Fitting refugees into the normative narrative of Australian multiculturalism

Abstract

Australia publicly espouses its multiculturalism as a key component of its national identity. In this paper, I argue that despite the importance of multiculturalism to Australia's identity, political decisions and discourse has muddied its remit with respect to humanitarian migrant intake programs and outcomes. Australia's history of selective migrant intake and restrictive refugee policy continues the Othering of past policies into contemporary settings. Refugee policy has become a political football. During the most recent national election campaign (May 2019), the plight of sick and ill refugees, currently housed offshore in detention centers, was used as a political pawn. Lost amid this political rhetoric were the traumatic narratives of forced migrants resettling in Australia's cities. Without possibility for a loud voice in public discourse, there is little opportunity for more Australians to understand how refugees experience detention centers, struggle to attain residency visas, and make "home" in multicultural Australia. I draw on research with Sri Lankan refugees in Sydney to give voice to these micro-level, place-based experiences of vulnerable arrivals. These stories, I think, can (re)shape and enrich Australia's multicultural identity because they challenge us to not only accept difference but recognize the circumstances through which Australia's diversity seeds its narrative.

Creating hospitable urban spaces: A multicultural city for refugees and asylum seekers

“…In political discourse, some migrant groups are regarded as worthy, ‘model minorities’ in contrast to others. The Othering of the ethno-culturally different, argues Ratnam (2019), hearkens back to a persistent racialised governmentality experienced by Australia’s first nation people and later by ‘displaced persons’ from Europe (see Kunz, 1988). One of the first pieces of legislation to be debated by Australia’s parliament at federation was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, colloquially referred to as the ‘white Australia’ policy regime.…”

“…In a series of public debates concerned about the ‘Asianisation of Australia’ (‘Blainey Debates’), Asian-Australians were depicted as ‘difficult’ guests who threatened the goodwill of their embattled, generous (white) Australian hosts (see Dunn, 1998). Exemplifying ‘governing by affect’, these polarised debates reduced the prospects for an affective hospitality towards the cultural other (see Idriss, 2022; Ratnam, 2019). The furore about Asian, predominately Vietnamese, ‘economic migrants’, ‘bogus refugees’ and ‘criminals’ waxed and waned, reignited a decade later in a turn towards populism (‘Hansonism’) (Jakubowicz, 1997).…”

“…The border within the city has been the source of several critical studies investigating the legal and spatial constraints experienced by forced migrants. Asylum seekers are subjected to inhospitality with controls inserted on where they reside, the kinds of employment they can undertake, and restrictions on their ability to study and acquire training that improves prospects for employability (Ratnam, 2019; Worsoe, 2021).…”

“…The formalisation in 1964 of a policy of integration extended nominal acceptance of difference; however, migrants' differences were regarded as transitory points on a journey to full assimilation. (Ratnam, 2019(Ratnam, : 1200(Ratnam, -1201.…”

“I Remember When Donald Trump Was Elected. It Broke a lot of Refugees’ Hearts”

“…The Trump administration's emphasis on linking refugees to national security risks without merit reinforced a threat mentality regarding refugees. Intensified screening processes foster suspicion (Grove & Zwi, 2006;Massimino, 2017;Merheb, 2005), where those who pass strict hurdles to resettle in the U.S. are still deemed dangerous and criminal (Grove & Zwi, 2006;Ratnam, 2019). Intensified vetting and control efforts also solidify power disparities created through othering, where the outgroup is considered inferior and dependent on in-group approval (Brons, 2015).…”