通过入籍的移民文化适应:比较叙利亚和希腊在白澳的入籍申请

IF 0.9 Q3 DEMOGRAPHY Immigrants and Minorities Pub Date : 2021-09-07 DOI:10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405
Andonis Piperoglou
{"title":"通过入籍的移民文化适应:比较叙利亚和希腊在白澳的入籍申请","authors":"Andonis Piperoglou","doi":"10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.","PeriodicalId":51940,"journal":{"name":"Immigrants and Minorities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Migrant Acculturation via Naturalisation: Comparing Syrian and Greek Applications for Naturalisation in White Australia\",\"authors\":\"Andonis Piperoglou\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Immigrants and Minorities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Immigrants and Minorities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Immigrants and Minorities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2021.1974405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

1903年,澳大利亚联邦政府通过了《入籍法案》(1903)。然而,在一个关心“外国因素”的国家,获得入籍并不是一件容易的事。该法案的一项关键法律要求规定,“居住在英联邦的人,不是英国臣民,也不是亚洲、非洲或太平洋岛屿的土著居民”,打算在澳大利亚定居,可以申请入籍。由于归化法明确将来自世界某些地区的人排除在外,因此归化申请在根本上就是种族化的。对于叙利亚人和希腊人来说,能否入籍取决于他们是否被接纳为白人臣民。本文比较了叙利亚人和希腊人的入籍申请文件,以探讨澳大利亚入籍法的模糊包容性。在比较受到相似外部表征的两个群体如何申请入籍时,有人认为,申请入籍是一种模式,通过这种模式,移民通过认同占主导地位的白人-财产关系,向外执行他们的文化适应。在此过程中,这篇文章打开了移民史上的一个领域,来考虑申请入籍是如何取决于移民将自己表现为忠诚的定居者的能力的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Migrant Acculturation via Naturalisation: Comparing Syrian and Greek Applications for Naturalisation in White Australia
ABSTRACT In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Immigrants & Minorities, founded in 1981, provides a major outlet for research into the history of immigration and related studies. It seeks to deal with the complex themes involved in the construction of "race" and with the broad sweep of ethnic and minority relations within a historical setting. Its coverage is international and recent issues have dealt with studies on the USA, Australia, the Middle East and the UK. The journal also supports an extensive review section.
期刊最新文献
Aliens: the chequered history of Britain’s wartime refugees Aliens: the chequered history of Britain’s wartime refugees , Paul Dowswell, London, Biteback Publishing, 2023, 292 pp., £25 (hardback), ISBN: 978-1-78590-793-7 Chinese Sojourners in Wartime Raj Returning to Ireland from Australia 1880-1925 Chapters of Accidents: A Writer’s Memoir The persistence and malleability of settlerness: Danube Swabians in Entre Rios/Guarapuava (Paraná, Brazil)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1