Australias First Immigration Policy in the Post-World War II Era - Research Paper Example

Australia’s First Immigration Policy in the post-World War II Era After World War II, Australia set new principles and policies in immigration. These principles came in the heels of the previous White Australia policy which largely discriminated against the non-white immigrants. When World War II ended, this policy could no longer stand in the face of the increased number of non-white settlers in Australia1. The new immigration policies were based on non-discrimination and humanitarian principles. This paper shall discuss the principles, aims and objectives of Australia’s first immigration policy in the post-World War II era. It shall also discuss how these principles were informed by the ideology of White Australia. One of the principles set by Australia’s first immigration policy state that “migrant selection is on a strictly non-discriminatory basis, in terms of race, religion, color or ethnicity”2. This immigration policy set the standard of immigration for Australia. The non-discrimination principle gave all races a chance to enter Australia regardless of their religion and ethnicity. It also set standards of migration based on skills and other objective determinants of migration. After World War II, many refugees were displaced and eventually found their way to Australian shores. As a result, presently “about 5.6 million immigrants from over 140 countries have made Australia their home”3. The principle of non-discrimination meant that a potential migrant’s nationality, ethnicity, gender, color, and religion are not relevant criteria in determining entry into Australia. This program shifted the focus of migration towards skills and towards family reunion migration. Migration into Australia favors the reunification of close family members – children, fiancés, and spouses. The idea behind family reunification as part of the immigration policies is to assist families in maintaining close relationships. There is no skill involved in this category, but great social benefits can be gained in allowing families to stay together and interact with the community as families. The migration program also opened doors to humanitarian aid for “people who have suffered substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of their human rights, and displaced people with close links to Australia”4. The act of opening Australian borders to the disadvantaged citizens of the world is a noble move towards being a responsible global citizen. And because of this principle, Australia has managed to “resettle over 600,000 refugees and displaced people during the past fifty years”5. These efforts have greatly benefited many displaced people and, in the process, Australia has earned a new set of skilled citizens and new cultures to employ and to interact with. The non-discrimination policies were established in response to the economic and physical reconstruction and rebuilding efforts for Australia after the Second World War. The entry of non-white and non-British migrants into Australia was, however, a slow and long process because post-war government officials still favored British and white migrants. A more diverse stream of migrants was only seen in the 1960s onwards when “mixed race migration was made easier and in 1966 [when] skilled non-Europeans with qualifications in demand in Australia society were admitted as permanent residents”6. And now because of the non-discrimination policy, Australia’s society and culture has been profoundly affected by immigration more than any other nation in the world. It is now inhabited by migrants not just from Britain but also from China, India, South Africa, and Indonesia. Another policy of the non-discrimination principle is the focus on national interest. In line with this, the focus in the entry of migrants is not on race, gender or other discriminatory standards but on the skills of the potential migrant. Skills-emphasis has been favored as a criteria for migration “because [there is] unequivocal evidence that these skilled migrants have the best labor outcomes -- they get jobs faster, they fill identified gaps in the labor market and they contribute significantly to Commonwealth, state and territory budgets”7. Skills transcend race, creed, and religion. And after the war, Australia recognized that its progress and development as a nation will be based on the skills of its inhabitants, not the color of their skin, and certainly not their race or religion. The principle of non-discrimination was a significant step away from the White Australia policy set during the early 1900s and it aimed to make Australia a multicultural nation. This multicultural migration has now made Australia one of the most dynamic communities in the world. It brought forth the introduction of different languages into the nation while still maintaining English as its primary language. The non-discrimination practice which started during the post World War II ear ultimately led to the establishment of numerous language schools, diverse business establishments, various religious and cultural activities as well as a variety of foods, restaurants and fashion in Australia. The policies and ideologies of White Australia affected the establishment of the immigration principles of non-discrimination because the Australian government officials came to later realize that in order for them to survive as a nation, they needed to apply more inclusive immigration policies. “The slogan used to sell this policy to a suspicious population was ‘populate or perish’, which meant that if Australia did not rapidly increase its population and industry then the consequences would be an invasion of Asia’s teeming millions”8. There are only so many whites that can realistically be brought over from Britain and from other Western nations that, even if a large number of them would eventually make it to Australia, it would be still difficult to fend off the threat of being overrun by the over-populated Asian nations. Hence, Australia needed to reform its migration policy in order to come up with something less discriminatory and more beneficial for its national interest. As a result, the non-discriminatory policies came into being. The White Australia policy is described by various authors and politicians as the institutionalization of racism. It created the image of Australia and Australians as a white and superior community who trace their roots back to their noble British lineage. The White Australia policy “was based on the assumption that only white people could be acceptable members of the Australian ‘nation’ because it was only they who had the inclination and capacity for self-government by constitutional means”9. The post World War II white Australian’s concept of fortifying its political strength is to increasing its white population in order to be a strong nation against its Asian neighbors. And in its bid to ‘defend’ itself against its Asian neighbors, it created a diverse population made up of Southern Europeans, Middle Easterners and Anglo-Celtic migrants. The more liberal government officials were responsible for opening Australia’s doors to the Asian nations. A more multicultural vision of Australia was fostered among the people and the government officials. Prime Minister Keating pioneered the movement towards the multiculturization of Australia. He encouraged the liberalization of immigration policies and to abolish the White Australia policy. He emphasized that it was time to recognize “Australia’s geography as part of Asia”10. Through his efforts, the White Australia policy slowly gave way to the non-discrimination immigration policies. The White Australia policy of exclusion was tough on many of the non-European settlers in Australia. During its inception, the Chinese were especially vulnerable to this policy because they were regarded as unfair competitors. As a result, many of these Chinese traders were dealt with violently by the miners and the white settlers. As Australia was starting to establish its identity as a nation, it became more resistant to the idea of doing business with its Asian neighbors. It allied itself more to its British and American counterparts. However, after the Second World War, when it was already partly inhabited by various displaced migrants and when it needed people to inhabit its lands, the White Australian policy needed to be reexamined. It was slowly abandoned in the 60s and the 70s. And now because of its abolition and because of the implementation of the non-discrimination policy, “Australia’s economic and political interest [leaned] more toward Asia…”11. Australia has now been enriched, not invaded by its neighbors as a result of the abolition of the White Australia policy. The White Australia policy could not survive in the face of the many changes happening to the nation after the Second World War. What used to be a purely British influx of migrants into the nation gradually became a European stream of migrants. But this stream of migrants did not reassure Australian officials because the Pacific War proved that Australia may indeed be vulnerable to its Asian neighbors. And it did not help that “in the aftermath of World War II there were major labor shortages in Australia’s newly expanding manufacturing sector as well as in traditional areas like agriculture”12. The White Australia policy inevitably created the need to establish new immigration policies, policies, which are not based on discriminatory and exclusionary principles. Although the non-discriminatory immigration policies were set-up after the Second World War, they were only fully applied in the 1960s to the1970s. There was much resistance from the government and from the white Australians themselves about allowing non-whites into their borders. When many of the European economies started to rebuild and rebound from the ravages of World War II, the flow of whites into Australia started to trickle down to a limited flow. The Australian authorities were now pressured to look elsewhere. They were also forced to eliminate the discriminatory dictation test in order to allow non-English speaking migrants the fair chance to pass scrutiny into the country. In their campuses, students were clamoring for government officials to end the racist immigration policies as Australia was now beginning to engage in economic enterprises with its Southeast Asian neighbors. As Australia was starting to make its mark in the global economy, its immigration policies were unavoidably brought to the spotlight. And when many nations were starting to do away with racial discrimination, Australia was becoming embarrassed for sticking to its discriminatory policies13. In order to portray a better image, Australia fell back on its non-discriminatory immigration policy. It implemented the Colombo scheme which led to the entry of hundreds of Asian students into their universities. “The logic which underpinned the White Australia policy – to keep Australia as homogenous as possible – was crumbling”14. Their government officials now implemented measures to allow a non-discriminatory and less-European approach to migration. Interested Asian migrants who possessed valuable skills were allowed to settle in Australia. The conservative Labor Party of Australia, during their 1965 convention, was also ready to throw in their support for non-discriminatory migration. After a series of debates, they officially eliminated immigration policies supporting White Australia. In the 1970s more and more Asians were now being allowed to settle in Australia and all racial qualifications to immigration were slowly eliminated. Lower time requirement for gaining citizenship was even implemented. This migration however did not eliminate community discrimination from some of the older white Australians who did not favor the non-discriminatory migration policy. Also, the Australian society was still not quite sure if these new migrants should be allowed to practice their traditions or if they should just integrate themselves to the white culture. Many of these migrants considered their ethnic and native practices as important because they are part of their identity and personality. As a testament to Australia’s changing culture of integration, many government officials acknowledged that the migrants should be allowed to practice their culture and traditions in their new country. Author Wilkes expressed it well when he said, “let us do away with ambivalence; acculturation is taking place among the immigrants but we must not cripple their personalities by expecting them to renounce part of themselves”15. Other authors also emphasize that the White Australia policy could not continue to be upheld in the face of the globalization movement. As nations are now interacting with each other economically, politically, and culturally, nations and societies are now also becoming more neighborly. “The opening up of Australia to non-European – especially Asian – new settlers and its dramatic implications for the nation’s ethnic and cultural make-up was in an important sense a not quite intended consequence of international pressure…a sign of the impact of globalization”16. As Australia tried to implement a purely white society during its early years as an independent nation, it was also bringing itself closer to the unavoidable implementation of the non-discriminatory immigration policy. The White Australia policy also had a hard time standing firm on its foundation because the very claims of the Australian settlers as rightful inhabitants of Australia could not hold water in the face of the claims of the Australian aborigines. Conservative Australian officials insisted that the White Australia policy is not about racial discrimination, that it is about whom they allow to enter their ‘home’. However, the Australian aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders are the indigenous and original inhabitants of Australia. They, more than anyone else, have the right to dictate who is and who is not allowed entry into their ‘home’. Conservatives argued that they do have the right to claim Australia as their home because they were the original white settlers and as indigenous to Australia as its aborigines. The aborigines are already accepted inhabitants of Australia, but the Asians have a different culture and disposition. And for these reasons, they should not be allowed to enter and ‘Asianize’ their nation17. However, these conservative claims are still not viable arguments because facts have revealed that the number of Asian migrants in Australia was and is still minimal compared to the number of white inhabitants. Australia is not being ‘Asianized’ as claimed by conservatives. The attitude being exhibited by the white Australians against the Asians implies that the non-discrimination migratory policy does not necessarily mean acceptance. In this sense, the White Australia policy has not completely been eliminated. There is an implied understanding that Asians are indeed allowed to reside and to settle in Australia, but they are not allowed to “dilute the nation’s predominantly white racial/cultural identity”18. The White Australia policy was abolished but it still influenced the immigration and discrimination practices of Australia and its white settlers. The White Australia policy was held as a shield particularly against the Asians. And even when Australia’s doors opened to Asians, the criteria of entry into the country was still specific to highly-skilled Asians. The non-discriminatory immigration policies gave a chance for Asians to settle in Australia. However, as was previously mentioned, they faced discrimination from the white Australians. The non-English speaking migrants were especially marginalized in Australian society. And “denied access to the better paying jobs and professions and unable to build a career in the public service, non-English speaking migrants were over represented in business”19. Non-English speaking found ways to make their living through small businesses, through agriculture, through construction, engineering, and similar enterprises. And through these small businesses and enterprises they too made their mark on the Australian economy, helping make the country into the economic power it is today. The White Australia policy was also discriminatory against those seeking asylum. Before the non-discrimination policies were set, Australia was consistent in resisting the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights on the granting of asylum to those who were fleeing persecution. At one point, Australia firmly expressed that allowing asylum to the refugees “would be tantamount to the abandonment of the right which every Sovereign State possesses to determine the composition of its own population, and who shall be admitted to its territories”20. This statement is a clear reflection of Australia’s protectionist and exclusionary principles. And Australia’s policy against asylum seekers unavoidably drew international criticism. These criticisms prompted the nation to rethink its policies and adapt more the humanitarian principles against refugees and asylum seekers. Policy changes that followed later granted support “to an alternate formulation that recognized an individual’s right to seek and enjoy asylum without imposing any obligation on a particular state to grant asylum”21. This policy kept intact the nation’s sovereignty while still allowing humanitarian aid to be extended to the asylum seekers. Once again, the White Australia policy had to give way to the non-discriminatory immigration policies. The principles, aims and objectives of the first immigration policy in the post-World War II era revolved around the concept of non-discrimination. These policies emphasized that migrant selection should not be based on race, religion, color or ethnicity. Migration should be based on the skills and the possible contributions that the migrant can give to the national interest. The principles also favored family reunification in order to establish a socially structured community based on biological relations. The principles of immigration also favored the granting of asylum to refugees fleeing oppression and persecution from their home countries. These principles were established after World War II in order to facilitate rebuilding efforts in Australia, however, in the face of the White Australia policy, these non-discriminatory immigration concepts were only fully implemented in the 1960s to the 1970s. In many ways the White Australia policy gave way to the non-discriminatory immigration policies. The White Australia policy could not rebuild Australia fast enough to counter possible attacks and invasion from its Asian neighbors. The world was also entering the era of globalization, of peaceful and economic cooperation with other nations. The discriminatory practices that used to define the political and social relations of many nations were now being abandoned. In the light of these global changes, the White Australia policy was becoming obsolete. Australia had to learn to adapt and by implementing the non-discriminatory immigration policies, it adapted well and fit in perfectly with other nations of the world. Works Cited Australia: A Culturally Diverse Society (n.d), United Nations Public Administration Network, viewed 08 May 2009 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN016290.pdf Cerwonka, A., 2004, Native to the nation: disciplining landscapes and bodies in Australia, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Devereaux, A. 2005, Australia and the birth of the International Bill of Human Rights, 1946-1966, New South Wales: Federation Press. Docker, J. & Fischer, G. 2000, Race, colour, and identity in Australia and New Zealand, Sydney: University of South Wales Press Fact Sheet 8, 11 October 2007, National Communications Branch, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, viewed 08 May 2009 http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/08abolition.htm Gibney, M. & Hansen, R., 2005, Immigration and asylum: from 1900 to the present, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO Jakubowicz, A. (n.d) The White Wall Came Down, Multicultural Australia, viewed 08 May 2009 http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/library/media/Timeline-Commentary/id/13.The-end-of-White-Australia Joppke, C., April 2003, The Resilience of Nondiscriminatory Immigration Policies: Evidence from the United States and Australia, viewed 08 May 2009 http://www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers/The%20Resilience%20of%20Nondiscriminatory%20Immigration%20Policies/document Jupp, J. 2001, The Australia people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people, and their origins, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Meredith, D. & Dyster, B. 1999, Australia in the global economy: continuity and change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, 2003, New Zealand International Review, Wellington: New Zealand Institute of International Affairs Ruddock, P. February 2003, The principles of Australian migration: Philip Ruddock outlines Australia's approach to immigration, Find Articles, viewed 08 May 2009 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6991/is_1_28/ai_n28133324/?tag=content;col1 Toro-Morn, M. & Alicea, M. 2004, Migration and immigration: a global view, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group Wilkes, J. 1971, How many Australians?: Immigration and growth; proceedings of 37th Summer School, Sydney, Australia: Angus and Robertson Read More