Illegal immigration is often dealt with strenuous actions by the immigrant country but it raises various interconnected issues of mental agony, demeaning of human dignity and far reaching psycho social consequences. However, under international law and domestic laws certain conditions have been laid out where such illegal migration without proper document is allowed. Some of the commonly migration ground under emergency is asylum, refugee, threat of hostility and danger to life.
But crossing border of a country illegally by adopting unfair means knowingly in pursuit of better economic pursuit is often not considered in good spirit. Various countries have time to time raised voice against such illegal migrants and it more so often become political agenda where natives support such moves. In India too, there is often dilemma on how to deal with Rohingya migrants who have inhabited illegally. In recent developments, Trump administration has deported around 104 Indians who have entered USA through porous borders and were caught by US Police. These people have illegally entered USA by paying huge amounts to travel agents who have misguided them to take this illegal routes.
It is important to discuss the manner in which people have been migrating illegally and using various transits before reaching final destination. One of the famous transit countries is Indonesia for illegal migration to Australia. Australia Government’s policy is very strict to curb such illegal migration. O’Keefe v Calwell is a famous case where the Dutch lady was evacuated to Australia during World War II but was denied asylum and deportation order was issued in 1949. Though, she married Australian citizen and had a child subsequently but was directed to leave the country along with her child. She fought her case and got mass public support and the Court gave judgement in her favour.
In another matter called MV Tampa case where Australian Government strongly opposed entry of distressed Norwegian Ship carrying refugees to enter their territory despite of international manoeuvre and intervention of international agencies. Finally, they were deported to Nauru Islands as Indonesia refused to accept them and there was constant pressure by Norway Government. The Australians supported the Govt. move but internationally the move was criticised. In Soering vs. UK and Chahal vs. UK, European Court of Human Rights have held that deportation cannot be granted if there is fear of ill human torture or fear of death.
Ground of asylum for better future, job prospect and better economic pursuit has not been accepted as plea for waiver from deportation. However, Article 5 of International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights endorses “No restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any country in virtue of law, conventions, regulations or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.” The question is whether such act of US Government is valid by deporting them to India? Second, whether the manner in which they were sent was justified and in line with protection of human dignity? What could have been alternative ways to handle such situation?
As per US stand, the Govt. of India was informed of such illegal migration and list of citizens were shared to India. India should have acted promptly to take responsibility of its citizens who were in distress and were in need of support. India’s response was bit delayed. Second, US would have consulted Indian Government before sending these people back to India. The most painful part is the manner in which these people were deported to India in military aircraft. All people were handcuffed. The people in India are not very comfortable with this. There were discussions in Parliament and various political leaders across parties have raised their opinion on how it could have been done in better way. It certainly led to human rights violations.
In Hirsi Jamaa vs. Italy case, the words of Justice Blackmun are so inspiring that they should not be forgotten. Refugees attempting to escape Africa do not claim a right of admission to Europe. They demand only that Europe, the cradle of human rights idealism and the birthplace of the rule of law, cease closing its doors to people in despair who have fled from arbitrariness and brutality. That is a very modest plea, vindicated by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Similarly, USA is considered a democratic nation where “Rule of Law” prevails. The deported Indians certainly needed a better dignified humanly treatment.
Leave a Reply