Asylum Challenges in Australia and Asia

ASSYLUM CHALLENGES IN AUSTRALIA AND ASIA 1
Asylum challenges in Australia and Asia
Name
Institution
Date

ASSYLUM CHALLENGES IN AUSTRALIA AND ASIA 2
Question 1
The principle of non-refoulement is human rights protection which states that the refugees
should not be forced to return to the country in which they are liable to be subject to persecution
(Simeon 2019). The principle is a vital protection under international human rights, refugee, and
humanitarian and customary law. The policy has been widely accepted by the states, which is an
indication that safety is essential as this is a case that can happen to individuals of any level.
Article 33(1) was established in 1951 at the United Nations convention. It states that no country
that is constricting to this principle should banish a refugee to the borders of the territories where
their life will be in danger of being threatened. The threats could be based on their nationality,
religion, political stand, race, or being a member of a particular social group.
The Tamil family has been living in Australia for almost six years, and their history shows
that their children were born in Australia although the parents are from Sri-Lanka. There is no
clear record as to why the couple fled their country, but they do not pose any danger to
Queensland town of Biloela where they have been working. Hence the state should seek a
solution for the settlement of this family. However, a procedure of approving their stay in
Australia should be discussed by the state. Considering their lifestyle and how they arrived in
Australia, it seems they came to seek for greener pastures. However, it is vital that the family be
questioned on their intention for migration before their fate is concluded (Laird, et. al 2018). The
need for questioning is because, in some instances, an exception to the principle of non-
refoulement can be made. If the refugee has no reasonable grounds that consider their country of
origin as a danger to their safety and is regarded as a danger to the security of the country in

ASSYLUM CHALLENGES IN AUSTRALIA AND ASIA 3
which he is then they may not claim the benefits of the humanitarian principle (Krstić and
Davinić 2018).
The state should also consider the case of the children involved. The children were born in
Australia although they do not have any identification proving that they are citizens in this
country. The Australian immigration office should also consider the children's situation in case
they are returned to their parent's country. The considerations should involve their safety and the
risk of insufficient provision of food and health services. The immigration office should look for
a legitimate reason to maintain the family in Australia and provide them with protection until
they find a basis of why or why not to allow their stay.
Question 2
Children born in exile are subject to the risk of statelessness (Parsons and Lawreniuk 2018).
These cases happen, especially when the parents' country of origin prevents registering their
children. Hence this leaves the children with only a theoretical nationality of their parents.
Failure to provide the children with the registration of citizenship is a human rights violation.
The issue of returning the children to Sri-Lanka cannot be concluded until further investigation is
done for the parents. There is also a right to nationality which firmly anchored to international
law (Marmo and Giannacopoulos 2017). Article15 (1) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights states that every individual has a right to a nationality. The international
instruments of law stipulate that children born in their territory should acquire citizenship. The
lawyers should consider the children's nationality status according to the international laws that
ensure children are entitled to their right, including being provided with a nationality. Article