<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"WHOSE SECURITY? HOW WHITE POSSESSION IS REINFORCED IN EVERYDAY SPEECH ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS."
Abstract:"The national narratives that construct asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in Australia were protected and contested during the term of the former Howard Liberal government. This paper explores how white possession is reinforced in everyday speech about asylum seekers. To do this, it draws upon an empirical study conducted in rural South Australia with people who identified as white Australian. The study consists of 28 in depth semi-structured interviews conducted in 2003. The paper will firstly locate the interviews in the sociopolitical context of the former Howard Liberal government's policies and key events such as the Tampa incident. In doing so, the paper adds to the small body of Australian sociological empirical research that investigates everyday practices of whiteness. The paper identifies discourses about refugees, border security and the war on terror that reinforce Australian discourses of white possession. The paper critiques the racialised privilege in discourses used by the interviewees about asylum seekers and argues this privilege is gained through the assertion of white patriarchal sovereignty (Moreton-Robinson 2004a) in everyday speech. This privilege simultaneously disavows Indigenous sovereignty and reasserts white national sovereignty through the raced exclusion of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim peoples who are located as illegal immigrants in everyday white discourses about asylum seekers.."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:

WHOSE SECURITY? HOW WHITE POSSESSION IS REINFORCED IN EVERYDAY SPEECH ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS
The national narratives that construct asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in Australia were protected and contested during the term of the former Howard Liberal government. This paper explores how white possession is reinforced in everyday speech about asylum seekers. To do this, it draws upon an empirical study conducted in rural South Australia with people who identified as white Australian. The study consists of 28 in depth semi-structured interviews conducted in 2003. The paper will firstly locate the interviews in the sociopolitical context of the former Howard Liberal government's policies and key events such as the Tampa incident. In doing so, the paper adds to the small body of Australian sociological empirical research that investigates everyday practices of whiteness. The paper identifies discourses about refugees, border security and the war on terror that reinforce Australian discourses of white possession. The paper critiques the racialised privilege in discourses used by the interviewees about asylum seekers and argues this privilege is gained through the assertion of white patriarchal sovereignty (Moreton-Robinson 2004a) in everyday speech. This privilege simultaneously disavows Indigenous sovereignty and reasserts white national sovereignty through the raced exclusion of Middle Eastern and/or Muslim peoples who are located as illegal immigrants in everyday white discourses about asylum seekers.