Dispossession Cycles and Resistance: Historical Continuums in the Deportation of First Nations Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article surveys the historical and contemporary context of Indigenous peoples’ entanglement in systems of criminal justice and migration control. Government attempts to remove First Nations peoples from Australia under visa cancellation provisions present a striking contemporary development in border control. Despite the High Court of Australia’s ruling that ‘Aboriginal Australians’ cannot be ‘aliens’ and therefore subject to visa cancellation provisions, Indigenous peoples continue to be targeted for exclusion and subject to the gaze of border control authorities. We use documentary research and draw on two case studies to explore the historical use of deportation to target First Nations peoples. We identify previous attempts to achieve law reform to rectify past injustices and prevent Indigenous peoples from being caught up in migration laws aimed at excluding non-citizens. We review the extensive literature on Love v Commonwealth and analyse the expanded visa cancellation provisions that have resulted in increased numbers of people being targeted for removal, and removed, from Australia. When analysed against the long shadow of colonisation, we argue that these applications of criminal and migration law represent a continuation of attempted exclusion and dispossession that has been, and continues to be, actively resisted by Indigenous peoples. In analysing the cyclical nature of dispossession and its resistance, the complex interaction of criminal and migration law can be seen to have created novel impacts for First Nations peoples in Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".