Mary Crock

Comparing Immigration Policies: An Overview from the IMPALA Database

This paper introduces a method and preliminary findings from a database that systematically measures the character and stringency of immigration policies. Based on the selection of that data for nine countries between 1999 and 2008, we challenge the idea that any one country is systematically the most or least restrictive toward admissions. The data also reveal trends toward more complex and, often, more restrictive regulation since the 1990s, as well as differential treatment of groups, such as lower requirements for highly skilled than low-skilled labor migrants. These patterns illustrate the IMPALA data and methods but are also of intrinsic importance to understanding immigration regulation.

Do Loose Lips Bring Ships? The Role of Policy, Politics and Human Rights in Managing Unauthorised Boat Arrivals

This article explores the phenomenon of asylum seekers and irregular migrants presenting as ‘boat people’. We evaluate key aspects of policies introduced to deter and contain these people – namely mandatory detention, temporary protection visas and offshore processing. Given the high rate of deaths and injuries associated with unauthorised boat arrivals, we argue that governments should do their best to discourage or prevent people from attempting to enter Australia in this way. However, the available evidence suggests that the rationale underlying deterrent policies is inherently flawed. Most have been totally ineffective in stopping unauthorised boat arrivals. History suggests that the best strategies prevent rather than deter, stopping the flow of asylum seekers at source and/or diverting desperate people away from dangerous and irregular modes of transport. We argue that no Australian government, acting alone, will be able to beat the people-smugglers now plying their trade out of Indonesia. What is needed are cooperative arrangements with ‘source’ or transit governments, coupled with targeted resettlement programs to provide refugees with viable protection options. We challenge claims made about the effectiveness of the Howard government’s Pacific Solution and question Labor’s apparent acceptance that offshore processing in ‘regional’ centres will stop the boats. We ask whether the Conservatives’ loud and internationally publicised claims that Labor has ‘gone soft’ on border control represent part of the problem: ‘loose lips’ may indeed be bringing the ships.

Measuring and Comparing Immigration, Asylum and Naturalization Policies Across Countries: Challenges and Solutions

Academics and policy makers require a better understanding of the variation of policies that regulate global migration, asylum and immigrant naturalization. At present, however, there is no comprehensive cross-national, time-series database of such policies, rendering the analysis of policy trends across and within these areas difficult at best. Several new immigration databases and indices have been developed in recent years. However, there is no consensus on how best to conceptualize, measure and aggregate migration policy indicators to allow for meaningful comparisons through time and across space. This article discusses these methodological challenges and introduces practical solutions that involve historical, multi-dimensional, disaggregated and transparent conceptualizing, measuring and compiling of cross-national immigration policies. Such an approach informs the International Migration Policy and Law Analysis (IMPALA) database.

SHADOW PLAYS, SHIFTING SANDS AND INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE LAW: CONVERGENCES IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC

While many Australians continue to see their roots in Western Europe, in matters concerning human rights and immigration control, Australias culture and attitudes over time have become more closely aligned with those of States in its immediate geographical region. The trend finds obvious expression in the convergence of laws and policies governing the treatment of asylum seekers. This article uses as a case study various efforts made to establish regional frameworks for the management of irregular (forced) migration. The author argues that Australias reversion to deflection and offshore processing as deterrent measures resonates with the discourse in two States that have been closely associated with the new ‘arrangements’: Malaysia and Indonesia. Australias policies make express reference to laws and State behaviour in the region through what has been labelled the ‘no advantage’ principle governing Australias treatment of asylum seekers presenting as unauthorized maritime arrivals (UMAs). The central idea is that these asylum seekers should gain no material advantage by reaching Australia in comparison with the situation they would face if their claims were processed in States of first refuge. If the comparators are the refugee-receiving States around Australia, the policy has to play out in the degradation of terms and conditions faced by UMAs in Australia. In the area of human rights and refugee policy, the author argues that Australia should be doing more to distinguish itself as a leader rather than follow the (generally poor) practices of its neighbours.

Swift and Systematic? Identifying and Recording Disability in Forced Migration

In this chapter we reflect on the use of the Washington Group’s functionality approach to identifying disabilities in fieldwork conducted across 3 years and six countries. Funded by the Australian government, researchers from the University of Sydney explored the adequacy of systems used by UNHCR and other agencies to identify disabilities in populations of displaced persons. They found that humanitarian agencies have relied heavily on either self-reporting by persons with disabilities or on the visual identification of impairments. The inadequacies in this approach are apparent in agency records showing disability rates in refugee populations that fall way below the averages suggested by the World Health Organisation in its Global Disabilities Report. We found that the High Commissioner for Refugees was accurate in describing persons with disabilities as the invisible and forgotten refugees. Our research examined the dramatically different results achieved by UNHCR when versions of the Washington Group questions were used in a verification exercise in Pakistan. If a similar approach were adopted in registration procedures across the world, we argue that UNHCR would generate data that aligns more closely with global standards. Data on disabilities is critical to developing accessible programs. Of course, asking the right questions is only one part of a complex equation. The nature of displacement throws up many challenges to identification. Awareness raising and training are crucial, as is the dissemination of information in suitable languages and formats. Empowering refugee communities and groups of refugees with disabilities creates valuable conduits for referrals.

Law as an Agent of Social Transformation: Trends in the Legal Regulation of Migration

The movement of people around the globe is at once an inevitable concomitant of scientific and social development and a site of tremendous contest. The technological advances that feed globalization have facilitated exponential growth in both regular and irregular migration, as people cross borders in search of economic opportunity or security. The overall percentage of people on the move may have remained relatively stable, but the sheer numbers are astonishing. For example, in 2013 the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR, 2014) recorded over 51 million refugees and ‘persons of concern’ displaced by war or other catastrophes. The phenomenon of modern migration has fostered a process of internationalization within and between states. Within states, it has fuelled endless debates about the burdens attending immigration in any form. Do migrants make jobs or take jobs? Do they offer protection against an ageing population or do they put strains on scarce public resources in areas such as education, health and housing? Do they enrich societies with their diverse cultures or do they cause harm by congregating in ghettos that spawn crime and social unrest? Migration also affects relations between states — and not just because crossing borders obviously implicates (at least) two countries.