Immigrants welcome to join us, but not change us

Protestors gather at the State Library in Melbourne. Picture: Nadir Kinani

How do societies dedicated to tolerance deal with the intolerant? Until quite recently, this was not an issue in countries such as ours, with almost no history of political violence.

It’s only become a problem since immigration has imported into Australia the instinct, centuries ago shunned by all faiths other than Islam, of “death to the infidels”.

In recent times, religious intolerance in Australia has spawned numerous marches demanding the expulsion of Jews and intimidatory encampments at universities; escalating more recently to anti-Jewish vandalism, and the firebombing of synagogues. But across parts of the Middle East, the ethnic cleansing of Christians and other minorities is widespread.

There’s any amount of media coverage of the killing of Muslims in Gaza, and fair enough too, even though – it should be said – that’s part of a war against a terrorist group that’s pledged to the destruction of Israel and that uses civilians as human shields.

But what about the slaughter of innocent people simply on the basis of religion that’s now happening in Syria – where the Christian population has dropped from 1.5 million to under 300,000 in scarcely a decade, and is facing renewed persecution, even genocide, under the post-Assad regime?

So, let’s be clear here: Jews aren’t killing anyone simply on the basis of their religion; Christians aren’t killing anyone simply on the basis of their religion; but extreme, radical Muslims – some of them at least – are killing people simply on the basis of their religion, even including other Muslims who happen to be the “wrong brand” of Islam.

This is what happens when a religion, or at least too many of its adherents, believes quite literally that unbelievers deserve death. Yet despite all our efforts to be inclusive – such as Iftar dinners hosted by prime ministers and even monarchs – has anyone ever heard a local Muslim leader unequivocally condemning anti-Semitism, for instance, rather than just complaining about near non-existent Islamophobia? Or standing up against the hate preachers and demanding they be jailed or deported? Or Muslim organisations here, who loudly proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace, speaking out against these renewed massacres of Christians in Syria?

One of the reasons so many voters are disillusioned with politics, and even becoming sceptical about democracy itself, is that some things never change, regardless of who gets voted in. Immigration and multiculturalism is the most taboo of all the issues that deeply concern ordinary voters but which mainstream politicians almost never discuss.

Both sides know there’s a problem but neither really wants a debate; partly because no one wants to license a tiny xenophobic minority, partly because no one wants to upset migrant voters who might feel unfairly targeted, but mostly because too many politicians are frightened of the “racist” tag that’s almost immediately deployed to silence any discussion questioning the right of admission into our country at all times of everyone from anywhere.

The Albanese government has said it wants to get immigration well down from the half million a year since the pandemic. The opposition has committed to cutting the permanent intake by some 25 per cent for at least two years, but the permanent intake is actually only about a third of the total arrivals coming for 12 months or more (that comprise net overseas migration), most of whom are students or “short-term” workers here for up to four years, all of whom – nevertheless – still need a roof over their heads, some means of support, and ways to get around.

The issue with immigration is not just quantity, although at present record levels it’s driving wages down, housing costs up, and clogging infrastructure; critically, it’s also quality, the values and attitudes that at least some of our recent migrants are bringing with them, including overseas hatreds we used to think had no place in our country.

This is where Peter Dutton’s recent statement that he would stand in front of one flag only, not three, is an encouraging sign of his understanding that voters – migrant voters too – want to hear less from our leaders about our diversity and more about our unity.

Multiculturalism – the notion all cultures are equal and that a culturally diverse immigration intake would liven up a supposedly dull Anglo-Celtic monoculture – seemed harmless enough when all it meant was more foreign food and a wider selection of TV viewing via SBS.

The migrants from eastern and southern Europe who poured in after World War II were far too grateful for the better life Australia offered to stay too long in any ethnic ghetto. Likewise, the Vietnamese, Chinese and Indians who’ve come in vast numbers since the 1970s have come to join us, not change us, and have largely integrated into the wider Australian community.

The problem that official Australia has been tiptoeing around for years – which has become totally obvious since October 7, and the subsequent routine anti-Semitic protests and worse – has been the growth of substantial Muslim communities, mostly concentrated in parts of Sydney and Melbourne, which seem to identify more with their fellow Muslims in Gaza than with their fellow Australians.

These are the Muslims – by no means all of the Muslims in Australia, it should be stressed, or even necessarily a majority – who bellowed their approval when one of their sheiks declared just after October 7, this is a “day of pride … a day of victory”.

Peter Dutton

These are the Muslims now being appealed to by organisations such as The Muslim Vote, and Muslim Votes Matter, almost exclusively focused on the rights and wrongs of Gaza, that are now running candidates with the specific aim of forcing the Albanese government to adopt an even harsher stand against Israel at the UN and elsewhere.

Unlike the politicians inclined to blather about the wonders of “diversity”, voters grasp that the pledge all migrants make when becoming citizens “to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey” should be taken seriously.

A recent survey, conducted for the Australian Population Research Institute, showed 80 per cent of voters wanted lower immigrant numbers; 80 per cent of voters agreed that Australia is “my special home too … just as it is for Indigenous people”; 67 per cent thought “we should deal with worker shortages by raising wages and improving skills training for locals” rather than “bringing in migrant workers”; 66 per cent agreed “we have enough diversity” and “need to encourage national unity and a shared Australian identity”, and; 59 per cent believed migrant “selection policy should include taking into account a migrant’s ability to fit into the Australian community”.

Plainly, there is a gap in the political market for a policy position that ditches multiculturalism in favour of an immigration policy that discriminates not on the basis of race or religion, but on the basis of values. Sooner or later, the electorate will turn to someone brave enough to say so.

As the world becomes more perilous, it’s more important than ever to discard everything that makes us weaker. That includes a multiculturalism that excuses people who reject the values of the country they live in.