Search

The guardianship of unaccompanied asylum-seeker children is a contentious aspect of Australian asylum-seeker law and policy. The current legislative framework for guardianship is curtailed by migration legislation and policy and is ineffective for realizing the rights of these children under international law. This paper contributes to existing scholarship on guardianship by critically examining political discourse on child asylum seekers. It combines the discourse-historical approach with doctrinal analysis to uncover the historical and political context and outcomes of the legislation. Critical discourse analysis examines statements made by politicians from both major Australian political parties and the parliamentary report rejecting the most recent attempt at reform. This paper reveals that, to reject reform and justify maintaining the status quo, the government has rationalized the detention of child asylum-seekers as essential to the success of deterrence measures, and moralized these measures by framing them as necessary to protect the lives of those attempting to reach Australia by boat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how the 'ideal' refugee is conceptualized in discussions about Australia's humanitarian policies. Critical Discourse Analysis of semi-structured interviews with 24 Western Australians revealed strong themes of assimilation alongside the neoliberal concept of 'market citizenship', where the 'ideal' refugee is positioned as achieving economic success through contributions to Australia's labour market. These discourses served competing ends—they were voiced both in support of, and opposition to, Australia's acceptance of refugees. I argue that by constructing refugees' deservingness of protection along market citizenship lines, their belonging becomes contingent upon their adherence to a narrowly defined ideal. Consequently, refugees who do not fit within this ideal face continued exclusion, with their 'human capital' prioritized over their safety and human rights. This article calls for a reconsideration of arguments that focus on refugees' capacity to 'fit in' and 'give back' as these narratives may exacerbate their experiences of exclusion and stigmatization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]