So, What's Happening With Australia and America’s “Refugee Swap”?

With Donald Trump introducing a new travel ban, where does that leave our refugee swap?

President Donald Trump has been a constant topic on international news ever since he was elected. Most of the time, of course, the reasons for his newfound popularity have not been positive.

One of the first political interactions between America’s new president and Australian Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull ended in a hang-up. It concerned the deal made in the wake of the current refugee crisis: As a response to the surge of 60 million refugees seeking a home due to recent Middle Eastern conflict, the previous U.S. government under Barack Obama had formed an agreement with Australia to ‘exchange’ refugees.

Today, in the wake of Trump's updated travel ban (which bars all refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days, excluding those already in transit), it seemed the refugee swap was in question once again. However, Turnbull insists the U.S. president has "agreed to honour, continue with, the arrangements entered into with his predecessor."

Who’s being swapped?

According to the ABC, people temporarily held on Manus Island and Nauru found to be “genuine refugees” will be transferred to the United States. (The approximate number is 1,250.) It has been suggested that in return for this service, Australia will receive an intake of “genuine” Central American refugees; that deal was first announced in September, and not in conjunction with the Manus Island and Nauru resettlement.

The refugees coming from Central America are fleeing gang violence in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, three countries otherwise known as the northern triangle of Central America.

What makes a “genuine” refugee?

The definition of a “genuine” refugee is often disputed, especially with regards to the deal between the U.S. and Australia. However, the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as someone who wishes to leave their country based on a “well-founded fear of persecution” on the basis of religion, race, political opinion, membership to specific social groups or nationality. This would mean that Australia could only send people seeking asylum from oppression in their home country to the U.S. under the current deal.

What happens to those left behind?

According to the ABC, any refugees refusing to be resettled in the U.S. might receive a 20-year visa in Nauru (this deal is still being negotiated). Those who don’t have the option to go to the States will be forced to remain on either island. Any future refugees wishing to seek asylum in Australia will not be considered in this new deal, therefore placing them in the same boat as if the deal had never happened.

For the UNCHR, the amount of people left out of this deal is a grave concern. In the official statement, they said, “appropriate solutions must be found for all of [the refugees].” No steps appear to have been taken to heed this criticism.

What does this mean for Aussies?

We’re inviting refugees into the country from a completely different continent, much less a different half of the globe. How will the cultural differences and expectations on both sides of the coin affect our beloved Australia?

This question is a hard one to answer without fulfilling stereotypes or sounding racist; nevertheless, it is one we should consider.

Concerns aside, we must take the same stance as Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull during his speech at last year’s Leader’s Summit on Refugees: “As leaders, we are responsible for helping those who are most vulnerable, and restoring the integrity of migration systems.”

As a developed nation, we owe a duty of care to those less fortunate. We are a strong, powerful nation, and whether the refugees are from Central America or Syria or anywhere on the planet, it is our duty to be as helpful and hospitable as possible.

Georgia Clements is one of Student Edge’s student contributors. See more student contributions here.

Photo: iStock