Crimmigration and Refugees: Bridging Visas, Criminal Cancellations and ‘Living in the Community’ as Punishment and Deterrence

Abstract

Affairs n.d. Note, the conservative Liberal Government uses the terminology of 'illegal maritime arrival' as a matter of policy even though the statutory language is 'unauthorised maritime arrival' as described above. The rhetoric of illegality is of course contested, and is used to criminalise those entering without a valid immigration status. based on their commission, or suspected commission, of a crime. 67 It also criticised the manner in which section 116(g) and accompanying regulations reverse the presumption of innocence for bridging visaholders, who may be detained if charged with rather than found guilty of a crime. In appraising the data below, this fundamental aspect of the bridging visa regime and its ousting of one of the criminal law's most basic protections, must frame crimmigration analyses of visa cancellations under the Act.The other key component of bridging visa cancellation powers for asylum seekers is the Asylum Seeker Code of Behaviour, introduced by the Liberal-National Coalition Government in December 2013. The Code, which enlarges the already vast discretions relating to bridging visa cancellation, applies to all so-called 'unauthorised maritime arrivals' (UMA) who apply for or seek to renew a bridging visa. 68 In order to access a bridging visa, this group of asylum seekers must sign the Code, and are thereafter bound by a 'list of expectations' about how to behave at all times while in Australia -expectations which range from obeying the law to refraining from spreading rumours, spitting or swearing in public, engaging in 'disruptive activities' or persistently irritating anyone. Signing and adhering to the Code is a precondition for an UMA either to be released from detention or to remain in the community.Data released by the Department sets out that, as at June 2016, 57,430 BVEs had been granted to asylum seekers who had signed the Code, which includes 54,235 BVE renewals. As I have noted with Methven elsewhere, in its first years of implementation there was very limited use or enforcement of the Code, even as it had an immense impact on the BVE holders subject to its vast and undefined prohibitions. The Department did not report on the number of cancellations in the Code's first year. 69 In 2015-16 the Department reported that 281 BVE holders had been alleged to breach the Code, but that no cancellations were made. 70 Often when the criminalisation of asylum seekers is discussed in Australia, this is a reference to the criminalisation of 'unlawful' or 'unauthorised' arrival; that is, the criminalisation of immigration status or immigration breaches. As Gerard and Pickering explain, 'construction of refugees and migrants as "criminal" makes the application of criminal justice responses to irregular migration seem appropriate'. 71 Refugees who arrive unlawfully are not only made 'illegal' but they are illegals; and, like 'domestic' law breakers, they are constructed as dangerous, undeserving and deviant. 72 While refugees and asylum seekers have been classified as illegal, the...

A Dialectical Understanding of Refugee Problems in Indonesia: Humanitarian and State Sovereignty Perspective

“…Indonesia's competing priorities, such as economic development and poverty alleviation, may limit the resources available to implement a comprehensive refugee policy in accordance with the 1951 Convention; (d) Security concerns. Indonesia's historical and contemporary security challenges, including terrorism and political instability, contribute to concerns about the potential security risks associated with hosting refugees (Vogl, 2019). Governments may be concerned that ratifying the 1951 Convention could inadvertently exacerbate security problems, as refugees may be vulnerable to exploitation or inadvertently become targets of criminal elements; (e) Public perception and political will.…”

Life in the Shadow Carceral State: Surveillance and Control of Refugees in Australia

“…The bridging visa regime, in particular the Code and BVE cancellation powers, are core strategies used by the state to deter, control and punish asylum seekers in a way that blurs migration control and criminal punishment (Bosworth 2017). While the BVE was introduced as part of an 'emptying out' of detention centres (Vogl 2019), it is best understood as a practice of the shadow carceral state, which extends the apparatus of exclusion and enables the 'harms of detention to appear in new forms' (Giannacopoulos and Loughnan 2019). Australian immigration law provides for a range of bridging visas, which regularise the legal status of people awaiting resolution of their immigration matters, either via the grant of a substantive visa or departure or deportation from Australian territory.…”

Shifting Indigenous Australian Realities: Dispersal, Damage, and Resurgence: Introduction

“…Surveillance technologies, argue Wilson and Weber (), are deployed as strategies of ‘social sorting’ and ‘punitive pre‐emption’ and the Australian nation‐state mirrors global patterns in ‘the government of mobility’, whereby ‘mobile bodies are increasingly sorted into kinetic elites and kinetic underclasses’. Australia's harsh policies on border controls, on ‘stopping the boats’ and offshore detention, theorized as ‘crimmigration’ have seen it model regimes that are admired and imitated by other nation‐states implementing policies of deterrence (Chambers ; Vogl and Methvan ).…”