보이지 않는 국경 만들기? ―존 메이저(John Major) 정권의 난민법― (Building an Invisible Border? ―Refugee Acts of the John Major Regime―)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 영국사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 영국연구 / 30호 / 267 ~ 304페이지
· 저자명 : 정영주

초록

본고는 1990년대 난민법이 제정되는 과정을 세밀하게 분석하여 메이저 정권이 망명 신청에 대한 통제 시스템을 구축하고자 정치 담론을 형성하는 모습을 담아내었다. 1990년대에 발간된 신문 및 잡지 기사 내용을 영국 의회기록서와 관련 정부기구 및 난민단체의 보고서 내용과 비교하여 영국 사회 내부의 다양한 목소리를 드러내고자 하였다. 메이저 정권은 난민법을 제정하기 위해 ‘지나치게 많은 수’, ‘가짜 망명 신청자’, ‘더 나은 인종관계’라는 담론을 적극 활용하였다. 메이저 정권이 ‘적절한 수’의 난민만을 허용하는 정책을 추진하는 가운데, 망명 신청자들은 모국에서 박해받고 은신처를 찾아온 난민이 아니라 특정 피부색과 문화를 가진 사람으로, 그리고 영국 내 인종주의와 인종 관계를 악화시키는 원인제공자로 그려졌다. 신청자의 대부분은 경제적 기회를 찾아 온 새로운 형태의 이주민으로 간주되었다. 이렇듯 메이저 정권이 망명 신청자들을 인종과 ‘가짜’라는 색안경을 끼고 바라보는 가운데, 난민 지위를 부여받는 신청자 수가 급감했음에도 불구하고, 망명 신청자와 난민들은 끊임없이 영국 주류사회를 불편하게 만들었다. 난민들에게는 메이저 정권의 난민법이 넘기 힘든 또 다른 국경이었다.

영어초록

This paper aims at analyzing the official discourse of the Major Regime on asylum seekers and refugees and undertaking a comparative research on the interactions among the main actors in British politics and several interest groups of the society in the legislative processes of refugee bills. The trajectories of enactment with particular references to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 are explored through cross-examining newspaper and magazine articles, Hansard, various reports from the governmental organizations and refugee councils.
The author finds out that the official statements of Home Secretaries consistently placed emphasis on three issues: ‘number’ ‘bogus asylum’ ‘for better racial relations’. These three critical elements represent the perceptions of the Major regime on asylum, and illustrate the ways in which restriction system was established and used to control the entry of people seeking asylum in Britain.
Britain was one of the States who first proposed an international convention on refugee matters. However, the will to provide protection for those persecuted by their own country and the political system seemed to have almost faded away in the 1990s. Interpreting the clauses of Geneva Convention of 1951 is entirely up to each signatory, and refugee is defined not to flee for economic reasons, but political. Thus, asylum seekers who failed to be officially recognized as refugee were regarded as ‘bogus’, that is, economic asylum. This gave an inaccurate account of asylum seekers and the increase in asylum requests as a new form of ‘immigration wave’.
The boundaries between ‘economic’ migrants and ‘bogus’ asylum became blurred to the public perception. As a result, despite the fact that the number of asylum seekers who successfully secured the status of refugee dramatically decreased, their presence still made the mainstream British society uncomfortable. In addition to bogus claims, asylum seekers were also represented as having certain physical and cultural traits, such as the skin colour and religion, which would implicitly suggest not to meet the standards of the British society, thus to incite or exacerbate racial tension in some communities.
The fear of the Major regime felt on the rapid increase in the number of people seeking asylum in Britain was genuine and in a sense justifiable. Yet there were many evidences that the regime misrepresented asylum seekers for the purpose of establishing restriction system. It is obvious that refugee acts were built on various biases of the regime, and became one invisible border to most of asylum seekers.

참고자료

· 없음