{"title":"Migrant Acculturation via Naturalisation: Comparing Syrian and Greek Applications for Naturalisation in White Australia","authors":"Andonis Piperoglou","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Immigrants and Minorities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
ABSTRACT In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.
期刊介绍:
Immigrants & Minorities, founded in 1981, provides a major outlet for research into the history of immigration and related studies. It seeks to deal with the complex themes involved in the construction of "race" and with the broad sweep of ethnic and minority relations within a historical setting. Its coverage is international and recent issues have dealt with studies on the USA, Australia, the Middle East and the UK. The journal also supports an extensive review section.