Everyone is talking about reducing immigration now.
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts is calling for mass deportations, Pauline Hanson is pushing net-zero, and outside of left-wing echo chamber Twitter it’s become impossible to find anyone who will argue that bringing in record numbers of people isn’t causing housing prices to go up.
Even Treasurer Jim Chalmers admitted his own party’s open borders policies were putting pressure on Australians in a Budget speech where he promised to halve the migration intake.
So how did Opposition leader Peter Dutton, supposedly a right-wing populist hardline conservative, respond?
In the weakest and most insipid way possible, by promising to bring permanent net migration down to 140,000 a year (in the 2023 financial year overseas migration added 518,000 people, with 195,004 permanent visas granted).
“Labor is bringing in 1.67 million migrants over five years – more than the population of Adelaide,” he warned in his budget reply speech, before saying he’d only bring in 590,000 permanent migrants over four years – more than the populations of Canberra and Darwin combined.
It was such a pathetic gesture, and Dutton is so impotent and unthreatening, that political editor Bernard Keane at radical leftist news site Crikey wrote the opinion piece equivalent of handing a coward who hates you a loaded gun and daring him to shoot you.
All Dutton has to do to succeed politically is follow the anti-immigration playbook laid out for him by Geert Wilders, Keane gleefully pointed out, but he’s too scared of angering the business lobby and homeowners to even try.
Dutton, like all cuckservatives, is too weak to conserve anything, and is trying to play both sides. He has no backbone, and lacks the will to win.
He participates in the same humiliation rituals as Anthony Albanese, dressing up in foreign costumes for photo ops, grovelling at synagogues, and celebrating every ethnic and cultural minority holiday he can.
It’s often said that conservatives are just liberals in slow motion, and Dutton’s immigration policy illustrates that perfectly – it’s Labor’s, but a little bit lower. It’s peak cuckservatism.
But there is another lesson here, in Keane’s claim that a real immigration cut would result in “screams from homeowners and investors”.
This also has an element of truth, and shows why economic arguments against immigration will only get us so far.
We don’t want to cut immigration solely to slow rising house prices and release downwards pressure on wages, we want to stop it to save our country from total destruction.
But Keane is wrong is in his implication that kicking and screaming homeowners and investors will reject an effective anti-immigration policy because it could cause a fall in property values.
Australians vote against their economic self-interest all the time, but they have to be given a good reason to do so.
And what better reason is there for supporting net-zero immigration or remigration than to prevent the extinction of one’s culture and people?
