Les proscrits français en Belgique, ou, La Belgique contemporaine vue à travers l'exil.

Mode of access: Internet.

The refugee, a psychological study.

Mode of access: Internet.

The refugee in the post-war world.

Mode of access: Internet.

The situation in Liberia, spring 1980--update : hearing before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, second session, April 29, 1980.

Mode of access: Internet.

Amendments to Refugee Relief Act of 1953. Hearings before the subcommittee ... Eighty-fourth Congress, first session, on S. 1794, S. 2113, and S. 2149. June 8, 9, 14, 16, and 21, 1955.

Mode of access: Internet.

Memorandum sur la question des réfugiés russes, présenté au Conseil de la Société des nations

Mode of access: Internet.

Constructions of asylum seekers and refugees in Australian political discourse

Immigration to Australia has long been the focus of negative political interest. In recent times, the proposal of exclusionary policies such as the Malaysia Deal in 2011 has fuelled further debate. In these debates, Federal politicians often describe asylum seekers and refugees as ‘illegal’, ‘queue jumpers’, and ‘boat people’. This paper investigates how the political discourse constructs asylum seekers and refugees during debates surrounding the Malaysia Deal in the Federal Parliament of Australia in 2011. Hansard Parliamentary debates were analysed to identify the underlying themes and constructions that permeate political discourse about asylum seekers and refugees. This paper argues that a dichotomous characterisation of legitimacy pervades their construction with this group constructed either as legitimate humanitarian refugees or as illegitimate ‘boat arrivals’. These constructions result in the misrepresentation of asylum seekers as illegitimate, undermining their right to protection under Australia’s laws and international obligations. This construction also represents a shift in federal political discourse from constructing asylum seekers as a border or security threat, towards an increasing preoccupation with this categorisation of people as legitimate, or illegitimate.

'Genuine' refugees or illegitimate 'boat people' : political constructions of asylum seekers and refugees in the Malaysia Deal debate

Immigration to Australia has long been the focus of negative political interest. In recent times, the proposal of exclusionary policies such as the Malaysia Deal in 2011 has fuelled further debate. In these debates, Federal politicians often describe asylum seekers and refugees as ‘illegal’, ‘queue jumpers’, and ‘boat people’. This article examines the political construction of asylum seekers and refugees during debates surrounding the Malaysia Deal in the Federal Parliament of Australia. Hansard parliamentary debates were analysed to identify the underlying themes and constructions that permeate political discourse about asylum seekers and refugees. We argue that asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat were constructed as threatening to Australia’s national identity and border security, and were labelled as ‘illegitimate’. A dichotomous characterisation of legitimacy pervades the discourse about asylum seekers, with this group constructed either as legitimate humanitarian refugees or as illegitimate ‘boat arrivals’. Parliamentarians apply the label of legitimacy based on implicit criteria concerning the mode of arrival of asylum seekers, their respect for the so-called ‘queue’, and their ability to pay to travel to Australia. These constructions result in the misrepresentation of asylum seekers as illegitimate, undermining their right to protection under Australia’s laws and international obligations.

Unpacking the micro-macro nexus: narratives of suffering and hope among refugees from Burma recently settled in Australia

Narratives of forced migration are open to a variety of interpretations. In mental health, refugee narratives of arduous journeys in the face of systemic macro socio-political forces are often transformed from this context into a medicalized micro context of inner individual worlds. Both the dominant pathogenic lens of trauma studies and the growing salutogenic lens embodied in resilience research, often reflect a western cultural idiom of focusing on the individualized nature of these phenomena. Using qualitative data collected from refugees from Burma now settling in Australia, the article emphasizes the need for a more reflexive and expansive account of both suffering and hope within refugee narratives. It recounts these narratives within a conceptual framework which acknowledges the importance of the connections between the micro individual experience and the macro, socio-political context. This is not only a question of political principle, but also a matter of listening to the voice of those who know most about the relationship between macro forces of human rights violations and their impact on individual, family and community trajectories.

Psychological wellbeing of refugees resettling in Australia : a literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society

This literature review was developed as background for the formulation of an Australian Psychological Society position on the mental health and wellbeing of refugees resettling in Australia. The major aim is to provide a broad overview of the concerns related to refugee mental health and wellbeing within the Australian context. To begin, a brief overview of the definition of a refugee and the scope of refugee movement is provided. Next, the review examines the pre-displacement, post-displacement, systemic and socio-political factors that influence the process of adaptation in refugee resettlement. It then reviews documented approaches to psychological assessment and therapeutic interventions with refugees; and finally it summarises suggestions for assessment and intervention in these practice contexts.

Expulsion of Afghan refugees from Pakistan: A violation of principle of non-refoulement

This article addresses the need of an implementation mechanism for the protection of refugees��� rights. However, it is contended that the principle forms part of Customary International Law, under which it is binding on all states irrespective of whether or not they are parties to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 or its Protocol 1967. Since last decade, U.S and its allies have been fighting to curve terrorism which has raised many issues such as human rights violation, deportation, expulsion, extradition, rendition and many more. Pakistan has played a very critical role in War against Terrorism, particularly in reference of war in Afghanistan. Particular concern of this article is the violation of refugees��� rights in Pakistan in 2008 and 2010. This article would highlight the legislation regarding non-expulsion of Afghan refugees from Pakistan to a territory where they have well founded fear of persecution. Article is divided into three parts, the first one deals with “Principle of Non-Refoulement”, the second one deals with “exceptions to the principle” whereas the last one discusses the violation of the very principle in Pakistan with reference to Afghan refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.