Discussion on Hunting Housing and Homeland Security

Question: Discuss about the Discussion on Hunting Housing and Homeland Security. Answer: Introduction: The first issue raised in the question answer session was by Eliza Gay, who mentioned the rising rate of terrorist attacks all over the globe and how the human society has come to accept it as a inevitable part of modern human society, as stated by the mayor of London. The next issue in the discussion was on the lone wolf attacks happening across the western capitals and whether the emphasis of terror on the Western coalition partners is neutralizing outcome of the loss of countless Islamic lives in Syria and Iraq (Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV, 2017). The third social issue discussed in the program is the rising threat of the Islamic populations attempting to the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. And how the Western citizens are supposed to respond to such a situation that threatens the peace and sovereignty of their homelands. The next issue discussed in the discussion was about some unrealistic policies like the Europe based immigration and refugee policy and if it is in some manner beneficial to the migration situation of Australia. And the questioner also raised the concern about how many more terror attacks will be the collateral damage before the authorities understand the depths of the repercussions of these policies (Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV, 2017). The next set of questions raised by an Islamic Australian resident highlights an interesting albeit odd scenario. The issue addressed in this question is the racial discrimination faced by Australian minorities and how the situation is worsened by the divisive upheaval in different sectors of the society (Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV, 2017). On a similar note the next questioner raised the concern of how the religious minorities like the Jewish being insulted and discriminated in open streets and if the laws that the multicultural hub, like Australia takes pride on its cultural diversity are making life difficult for the minorities (Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV, 2017). The last issue raised by the programme is on the rising number of homeless youngsters in Australia and how the increasing amount of foreign investors and proprietors leading the young generation of Australia homeless (Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV, 2017). The social policy debated in this program was concerned with the immigration policy in place in Australia. The questioner raises a concern over the inclination of the Australian policies towards the Europe based regulations and very rightly questioned Amanda Rishworth on how long the Australian citizens have to cope with terrorist attacks before the authorities discovered that the immigration situation in Australia is much different than the one in Europe. Amanda tackled the situation commendably by agreeing to the initial argument by the questioner. It has to be considered that there is reality in what Amanda tried to explain. Australia deals with a much more diverse and huge group of influx that can outweigh the major part of Europe influx (Hill, 2003). However Stephanie attempted to share her strong believes on how the open field policy in Germany is leading to increasing terrorism and how taking those footsteps can land Australia in the same predicament. However Peter Holmes, a panellist who had the opportunity to stay in Germany for a period pointed it out rightly that the entirety of Europe is facing terrorism and one strict policy cannot be a catalyst here (Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV, 2017). On the other hand the stricter Australian policies on immigration have been saved by the refugee camps on the shores and the fact that Australia is fact is closed off from all ends by the ocean. However Mark Seymour very rightfully stated that the refugee camps sometimes can work like the torture machines regardless of the fact that there can be immigrants who might have come the wrong way and have nothing to do with terrorism. Hence these camps could and should be closed off so that Australian government does not continue to shred layer after layer of humanity while avoiding security breach (Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV, 2017). In the light of the recent global domination of brutality and remorseless terrorism, all the nations are securing their armours to ensure the safety of the nation and the citizens. The immigration policies are a major part of that armour. The Australian policy on immigration, or the white policy as popularly known as has been a protective barrier for the government to diminish the levels of terrorist attacks but there are a lot of arguments about the effectiveness of the policy in the reality (Jamrozik, 2009). It has to be considered that the Australian government has not become anti-immigration all of a sudden; this has been a constant feature of the Australian regulations, however in the light of recent surge in terrorism it has strengthened significantly. However the shoreline refugee camps are doing things none too great with the immigrants. It has to be considered that some of them are truly in the wrong place at the wrong time and they by no means deserve the excessively harsh and inhuman treatment that they receive in the camps (Collins, 2013). However the scenarios at the asylum seekers camp in the shoreline are not changing, according to studies there is no set limit for how long the immigrants are supposed to stay in camp, and their free will is at complete mercy of the Australian government and immigration committee (Carson Kerr, 2014). As mentioned by the Australian immigration minister Peter Dutton, the government will not accept the illegal immigrants at any cost and they will not be given opportunity to settle down the country permanently at any circumstances (Kubrin, Zatz Martinez, 2012). This stand that government has decided to take on immigration has provided the humanitarian part of the society a conundrum. While it is undoubtedly unacceptable to rob human of their free will and force them to stay under the radar of a foreign government for any period of time just because of a mistaken entry, the situation of terrorism deserves equal attention as well (Neumann Tavan, 2013). Although there can be a few amendments that can be incorporated, for instance there should be discretion in the refugee camps that can recognize and validate the immigrants that have come to the Australian Shore by mistake or a foolish attempt to seek the asylum (Wood McAdam, 2012). However we cannot expect the government to not take a strict action on the immigration situation when the safety of the citizens is at stake. However, we can always expect the government to take a more humanitarian frontier without compromising the safety of the nation or its citizens. References: Carson, E., Kerr, L. (2014). Australian Social Policy and the Human Services. Cambridge University Press Collins, J. (2013). Rethinking Australian immigration and immigrant settlement policy.Journal of Intercultural Studies,34(2), 160-177. Hill, M. (2003). Understanding Social Policy, 7th Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Hunting, Housing and Homeland Security | QA | ABC TV. (2017). Abc.net.au. Retrieved 18 April 2017, from https://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4624232.htm Jamrozik, A. (2009). Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State: Australian in a changing world (3rd edition), Pearson Education, NSW. Kubrin, C. E., Zatz, M. S., Martinez, R. (Eds.). (2012). Punishing immigrants: Policy, politics, and injustice. NYU Press. McClelland, A. (2006). Australia: Understanding for Action, Oxford University Press. Neumann, K., Tavan, G. (2013).Does History Matter?: Making and debating citizenship, immigration and refugee policy in Australia and New Zealand(p. 153). ANU Press. Wood, T., McAdam, J. (2012). III. Australian Asylum Policy all at Sea: An analysis of Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the AustraliaMalaysia Arrangement.International and Comparative Law Quarterly,61(01), 274-300.