Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act 2001

Out of sight, out of mind : excising Australia from the migration zone

The migration zone is any place in Australia where a person arriving without a valid visa - what is technically called “without lawful authority” - can still make a valid visa application.

It is distinct from the territory of Australia and might best be understood as a legal boundary within which people arriving without valid visas can still fall under the remit of the Migration Act of 1958. Protections afforded by the Migration Act - in addition to being permitted to apply for asylum - include having asylum claims processed in Australia, rather than in a detention centre such as Manus Island or Nauru

▻https://theconversation.com/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-excising-australia-from-the-migration-zone

#migration_zone

–-> on explique très bien dans cet article aussi l’histoire du #Tampa et de #Arne_Rinnan :

To understand how we started tinkering with the boundaries of the migration zone, one must go back to 2001 and the so-called Tampa Affair. In August 2001, Captain Arne Rinnan rescued 433 asylum seekers from their sinking boat and sheltered them on his freighter, the MV Tampa. He then made the decision to head to Christmas Island (which was at the time still in Australia’s migration zone) for the safety of his vessel, the crew and the people he had rescued.

As a way to solve what then prime minister John Howard viewed as a direct challenge to border security in the aftermath of September 11 terrorist attacks, he proposed and had passed legislation that re-defined Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Australian sea and resources installations as well as any other external territories, or state or territory islands, prescribed by regulations as “excised offshore places”. Importantly, this legislation was also retrospective.

With a stroke of the proverbial parliamentary pen, while the Tampa asylum seekers had reached Australian territory, they were no longer in the “migration zone” and were subsequently removed to offshore detention centres.

http://i.imgur.com/uq3qxF0.png

#cartographie #visualisation

Voir aussi ce décret de #Reagan mentionné dans l’article « Immigration Enforcement and the Afterlife of the Slave Ship » :

But in our present day, it began in earnest with President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12324 of 1981, also called the Haitian Migrant Interdiction Operation (HMIO), which exclusively tasked the USCG to “interdict” Haitian asylum seekers attempting to enter the United States by sea routes on unauthorized sailing vessels. Such people were already beginning to be derogatorily referred to as “boat people,” a term then borrowed (less derogatorily) into Haitian Kreyòl as botpippel.

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/901628

#Angleterre, 2021 :

Asylum seekers deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally will no longer have the same entitlements as those who arrive in the country via legal routes. Even if their claim is successful, they will be granted temporary refugee status and face the prospect of being indefinitely liable for removal.

https://seenthis.net/messages/921443

#UK

Reprise du #modèle_australien et son concept de l’#excision_territoriale par les Etats-Unis :

“People intercepted at sea, even in U.S. waters, have fewer rights than those who come by land. “Asylum does not apply at sea,” a Coast Guard spokesperson told me. Even people who are fleeing violence, rape and death, who on land would be likely to pass an initial asylum screening, are routinely sent back to the countries they’ve fled.”

#USA #Etats-Unis