Misusing the Australian legal system to deport long-term residents

Within the scope of the Migration Law, the injustice of deporting long -term permanent inhabitants is about the lack of Australia’s people. Gerry Georgatos.

Australia’s exercising migrant detention and deportation powers Migration Law 1958 (CTH) Especially when influenced the permanent inhabitants living in Australia since infancy, it reveals significant legal and moral failures.

Many of them are currently in the 60s or 70s, their last criminal convictions dates back to the 1980s. To detain and deport these individuals on the grounds of “character” are not only disproportionate and punishing, but also disturbs the basic principles of justice, human rights and the rule of law. They served their “time”.

“Alienage” fiction and betrayal of belonging

Under the Australian laws, non -citizens are responsible for lifting all their lives in Australia, even if they have spent their lives in Australia.

CHAPTER 501 Migration Law 1958 (CTH) The Minister of Migration allows a person to cancel a visa in which a person fails in the “character test ,, based on an important record of criminal records or served as cumulative or simultaneously, and is defined in a way that includes 12 months of penalties. However, I argue that many of them have no significant records.

However, this legal fiction – permanent inhabitants, despite the lifelong residence, continue to be “aliens – – ignoring the reality of their lives.

Inside Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v CommonwealthThe Supreme Court acknowledged that some individuals could go beyond a person whose foreign power could not reach under 51 (Xix), even if they were not citizens. Constitution Due to deep and permanent connections with the Australian community. While the case is applied to the first people, the basic principle – this belonging may exceed the official legal status – forcibly applied to those who have lived since childhood and build their lives completely in Australia.

Failure of double punishment and proportionality

S 501, many of the targeted, decades in your youth, usually during substance addiction, poverty or trauma. Since then, they have served their sentences, many rehabilitated and pioneered the lives that follow the law. Canceling their visas means a second penalty after decades – depending on the execution discretion, not by a court.

This raises concerns about the erosion of certainty in double danger and punishment. Inside NYSTROM V Australia, UN Human Rights Committee He criticized Australia’s deportation of a man living in Australia since infancy. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)Protecting family life and privacy. The Committee stressed that the punishment should not go beyond the punishment imposed by a court, especially when the person effectively became a part of the national community.

VERSE DETENTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLENCE

When visa cancellations occur under S 501, individuals typically SS 189 and 196. Migration law. In cases where extraction is not possible – for example, if a person cannot obtain travel documents or not suitable for traveling – detention may become uncertain.

The final decision of the Supreme Court Commonwealth v nzyq He decided that uncertain administrative detention was illegal without the possibility of a real lifting. The court hit the long -standing authority AL-TELEB V GodwinTo admit that the detention of infinite executive violates both the rule of law and the basic constitutional limits on non -punishing detention.

This decision is particularly important for long -term residents. Some have dementia, cancer or mental illness and cannot be relieved in a reasonable way. Nevertheless, they are taken into custody, isolated from the family and medical support, without a open legal way for relaxation.

Procedural Lack of Justice and Excessive Ministry

. Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Law 2014 (CTH) In some cases, compulsory cancellation and personal intervention invalidate court decisions by expanding the powers below 501. These forces are immune to non -compensated, reviewed and value -based examination in accordance with the S77C and S 501 (3).

Inside Baljiniravi V Minister for Migration and border protectionThe Federal Court said that decisions within the scope of S 501 may have deep human consequences and therefore require strict procedural justice. In practice, however, the cut and opaque nature of the process often deprives prisoners from significant examination. Some receive minimum access to legal assistance or interpreter services in the hospital and cancellation notifications. Others wait for years in custody while objecting to the decision through the courts.

Collateral damage to families and communities

The cost of deportation is severe. Most affected have wives, children and grandchildren in Australia. Families who often rely on their support are very painful. In NYSTROM, the UN Committee of Human Rights found that deportation was disproportionately intervened by the applicant’s right to family life, stating the “irreparable damage caused by the exile.

Moreover, these exiles disproportionately reflect the first peoples of Māori, Pasifika and Australia’s deeper racial injustice patterns. Many of these individuals were excessively claimed during the period of discriminatory policing. Then, to exile them in the next life – when they stop having a danger for a long time – this combines the structural damage.

Like academics Mary Crock And Daniel Ghezelbash They criticized Australia’s approach as “Crimigration – – the unification of the Criminal and Immigration Law to expand the execution control while escaping from the restrictions of the required process.

Ethical and constitutional case for reform

From a constitutional point of view, the use of immigration law to invalidate the principles of criminal law creates issues of disturbing separation. Supreme Court Chu Kheng Lim V Minister He found that only the courts could punish for migration. However, while deporting individuals long after serving their sentences, the executive takes a semi-pinatific action that jumps the judicial surveillance.

There is also a compelling ethical argument. Elderly residents who pay taxes, supported families and have not complied with laws for decades should not be published. The rehabilitation doctrine acknowledges that individuals can change and contribute to the society in a positive way. Out of a deportation for crimes committed in the 1980s ignores this possibility completely.

Australia should reconsider the balance between public security and individual justice. The reform should include a legal assumption for deportation for long -term inhabitants, especially the history of the discomfort, that rehabilitation is shown and that will bring disproportionate difficulties.

I got the following list from the Melbourne Immigrant Detention Center (I talked to a few of the listed):

• The YZ, which was taken into custody, was detained in Australia for 60, 54 years of residence for eight years. It was last imprisoned in the 1980s.
• The GL, which was taken into custody, was imprisoned for six months in 1995 and was detained for five years.
• The TM, which was detained – was imprisoned in the late 1970s and lived in Australia for 49 years. For almost five years in custody.
• Surveillance PM – 64 years old, never imprisoned, lived in Australia for 49 years. For almost five years in custody.

There was more on the list, but you understand.

Many of them will ask what kind of conviction can be deported when they were never convicted for a conviction dozens of years ago? One, one who lives his life in Australia and is born in Australia and has a raised family how can someone be deported?

I’ve prevented deportation for people I can support, but now I’m struggling with advanced Parkinson’s disease. I prevented deportation for 23 people out of 25 people. They all lived most of their lives in Australia, in Australia -born and trained families. A piece of paper except paper is an Australians. Australia should notice them as good and bad. However, there are individuals in custody in custody, some decades, some of whom returned to the 1970s, some who have never been convicted. Of course, the Australians should know whether all this is true, and if so, why and what is for “natural justice” and “procedural justice”.

I argue that the character assessment is abuse or as a character assassination. We have Kafka-Esque immigration detention system. The exiles and the ‘eternal’ years of immigration detention is a national shame, a national disgust, Australia’s indictment as the abuse of human rights. Emergency reforms are delayed.

One of the two people I cannot prevent from being deported Stephen Pokrykwa. It was deported Last year, for a sentence. He lived in Australia for half a century. Eleven grandchildren, leaving six children behind. I’m trying to bring him home.

Despite Parkinson, I may have to make a challenge for the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t be that way.

Stephen Australian for all intentions and purposes. The deportation of his deportation not only was devastated by his wife, children, grandchildren and a wider community. This penalty imposed after the completed imprisonment is not only disproportionate, but also for inhuman and innocent family members.

The ongoing practice of Chapter 501 continues to break down the Australian families, which is trained here, trained and socializes here. This is particularly sad when it contains people who come as a child and have no word in their migration. In such cases, deportation creates a double penalty and violates the principles of justice and proportionality. Moreover, the Stephen case is at risk of violating Australia’s obligations under International Human Rights Law, including the Children’s Rights Convention, which gives priority to the best interests of the child, which is not enough respected in the Stephen case.

Stephen is not a risk for the community – like the others I support, he is a person who tries to live a quiet and legal life with his family. It deserves the same rehabilitation and the chance to renew, that others are given in much more difficult conditions.

I joined the minister Tony Burke; Australia is an undisputed second chance. I want the minister to give it to Stephen with compassion and courage.

Solution

In order to detain and deport the elderly permanent inhabitants of Australia, which have decades of criminal convictions, the use of chapter 501 cannot be defended both legally and morally. It represents the failure of justice, compassion and proportionality. Not only individuals, but also all their families and communities. This undermines the belief in the rule of law and the risk of violating Australia’s obligations of international human rights.

In order to recover fairness, Australia should reform the immigration regime in order to provide the weight they deserve for belonging, identity and rehabilitation. Lifelong inhabitants should not be deported from the only country they know under the guise of “character”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdodjwtcw7g

Gerry Georgatos is an experimental focus on social justice and suicide prevention and poverty researcher.

Support independent journalism subscribe to IA.

Related articles