Australian and International Immigration Policy for Refugees: A Comparison between Afghani and Ukrainian Asylum Seekers

By Pandora’s Blog Editor, Stella Dziov

The recent Afghanistan and Ukrainian conflicts respectively have revived discussion in attitudes towards refugees and international immigration policy. The principal controversy has been the different treatment Ukraine received globally. Reporters were quick to note the more positive language describing Ukrainian refugees, as well as the sudden welcoming shift from previously anti-immigration countries. However, while the Afghanistan and Ukrainian refugees have been treated differently socially, the support for both from the Australian government is still lacking. The Australian government have advocated themselves as a harbour of safety to Ukrainian refugees in a performative move of humanitarian relief that they are hesitant to actually deliver on. Parliament have the opportunity to finally deliver with the introduction by MP Andrew Wilkie of the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill. New policy that reforms our immigration system to better manage refugees is necessary for compliance with our international obligations and to more effectively help asylum seekers.

 

Afghani refugee crisis in 2021-2022

Over the span of a few months in mid 2021, the Taliban took control of the entirety of Afghanistan, resulting in devastating numbers of civilian casualties and a return to extreme violations of human rights. This coincided with the US’s withdrawal from the Afghanistan conflict. Iran and Pakistan prepared themselves for the inevitable influx of refugees by establishing additional temporary accommodation and increasing border patrols. As neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, their immediate proximity made them an attractive option for people seeking immediate asylum. Subsequently, the two nations have cumulatively taken in over two million Afghani refugees.[1] Further afield, Canada announced it would double the spots available in its refugee program to 40,000. The UK has also pledged to take up to 20,000 Afghani refugees fleeing the conflict in the coming years.

In Australia, the Refugee and Humanitarian program has dedicated an additional 4125 visas to Afghani refugees.  Despite these positive policy initiatives to assist Afghans, many European countries were still reluctant to take Afghani refugees, with some outright refusing. Turkey is one of these countries. Many Afghans have reported racism from Turkish citizens, with political leaders being publicly vocal that they ‘want them to leave’. On July 26th of 2021, Austria’s chancellor stated that Turkey was ‘a more suitable place’ for Afghani refugees than his own country. This shifting of responsibility to house refugees is rooted in racial discrimination and offensive stereotypes. Whilst there is some constructive legislation being implemented to target Afghani refugees, the racial bias from some countries remains strong. This social bias has been exemplified by the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the subsequent treatment of Ukrainian refugees.


Ukrainian refugee crisis in 2022

Russia began their invasion of Ukraine in late February this year. This has led to roughly 7 million people fleeing Ukraine, the largest European refugee crisis since World War II. In early March, the council of the EU unanimously agreed to enact the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) for the first time in the EU’s history. The TPD allows Ukrainian refugees to bypass standard EU procedures for asylum seekers within EU member states and enjoy benefits such as access to healthcare, education for children, and housing. Neighbouring countries of Ukraine have taken in the largest percentages of refugees thus far. Poland has recorded more than 1.2 million refugees and is providing free food, accommodation, and healthcare to all Ukrainian asylum seekers. Turkey’s interior minister has emphasised that Ukrainians are ‘welcome’ in Turkey and has taken in close to 100,000 Ukrainians. Austria also announced that they were willing to take in refugees. Further abroad, Canada has pledged to allow an unlimited number of Ukrainians to apply to temporarily stay in Canada and have so far approved over 200,000 Ukrainian visas. Australia announced that Ukrainian visas would be given top priority and they would grant Ukrainian refugees humanitarian visas to allows them to work and access healthcare. Whilst there was support for Afghani refugees also from some of these countries, the call to arms to support Ukrainians was met with much more support in comparison to initiatives to assist Middle Eastern and African refugees.

Poland had just months prior been firing tear gas at asylum seekers from the Middle East and Africa. As already discussed, Turkey and Austria have been against intake of refugees however have been encouraging Ukrainian asylum seekers to take refuge in their countries. Most of Eastern Europe has been historically anti-immigrant and this sudden welcoming attitude highlights the preference for “ideal”, “white” refugees. Though the charity of these countries is commendable and has assisted millions of innocent people to flee war zones, it has clearly demonstrated a racial prejudice within Europe towards white, European refugees. Various news outlets have been quick to point out the disparity in the treatment of Middle Eastern and African refugees versus Ukrainian refugees. That is not to say that the assistance to Ukrainian refugees should be dialled back but rather that support for Middle Eastern and African refugees needs to be vastly improved.

There have also been gaps noted in Australia’s support for the Ukrainian refugees. Critics have accused Australia of offering performative support to Ukraine which they consequently fail to deliver on. Having previously promised to grant humanitarian visas to refugees so that they receive work rights and healthcare, many Ukrainians received only visitor visas which limits their access to healthcare and does not afford them a work right. Furthermore, responsibility to arrange of food, clothing, and accommodation has “fallen to community organisations” without support from the government. Morrison’s sweeping statements of Australia being eager to help have not been backed up upon the arrival of Ukrainian refugees. The immigration system needs reform in terms of policies that ease the transition for refugees more effectively.

 

Australian immigration reform

In early August, MP Andrew Wilkie reintroduced the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill to the federal parliament. The name of the bill clearly indicates its focus: bringing an end to unjustified detention of refugees and asylum seekers by bringing them into the community “in preference to being behind bars”.[2] In his appeals to parliament, Wilkie calls the treatment of asylum seekers “immoral and unlawful”, insisting that change needs to happen. Wilkie argues that Australia does not uphold their obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees on account of our “detention first” approach to managing asylum seekers. In February 2022, the average length of immigration detention in Australia was 689 days, with Canada and the United States having an average detention period of 14 and 55 days respectively. The processing times have become unjustifiable and points to an active refusal from the immigration department to free refugees from their government-imposed purgatory. Wilkie also purports that it is cheaper to house refugees in the community versus in detention by hundreds of thousands of dollars. As this bill is still in its infancy, it’s unclear what processes will replace our current detention model. When first introduced in 2021, this bill received bipartisan disapproval from Labour and Liberal, indicating it’s unlikely this bill will be passed. Nevertheless, the introduction of such progressive legislation liberalising the immigration refugee system is a positive indication of change. Wilkie notes in his first reading speech the overwhelming support he received from individuals and refugee community organisations within Australia which indicated a cultural shift within Australia towards pro-immigration. Advertisement of this bill is noticeably lacking considering the immense effect it may have on the Australian immigration system.

 

Concluding statements

Wilkie’s bill has the potential to innovate the Australian immigration model by ending indefinite detention. This would allow refugees to have more assurance as their wait times would not extend for years. Refugees deserve to be treated fairly and there should not be a racially based preference for certain refugees. European elitism has been clearly displayed through Europe’s charitable efforts for Ukrainians whilst actively driving away Afghani refugees. This preferential treatment of white refugees exhibits an undercurrent of colourism within the West that manifests as passive (and, in certain countries, active) discrimination against minority refugees. During these traumatic periods of political unrest, nations should rally together to support all refugees, regardless of their racial or religious identity.

 


[1] This is only the registered number of refugees. The actual number is much higher considering many illegally crossed the border to seek refuge: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/21/policy-responses-support-afghans-fleeing-taliban-controlled-afghanistan.

[2] Andrew Wilkie, ‘Immoral and unlawful treatment of asylum seekers must end’ (Press Release, 1 August 2022).