Beware the political sweetness being peddled by the Home Affairs Minister, Peter Dutton to Australians. Peter Dutton stated, with regards to immigration that more focus should be put on whether we are bringing in the right people, and whether they are integrating.

“I think, frankly, the more productive debate is around who we’re bringing in, whether or not they’re the right people, are they integrating? Are they working hard, paying taxes? And nobody begrudges that.”

Many on the Right have seen this as a positive development, but we must proceed with more than caution with public acceptance of such a sentiment. Integration is important, but it is quite likely that integration, as interpreted by the Liberal Party, is of an economic, not cultural or ethnic nature. That Mr Dutton first mentions payment of taxation to the state as a criterion is evidence that his view of immigration is state centred, not nation centred. Australian Conservatism is primarily an economic movement, concerned with “The Economy”, which really is the interests of big Capital and big Business.

cory-bernardi

Conservative Cory Bernardi states…

“That means also we should be discerning about the qualities and characteristics of the individuals we let in. So that means what skills do we need? Are they going to be bringing capital and innovation to our country? Are they going to be making our nation stronger? Are they going to fit in and abide by the rule of law?”

Again, the concern is skills and Capital. Capital includes wealthy immigrants who are going to compete with locals for already scarce housing. High immigration numbers, no matter what composition the immigrants may be, is detrimental the the social and economic well-being of Australians. Mass immigration has made housing unaffordable, our cities congested, created a need for increased expenditure on infrastructure and increased the sense of social alienation that we experience. It increases our burden on our environment, fragile as it already is.

The danger in such a change of tactic is that like John Howards ostensibly tough stance on refugees last decade, it is a diversionary measure to appease anti-immigrationists with seemingly effective policies, while allowing the worst of our mass immigration program to continue unabated. While many were fixated on the relatively small number of boat people, the doors were flung wide open to the rest of the world. A few people in leaky boats were turned away to divert us from the fact that entire families were flying in to populate entire suburbs. It seems Australians can tolerate being pushed out of the cities, provided that those displacing them have gone through customs.

With increasing pressure being put on the establishment to reduce immigration, pressure that we must keep up, the established parties will seek to placate people while keeping immigration high. Discussion on “composition” or “integration” is such a ploy. Minor concessions will be made, but the numbers will not be reduced, and if the numbers are not reduced, that spells trouble for our future generations. Even if all the hundreds of thousands of immigrants were from the British Isles, the sheer volume of human biomass flying in alone would keep house prices elevated, keep roads congested, worsen urban sprawl and still create a sense of alienation.

Numbers do matter, always matter, and the Liberal Party is a high immigration party. Nationalist Alternative have heard rumours, as yet unverified, that the NSW Young Liberals have put forward policy motions recognising that migration and immigrants bring value, national identity and capability, and that they condemn discourse which contribute to fear-mongering and stereotyping. Concerns about “fear mongering” is a standard ploy to silence concerns about our immigration program. High immigration is necessary to keep wages depressed and the housing ponzi going, and no serious action will be taken to jeopardise this. Nor will any serious action be taken to reduce the rate of increase in the available tax base, stamp duties collected and potential new voters for the party. Not without serious public pressure.

Public pressure must not yield nor cease.

We should therefore be uncompromising in our demands. Immigration numbers must be reduced, and composition of immigration must be judged by whether that composition preserved, or detracts from our current heritage and legacy. In short, the immigration program must never be allowed to set Australia’s ethnic composition. Any discussion of integration or suitability, which neglects to mention this is almost worthless to us.

mass-immigration-melbourne

Therefore, we should focus on two demands.

Firstly, the rate of immigration should be reduced, to at most 70,000 per annum as recommended by Dick Smith and Sustainable Australia, preferably far less to allow infrastructure to catch up.

Secondly, that the immigration criteria be expanded to ensure that potential immigrants do not threaten our identity, ethnic and cultural legacy. Our immigration policy already has criteria, but preventing unwanted and destructive demographic change is somehow not included. The problem is not whether migrants are stringently assessed or appropriately skilled, but the source of migration. As per One Nations immigration policy, it is the Australian public which has to be able to determine who enters and who doesn’t.

If we generate public support for the Liberal Party’s view, then this opens Australia up for another repeat of succumbing to John Howards and Tony Abbotts “Boat People” gambit. The Liberal Party could dog-whistle the right by speaking about examining composition and integration, but then provide no meal to us when called. Such criteria could be used to lower the number of immigrants from poorer socio-economic backgrounds, while increasing the number from higher socio-economic backgrounds, in which China for example, could fulfil a supply meeting every property developers wildest dreams. We would likely end with the same crushing volume of people entering, but have provided the government with reason to switch the immigration composition to one more friendly to their big donors, and paying taxes doesn’t make us donors.

Reducing numbers is hard to do without actually reducing numbers, and it is this demand which we are more likely to be able to achieve to positive effect. While the state can squirm and wiggle on which immigrants are suitable, hard numbers are hard numbers and a call to reduce immigration by 50% can only be considered met if reduced by 50%. A call for better composition could simply see the composition change, but no increase in the proportion of immigrants which are White Westerners. Reducing numbers is therefore a more achievable political goal, given the current balance of power politically, and will also likely be more effective in abating the demographic change that we are experience.

As the political balance of power changes, and our position on immigration becomes more and more acceptable, we will be in a better position to push for amenable criteria. For the moment however, abandoning a call for reduction in numbers to focus on “integration” will likely see us lose out.

Tagged with:
 

One Response to Don’t be fooled by feigned hard-line stances from politicians.

  1. The g Factor says:

    The problem is that too many greedy people at the big end of town are making a fortune out of high immigration numbers. Housing developers for instance, many foreign owned, and the companies building massive infrastructure at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *