"Economic Refugees": A Legal Misnomer

Bob Carr should stop referring to “economic refugees”. The term is a legal misnomer. Under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, there is no recognition of so-called “economic refugees”. The Foreign Minister's use of the term is therefore disingenuous, because it is inconceivable that he is ignorant of what the Convention defines as a refugee.

During Question Time in the Senate last Thursday, the Foreign Minister said, in reference to asylum seekers from Iran arriving in Australia by boat, that increasingly, the “evidence before us is they are economic refugees, not people fleeing persecution, and are being brought here by people-smugglers”. The Foreign Minister also referred to these asylum seekers as “overwhelmingly middle-class … who belong to the majority religious and ethnic group in that country and are coming to these shores as economic migrants...”

First, under Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, a “refugee” is someone who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to available himself of the protection of that country.

These five grounds are the only grounds on which a claim for asylum may be made. Claims based on economic hardship or the want of a 'better' life will not be recognised under the Refugee Convention. If this is the basis of an asylum claim, that claim will fail. For this reason, it is simply wrong to speak of “economic refugees”. They cannot exist by definition. It is also misleading for the Foreign Minister to suggest that people who are “middle-class” or belong to the majority cannot be genuine refugees. Nowhere in the definition of a refugee is there any requirement to demonstrate poverty or membership of a minority religion or ethnic group. It is wrong of the Foreign Minister to play on misguided preconceptions and prejudices held against asylum seekers.

If a person satisfies the definition of a “refugee” then he or she is given refugee status under the Convention. This means that people arriving in Australia, seeking asylum have a right to make a claim for protection. It is wrong to speak of them as “illegal arrivals”. The Convention does not say anything about the means of arrival. Therefore, politicians may demonise boat arrivals as they like but it has no basis in law. An asylum seeker is free to chose their mode of arrival. When we consider the requirement that a person seeking asylum must demonstrate a well-founded fear of being persecuted, accusations of “queue jumping” and the absence of proper travel documentation are absurds notions. If a person is a genuine refugee, then they will have fled their country for fear of persecution, meaning threat to life or freedom and serious violation of one's human rights. Indeed, the Convention actually requires a refugee to have left their country owing to their fear of that persecution.

The Foreign Minister's deployment of the term “economic refugees” is scaremongering and demonising; it appeals to those of us who might think there are refugees who do not deserve to be here, who have come for a better life, when there is not enough of the pie to go around, as it is. Each time the term “economic refugee” is used, those of us who know better or should know better (including the media) have an obligation to challenge and resist that use, because it is the right thing to do, morally and legally.