I Introduction
All sovereign states are founded on the premise of security. In developing countries, the cost of maintaining the security of their countries normally consumes a considerable amount of their budget. The Developed nations, like Australia, have more obligations and as a result, the proportion spent on security is lower. However, legislations are a lot harsher on those who have committed crimes. A recent case involving a Brisbane woman raised a lot of questions on the stiffness of immigration law. The case in question involved a woman who was convicted of a drug offense and handed deportation papers despite the fact that she had arrived in Australia at only two years old[1]. This raises the question of whether deportation of immigrants convicted of crimes should continue in Australia or whether changes should be made. This paper seeks to use academic research and case precedence to ascertain whether all immigrants should be deported after committing crimes.
The deportation of immigrants is in subsection 501 of the Australian Migration Act. According to the legislation, an immigrant or migrant can have his or her visa refused or revoked when a person is unable to pass the character test[2]. The character test can be failed due to five main reasons. One is the existence of a substantial criminal record. Two is the conviction of the individual for immigration detainable offenses. The third is the association with suspects who have engaged in criminal activity. Fourth, any past or present criminal conduct, and fifth is the risk of future illegal conduct. Additionally, the Australian law allows for the decision-maker to exercise their discretion on behalf of the minister in cases where the immigration act has been breached[3]. The summary of the act shows that there legitimate legislations that allow migrants and immigrants to be deported if they fail the character test even after living in the country for years.
Aside from the deportation of individuals, there were numerous cases where the wealth amassed by these individuals was confiscated by the government. According to the Migration Act, any instances where an individual’s wealth was confiscated would have to be compensated. However, the law provided that the compensation had to be based on consensus between the person and the Commonwealth[4]. However, if the individuals and commonwealth cannot come to a consensus, a court will arbitrate or decide the amount that will be paid as compensation. However, the subsection does state that the deliberation of this compensation should not be an impediment to the execution of the Act. As a result, many individuals failed to receive compensation.
II. Federation deportation
Deportation in Australia started during the time as a federation. In 1908 there was a deportation campaign that sought the mass deportation of Pacific Islanders from Australia. The Commonwealth Parliament passed the 1901 Pacific Islanders Laborers Act[5]. After it was passed over 4,000 islanders were deported to Fiji, Solomon Islands, and New Hebrides. However, the 1906 Robtelmes versus Brenan case in the high court challenged the act, but it was unanimously dismissed[6]. The case highlighted the weak legal position that the Islanders had, and they opted for protests[7]. Alfred Deakin, the then prime minister, granted them an audience. Some important exceptions were made that allowed Islanders who were too old, those who had spouses and children with residents, and those with spouses from other islands could be allowed to remain[8].
Another instance was the mass deportation of German-Australians after the First World War. John Leckie justified this action by highlighting that the immigrants of German descent were no longer accorded Australian hospitality[9]. Even though many of the respondents were residents according to the Commonwealth law, they were not allowed to defend themselves[10]. Clearly, there was a lot of unfairness in the deportation practices while Australia was a Federation.
III. The Calwell Era
Before 1945, there was no immigration department. However, Arthur Calwell was appointed as the minister of the new department where he took an aggressive policy to any individuals who were resisting deportation. He aimed at maintaining certain parameters of immigration under the While Australia Policy[11]. Calwell’s approach sought to reduce the number of people exempt from deportation for fear that it would threaten the whole administrative structure that allowed deportation. In 1948, Calwell introduced to parliament the Aliens Deportation Bill. The main premise of the legislation was that any non-British alien could be deported regardless of how long they had been in the country. He had argued that the bill was aimed at targeting aliens who had criminal records[12]. The Pacific Islanders sought to challenge the bill, but the High Court rejected the Islanders’ challenge to the bill.
However, Calwell’s Act sometimes failed to hold in certain deportation cases. An example is the 1948 O’Keef versus Calwell case where the court ruled in favor of the negation of the deportation order against Annie O’Keef who was married to a resident[13]. The court ruled that since Annie had not been designated as a prohibited immigrant from the start, the expiration of her certificate could not make her a prohibited immigrant. Additionally, the ruling set the precedence that no individual can be deemed a prohibited immigrant more than five years after being allowed into the country[14]. As a response, Calwell amended the Immigration Act to allow individuals who had not been given the prohibited immigrant status to be deported after their certificates were canceled. Additionally, a War-Time Refugee Removal Bill was introduced to force any individuals with the same designation as O’Keeffe to be deported from the country[15]. The new changes were evident in the Koon Wing Lau versus Calwell case where 43 people granted entry into the country during the war sought to halt their deportation[16]. However, the court ruled that any individuals, regardless of age, race, sex, nationality, character or occupation, could be deported if they were granted entry after the War-Time Refugee Removal Bill was passed[17]. However, before the final judgment was made, a new government was elected, and the new minister for immigration allowed the refugees to remain as wartime legacy in Australia.
IV. Deportation in Australian Law
Calwell’s legislation gave the Australian government a lot of power when it comes to deportation. His landmark insistence that non-British aliens could be deported regardless of how long they had been in the country was adopted in the new Migration Act 1958 that borrowed a lot from the 1948 Aliens Deportation Act. Even to date, the principle is still being used in deportation cases[18]. The first case after the Calwell era that exercised this was the Antonio Panozzo case from 1961. He was an immigrant from Italy who came with his wife and infant son. However, he was convicted of earning an income from prostitution-related activities that were going on from the back of his house. After serving his sentence, he was summoned for a deportation hearing due to his criminal activities. The hearing ignored his pleas of remorse, and he was deported soon afterward. Justice Latham highlighted that he was deported because of the prior convictions that he had[19]. Unfortunately, were are unaware of what happened to Mrs. Panozzo and their son due to a lack of records, but it marked one of the landmark cases highlighting the ability of the immigration department to deport individuals who had committed crimes.
However, not all of Calwell’s legislation remained. The refugee removal act was shelved after the government found that it infringed on the rights of immigrants. It failed to acknowledge the previous rulings on Pacific Islanders and instead pushed for the removal of immigrants without any arbitration opportunity as in the case of the German immigrants[20].
V. Mandatory removal or deportation in Australia
In its third term, the Hawke Labour Government became concerned about the increase in the number of immigrants who had overstayed their visas. The increase in competition with the Australian citizens was leading to growing unemployment. As a result, some draconian laws were introduced in 1989 seeking to establish the mandatory deportation of illegal entrants. However, the proposed policy was not accepted for failing to include the exemptions that the Pacific Islanders were accorded. However, this was still something included in the 1958 Migration Act[21]. In 1992, Section 189 was removed from the act outlawing any mandatory deportation. Instead, the parliamentary committee stated that people who lacked a visa should be detained pending a hearing and removal by the immigration department[22].
Under the new legislation, immigration department officers could check the visa status of non-citizens and determine whether they should be removed using the new policies of plain removal, supervised removal, or monitored removal. The new removal system has led to an increase in the enforced deportations. Since 2000, over 10,000 immigrants are removed each year by the immigration department[23]. However, there are some significant changes that have been introduced to increase arbitration. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been allowed to review any decisions made by immigration officers to deport non-citizens. The aim is to prevent instances where non-citizens are illegally deported without a proper review of whether they fit into any of the exemptions accorded to them under the act[24].
Some of the extraneous circumstances that could prevent deportation include the facilitation process of the country of birth. The 1985 deportation order for Drago Sajatovic was revoked after it was revealed that Yugoslavia was not able to facilitate his deportation. However, the tribunal stated that if the situation changed then the deportation could be conducted. Another case was that of John Kirakos in 1990 who was supposed to be deported to Syria. However, he was not registered in Syria because his parents were Armenian refugees who had fled to Syria. As a result, the tribunal recommended that his deportation order should be revoked. Additionally, the issue of long-term incarceration was reviewed to prevent indefinite incarceration of citizens with expired visas. However, there are instances where even though an individual has been accorded citizenship and is eligible for the exemption, they can be deported if their character is put into question. In 1983, the first instance of deportation on criminal conviction grounds ceasing to apply during the Pochi Case. A legislative amendment stopped the deportation of citizens who have lived in Australia for more than ten years, but it introduced the criminal deportation policy for specific criminal activities. However, in 1998 Philip Ruddock introduced the Migration Legislation Amendment that allowed the deportation of criminals after ten years in an attempt to stop the misuse of the criminal deportation process[25]. Additionally, it allowed the minister to personally cancel the visa of individuals and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Between 2002 and 2005, the government removed 233 residents who had been imprisoned under the bad character premise and the amendment to allow residents of over ten years to be deported. There are numerous cases of long-term residents being deported[26]. An example is a case by Stefan Nystrom who had arrived in Australia as an infant. He had been in the country for over 33 years when his residency was canceled due to numerous criminal convictions. The High Court approved the immigration department deportation as lawful setting the precedence of long-term residents being deported. Similarly, Tayfun Ayan was deported after a considerable stay in the country due to criminal offenses. Toni Morgani was also deported due to criminal activities[27]. In all sense, these deportees could claim that they are Australian culturally, educationally and psychologically. However, they do not have the citizenship to exempt them from deportation when they commit serious offenses.
VI. Australian-born aliens
Clearly, anyone who is born outside the country is considered an alien and they are subject to deportation under the current legislation and the precedence set over the year. However, the greatest debate is whether those born in Australia of immigrant parents are considered aliens and whether the deportation rules in place can apply to them. According to the Citizenship Act, aliens are people who are non-residents or non-protected. However, in 1987 this definition was removed without any tangible replacement in place[28]. The current definition of aliens is given as individuals who are born outside the country, whose parents are not Australian, or those who have not been neutralized according to the Australian constitution. Justice Gibbs acknowledged this statement as an effective definition of an alien in Australia[29]. This precludes non-citizens born in Australia. Essentially, birth in Australia is not a mandatory acknowledgment of citizenship.
However, a decision made in 2001 by the High Court ruled that citizens of the United Kingdom shared the same allegiance with Australians to the monarch. As a result, they precluded such individuals from the country’s deportation laws[30]. This created a new class of non-alien non-citizens who were not residents but could not be deported based on the existing immigration laws. However, the legislation made some exemptions that removed the status of an alien to any individuals naturally born in Australia[31]. The High Court deemed that individuals naturally born in Australia have the same allegiance to the sovereignty of the country whether they acknowledge it or not. However, the main difference between the Australian Constitution and the American constitution is that Australia does not guarantee citizenship for anyone born in the country[32]. Australia’s Citizenship Act stated that citizenship could only be conferred to naturally born individuals if one of their parents is a permanent resident or if they live in the country for more than ten years.
According to the legislation, Australian-born children of illegal immigrants are neither immigrants nor aliens based on the constitutional definition. Even if they have not been accorded citizenship, they do not fall into either of these categories[33]. As a result, the Migration Act does not apply to them. Therefore, they cannot be forcibly detained or removed based on the provisions given in the act. However, voluntary deportation and detention of these children based on their parent’s request are valid constitutionally[34]. Essentially, if the parents are illegal immigrants who have been detained or are deported, they can request that their children are accorded the same sentence to ensure that the children are not left behind. However, it also means that if the parents facing deportation are willing to leave their children behind, the children are protected by the Migration Act from deportation or detention[35]. The High Court ruled that even if the parents request that their children are deported, they still retain the non-alien status allowing them to return to Australia when they are older without being considered an illegal alien.
Additionally, the High Court ruled that the natural-born status should be considered in the decision to deport the parents of children who were born in Australia. Essentially, immigration officers need to consider the residency, citizenship, and nationality of the children in deciding the fate of parents of naturally born children. Additionally, even though there are many privative clauses that allow decisions made by the immigration department to be unchallenged by courts, these clauses cannot be used in cases where naturally born citizens are involved. The High Court stated that such decisions go against the constitutional limits of the child because they have the same statutory rights as citizens in the country[36].
However, it is worth noting that natural-born children are only accorded these rights if at one point their parents were granted a visa. Therefore, illegal immigrants who sneak into the country cannot be accorded the same rights even if their children are born in the country[37]. This is due to the 1986 amendment that had two main aims. First, it sought to prevent infant children from sponsoring their parents to become permanent citizens despite illegally entering the country. Second, it prevents parents whose visas have expired from using their children’s status to prevent their deportation[38].
The citizenship of the child does not allow the parents to use the child’s citizenship as a means to gain permanent residency. A High Court evaluated the request for a special hearing for the daughter of two Tongan parents who had overstayed their temporary visas[39]. The child was an Australian citizen because her parents were legal immigrants at the time of her birth[40]. However, the court stated that even though the child’s citizenship was a mitigating factor against the deportation order, it was a fact that entitled the parents to permanent residency in Australia. As a result, the parents were deported and given the option to leave with their daughter or to leave her as a citizen in Australia without them.
Citizenship according to the current law is that any child born in Australia with one parent who is a citizen or permanent resident is considered a citizen. Children born in Australia without a parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident are non-citizen. Those born to parents who are temporary residents of Australia are considered citizens. The only exception is if the non-citizen child lives for more than ten years in Australia, they are granted citizenship.
VII. Current deportation law
The previous segments have provided a clear definition of how the immigration laws in Australia were developed. This segment reviews the current laws still being enforced today. First, the Australian Government reserves the right to determine whether it will accept the permanent residency of immigrants and ultimately the absorption into full Australian citizenship[41].
The Minister for Immigration has been vested power by the Australian Parliament to determine whether any non-Australian residents in the country who have been convicted of serious crimes should be deported from Australia. The minister has also been given the power to use his or her discretion in deciding who to permit to remain as a permanent resident.
Anyone who is liable for deportation under the criminal deportation guidelines is allowed to appeal the deportation decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, if the minister decides to exclude a person because of the seriousness of the circumstances that led to the deportation, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal cannot rescind the initial decision. If the Minister wishes to make such an exception, it should be tabled on the Houses of Parliament within 15 days of the decision being made[42]. The common practice is that such declarations should only be made when the person being departed is a direct threat to the national interests of the country.
The main guidelines for deportation are that anyone convicted of a criminal offense based on Australian law should be deported to protect the community. The removal should outweigh the hardships of the person to his or her family. The immigration department needs to show that there is a greater potential for damage to the community as compared to the hardships the individual will experience after deportation. There are certain criteria chosen in the decision of whether an individual should be deported. The reasons why Australia deports residents convicted of crimes are numerous. One is that there will always be a threat that the individual may commit additional offenses when allowed to remain. Two, the individual has committed a crime that is offensive according to Australian community standards. In such cases, the community is liable to rebel against the offenses that the individual has made. Third, the individual may not have created sufficient ties in Australia to be considered or qualify for full citizenship. Once one enters Australia, they first become a resident either legally or illegally. Any illegal residents can be deported because they have committed the crime of entering Australia illegally. However, any of those who legally enter Australia are considered residents based on the Migration Act[43]. However, if they commit any crime, they can be deported for failure to adhere to the laws of Australia. Additionally, the law has been expanded to include questionable character where even though the individual has not committed a crime, their association with known criminals can lead to deportation if the minister believes that the individual is a danger to the community.
There are numerous offenses that have been classified as crimes that merit the deportation of non-Australian citizens. One if the production, illegal importation, illegal distributing, trafficking, and sale of any hard drugs. The hard drugs include heroin, cocaine and any other drug that has an insidious effect on the wellbeing of Australian youth. Apart from being caught with any of these offenses, anyone who is involved with illicit drugs to the point where there was a financial gain is liable for deportation even if they were not caught in possession of the drugs. However, this does not include individuals who have been caught in possession of hard drugs for their consumption. The main aim of these laws is to ensure that any non-Australian residents or citizens engaged in drug-related activities are deported.
Other offenses that can lead to the deportation of a non-Australian citizen include terrorist activity, assassination, aggravated assault, extortion, blackmail, kidnapping sexual assault, organized crime and armed robbery[44]. This indicates that the even citizens of non-Australian origin can be deported when they commit certain crimes. Additionally, Australia does not recognize the criminal laws of other countries, and the deported individuals cannot use this to seek sanctuary from the country of birth.
An example is the Tanioria versus Minister for Immigration where Tanioria sought to contest the cancellation of his Visa. Tanioria had lived in Australia since he was an infant after entering the country at only 18 months of age. Additional issues were the fact that the individual had a six-year-old daughter who had severe autism. The minister testified in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that these factors were considered as effective reasons to stop the cancellation of the visa. However, the individual had a long criminal record that included the infliction of bodily harm on multiple occasions. Tanioria had been sentenced to serving 35 years in prison after serving another 20 months a few months before[45]. The tribunal ruled that Tanioria was a dangerous individual who posed a direct threat to Australian citizens. Even though he had been in Australia for over ten years and had been awarded a visa, the tribunal upheld the decision to cancel the visa and deport Tanioria to Fiji.
The current migration laws also address the sensitive issue of deportation of adults who arrived in Australia as minors. The laws highlight that this is not the main course of action in such cases. However, if an individual repeatedly faces criminal charges or commits one of the egregious crimes listed above, deportation can be considered seriously as a solution[46]. The deportation does not depend on of the culture of the individual. The final inclusion is that any deportation will be arranged coincidental to the release of the individual from prison. The individual can be held for an extended period to facilitate the finalization of the deportation arrangements.
VIII. Conclusion
Based on the review of the legislations and the court cases, deportation of immigrants cannot be done using a broad net as in the case of Calwell. Instead, specific conditions determine whether the individual should be deported. First, sneaking illegally into the country is a crime. Under the current Migration Act, such individuals are liable for deportation. Second, if an individual has been granted temporary residence in the country, they can be deported at the end of the visa, or when then commit a crime that triggers any of the crimes highlighted in the Migration Act, they should be deported.
It becomes complicated when the individuals have been granted permanent residence in Australia. Initially, those who had lived in Australia for more than ten years as residents were not deported. However, changes to the legislation allow the deportation of individuals even if they came to the country as infants. Those targeted by these deportations are those who commit serious crimes and those who are repeat offenders with permanent residence. The High Court has allowed the deportation of such individuals.
In the case of children, there are two considerations that exist. If the parents are caught having committed crimes like lack of proper documentation, felony crimes, and repeat offenses, they could be deported. If their children were born while they were not legal residents, the child would be deported as well since the child is not a citizen-based on the 1986 amendment[47]. However, if the child is acknowledged as a citizen, the parents would get deported, but they could choose whether to leave with their child or leave the child behind in Australia. There is no protection of parents from deportation when their visas expire or if they commit a crime even though their children are recognized as citizens.
Clearly, Australia has one of the most stringent migration and deportation laws in the Western world. The migration laws prohibit the awarding of visas to individuals who have not been residents for more than ten years. During that period, any crimes or suspicious activity led to the deportation of the individual. However, even those who can get visas after living as residents for ten years are not above the law when it comes to deportations. Numerous cases mentioned have shown that the government is constitutionally allowed to deport individuals who may have criminal records. One might argue that the Calwell era showed the possibility of ministers misusing these rules. However, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has overturned numerous cases of visa cancellations and deportations based on precedence and the constitutional freedoms allowed. However, criminal activity has always been met with deportation to protect the lives of Australian citizens from dangerous individuals who are proven to be nefarious even when given an opportunity to change.
Bibliography
Cases
Koon Wing Lau v Calwell (1949) 61 HCA 65
Robtelmes versus Brenan (1906) 4 HCA 58
Tanioria v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 21 NSD 1332 of 2014
Legislations
Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act (2017) Legislation.gov.au https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005
Immigration (Dept. of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 1st ed, 2001)
Migration Act 1958 (Commonwealth of Australia, 1st ed, 2004)
MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 3Bcompensation For Acquisition Of Property (2017) Austlii.edu.au http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s3b.html
War-Time Refugees Removal Act 1949 (2017) Legislation.gov.au https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1949A00032
Books/Journal articles
Betts, Katharine, Ideology And Immigration (Melbourne University Press, 1st ed, 1988)
Cai, Lixin and Amy Y.C. Liu, “Wage Differentials Between Immigrants And The Native-Born In Australia” (2015) 36 International Journal of Manpower
Calwell, Arthur A, Calwell Exposes Liberal Slush Fund ([Australian Labor Party], 1st ed, 1949)
Calwell, Arthur A, 20,000,000 Australians In Our Time! ([Dept. of Immigration], 1st ed, 1949)
Calwell, Arthur A, The Challenge Before Us (Australian Labor Party Federal Secretariat, 1st ed, 1964)
Calwell, Arthur Augustus, Immigration: Policy And Progress. By The Hon. Arthur A. Calwell (1st ed, 1949)
Campbell, Lynda, “Children Australia …: Keeping Us Focused And Connected” (2005) 30 Children Australia
Corris, Peter, “‘White Australia’ In Action: The Repatriation Of Pacific Islanders From Queensland” (1972) 15 Historical Studies
Due, Clemence and Damien W. Riggs, “Care For Children With Migrant Or Refugee Backgrounds In The School Context” (2016) 41 Children Australia
Galligan, Brian and Winsome Roberts, Australian Citizenship (Melbourne University Press, 1st ed, 2004)
Hudson, Wayne and John Kane, Rethinking Australian Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed, 2000)
Hurford, Chris, “Statement By Governments: AUSTRALIA THE 1986-87 MIGRATION PROGRAM” (1986) 24 International Migration
Hurford, Chris, “AUSTRALIA THE 1985-86 MIGRATION PROGRAMME: PHILOSOPHY AND PRINCIPLES” (1985) 23 International Migration
Iredale, R., “Barriers To Migrant Entry To Occupations In Australia” (1989) 27 International Migration
Joppke, Christian, “Through The European Looking Glass: Citizenship Tests In The USA, Australia, And Canada” (2013) 17 Citizenship Studies
Jupp, James, “Destination Australia: Migration To Australia Since 1901” (2009) 62 The Economic History Review
Kuo, Liangwen, Migration Documentary Films In Post-War Australia (Cambria Press, 1st ed, 2010)
McAllister, Ian, “Occupational Mobility Among Immigrants: The Impact Of Migration On Economic Success In Australia” (1995) 29 International Migration Review
McPhail, Ken, Robert Ochoki Nyamori and Savitri Taylor, “Escaping Accountability: A Case Of Australia’S Asylum Seeker Policy” (2016) 29 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Moore, Clive, “The Pacific Islanders’ Fund And The Misappropriation Of The Wages Of Deceased Pacific Islanders By The Queensland Government” (2015) 61 Australian Journal of Politics & History
Neumann, Klaus, “Guarding The Flood Gates: The Removal Of Non-Europeans” , The Great Mistakes of Australian History (UNSW Press, 1st ed, 2006)
Nicholls, Glenn, Deported (University of New South Wales Press, 1st ed, 2007)
Nicholls, Glenn, “Gone With Hardly A Trace: Deportees In Immigration Policy” , Does History Matter? (ANU Press, 1st ed, 2017)
Price, Charles A., “Overseas Migration To And From Australia, 1947-1961” (2009) 2 Migration
Prince, Peter, The High Court And Deportation Under The Australian Constitution (Dept. of the Parliamentart Library, 1st ed, 2003)
Report Of An Inquiry Into A Complaint Of Acts Or Practices Inconsistent With Or Contrary To Human Rights In An Immigration Detention Centre (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1st ed, 2001)
Robertson, Shanthi, “Contractualization, Depoliticization And The Limits Of Solidarity: Noncitizens In Contemporary Australia” (2015) 19 Citizenship Studies
Rudd, Kevin and Malcolm Turnbull, National Apology To The Forgotten Australians And Former Child Migrants (National Library of Australia, 1st ed, 2009)
Saunders, Kay, Alien Justice (Univ. of Queensland Press, 1st ed, 2000)
Teicher, Julian, Chandra Shah and Gerard Griffin, “Australian Immigration: The Triumph Of Economics Over Prejudice?” (2002) 23 International Journal of Manpower
Vrachnas, John, Migration And Refugee Law (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed, 2012)
What Immigration Means To Australia (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1st ed, 1956)
When Can A Visa Be Refused Or Cancelled Under Section 501? | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/background-paper-human-rights-issues-raised-visa-refusal-or-cancellation-under-sectio-1>
Others
Atfield, Cameron, Deported Brisbane Man Speaks Out: ‘I Thought I Was Australian’ (2017) Brisbane Times http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/i-thought-i-was-australian-brisbane-man-on-his-deportation-to-chile-20151212-glm26s.html
Atfield, Cameron, Brisbane Man, Here Since A Baby, Faces Deportation To Chile (2017) The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/brisbane-man-in-australia-since-the-age-of-one-faces-deportation-to-chile-20150922-gjskd9.html
[1] Ann Arnord, Grandmother Faces Deportation after 50 Years in Australia (2017) ABC News <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/grandmothers-visa-cancelled-faces-deportation-to-croatia/8355302>.
[2] When Can A Visa Be Refused Or Cancelled Under Section 501? | Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) Humanrights.gov.au <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/background-paper-human-rights-issues-raised-visa-refusal-or-cancellation-under-sectio-1>.
[3] Peter Prince, The High Court and Deportation under the Australian Constitution (Dept. of the Parliamentart Library, 1st ed, 2003).
[4] MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 3Bcompensation For Acquisition of Property (2017) Austlii.edu.au <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s3b.html>.
[5] Peter Corris, “‘White Australia’ In Action: The Repatriation of Pacific Islanders from Queensland” (1972) 15 Historical Studies.
[6] Glenn Nicholls, Deported (University of New South Wales Press, 1st ed, 2007).
[7] Robtelmes versus Brenan (1906) 4 HCA 58.
[8] Glenn Nicholls, “Gone With Hardly A Trace: Deportees in Immigration Policy”, Does History Matter? (ANU Press, 1st ed, 2017).
[9] Clive Moore, “The Pacific Islanders’ Fund and the Misappropriation of the Wages of Deceased Pacific Islanders by the Queensland Government” (2015) 61 Australian Journal of Politics & History.
[10] Kay Saunders, Alien Justice (Univ. of Queensland Press, 1st ed, 2000).
[11] Arthur A Calwell, Calwell Exposes Liberal Slush Fund ([Australian Labor Party], 1st ed, 1949).
[12] Calwell, Arthur A, 20,000,000 Australians in Our Time! ([Dept. of Immigration], 1st ed, 1949)
[13] Arthur Augustus CALWELL, Immigration: Policy and Progress. By The Hon. Arthur A. Calwell (1st ed, 1949).
[14] Arthur A Calwell, The Challenge before Us (Australian Labor Party Federal Secretariat, 1st ed, 1964).
[15] Klaus Neumann, “Guarding the Flood Gates: The Removal of Non-Europeans”, The Great Mistakes of Australian History (UNSW Press, 1st ed, 2006).
[16] Koon Wing Lau v Calwell (1949) 61 HCA 65.
[17] War-Time Refugees Removal Act 1949 (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1949A00032>.
[18] Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005>.
[19] Katharine Betts, Ideology and Immigration (Melbourne University Press, 1st ed, 1988).
[20] Arthur Augustus CALWELL, Immigration: Policy and Progress. By The Hon. Arthur A. Calwell (1st ed, 1949).
[21] Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005>.
[22] Immigration (Dept. of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 1st ed, 2001).
[23] Klaus Neumann, “Guarding the Flood Gates: The Removal of Non-Europeans”, The Great Mistakes of Australian History (UNSW Press, 1st ed, 2006).
[24] John Vrachnas, Migration and Refugee Law (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed, 2012).
[25] Lixin Cai and Amy Y.C. Liu, “Wage Differentials Between Immigrants And The Native-Born In Australia” (2015) 36 International Journal of Manpower.
[26] Clemence Due and Damien W. Riggs, “Care For Children with Migrant or Refugee Backgrounds in the School Context” (2016) 41 Children Australia.
[27] R. Iredale, “Barriers to Migrant Entry to Occupations in Australia” (1989) 27 International Migration.
[28] Chris Hurford, “AUSTRALIA THE 1985-86 MIGRATION PROGRAMME: PHILOSOPHY AND PRINCIPLES” (1985) 23 International Migration.
[29] Chris Hurford, “Statement by Governments: AUSTRALIA THE 1986-87 MIGRATION PROGRAM” (1986) 24 International Migration.
[30] Ian McAllister, “Occupational Mobility among Immigrants: The Impact of Migration on Economic Success in Australia” (1995) 29 International Migration Review.
[31] Ken McPhail, Robert Ochoki Nyamori and Savitri Taylor, “Escaping Accountability: A Case of Australia’S Asylum Seeker Policy” (2016) 29 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
[32] Price, Charles A., “Overseas Migration To And From Australia, 1947-1961” (2009) 2 Migration
[33] Julian Teicher, Chandra Shah and Gerard Griffin, “Australian Immigration: The Triumph of Economics over Prejudice?” (2002) 23 International Journal of Manpower.
[34] Lynda Campbell, “Children Australia …: Keeping Us Focused And Connected” (2005) 30 Children Australia.
[35] Clemence Due and Damien W. Riggs, “Care For Children with Migrant or Refugee Backgrounds in the School Context” (2016) 41 Children Australia.
[36] Liangwen Kuo, Migration Documentary Films in Post-War Australia (Cambria Press, 1st ed, 2010).
[37] Shanthi Robertson, “Contractualization, Depoliticization and the Limits of Solidarity: Noncitizens in Contemporary Australia” (2015) 19 Citizenship Studies.
[38] Christian Joppke, “Through the European Looking Glass: Citizenship Tests in the USA, Australia, and Canada” (2013) 17 Citizenship Studies.
[39] Cameron Atfield, Deported Brisbane Man Speaks Out: ‘I Thought I Was Australian’ (2017) Brisbane Times <http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/i-thought-i-was-australian-brisbane-man-on-his-deportation-to-chile-20151212-glm26s.html>.
[40] Brian Galligan and Winsome Roberts, Australian Citizenship (Melbourne University Press, 1st ed, 2004).
[41] Migration Act 1958 (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2015C00238>.
[42] Migration Act 1958 (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2015C00238>.
[43] Migration Act 1958 (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2015C00238>.
[44] Migration Act 1958 (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2015C00238>.
[45] Tanioria v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 21 NSD 1332 of 2014.
[46] Migration Act 1958 (2017) Legislation.gov.au <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2015C00238>.
[47] Wayne Hudson and John Kane, Rethinking Australian Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed, 2000).
