Precis

Precis
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Precis
Over the preceding years, the Australian Government has developed laws and policies to help deal with the asylum problem. Desmond Manderson in his article, “From zero tolerance to harm reduction: “the asylum problem” provides a clear description of how the Australian Government treated the asylum seekers. According to Manderson, the asylum problem can be considered the same as the problem with drugs. Therefore, he formulates a comparison of the two with the ‘zero tolerance’ and ‘harm reduction’ policies that were created to curb them. It is evident that the debate is outlined in the right language that animates a crisis that is entirely dissimilar to the magnitudes of the problem. The asylum seekers are reflected like the drug addicts and are both portrayed as piteous victims who must be locked for their safety. Whereas, the smugglers and drug traffickers are considered as the villains who can be treated anyhow since no actions done against them is harsh. Besides, in both cases, the policy settings depend on the zero-tolerance tactics which are built around particular law enforcement strategies. Manderson not only focuses on the ‘zero tolerance’ policy but also explains the added advantage that ‘harm reduction’ policy brings when it is employed in the ‘asylum problem.’ Harm reduction policy advocates a new model for how to reconsider a policy agenda that is failing hence, beckoning a sea change in political and policy discourse.

In the article, Manderson has described the effects of the war on drugs about the policies rendered against the asylum seekers. The war on drugs featured extreme moral rhetoric that overpowered it since the drug users were rendered as fragile, pitiable and doomed beings. Moreover, the marking of the dominance of tough on drugs policy by Tony Abbots the minister of health generated havoc since, the policy engaged in merciless hunt of drug dealers, importers and exporters as a just movement against drugs (Manderson, 2013). The moral rhetoric that was passed against the drug users created intense social anxiety and health problems thus causing a moral panic. The drug users were later on termed dangerous since they were criminals. The same confusion applies to the embellishment around the asylum seekers since the politicians condemn them and accuse them of coming into Australia illegally.
It is essential to keep in mind that, the main point of comparison amid Australia’s problem with the asylum-seekers and the drug problem lies in the lawful and partisan reaction that the moral terror formed. The government seems to think that through the increase of law enforcement and draconian legislation reforms would stop the rising levels of drug use which happens to yield contrary results. People tend to assume that if deterrents are more severe individuals will change their character, therefore, when a policy centered by the law fails to work the solution lies within more intense law enforcement. Sadly, the prohibition of drugs is the root course of the problem that it claims to put across.
The relation between deterrence, harm and unpremeditated consequences is extensively involved, and it relates to the asylum policy, but the message remains similar. Therefore, the logic of exclusion is not merely fading but also counter-productive (Manderson, 2013). One of the primary harm in the query is the concern of demises at sea since the asylum-seekers use boats. Truthfully, the asylum-seekers are drawn to Australia because of the invented authorized line situated in the center of the ocean. Moreover, the main reason the asylum-seekers use boats to go to Australia is that Australia prevents any other arrival means. The illegality of entering Australia creates a market where smugglers thrive on.
The convention has lasted sixty years. Moreover, during those years, the figures of immigrants has grown extensively. Furthermore, the constant change in climate and political uncertainty will make matters worse sixty years to come. Given that no organizations are looking for relocation options the immigrants find themselves in an indeterminate state where the adults do not work, and children do not attend school (Manderson, 2013). An excellent example of such a situation is that of Malaysia where there are 86680 refugees and 10937 asylum seekers plus 120000 irregular migrants who are vulnerable to exploitation, deportation and draconian penalties for the breach of immigration laws (Manderson, 2013). Notably, the arrival of the asylum has little deterrents, whereby the ‘push factors’ are the ones that drive them from their countries and transit and the ‘pull factors’ which draws them to Australia since it is a prosperous and tolerant country. Seemingly, some specific policies have been noted to have a little impact such as the mandatory detention which has no identifiable impact on the rate of irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs). To be precise, it does absolutely nothing to top the asylum seekers from coming to Australia it has counter-productive effects.
The response of Australia to IMAs can be considered as ‘zero tolerance.’ In relation to the drug policy, zero tolerance means that no usages of prohibited items are acceptable and the only goal that the law enforcement has is to wipe it out. For the Australian law on the asylum policy to work, the zero-tolerance mode model is to be advanced with the aim of removing all the IMAs from the Australian Jurisdictions. This only means that the IMAs are deprived some of their rights and needs like work, attending of school for the children and lesser protection from the domestic law.
The substantial shift to harm reduction from zero tolerance is a good thing since zero tolerance undertakes that any consumption of drugs is undesirable and that any policy that helps drug users avoid prison and live healthier lives is misguided. In short, drug usage is considered an issue of law and order. On the other hand, harm reduction assumes that the usage of drugs should not be eliminated entirely instead, focus on the adjustment of the dangerous conditions and how the drugs are used as a priority since it will prevent health problems. In short, the drugs are referred as a health problem in the ‘harm reduction.’ The main aim of the ‘harm reduction’ is to ensure that the programs do not eliminate or prohibit drug injections; rather they aim to control it and make it harmless. Therefore, the practice of ‘harm reduction’ strategy in conjunction to the asylum-seekers would seek to end the circumstances that lead to the people boarding the boats and to improve the situations of persons on them to avoid the concern of demises in the sea. Australia should also seek to increase the size of their settlement programs from transportation countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia and the removal of counter-productive measure in their handling of refugees (Manderson, 2013). The author has maintained the example of drug problem throughout the article to enable us to understand how the shift occurred and how it happened.
The history of drug strategy is one of a kind because it not only shows us typical catastrophes and the ending of this kind of reasoning but also shows us the alternative approaches where realism and sympathy are shown not as counterparts but allies. It has also shown us the great approaches that the Australians seek to deal with the asylum-seekers problem. The understanding of what circumstances the refugees globally go through may, however, overshadow our established protective concern.
Reference
Manderson, D. R. (2013). From Zero Tolerance to Harm Reduction:“The Asylum Problem
Problem”. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 32(4), 1-21.