ENDANGERED SPECIES

Michael A. Altieri
{"title":"ENDANGERED SPECIES","authors":"Michael A. Altieri","doi":"10.3368/er.13.1.141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the past year refugees and asylum seekers have emerged as a major domestic and foreign policy issue in Australia. The last time refugees were such a major political issue in Australia was after the Vietnam war with the arrival of the Indo-Chinese ‘boat people’. Then the number of Indo-Chinese ‘boat people’ that arrived between 1976–82 was 2059, small compared with present flows. However, their arrival brought about a large scale offshore selection of refugees and eventually a government-organized ‘orderly departure programme’ from Vietnam which saw the number of IndoChinese born in Australia reach 70,000 by 1982 (Betts, 2001: 34). By contrast the number of ‘boat people’ arriving since 1998 has been large and from diverse sources. In 1999, 3740 asylum seekers arrived by boat, in 2000, 2961 arrived and in 2001 (January–August) more than 3694 had arrived. Yet these boat arrivals have not precipitated an organized refugee programme to bring refugees from Southeast Asia as happened in the 1970s and early 1980s. Instead, the government has presented the latest arrival of boat people as a challenge to national sovereignty and provoked public fear that Australia was facing a refugee crisis. In fact, despite the significant increase in ‘boat people’ (unauthorized arrivals) between 1999 and 2001, the annual refugee quota of 12,000 has remained the same and 1640 unfilled places from the 2000–1 quota were carried over into 2001–2 (Population Flows: Immigration Aspects, 2001: 25). The perceived crisis is in the ‘threat’ posed by ‘unauthorized entry’ rather than by the actual numbers of refugees arriving or being accepted annually. Nevertheless the issue of the management of refugee flows, symbolized in the Tampa incident, was made an election winner by the Liberal government in late 2001.1 They set about ‘selling protection’ as their election strategy: protection against foreigners seeking ‘entitlements’ they did not deserve because they had entered illegally (were ‘queue jumpers’) and acted criminally (paid ‘people smugglers’), and protection against terror in the form of individual suicidal acts causing mass death (Tilly, 1985).","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration & Management Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.13.1.141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the past year refugees and asylum seekers have emerged as a major domestic and foreign policy issue in Australia. The last time refugees were such a major political issue in Australia was after the Vietnam war with the arrival of the Indo-Chinese ‘boat people’. Then the number of Indo-Chinese ‘boat people’ that arrived between 1976–82 was 2059, small compared with present flows. However, their arrival brought about a large scale offshore selection of refugees and eventually a government-organized ‘orderly departure programme’ from Vietnam which saw the number of IndoChinese born in Australia reach 70,000 by 1982 (Betts, 2001: 34). By contrast the number of ‘boat people’ arriving since 1998 has been large and from diverse sources. In 1999, 3740 asylum seekers arrived by boat, in 2000, 2961 arrived and in 2001 (January–August) more than 3694 had arrived. Yet these boat arrivals have not precipitated an organized refugee programme to bring refugees from Southeast Asia as happened in the 1970s and early 1980s. Instead, the government has presented the latest arrival of boat people as a challenge to national sovereignty and provoked public fear that Australia was facing a refugee crisis. In fact, despite the significant increase in ‘boat people’ (unauthorized arrivals) between 1999 and 2001, the annual refugee quota of 12,000 has remained the same and 1640 unfilled places from the 2000–1 quota were carried over into 2001–2 (Population Flows: Immigration Aspects, 2001: 25). The perceived crisis is in the ‘threat’ posed by ‘unauthorized entry’ rather than by the actual numbers of refugees arriving or being accepted annually. Nevertheless the issue of the management of refugee flows, symbolized in the Tampa incident, was made an election winner by the Liberal government in late 2001.1 They set about ‘selling protection’ as their election strategy: protection against foreigners seeking ‘entitlements’ they did not deserve because they had entered illegally (were ‘queue jumpers’) and acted criminally (paid ‘people smugglers’), and protection against terror in the form of individual suicidal acts causing mass death (Tilly, 1985).
濒危物种
在过去的一年里,难民和寻求庇护者已经成为澳大利亚国内和外交政策的一个主要问题。相比之下,自1998年以来,抵达英国的“船民”人数众多,来源各异。1999年有3740名寻求庇护者乘船抵达,2000年有2961人抵达,2001年(1月至8月)有3694人抵达。然而,这些乘船抵达的难民并没有像1970年代和1980年代初那样促成一项有组织的难民方案,从东南亚带来难民。相反,澳大利亚政府把最近船民的到来说成是对国家主权的挑战,并引发了公众对澳大利亚正面临难民危机的担忧。事实上,尽管1999年至2001年间“船民”(未经授权的移民)大幅增加,每年的难民配额仍为12,000人,2000年至2001年的配额中有1640个空缺名额延续到2001年至2001年(人口流动:移民方面,2001年:25)。人们所感知到的危机是“未经授权入境”所构成的“威胁”,而不是每年抵达或接受的难民实际人数。然而,以坦帕事件为代表的难民流动管理问题,却成为自由党政府在2001年底的选举中获胜的一个因素。他们开始将“出售保护”作为他们的选举策略:保护外国人不因非法入境(“插队者”)和犯罪行为(受贿赂的“人口走私者”)而寻求他们本不应享有的“权利”,保护外国人不因个人自杀行为造成大规模死亡而遭受恐怖袭击(Tilly, 1985年)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信