Violent urbanism is us

This paper explores violent urbanism in the recent science-fiction filem District 9 whhich depicts an alien immigration camp, filmed on location in Soweto in 2008 in the midst of a series of violent clashed between indigenous South Africans and the new wave of African immigrants. Violent Urbanism is the State of method of control of bodies and populations by those precise biological techniques that determine geopolitical sites for the control of cities. This film while presented as cinema verite speaks the real invasion of traditional, spatio-disciplinary regimes such as corporate-run detention centres, refugee camps, border control and enforced relocation by those imperceptible techniques which violate the body by reducing it to a biological datum, tool, or specimen to serve the security agenda of the twenty-first century nation-state. These techniques are chemical and biological warfare proliferation; genetic engineering; and surveillance systems, such as biometrics, whose purview is no longer limited to the specular but includes the molecular. District 9 evinces a compelling urban image of contemporary biopolitics that disturbs the received historiography of post-apartheid urbanism. Clearly Johannesburg is not the only place this could or is happening - the reach of biopolitics is worldwide. District 9 visualises with utter precision the corporate hijacking of the biological realm in contemporary cites, just as it asks the unsettling question, who exactly is the "audience" of Violent Urbanism?

The molar effect on citizenship and nomad immigration: Reading, readingthe world and self

This presentation explores molarization and overcoding of social machines and relationality within an assemblage consisting of empirical data of immigrant families in Australia. Immigration is key to sustainable development of Western societies like Australia and Canada. Newly arrived immigrants enter a country and are literally taken over by the Ministry of Immigration regarding housing, health, education and accessing job possibilities. If the immigrants do not know the official language(s) of the country, they enroll in language classes for new immigrants. Language classes do more than simply teach language. Language is presented in local contexts (celebrating the national day, what to do to get a job) and in control societies, language classes foreground values of a nation state in order for immigrants to integrate. In the current project, policy documents from Australia reveal that while immigration is the domain of government, the subject/immigrant is nevertheless at the core of policy. While support is provided, it is the subject/immigrant transcendent view that prevails. The onus remains on the immigrant to “succeed”. My perspective lies within transcendental empiricism and deploys Deleuzian ontology, how one might live in order to examine how segmetary lines of power (pouvoir) reflected in policy documents and operationalized in language classes rupture into lines of flight of nomad immigrants. The theoretical framework is Multiple Literacies Theory (MLT); reading is intensive and immanent. The participants are one Korean and one Sudanese family and their children who have recently immigrated to Australia. Observations in classrooms were obtained and followed by interviews based on the observations. Families also borrowed small video cameras and they filmed places, people and things relevant to them in terms of becoming citizen and immigrating to and living in a different country. Interviews followed. Rhizoanalysis informs the process of reading data. Rhizoanalysis is a research event and performed with an assemblage (MLT, data/vignettes, researcher, etc.). It is a way to work with transgressive data. Based on the concept of the rhizome, a bloc of data has no beginning, no ending. A researcher enters in the middle and exists somewhere in the middle, an intermezzo suggesting that the challenges to molar immigration lie in experimenting and creating molecular processes of becoming citizen.

Juveniles in detention in Australia, 1981-2008

The Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) national Juveniles in Detention Monitoring Program was established to contribute to the evidence base on juvenile detention in Australia, with a particular focus on Indigenous juveniles. Findings date back to 1981 and have been reported annually. This report provides an overview of the numbers and rates of juveniles in detention in Australia since 1981 and juveniles in detention for the financial year 2007–08. As with the AIC’s previous report on juveniles in detention (Taylor 2009), it also provides contextual information on young people sentenced in the children’s courts. The collation of data for these reports is supported by statutory juvenile justice agencies in each of Australia’s jurisdictions, as well as the NSW Department of Corrective Services. As described in more detail in this report, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) administers the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set and also reports annually on juveniles in detention. Given this development, the AIC is conducting a review of the Juveniles in Detention Monitoring Report in 2010–11, to ensure that AIC’s research and monitoring does not duplicate the AIHW’s work and that it makes a useful contribution to the field and enables more in-depth analysis of key issues.

Trends in juvenile detention in Australia

This paper provides an overview of key trends in juvenile detention in Australia, based on data contained in the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) Juveniles in Detention in Australia Monitoring Program database and then provides a discussion of two key trends in juvenile detention—the national increase in the proportion of juvenile detainees that is remanded (rather than sentenced) and the increase in the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention.

The challenge of normative influences for program design for youth in detention

Young people in detention are at greater risk of death and disability from injury sustained while not in custody. Injury prevention and mental health programs have been designed for this group but their theoretical basis is rarely discussed. The present study investigates whether the conceptual basis of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is relevant to youth in a detention center. Focus group and observational data were collected. A thematic analysis supported central theoretical constructs and emphasized “Subjective Norms.” The challenge of normative influences must be actively addressed in the design of health interventions for youth in detention.

The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

Rights and wrongs of Australian government asylum seeker policy

Worldwide, no fewer than 50 million people a year are now fleeing dangerous and often life threatening situations in their countries of origin (UNHCR, 2014c). As one part of this movement, thousands risk journeys through dangerous waters hoping to obtain asylum in Australia. However, Australian Government policies adopted since 2013 aim to ensure that no asylum seeker nor any of the 3,500 detainees held in offshore detention centres will ever be settled on the mainland. To this has now been added a declaration that none of the recent refugees or 6200 asylum seekers waiting in Indonesia in centres run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will gain entry (Whyte, 2014a). These immigration policies differ dramatically from those adopted in earlier decades that produced the country’s decidedly multicultural identity. This article reviews these changing perspectives of Australian governments and communities within the context of international obligations and expectations; the experiences of those directly involved in border policing practices and in detention centres; and the attitudes of national media. Relations and conflicts among the interests of the different parties are discussed and the scope for less punitive responses to the plight of asylum seekers is examined. The authors then focus on alternative processes to better address the interests and objectives of legitimately interested parties by processes which successively examine, optimise and reconcile the concerns of each. In so doing, they aim to demonstrate that such methods of sequential problem solving can respond effectively to the multiple concerns of the many significant stakeholders involved in increasingly significant global issues, whereas recourse to such single-goal, top-down programs as are expressed in the government’s current determination to “Stop the boats” at all costs are unlikely to prove sustainable.

"America Would Lose Its Soul" : The Immigration Restriction Debate, 1920-1924

Vuosien 1830 ja 1924 välillä Yhdysvaltoihin muutti noin 35 miljoonaa eurooppalaista. Tämä niinkutsuttu "maahanmuuton vuosisata" päättyi varsin äkillisesti kun Yhdysvallat päätti rajoittaa maahanmuuttoa 1920-luvulla. Vuosina 1921 ja 1924 säädetyt lait asettivat kansallisuuteen perustuvat kiintiöt kaikille eurooppalaisille maahanmuuttajille; vuoden 1924 laki myös lopetti kokonaan japanilaisten maahanmuuton. Tämä työ tutkii näihin kiintiölakeihin johtanutta maahanmuuttajavastaisuuden kasvua sekä etenkin lakien ympärillä käytyä keskustelua. Pääpaino on kongressissa esitetyissä maahanmuuton vastaisissa argumenteissa. Nämä jakautuivat karkeasti ottaen kolmeen kategoriaan: maahanmuuton vastustajat sanoivat, että siirtolaisten vaikutus taloudelliseen tilanteeseen oli epäsuotuisa, siirtolaisten rodullinen ja kulttuurinen "laatu" oli huonontunut, ja siirtolaiset olivat radikaaleja ja bolshevismiin taipuvaisia. Erityistä huolta herätti maahanmuuttajien vaikutus Amerikan kulttuuriseen, rodulliseen ja poliittiseen yhtenäisyyteen. Huoli kansakunnan yhtenäisyydestä oli tulosta paitsi siirtolaisten määrästä myös amerikkalaisessa yhteiskunnassa tapahtuneista muutoksista. Erityisen tärkeitä olivat työväenliikkeen vaikutusvallan kasvu ja teollisuusjohtajien pyrkimys pysäyttää se. Maahanmuuttajien "bolshevismi" olikin käyttökelpoinen argumentti paitsi maahanmuuttajia myös amerikkalaisia työläisiä vastaan: teollisuusjohtajat painottivat että lakot ja työväenliike olivat tulosta siirtolaisten mukanaan tuomista "epäamerikkalaisista" ajatusmalleista, eivät yhteiskunnan epäoikeudenmukaisuudesta. Kongressin keskustelun lisäksi työssä käsitellään myös eri yhteiskunnallisten ryhmien ja vaikuttajien kantaa siirtolaisuuteen. Keskusteluun maahanmuutosta vaikuttivat etenkin eugenistit ja muut sosiaalitieteilijät, jotka väittivät itä- ja eteläeurooppalaisten olevan rodullisesti anglosakseja huonompia. Tämän väitteen vaikutusvaltaa lisäsivät yhteiskunnassa vallalla olleet ennakkoluulot, ja monet yhdistykset ja liikkeet (mm. Ku Klux Klan ja erilaiset isänmaalliset järjestöt) olivatkin tärkeitä rajoittamisen kannattajia. Keskustelu maahanmuutosta painottui ideologisiin ja tunteellisiin kysymyksiin, mutta rajoitusten taustalla oli myös konkreettisempia tekijöitä. Yhteiskunnan teollistuminen ja kaupungistuminen olivat pienentäneet siirtolaisista koituvaa taloudellista hyötyä: siirtolaisia ei enää tarvittu raivaamaan uusia viljelysmaita, kun taas tuotannon koneistuminen vähensi työvoiman tarvetta huomattavasti. Pitkän aikavälin taloudellisten tekijöiden roolin merkitys käy ilmeiseksi kun otetaan huomioon, että muut maahanmuuttomaat (esim. Kanada ja Australia) eivät juuri rajoittaneet siirtolaisuutta tänä aikana vaikka niissäkin esiintyi runsaasti rodullista ja kulttuurista maahanmuuttajavastaisuutta. Pääsyy rajoitusten vähäisyyteen näissä maissa oli juuri maahanmuuttajien tuoma taloudellinen hyöty, sekä teollisena työvoimana että maanviljelijöinä. Vaikka kiintiölakiehdotusten ympärillä käytiin kiivasta väittelyä, kongressi kuitenkin hyväksyi lait varsin suurella enemmistöllä. Siirtolaisia itseään lukuunottamatta varsin harvat näkivät lait haitallisina, kun taas useat erilaiset ryhmät katsoivat hyötyvänsä maahanmuuton rajoittamisesta. Avainsanat: siirtolaisuus, maahanmuutto, Yhdysvallat, 1920-luku, kiintiölait, maahanmuuton rajoittaminen

Illegal Immigration and the U.S. Labor Market of the 1990s

Public testimony by Prof. Briggs given before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, April 5, 1995.

At a Crossroad: Immigration Reform and American Unionism

"Since the founding days of the Republic, the relationship between American unionism and mass immigration has been contentious. No issue has caused the labor movement more agony and irony. It is no surprise, therefore, that throughout its history the American labor movement has sought to influence U.S. immigration policy."