Beyond the Demands of Integration: African Refugee Resettlement in Contemporary Multicultural Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the problem of integrating African immigrants, a type of refugees negatively racialized due to their skin color, in a society like that of Australia. Although Australia has defined itself as a multicultural society since 1975, the treatment given to migratory flows has been to consider negatively racialized immigrants as a threat to the country's existence. The authors speak of an authentic paranoia of the white population against waves of that kind of immigrants, especially illegal ones, who arrive by boats to the country's beaches.

Furthermore, the way in which these immigrants have been integrated (resettlement) until now, with policies driven by the federal government and therefore heavily centralized, has not yielded the expected results: confrontations between different communities have increased, and immigrants fail to achieve the objectives that led them to move to the country, fleeing from armed conflicts and famines in their countries of origin.

The authors' alternative can be summarized as follows: "The alternative would be to make resettlement local and place-based process where policy and its implementation is the responsibility of local governments and their communities". It is, therefore, an alternative that advocates for the integration of newcomers and for counting on them and their capabilities to build multicultural and inclusive societies. The authors suggest "a community led framework of resettlement", where "refugees, their communities and organisations, together with civil society at the local level determine resettlement priorities".

 

This proposal is made from the perspective of postcolonial studies and rejecting white colonial patriarchalism  (the possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignity). The study not only draws on an extensive bibliography but also on the personal experience of its authors in working with this type of immigrants for many years, which explains the soundness of this article. We recommend its publication without modifications.

Author Response

Reviewer One has recommended the paper be published without modifications. We thank them for their time, generous reading of the paper and engagement with the work. We are delighted that they see the value in our contribution. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Firstly, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the article: Beyond the demands of integration: African refugee resettlement in contemporary multicultural Australia

 At a time when migration is increasing, as are radical populisms and new colonialisms, which demonize migrants, especially those who do not fit into parriarchal white society, this is without a doubt a very relevant topic to highlight in the scientific community.

However, some questions will be necessary to highlight the problem to an international audience.

In the introduction, some ideas are presented, which seem solid, but it would be important to use more references (authors), so that the ideas presented are not all the opinion of the researchers. As we know, colonialism led to atrocities, especially against indigenous peoples, but these ideas, must have references (authors).

I suggest developing the initial ideas further, including carrying out a brief review of the literature to support the results. Here, authors must identify the question and the objectives of the article cleary.

 Materials and Methods

Despite the authors' vast experiences, it would be relevant clarify which secondary documents were the object of the analysis and which variables were considered for this purpose. This part requires further methodological clarification: referring to the documents that were the subject of analysis and which variables were revealed or highlighted.

  Discussion

In the discussion, data and arguments are presented that lead to explaining the integration of African refugees in Australia, also  the contexts and the discretionary way in which these people are treated.

The discussion is well explained and well-founded, but it focused on problems and does not reveal ways to overcome these issues. I would suggest that authors could be a point of proposals to resolve the situations that are raised. What could be done to overcome the problem?

Suggestions:

Considering that the article focuses on the analysis of secondary sources, I propose, firstly, to situate the problem, the question and the objectives of the article.

Next, explain the methodology that was developed in more detail.

And at the end the results of the analysis, and at the end proposals to solve some of the problems identified.

At the end you can introduce a point to conclude, but raising new questions to advance research on the topic and so that the article can be useful for an international audience and for new research....

What brings us back to the article? What research can be carried out in the future to better understand this situation? And what can be done to overcome these issues in austrália in others simular contries?

I wish you good work

Author Response

Reviewing articles with such meaningful suggestions is an act of academic generosity and we thank the reviewer for taking the time to meaningfully respond to our article. It will certainly make it better.

We have taken on board the following comments from Reviewer Two and responded as follows:

Comment

In the introduction, some ideas are presented, which seem solid, but it would be important to use more references (authors), so that the ideas presented are not all the opinion of the researchers. As we know, colonialism led to atrocities, especially against indigenous peoples, but these ideas, must have references (authors). I suggest developing the initial ideas further, including carrying out a brief review of the literature to support the results. Here, authors must identify the question and the objectives of the article clearly.

Response:

A new sentence has been added (lines 22-24) that sets out the objective of the article and the key question it addresses (lines 48-51). Additionally references featured later in the paper (see Background section) have been added to the Introduction and an additional reference (Galligan et al 2014) included. We appreciate that in following the MPDI template it may appear that the initial ideas are those of the researchers when in fact they draw on background literature elaborated later in the paper, as per the template provided to authors.

Comment:

Despite the authors' vast experiences, it would be relevant clarify which secondary documents were the object of the analysis and which variables were considered for this purpose. This part requires further methodological clarification: referring to the documents that were the subject of analysis and which variables were revealed or highlighted.

Response:

We wish to thank the reviewer greatly for this suggestion. We hope that the following edit and explanation offers clarity to them and future readers.

We have added lines 55-59 to explain secondary documentation utilized for this research.

The nature of the article is such that it draws on the authors’ multidimensional experiences of re-settlement processes in Australia, substantiated through scholarly sources, in their considerations of how to support re-settlement in a way that brings about better quality of life outcomes for refugees in Australia.

Comment:

In the discussion, data and arguments are presented that lead to explaining the integration of African refugees in Australia, also the contexts and the discretionary way in which these people are treated. The discussion is well explained and well-founded, but it focused on problems and does not reveal ways to overcome these issues. I would suggest that authors could be a point of proposals to resolve the situations that are raised. What could be done to overcome the problem?

Response:

Lines 91-97 articulate the approach the authors suggest to overcome the problem: “We then proffer a re-imagining of re-settlement in Australia that disrupts patriarchal white sovereignty, proposing a framework that is community-led, localised, relational and that recognises the agency of refugees who resettle in Australia. This framework responds to calls from grass roots organisations to be properly resourced for their work that have been voiced through recent government reviews of resettlement and multi-culturalism”.

This is then detailed at 4.5 (A Framework for Unsettling the Possessive Logic).

Comment:

At the end you can introduce a point to conclude, but raising new questions to advance research on the topic and so that the article can be useful for an international audience and for new research.... What brings us back to the article? What research can be carried out in the future to better understand this situation? And what can be done to overcome these issues in Australia in others similar countries?

Response:

The authors understand this article to be a conceptual work aimed at encouraging further discussions of ways re-settlement in Australia can responds to refugee’s everyday lives rather than being state mandated. This article is indeed itself a recommendation for how the doing of re-settlement can be placed in the hands of those closely embedded in the process, and who have an intimate understanding of what is needed at a local level to respond meaningfully to respond to the circumstances of those being resettled and their new communities. There is much scope for research that interrogates the practical operationalising of this principle level recommendation.

Please see lines 651 – 656 for edits.

 

Again, we wish to send our deep appreciation to the reviewer!

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the article again. Taking into account the firts reviews and the fact that the authors responded to all of them, I consider that the article can be published in its current form.