Children in Immigration Detention (Research Paper Sample)

No child’s play: Children in Immigration Detention
Name:
Institution:
Introduction
The manner in which asylum seekers are treated remains a highly sensitive issue worldwide (Hollenbach, 2002). The common good is thus defined as a practice that benefits the society in general with contrast to the private good enjoyed by individuals and sections of the society. Snyder and Lopez (2007) states that the idea of common good is only achievable through collective action, citizenship as well as active participation in public service and the realm of politics. In the Australian policy, however, all non-citizens since 1992 inclusive of children who seek refuge without legal documentation are detained in mandatory detention centers.
It is argued that to attain common good, persons should not live as atomized individuals isolated from one another, instead, people should live as citizens and thus enjoying social relationships (Taylor & Dell'Oro, 2006). In this case, asylum seekers in the country arrive from traumatizing backgrounds such as civil wars using hazardous voyages only to end up in these detention centers. While there are efforts to process the legal documents for the refugees, individuals are held in the centers with no guarantee of the maximum period before release. Children are denied various health and developmental rights thus raising ethical concerns that go against the common good.
Perspectives
There include several stakeholders who are directly involved in the detention of immigrant children in Australia. Each of these groups has different agendas, arguments and viewpoints that will be analyzed in this section. The first perspective by the Human Rights Commission inquiry in 2014 reports that the Australian detention centers are a violation of the children rights presented by the United Nations. In this case, children are put at great risk of mental harm, mental violence, and exposure to physical violence as well as the denial of a right to education. The perspective observes that the inability of the Commonwealth to follow up on the recommendations offered by health practitioners had a real impact on the common good.
Data suggests that this failure had amounted in the inhumane, cruel and degrading treatment of the affected children. In this perspective, information was collected in a span of ten months in which the prolonged detention of children in the centers resulted in negative effects on their development, emotional and mental health. The stakeholder wishes for the situation to change the various laws and policies of Labor and Coalition governments in the country are breached. The country’s policy in which refugees are mistreated has resulted in the violation of various human rights such as arbitrary torture and possible exposure to torture following forcible return to their countries of origin.
Human Rights Commission reports that the practice of holding children in the centers has no tangible proof that it deters people from seeking asylum thus it beats logic as an explanation for the prolonged uncouth detention of children. In Christmas Island, for instance, the children held there were denied a right to education for a long period exceeding a year. There are calls for change in this situation as the Ministry of Immigration and Border Protection has failed to protect the children. This arm of the government sits as the vital guardian for any unaccompanied child in the country.
The situation needs proper analysis and recommendations implemented to counter the decision by the commonwealth to use force in transferring children from one detention center to another. The perspective by Human Rights Commission recommends that children and their families should be released into the community with a right to work using bridging visas. For purposes of legislation such as identity, security and health checks, children can be detained but not for extensive periods. Upon sending children offshore for processing, a guarantee should be given in the respect for their human rights.
The Australian government as the second stakeholder has designed two policies that have affected children in immigration detention. To begin with, the government advised mandatory detention of immigrants as well as stopping the asylum seeker boats from entering the country. In support of this perspective, the government asserts that immigration detention do support a proper migration system whereby potential risks in the Australian community can be identified and managed accordingly. Some of the risks mentioned include health, national security and character risks that are thought to increase with refugee influx. In support of the perspective, the government claims that the immigrant detention centers in the country are constantly toured by Commonwealth officials and other representatives of the community groups for review.
Also, the government reports that it has enhanced robust complaint and internal feedback systems in the detention facilities. The Australian government has achieved key targets in reducing the population of children in detention centers through stopping the boats. While the government believes that inhibiting the entry of immigrants is key in dealing with the problems children face in detention centers, other bodies such as the Human Rights Commission think otherwise. Australia ought to offer a rather conducive environment for the refugees since turning the boats back does not solve the problem at hand. First, there exists the use of hazardous voyage by the immigrants in which sending them back does not guarantee safety (Gómez-Lobo, 2002).
The government has opted for preventative strategies to curb entry and in cases of entry, refugee children are detained in offshore detention centers which raises much alarm concerning their wellbeing. The children in immigration detention provide the third perspective in which the Australian public openly refers to them as illegal immigrants who may drain the public resources. While other citizens assume that immigrant children could be terrorists, most of these children felt like criminals with some not even aware of why they were detained in the first place. Others were born in the detention centers showing that the government and other stakeholders ought to give them a second chance to life through integrating them into the society.
Principles of human flourishing
The principles involve respecting the human person, promote the family and work towards the common good (Cox & Wallace, 2002). Gregg (2013) states that the concept of respecting these rights requires a person to be immune from harm by others. Human rights merit several types of treatment on human beings whereas discouraging uncouth practices on immigrants. The issue of detention of immigrants in Australia raises the issue of the common good in which the state of affairs runs against the will of the refugees. The health and state of development of these children are questioned by the Human Rights Commission in the first perspective.
Most of the children, in this case, appear unaccompanied by their parents and family whereas others were born within the detention facilities. Regarding Hollenbach (2002) children in these facilities are affected mentally, physically as well as sexually thus increasing the risk of self-harm. The current state of the common good in the country influences the negative image depicted by the Australian government that is one of the stakeholders. While the government argues that its policies against refugees are efficient, questions are left on the conditions of the detention centers that appear worse that Australian prisons.
The practice of keeping children within these centers is complex in that it raises ethical concerns. Whereas the refugee children and the Human Rights Commission will campaign for better treatment, it is quite evident that the country has sovereign rights. The Australian government is justified to some extent in protecting its boundaries and waterways thus giving a reason for the Navy turning boats away. From some of these countries where refugees come from, cases of terrorism and radical groups are rampant thus indicating the need for the government to take security precautions (Taylor, & Dell'Oro, 2006).
The refugees in some extent should not just be assimilated into the society without proper documentation and assistance. However, the Human Rights Commission is not antagonist about the fact that the government intends to assist the refugees accordingly. The commission feels that the Australian government takes longer periods in offering the assistance thus forcing children to live in detention centers. The government, however, assures the other stakeholders of the improvements in the transparency of activities in the detention centers. However, there are reported cases of senior managers at the centers refusing to answer questions on abuse. The study includes the refugee children as one of the stakeholders thus raising concerns about the treatment they received in Nauru center.
Children are reported to receive physical and sexual abuse in which some are asked to perform sexual acts before guards. While the children continue being traumatized and their development deteriorates, the Australian government is left with a negative image of humanity. Regardless of the fact that detaining refugees may assist in security measures, the need to observe human rights ought to be respected. Human beings are entitled to family in which detention centers exposes children to sights of physical and sexual abuse. The trauma left on these children affects their development whereby some are deprived of proper development. The lack of proper family values which forms one of the major principles of human flourishing is wanting (Morris, 2012).
Lack of family counseling measures and values res...