BY JODY BETZEIN
In the past few weeks the immigration department has begun sending letters to those refugees who were first granted temporary protection visas (TPVs) in late 1999, demanding that they must provide justification for their continued residency in Australia. These TPV holders must prove that it is still unsafe for them to return home for fear of political, religious or ethnic persecution.
In the context of many, more recent arrivals of refugees, particularly Afghans, having their applications for refugee status rejected, this development has prompted fears that large numbers of TPV holders may face deportation in the near future.
Along with this development, there is growing evidence that the assessment methods used by the department to determine whether people are genuine refugees are grossly flawed. The numerous examples of some family members being granted refugee status while others remain in detention, when the family's case has been based on persecution due to ethnicity, is testimony to this flawed process. The Baktiyari case is but one example of this hypocrisy.
These developments have led to a discussion among refugees' rights activists
on how to prevent the deportation of asylum seekers currently in detention,
as well as those living in the community on TPVs. 
Part of the developing discussion has been drawn from the experiences of the anti-deportation movement in Europe, particularly, the very well-developed sans papiers (literally without papers) movement in France.
In 1993, the French government introduced a series of laws that restricted the ability of people born in France of foreign parents to claim citizenship (previously automatic), making permanent residency permits much harder to obtain and expanding the powers of immigration authorities to deport non-citizens.
In 1997, the government introduced a further series of laws including one which requires anyone lodging a foreigner to report the fact to the authorities. Other laws introduced at the time allowed for the compulsory fingerprinting of those requesting residency, confiscating the passports of illegals, increasing police search powers, further restrictions on the granting of residency permits, and reducing avenues of appeal for those denied residency.
Opposition to the deportation of illegal immigrants in France was detonated by a petition of 66 prominent French filmmakers, who published a declaration that they would disobey the requirement to report foreigners lodging with them. This was followed by a series of mass demonstrations in solidarity with the sans papiers, culminating in a march by 100,000 people in Paris on February 22, 1997.
Coupled with this outpouring of solidarity was the formation of numerous collectives of people threatened with deportation. This public organisation was extremely courageous, since it exposed them to immediate deportation as has happened to some.
The struggle of the sans papiers galvanised an important section of French public opinion against the government's anti-immigrant project.
While a comparable level of support for asylum seekers threatened with deportation is some way off in Australia, a number of parallels can be drawn in particular, the fact that the French government was threatening to deport people who were already working and living in the community. This helped to develop a sense of solidarity with potential deportees. The same potential exists in Australia with those refugees living in the community on TPVs.
The ability of the government to dehumanise refugees is retarded when their faces are not hidden behind razor wire. In addition, the implication by the government that refugees represent some sort of threat holds less currency when they are integrated in local communities. Already the deportation of 80 Afghans employed by Burrangong Meat Processors in the NSW town of Young has been opposed by BMP managing director Grant Edmonds. Co-workers have also signed a petition of support.
The discussion within the movement around preventing deportations has thrown up a number of aspects to such a campaign. One aspect, already being organised in a number of capital cities, is the development of phone networks that can mobilise to prevent a deportation through civil disobedience actions. This may include blockading detention centres, airports and the like.
Also posed is the possibility of attempting to convince passengers on board a plane on which a refugee is being deported not to sit down in their seats, preventing the plane from taking off.
To ensure such actions are not isolated from the broader movement, they must be linked to a more general campaign of mass protest actions. Aspects of such a campaign may include the development of agreements with trade unions to refuse to cooperate with deportations, as has occurred in Germany.
Resolutions from churches and other organisations opposing deportations and mass demonstrations focusing on this issue will also ensure the movement's breadth and development.
The aim of an anti-deportations campaign must be to make deportations so politically costly to the government that it is forced to abandon them.
[Jody Betzein is a member of the Melbourne Refugee Action Collective.]
From Green Left Weekly, August 28, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.