One Nation’s new immigration policy was unveiled yesterday morning, and it’s nice to see them propose deep cuts to various visa subclasses and propose a net negative migration program for their first term in office if they can win the next election. It appears that the backlash from their base and dip in the polls a couple weeks ago after rug pulling their commitment to net negative migration was a reality check.
It’s also nice to see them double down on their commitment to ban migration from all countries on DFAT’s “do not travel” list. However, there is a glaring problem with it – India and China are not on the “do not travel” list.
An immigration policy that enables India and China to keep building up their fifth columns in our country, albeit at a slower pace, is not the final solution. What we need is an immigration policy that enables Australians to rebuild our first column, an immigration policy that prioritises European migrants.
One Nation’s net-negative migration policy will still bring hundreds of thousands of migrants into Australia over their first term, after which they plan to increase the intake further to 130,000 net per year. And we should all be absolutely fine with this, if the people they are bringing in will be from Europe not Asia.
Unlike migrants from Asia, which studies repeatedly show vote for Labor and left-wing parties in general at far higher rates than average, migrants from Europe tend to vote for One Nation and other right-wing parties at rates as high, if not higher, than the native-born population. Rather than diluting our vote, migrants from Europe strengthen it.
And most Aussies know this to be true instinctively, even if they haven’t read any of the polling data showing it to be the case. Which is why a recent IPA study showed 48% of them agree that Labor is using mass immigration to import voters, including 78% of One Nation voters.
The same study showed 63% of all voters support (and only 13% oppose) prioritising immigrants from “places with shared values, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand”. Amongst One Nation voters, 87% supported this and only 2% opposed it.
Prioritising migrants from the Anglosphere is, therefore, a policy far more popular than net-zero or net-negative migration, which the same study showed only 31% of all voters supported, and only 57% of One Nation voters. In fact, it is a policy that polls as significantly more popular than anything else One Nation is currently proposing.
The way One Nation wins the immigration debate and the next election is not on numbers, or economics, but on identity. Not on how many, but where they come from.
Idiotic fears about being called “racist” for proposing something like this need not concern One Nation.
For starters, the left’s top strategists are now advising their campaigners to avoid calling Pauline Hanson a racist ahead of the upcoming Victorian election after focus groups have repeatedly revealed it to be counter-productive, only making her more popular. But also, One Nation politicians can retort that there’s nothing “racist” about prioritising migrants from countries which share our values. And there’s nothing One Nation voters love more than plausibly deniable racism.
But also the polling is clear, Australians have largely positive views towards immigrants from Europe, and largely negative or ambivalent attitudes to immigrants from Asia. Australians are not anti-immigration, they like White immigration, but they don’t particularly like non-White immigration even if they often find it impolite to say so explicitly.
And so whilst I support the policy of banning immigration from the countries on the “do not travel list”, although I’d like an exception to be made for Ukrainian refugees (particularly females under the age of 25), the far more important policy is defining what immigrants we do want rather than simply what immigrants we don’t want.
When Albanese says we are a “nation of immigrants” and that immigration built Australia, he’s right. Only the part he conveniently leaves out is that we are a nation of White immigrants. And even though saying it this bluntly out loud remains a little too much for most, they know it to be true.
The refusal to say it out loud, though, gives Labor an edge, as they can accuse One Nation of “scapegoating” or “demonising” migrants, forcing them onto the rhetorical backfoot. This is because Australians don’t hate migrants, they just want the right type of migrants, migrants who assimilate and share our values. White migrants.
Finding courage here is where One Nation can take hold of the debate, by talking about the millions of young British people who want to move to Australia. Then the question for the government and their uniparty colleagues becomes, not simply whether migrants are good or bad for the economy, but why they want more Indians rather than Brits. Force them to justify this, because the British are obviously not less skilled than Indians, and they are clearly not less capable of assimilating into Australian values – “Australian values” were brought here by the British to begin with.
There are more than enough young Brits who want to move here to completely fill our visa quotas for One Nation’s entire first term. Flooding Australia with Indians rather than British people is not about “the economy”, it is a traitorous political choice to empower a diaspora with ethnic grievances against us as a Labor voting bloc.
Adopting this policy could not simply be the difference between winning and losing the next election, but the difference between winning and losing elections for the foreseeable future.
Because if we don’t reverse White demographic decline in the coming years, the left will become electorally entrenched. Preserving and expanding the White vote is existential for the Australian right.
The time is now to bring this conversation to the fore, and if One Nation won’t, maybe the White Australia Party will.
Header image: Pauline Hanson with a fish and chip shop owner in Townsville (One Nation).
