Insert Your Name Here:
Insert Your Professor’s Name Here:
Institution Affiliate:
Date:
No Child’s Play: Children in Immigration Detention
The concept of common good in politics, ethics and philosophy refers to specific goods beneficial and shared by all or most members of a certain community. Common goods according to this definition involve goods and services such as justice and security for all the citizens of a given country. According to utilitarianism common good refers to the greatest possible good for all the people in a given community or country as a whole (Zwicky &J, 2013). Common good according to the social concept is the ability to access basic rights in the society and the ability of an individual to shape his life freely in pursuit and accordance with virtues and moral laws put in place. In this paper, the social concept of common good will is the most applicable as it relates directly to the lack of children’s freedom of movement by detaining them. However, the other definitions named above will also be applicable in relation to this topic one way or another.
Common good according to the social perspective is meant to create a better world by creating a just way of dealing with situations. Just ways of dealing with situations lead to fairness in the society, social infrastructure that is based on liberalism that enables people in the society pursue opportunities available taking into considerations moral laws and virtues put in place. Therefore detaining children in immigration camps is against the law of common good. This situation denies the children their rights of movement and also rights to access basic needs such as education as in most cases the camps do not offer learning services to the children (Smith, 1995).
Reports have shown that detention of children undermine their physical and psychological well-being and reduces their cognitive learning and development. Detention of children also has been reported to put children at risk of suffering from anxiety and detention. Children who have been detained even for a short period in their lives exhibit post-traumatic stress disorder in most cases. Post-traumatic stress disorder in the detained children is mostly accompanied by actions such as nightmares, bedwetting as well as rare cases of insomnia (Jureidini & Burnside, 2011). These effects on the detained children are not in accordance with the concept of common good. Common good seeks to provide the highest possible good to all members in the society that is not in the case of detained children in immigration camps.
Stakeholder Perspectives on Children in Immigration Detention
The first stakeholders in the issue of children in immigration detention are psychologists. For example, the Australian Psychological Society in 2014 the society submitted a report to the Australian Human rights commission. The report by the body was due to feedback gathered by the psychologist working with children in the immigration detention camps. The report raised its concerns, findings and recommendations to the findings. The report also explained without hesitation the negative impacts of detention of children both physically and psychologically (Jureidini & Burnside, 2011). The report was prepared by the Australian Psychological Society in collaboration with researchers from asylum seekers, APS Refugee Issues and Psychology Interest group and experts in the related areas.
The Australian Psychological Society views children detention as an inhumane act and a violation of children’s’ rights. The society views children detention as a dangerous and a risky act as it exposes children to physical and psychological effects such as trauma and insomnia. Due to the feedback gathered from the psychologists working with detained children the society is convinced that detaining of immigrant children is an act that is against the common good as well as moral laws set up by the society in Australia (Jureidini & Burnside, 2011).
The second stakeholder in the issue of children in the immigration detention is the United Nations through its body that deals with refugees. The United Nations body that deals with the refugees is known as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR has adopted three main goals in relation to their global strategy. The main goals are end detention of children, ensure that alternatives to detention are available in law and implemented in practices and ensure that conditions of detention meet the international standards. UNHCR has put up strategies to ensure that the global goals put in place are achieved in time. The strategies put up by the UNHCR in order to ensure the global goals are met include: strengthening of partnerships, evaluation and monitoring, improved allocation and leverage of resources as well as investigating and dissemination of research among other strategies (Triggs & G, 2015).
UNHCR can be termed and viewed as the major stakeholder interested in the issue of children in immigration detention. UNHCR views detention of children as a risky and inhuman act but if the act is necessary, the UN branch has set up standards that ought to be put in place to ensure healthy children detention. The UNHCR is realistic concerning the issue of children detention as it clearly shows that it is against the act. However, the UNHCR recognizes that despite its view on the act the practice still takes place in some countries such as Australia. Due to this recognition the UNHCR has set up standards that ought to be put in place (Triggs & G, 2015).
The third stakeholder in the issue of children in immigration detention is the government. Although the government cannot be involved in such matters directly, bodies such as the parliament usually illustrate the government’s interest in such matters. For example in Australia where child detention is believed to be highly rampant, the parliament stepped to resolve this issue. The Australian parliament amended the Migration Act 1958 in 2005 to state that a minor who is basically a child should be detained as a matter of the last resort (Triggs & G, 2015). This amendment was aimed at reducing the number of children being detained in Australia.
The Australian government also with time removed a significant number of children gradually from high-security immigration detention centers into community detention centers where the environment was friendly socially. This move was aimed at reducing the number of detained children from high-security immigration detention centers that have the same environment as a jail to a friendlier environment. The Australian government has since released a significant number of children and their family members (Triggs & G, 2015). The government also has given them visas to live like other ordinary citizens in Australia. The Australian government represents the interest of other governments in the issue of children detention.
The Australian government is a good example as it can be used as a benchmark as to which other governments can use when faced with the issue of children in immigration detention. The Australian government viewed children detention as a necessary action to discourage immigration. With time thou, the government has changed its view and is doing its best to eradicate and reduce the act. With the acts mentioned earlier of the government, it is proof enough that the Australian government is trying to do the right thing morally and accord children their proper rights.
Perspectives in Relation to Human Flourishing and the Achievement of Common good
Human flourishing is perceived to be the same as the concept of eudemonia. Therefore, human flourishing is the state of being happy, contented and prosperous or in other terms the state of one’s well-being. In psychology, human flourishing is the art of living within a standardized and optimal range of human functioning. The optimal range of human functioning involves having aspects such growth, generativity, resilience and goodness in one’s life. In psychology, human flourishing involves measurements of one’s overall well-being in terms of happiness (Escoto, 2013).
There are principles that are related with human flourishing. The principles of human flourishing as defined by Richards and Robison in their book "Indivisible" are a handful. In this book, Richards and Robinson proposed principles to human flourishing. The first principle states that all human being has equal dignity and value. The second principle states that all human beings are specifically and inherently social. The third principle states that we all are sinners. The fourth principle states that all human beings are meant to be responsible and free. The fifth principle states that we can create wealth when free (Richards & Robison, 2012). These principles apply directly to the issue of children in immigration detention and the issue of the common good.
The psychologist view on the issue of children in immigration detention promotes the concept of common good. Through its society that is the Australian Psychological Society raised their concerns on the effects of children detention even for a short period (Jureidini & Burnside, 2011). Despite the fact that the children in question are immigrants, which did not stop the psychologists in recognizing that detention had negative impacts on the children. In this situation, the psychologists perspectives on the children in immigration detention uphold the principle of human flourishing that human beings have equal dignity and value.
This principle was upheld by the psychologist through the Australian Psychological Society through the submission of a report concerning children...