Search

Post‐war Jewish immigration from Europe to Australia has been much discussed in the scholarship, primarily with reference to the question of discriminatory (anti‐semitic) intention on the part of the Australian government and the Department of Immigration bureaucracy. The assumption has often been made that the existence of discriminatory policy and practices necessarily led to a reduction in the number of Jewish migrants entering Australia. Using new data on Jewish entrants under the Mass Resettlement programme (1947–51) and under individual sponsorship on landing permits, as well as material from the archives of the International Refugee Organization which administered the Mass Resettlement programme, this article revisits the related questions of discriminatory intentions and quantitative outcomes, concluding that discriminatory intent, while stimulating evasive strategies of resistance on the part of individuals and institutions, does not necessarily result in significant reduction in the rate of entry of the migrants who are the object of discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post‐war Jewish immigration from Europe to Australia has been much discussed in the scholarship, primarily with reference to the question of discriminatory (anti‐semitic) intention on the part of the Australian government and the Department of Immigration bureaucracy. The assumption has often been made that the existence of discriminatory policy and practices necessarily led to a reduction in the number of Jewish migrants entering Australia. Using new data on Jewish entrants under the Mass Resettlement programme (1947–51) and under individual sponsorship on landing permits, as well as material from the archives of the International Refugee Organization which administered the Mass Resettlement programme, this article revisits the related questions of discriminatory intentions and quantitative outcomes, concluding that discriminatory intent, while stimulating evasive strategies of resistance on the part of individuals and institutions, does not necessarily result in significant reduction in the rate of entry of the migrants who are the object of discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 1947 and 1952 170,000 Displaced Persons (DPs) arrived in Australia as International Refugee Organisation (IRO)-sponsored refugees. This article sets out the international historical and political context for the migration of DPs to Australia, and interrogates the 'bureaucratic labelling' inherent in the category 'Displaced Persons'. The post-war refugees were presented internationally as 'Displaced Persons', 'refugees', 'political refugees' and eventually, in an effort to solve the population crisis, as potential 'workers' and 'migrants'. This article will describe the historical origin of the terms 'Displaced Persons', 'refugees', 'political exiles' and 'migrants'- terms which were, and continue to be, relevant and problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the collective memory and history of displaced persons (DPs) who resided at the Bonegilla Migrant Reception and Training Centre in Australia following World War II. According to the article, attempts to integrate Bonegilla in an Australian multicultural narrative were problematic for the Australian government and post-war migrants and their families. The article focuses upon the collective memory of Bonegilla residents who arrived between 1947 and 1952 with the assistance of the group known as the International Refugee Organisation (IRO).

After the Second World War, Australia introduced a new immigration policy based on the concept of 'populate or perish'. Through the International Refugee Organization (IRO), 170,000 DPs migrated to Australia between 1947 and 1950, funded by the United Nations and the Australian government. Jews were largely excluded from this programme and the Minister for Immigration even prohibited the IRO from continuing to support the migration to Australia, based on family reunion, of individual Jewish survivors. In addition, the Australian government introduced other discriminatory policies that ensured that Jews remained only 0.5 per cent of the overall population. Based on archival research in the files of the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society and the American Joint Distribution Committee, Rutland and Encel analyse the entrenched racism in Australian society that contributed to these policies, and the reactions of the American Jewish leadership to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]