Asylum Challenge-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Asylum Challenge. Answer: Immigration is a global issue, which has been influenced by several political, financial and social contexts. Since the ancient era, refugees have been treated brutally in nations, while attempting to arrive at another nation. For instance, the asylum seekers were not treated equally in terms of the resources distribution for survival. In this regards, it has been observed that philosophers have different views related to the ethical consideration of Australian Asylum policy. In this assignment, the key arguments and the views of two philosophers Walzer and Singers would be demonstrated and analyzed in the global context of immigration and asylum policies. According to Walzers (1983) viewpoint, membership is important for allowing people to enter into the community. The immigration policies often do not allow people to enter the country, which hampers the complex equality. The key aspect highlighted by Walzer is the "complex equality". It is built on the principle of pluralism distribution of social goods. Thus, according to this philosopher, no principle can provide a basis for general distribution, which can govern the distribution of total assets. Walzer (1983) highlighted that the asylum admission policies were developed partly by the political and economic condition of the country, partly by the destiny of the country along with the political communities. Walzer attempted to demonstrate the both the moral and political aspects together, in terms of complex equality. Being aware of refugees brutal future, if they are not taken in the country, it is immoral to hinder their entrance in the country. However, from political context, al lowing everyone seeking asylum, who are looking helpless is also not justified, as it can also be threatening for the nation (Gibney 2014). He argued that probably every victim of authoritarianism is the moral comrade of a liberal citizen. As long as the number of victims is less, mutual aid will make similar results, but when the number enhances, people have to choose among the victims, when they will look for people, who are more connected to them, more alike them. However, if there were no connection with victims, there would be no need for choosing victims belonging from the similar status of basic needs. Nevertheless, communities have strict boundaries, related to the territory and resources, depending upon the population on a sense of relatedness and mutuality. As the ideological affinity is a key aspect of mutual recognition, there is the significant possibility of political choice, leading to the exclusion of refugees from asylum admission. Therefore, according to Walzer (19 83), the principle of mutual aid can only modify and not transform admissions policies rooted in a particular community's understanding of itself Walzers (1983). According to Singer and Singer (2010), needy people should be supported, until it is not becoming harmful for the society. Peter Singer is one of the most famous and reputed moral philosophers, who argued that individual, would be considered to be immoral unless he or she is contributing a minimum amount of his income for social well being. He claims that similar moral obligations are also applicable towards the strangers living miles away as people may do for their closest family members. Thus, it is injustice or immoral, if the national policies deny to welcome refugees into the country until the cost begins to overwhelm the benefits to refugees (Gibney 2014). He also claimed that it is important for every country to double the national immigration quotas every year, till the country is not able to support the financial extension anymore. He has also argued that to deal with the current refugee crisis throughout the world, wealthy countries can fund the refugee facilities in the le ss wealthy countries. In contrast to the right based arguments discussed by Singer and Singer (2010) the decision related to the immigration policy and refugee allowance, in particular, should be based on the interest of the affected population through the direct or indirect way. Therefore, it can be interpreted that according to Singer and Singer (2010) view, it is important to analyze the capacity of the nation to serve the basic needs and resources to its citizens as well as non-citizens colonizing in the country. Therefore, they need to boost the refugee intake procedures, until it is no severely affecting the growth, development and survival of the people living in the host country. In the ethical arguments, both of the authors, i.e. Singer and Singer (2010) and Walzer (1983) demonstrated the refugee's rights to get an entry in the nations, where they adhere. They argued that in terms of moral responsibility, it is crucial to allow refugees in the country. However, it has also been argued that it is not possible to allow all the people, who seek asylum in the country; rather countries should assess their assets to maintain the survival of its citizens while allowing people from outside of the country. In regards to real world implications, both of the authors argued that for non-citizens, who are being allowed to enter the foreign country, it will have positive implications. The refugees allowed in the country have the chance to establish their good future. Although in some cases, their personal life goals are not met always, the procedure will always positively affect the survival and growth of the non-citizen population. On the other hand, the affected group would be the citizen or residents of the host country. Although they would have some positive affect like diversified culture, the negative affect would also occur, related to the resources (Gibney 2014). However, the level of effect would vary according to the state of the national economy, how many refugees have entered, how well they will fit into the community along with other factors. It has been revealed from the authors arguments that doubling refugee intake by the developed countries would cause no harm whatsoever. However, Australian asylum policies are against humanity, i.e. against the moral view point of Walzer and Singers. It has to be understood that the auatralian authorities have clung to partialism approach to protect the cultural particularity and protection, but the impact of impartialism in practice will not cause any harm to the cultural and societal structure. Howevr, the Australian policies do not cater to the impartialism approach and is only concerned the closed society structures. The Australian policies do not entertain any liberty elements of Walzer and Singers and should broaden their policy structure with the principles of impartiality strengthening their moral grounds. The Australian asylum policy is against humanity, as Australian government maintains a strict control over the offshore facilities, for reducing crimes related to migration. The rules worsened against the most vulnerable refugees or asylum seekers arriving from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Although with recent work the policies have become more reliable, years ago, the policies were unimaginable and brutal towards refugees. Thus, the Australian asylum policies are against the position shown by Walzer and Singers. Reference List Gibney, M. J. (2014). Political theory, ethics, and forced migration.The Oxford handbook of refugee and forced migration studies, pp. 48-59. Singer, P., and Singer, R. (2010). The ethics of refugee policy'.Population and Political Theory, pp. 285-304. Walzer, M (1983). Membership in Spheres of justice: a defence of pluralism and equality, Basic Books, New York, pp. 31-35, 48-51.