Australia’s use of immigration detention and deportation powers under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 exposes serious legal and moral problems. This is especially true for permanent residents who have lived in Australia since they were children.
Many of these individuals are now in their 60s or 70s, with their last criminal conviction dating back to the 1980s. Detaining and deporting them on “character” grounds is harsh and unfair. They have already served their punishment. Such actions violate key principles of justice, human rights, and the rule of law.
Under Australian law, non-citizens can be removed even if they have lived in the country their whole life. Section 501 lets the Minister for Immigration cancel a visa if a person fails a “character test.” This includes having a substantial criminal record, defined as sentences of 12 months or more. However, many affected do not have such serious records.
This legal fiction treats permanent residents as “aliens” despite their lifelong connection to Australia. In the High Court case Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth, the Court recognized that some people may not be “aliens” because of their deep and permanent ties to Australia. Although this ruling focused on Indigenous peoples, its principle applies to those who grew up and built their lives here.
Many targeted by section 501 committed crimes in their youth, often linked to hardship such as poverty or trauma. They have served their sentences, rehabilitated, and lived law-abiding lives since. Cancelling their visas years later acts as a second punishment. This punishment is not decided by a court but by government officials. This raises concerns about double jeopardy and fairness. The UN Human Rights Committee has criticized Australia’s deportations of lifelong residents as violations of the rights to family life and privacy.
When visas are cancelled, individuals are often detained under immigration laws. If removal is impossible—due to statelessness, lack of travel documents, or health reasons—detention may become indefinite. The High Court recently ruled that indefinite detention without a real chance of removal is unlawful. This ruling is crucial for elderly detainees with serious health issues who remain isolated and cut off from family support, sometimes for years.
The 2014 Migration Amendment gave the Immigration Minister broad powers to cancel visas. These decisions are hard to challenge and lack transparency. Many detainees receive cancellation notices in hospitals, with limited access to legal help or interpreters. Others spend years fighting decisions in court.
Deportations cause deep harm to families and communities. Many detainees have spouses, children, and grandchildren in Australia. Their removal disrupts family life and support networks. These policies disproportionately affect Māori, Pasifika, and Indigenous Australians, who have historically faced racial discrimination and over-policing. Deporting older people long past their criminal behavior adds to this injustice.
Legal scholars describe Australia’s approach as “crimmigration,” blending criminal and immigration law to expand government power while limiting fairness.
From a constitutional view, using immigration laws to impose punishment after a sentence is served challenges the separation of powers. Only courts should punish, yet deportation after prison is an executive punishment without judicial oversight.
Ethically, deporting elderly permanent residents who have contributed to society for decades is unjust. Rehabilitation shows people can change. Ignoring this denies their humanity.
Australia must rethink the balance between public safety and justice. Reforms should protect long-term residents from deportation when offenses are old, rehabilitation is shown, and removal causes severe hardship.
At Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre, many detainees are elderly with decades-long ties to Australia. For example, one man aged 60 has lived in Australia for 54 years and has been detained for eight years, though his last imprisonment was in the 1980s. Others are in their late 60s, detained for years despite little or no recent criminal history.
These cases raise urgent questions. How can someone be deported for a decades-old conviction? How can people raised in Australia, with Australian-born families, be removed? Many detainees are effectively Australian except for their legal status on paper.
I have helped prevent deportation for most individuals I support, but I now face my own health struggles. One man, Stephen Pokrykwa, was deported despite living in Australia for 50 years, leaving behind six children and eleven grandchildren. His removal devastated his family. He poses no risk and deserves compassion and a second chance.
Australia’s use of section 501 continues to break families apart and removes people who grew up here. Deporting those who arrived as children punishes them twice and breaks principles of fairness. It may violate international human rights laws protecting children’s best interests.
Stephen and others like him seek a peaceful life with their families. They deserve the chance to live without fear of removal.
I urge the government to recognize Australia as a nation of second chances and to grant mercy where it is due.
In conclusion, using section 501 to detain and deport elderly permanent residents for old offenses is legally and morally wrong. It punishes whole families, damages communities, and undermines trust in the law. Australia must reform its immigration system to respect belonging, identity, and rehabilitation. Lifelong residents should not be forced out of the only home they know in the name of “character.”
Related Topics
- 7 Ways to Check My British Citizenship Application Status
- Is Withholding of Removal Considered Lawful Status in the U.S.?
- Top 6 Immigration Lawyers for Asylum in the U.S.
