Neoliberalism and nationalism: Representations of asylum seekers in the Australian mainstream news media

Abstract

In this article, we build on previous critical discursive research concerning the deployment of nationalist rhetoric in the negative representation of asylum seekers to also consider the interplay between neoliberal and nationalist discourses regarding asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia. Rather than arguing that neoliberalism and nationalism are incompatible (by virtue of the former being about internationalization and the latter about protecting the nation-state), we argue that in fact media representations of asylum seekers are compatible with both neoliberal and nationalist discourses, with both ultimately aimed at protecting the sovereignty of the (White) Australian nation-state. Utilizing a synthetic approach to critical discourse analysis, we analyze two incidents concerning asylum seekers that were widely reported in the mainstream media in late 2009, namely, the Oceanic Viking and the Jaya Lestari 5 incidents. Our article demonstrates that while many of the discourses concerning asylum seekers can be read as nationalistic in nature (i.e. through 'protecting' a sovereign state and maintaining border control), they can also be seen as neoliberal in relation to the (supposed) economic benefits of excluding asylum seekers and their undesirability on economic terms. The 'threat posed by asylum seekers arriving by boat' was positioned as one that required increased economic support for stricter border protection policies. The economic nature of border protection and security came to the fore not only in

“It's just heart breaking”: Doing inclusive political solidarity or ambivalent paternalism through sympathetic discourse within the “refugee crisis” debate

“…A conditional restriction of quantity is also deployed “I don't suggest we take eighty‐two thousand” (Extract 3, line 11). These conditions undermine the authenticity of inclusion, suggesting that the cost to the state ultimately overrides humanitarian concern (Lueck et al, ; Every, ) and is underpinned by an explicit acknowledgement that the nation‐state has the moral right to exclude (Billig, ; O'Doherty & Augoustinos, ). This position of temporary sympathetic help is further emphasised by Mary drawing a comparison with the “Special‐Olympics” (line 4), a time‐limited event.…”

“…Dominant nationalist discourse is seen to constitute the nation‐state as a moral entity with the indisputable right to exclude “others” (O'Doherty & Augoustinos, ). The prevailing neoliberal agenda is also dependent on nationalism because the state is assigned the right to exclude, based on economic benefit, and the protection of resources and property (Lueck, Due, & Augoustinos, ). A common thread is apparent within nationalist rhetoric of a country under siege by unlawful asylum seekers.…”

An Analysis of the Nature and Use of Promigrant Representations in an Antideportation Campaign

“…To be more concrete, the literature on anti‐immigrant discourse points to three core elements: “exclusion,” “normativity,” and “interests.” “Exclusion” involves the depiction of migrants as different, other, and alien in terms of their appearance, values, and culture (Hanson‐Easey & Augoustinos, ). Indeed the very language used to refer to such people in public media—such as “illegals,” “boat people” (in the certain contexts), and even “asylum seeker”—has been argued to strip migrant groups of their humanity, reducing them to an amorphous mass of objects, completely beyond psychological identification (Lueck, Due, & Augoustinos, ; O’Doherty & Lecouteur, ).…”

“…This is grounded in notions of illegal immigrants whose very presence is contrary to the rule of law and to national sovereignty. This then legitimates their removal as a means of reestablishing such fundamental norms of nationhood (Lueck et al, ). Often this is a matter of generalized suspicion rather than specific accusations: Even if not all migrants are illegal, any migrant might be.…”

“…This threat to interests can take multiple forms: Immigrants are sometimes depicted as a threat to security due to their criminal or even terrorist ways (Anderson, ; De Genova, ). Immigrants are sometimes depicted as an economic threat, taking jobs or overloading public services, construed as ingroup properties and entitlements (Andreouli & Dashtipour, ; Lueck et al, ). And immigrants are sometimes depicted as a threat to the culture and identity of the national ingroup (Hanson‐Easey & Augoustinos, ), thereby undermining social cohesion and harmony (Cisneros, ).…”