ABSTRACT

In 1903, the Commonwealth Australian government passed the Naturalisation Act (1903). Acquiring naturalisation, however, was not straightforward in a country that was concerned about its ‘foreign element’. A key legal requirement of the Act stipulated that ‘a person resident in the Commonwealth, not being a British subject, and not being an aboriginal native of Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific’, who intends to settle in Australia could apply for a naturalisation. Because the naturalisation law explicitly excluded people who were from certain regions of the world, applying for naturalisation was, at its root, racialised. For Syrians and Greeks, acquiring naturalisation came to hinge on the question of whether they were to be accepted as white subjects. This article compares naturalisation application files of Syrians and Greeks to explore the ambiguous inclusivity of Australia’s naturalisation law. In comparing how two groups subjected to similar external representations applied for naturalisation, it is argued that applying for naturalisation was a mode by which migrants outwardly performed their acculturation by identifying with a dominant whiteness-property nexus. In doing so, the article opens terrain in migration history to consider how applying for naturalisation was contingent on migrants’ capacity to present themselves as loyal settlers.

摘要

1903 年，澳大利亚联邦政府通过了《归化法案》（1903 年）。然而，在一个关注其“外国因素”的国家，获得入籍并非易事。该法案的一项关键法律要求规定，“英联邦居民、非英国臣民、非亚洲、非洲或太平洋岛屿原住民”，如果打算在澳大利亚定居，则可以申请入籍。由于入籍法明确排除了来自世界某些地区的人，因此申请入籍从根本上讲是种族化的。对于叙利亚人和希腊人来说，获得入籍取决于他们是否会被接受为白人臣民的问题。本文通过对比叙利亚人和希腊人的入籍申请文件，探讨澳大利亚入籍法的模糊包容性。在比较遭受相似外部表征的两个群体如何申请入籍时，有人认为申请入籍是移民通过认同占主导地位的白人属性关系而向外进行文化适应的一种模式。在这样做的过程中，本文开辟了移民历史的领域，以考虑申请入籍如何取决于移民将自己展示为忠诚的定居者的能力。有人认为，申请入籍是移民通过认同占主导地位的白人-财产关系的一种外在进行文化适应的模式。在这样做的过程中，本文开辟了移民历史的领域，以考虑申请入籍如何取决于移民将自己展示为忠诚的定居者的能力。有人认为，申请入籍是移民通过认同占主导地位的白人-财产关系的一种外在进行文化适应的模式。在这样做的过程中，本文开辟了移民历史的领域，以考虑申请入籍如何取决于移民将自己展示为忠诚的定居者的能力。