Australia's Working Holiday Visa Subclass 417: Cultural Exchange or an Extension and Adaptation of Preferential Immigration Policy?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Australian state's present day borders are controlled and protected by a universal visa system in which all non-citizens must be in possession of a categorical visa before entry and while staying within the country; anyone without a visa is illegally within the state and subject to detention or removal. Amongst the visa categories offered by the Australian government that allow foreigners to dwell legally within the state is the Working Holiday Visa Subclass 417. This subclass visa is only available to citizens of Belgium, Canada, Republic of Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. This visa offers citizens of these countries, if meeting certain requirements, the opportunity to live and work within Australia for a maximum period of 24 months. The Australian government offers a similar type visa to the citizens of Bangladesh, Chile, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, and the United States of America; the Work And Holiday Visa Subclass 462. This visa offers the citizens of these countries, if meeting certain requirements, the opportunity to live and work within Australia for a maximum period of 12 months. However, certain requirements to obtain this visa are not applied to the similar category Subclass 417 applicants, namely a language proficiency requirement. The object of this thesis study is to examine why there are two separate subclasses within the working holiday category offered by the Australian government in which different distinct groups of countries belong to, are subjected to different eligibility requirements, and are allotted different lengths of time in Australia. To conduct my analysis of these two subclass visa policies, I have applied sociological and anthropological theory and studies about nation-state formation and administration to the current qualifications and eligibility of these visas, which are deemed as official immigration policy in practice and described on official Australian government web pages. Historical accounts of past immigration policy have been accessed from the National Archives of Australia to demonstrate that preferential treatment toward certain desired immigrants has existed through much of Australia's development into a nation-state and to draw a connection between current cases of preferential treatment within the Working Holiday Maker Program - the collective title for both visas under scrutiny. My analysis will show that the offering of temporary work and living rights to citizens of particular European and Asian countries which are eligible for the Working Holiday Visa Subclass 417, in comparison to citizens of those countries eligible for the Work and Holiday Visa Subclass 462, is evidence of preferential treatment, and therefore Australian government policy, which is reminiscent of preferential policy that was practiced in the past. Despite claims that these visas are offered under the guise of promoting cultural understanding and good will between nations, this is merely a case of the state enacting policies that allow it to influence population demographics that offer less obstacles of administration to the government and foster perceived national identity. Asiasanat:Australia, immigration, nation-state administration, working holiday visa, preferential reciprocity, White Australia Policy
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».