Australians are entitled to object to mass immigration, multiculturalism and whatever else they like. If some people find that “troubling” that's their problem. People troubled by  opinions and beliefs other than their own are weaklings of the kind who expect to be protected by Big Brother from real life. 

Jabbering about Australia being a “settler country” doesn't change the fact, or the opinions if you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong, that there are too many people coming here too fast. 

That is bloody obvious to any intelligent person. And it has nothing to do with “indigenous peoples”, who were here before the rest of us. 

It is clear that these commo-cranks are locked into a  mass immigration, pro-Palestian, antisemitism, give the place back to the abos package deal, while they want more people to come here. It saves them from having to think. 

The so-called Opposition has to start opposing; dropping the Morrisononion idea that there is no culture war, and fighting that war. Ley's almost exact copy of Labor's reaction to the anti-mass immigration rallies - ignoring the majority of decent, patriotic Australians for virtue-signalling about a few make-believe Nazi ratbags was disgusting.

The American system is not perfect; Donald Trump is not perfect; but both are better than the here and now in Australia.

The education of this obviously young author and her generation was abandoned by the light-weight conservatives. She knows nothing of history, and what Australia was like before her parents came here. They arrived at a time when Australians were learning that they were to be foreigners in their own country. It was all come-on-down to any odds and sods who wanted to come here.

The culture war that has to be fought to get Australia back where it was, was ignored by Morrison, and it is now being deliberately suppressed with the fearmongering nonsense of climate change, Net Zero and their consequences of huge rises in the cost of living.

Both Labor and Liberals are the guilty parties. And, if there is to be a rise in the presence of Nazi imitators as things get worse, they need to look in a mirror to find the reason.

ttbn,

Every time you post, you demonstrate precisely why the so-called "culture war" is more about culture panic - a refusal to accept that Australia, like every functioning democracy, evolves. And your nostalgia for a past that never truly existed does more to expose your position than any counterargument could.

//The Opposition has to start opposing... fighting that war...//

Translation: You’re frustrated that even the Coalition isn’t embracing your culture-war talking points. Perhaps that’s because most Australians-including many conservatives-don’t want a politics dominated by rage, scapegoating, and imaginary Marxist takeovers. They want solutions, not slogans.

//Ignoring the majority of decent, patriotic Australians...//

You don’t speak for the majority. You speak for the loud minority that defines "patriotism" so narrowly it excludes anyone who doesn’t look or think like you. That’s not patriotism. That’s ethno-nationalism in drag.

//The American system is not perfect; Donald Trump is not perfect...//

No, he’s not. He’s a twice-impeached conman whose brand of grievance politics is actively dismantling democratic institutions. If you see that as a model for Australia, it tells us more about your politics than about our problems.

//She knows nothing of history...//

On the contrary, Malhotra shows far more awareness of Australian history than you do. She acknowledges both the reality of Indigenous dispossession and the benefits migrants have brought-without denying the need for civic cohesion. You, meanwhile, offer slogans, slurs, and fantasies of a whitewashed past.

//It was all come-on-down to any odds and sods...//

And yet here you are, using services, systems, and infrastructure maintained by those odds and sods-many of whom work harder, contribute more, and display more civic virtue than those who think "being born here" is a moral achievement.

You mistake discomfort with irrelevance. The country has moved on from your 1950s dreamscape. People like Malhotra aren’t asking Australia to erase itself. They’re asking for a version of it that includes everyone who calls it home-without erasing the history, values, or shared civic bonds that make it worth defending.

That’s not weakness. That’s modern nation-building. What you’re calling for is just… regression.

Be real, bloke. We don't have "staggered" immigration, it's staggering immigration. 1.4m in three years flat, 80% higher than Rudd even. That's why we marched. And Albanese hated it, which is why he had us smeared as vile, lawless, neo-Nazi, pro-Hitler, far right, extreme racists.

The lesson seems pretty clear. Albanese wants to destroy Australia as we knew or know it. MfA might be our least hopeless hope. Let's hope they learn from their mistakes in Melbourne, and regroup, early and often

Steve S

Good onya!

Great article

To me (a migrant from the UK who has lived here for more than three decades) the touchstone is whether migration benefits the pre-existing population. In Australia, historically, I think overwhelmingly it has. Migration has brought skilled workers and entrepreneurs that have benefited the economy, and diverse cultures and life experiences that have enriched society. But the system that has served us well is currently under strain in two respects, and unless we address these we risk igniting the vicious and often overtly racist hostility to migration that is erupting in Europe and the USA.

The first is that the sheer numbers of migrants in recent years has exceeded our capacity to comfortably absorb them. In the past three years, net overseas migration has totalled over 1.1 million people, and while net migration of 445,640 in 2023-24 was down from the all-time high of 525,320 in 2022-23, it was still far higher than in any previous year. This has implications for housing affordability, infrastructure and access to health and other public services.

The second, which this article explores well, is the composition of the migrant intake, and what is expected of them. Too often this debate is framed as a binary opposite – either migrants must completely assimilate or are to be left to maintain unchanged the customs, values and worldviews of their homeland. But I think that both migrants and the pre-existing population benefit most when we land somewhere between these – expecting migrants to accept and respect the core values of their host society while enjoying and sharing the riches of their original cultures. The author seems to be an excellent example of this

Dear Aarushi (the author),

Having been born to an Indian family, you should have learnt at home that identity is a disease, that mistakenly thinking of our infinite self (Atman) as this or that limited expression of God, rather than God/Brahman Himself, is the source of all pain.

This time around, your body happened to be born in Australia, but before that your bodies have been born and lived practically everywhere - you do not belong to any of these countries because you are far far greater than any country or even any planet or galaxy, it just so happened that being born this time in Australia serves your prarabdha karma best so you can learn and grow.

By all means, be fair to others, give them a fair go, treat them well, be their good friend - these are universal values, to see God in every being, great or small: for that there is no need to be "Australian".

By encouraging others to develop or preserve an identity, be it "female", "male", "lesbian", "gay", "straight", "young", "old", "short", "tall", "Indian" or "Australian", etc., you are not doing them a favour but rather entrench their false identification with the limited, thus prolong their pains. I wouldn't call that fair.

Steve,

No one here is denying the current migration intake is historically high - or that it’s putting pressure on infrastructure, housing, and services.

What’s being questioned is the leap from that legitimate concern to waving placards about "invasions," burning flags, and blaming multiculturalism for everything from rent prices to national decline.

You want staggered immigration? Great. That’s what Malhotra actually called for. What she didn’t do was use that as an excuse to peddle culture-war hysteria or reduce civic identity to skin colour and slogans.

//That’s why we marched. And Albanese hated it…//

Albanese’s reaction wasn’t about peaceful protest - it was about the optics and associations. When your movement fails to clearly disavow swastikas, Sieg Heil salutes, or banners with white-replacement rhetoric, you lose control of the message.

That’s not on the media. That’s on the organisers.

//Albanese wants to destroy Australia as we knew it.//

This is the kind of overreach that drives people away from your cause. You can make a strong case for reforming immigration without claiming the Prime Minister wants to obliterate the nation. Statements like that don’t inspire change; they inspire paranoia.

//MfA might be our least hopeless hope…//

If that’s true, then you should want MfA to mature - not double down on the Melbourne debacle. That means clear boundaries, clearer messaging, and a willingness to engage people who might agree with your concerns but are turned off by your company.

The way forward isn’t in louder outrage. It’s in smarter articulation. Otherwise, you'll keep attracting attention for all the wrong reasons and driving the very centrists you need further into disengagement.

P.S. The author isn't a "bloke."

The more things change the more they stay the same....
Just about sums it up.
https://theshovel.com.au/2023/01/26/migrants-failing-to-assimilate-200-year-study-finds/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=migrants_failing_to_assimilate_200_year_study_finds&utm_term=2025-09-02
Acknowledgements to The Shovel.

The Author, good essay.
JD and Rhian, good posts.
However Australia is a finite size, when is enough, enough? When the bucket is full it will overflow and cause problems.
We must save and respect the Environment because it is that which keeps us alive.
There is no answer.

Dear Rhian,

«accept and respect the core values of their host society while enjoying and sharing the riches of their original cultures. The author seems to be an excellent example of this»

Possibly, but I find no evidence to that in the article, not the latter part anyway. If at all she enjoys and shares the reaches of her original culture, then she must be doing so in private with the doors and windows closed.

What I see is an apologetic young lady who is desperate to assimilate and be more Australian than the Australians, going to great lengths to ensure that her emerging legal career will not be hindered by her ethnic background. To over-prove her loyalty, she even goes as far as taking on her innocent young shoulders the guilt for the mistreatment of Australian aboriginals, despite she or her family never wronged them.

As the poison of nationalism rose in Europe, European Jews tried that obsequious approach, starting with their twisting replies to Napoleon following the French revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_and_the_Jews). Needless to say, that has not saved them from the Auschwitz gas chambers.

Simply sad.

Fairly narrow minded for a law student.

"At its core, the idea of being 'anti-immigration' in Australia is contradictory."
- No it's not, you just 'identify' as an immigrant.
I'm at least 12th generation Australian with a small amount of indigenous ancestry, you want to call me a settler?
You can't even say 'Australian - Indian', you don't even put the country you were born in first.

"To position yourself as anti-immigration, while benefitting from the same events that took place in the past"
- Those peoples families likely built this country, and went to war for this country whilst your parents just showed up in my 12th generation lifetime.

">..wanting to talk about an Australian identity is not something that should be dismissed as xenophobic or politicised."
- Australia is a pile of dirt, it has no identity or feelings.
Individuals do and they have a broad range of opinions on different matters.

"Yet, too often, when people like me say we are 'Indian-Australian', it is met with ridicule – as though dual identities somehow make us less Australian. Where is the political narrative that educates this settler society and provides for second-generation immigrants, young people like me to stand firmly in both identities at once?"
Dual identities - dual loyalties.
- I'm Australian - Australian, are we the same?
You offend me saying I need to be educated.
I spent more years of my life being Australian than before you were even born.

"Nevertheless, in my own circles, I do see the challenges clearly."
- Your immigrant oriented circles.

[Cont.]
"I also do not see any initiative calling for migrants to assimilate to an Australian identity, YET, Australians are expected to understand other cultures and somehow pivot to their needs, 'lest we offend'."
- No, because a white person would be called racist by you immigrants if they said it.
It's not my job to assimilate to the country immigrants came from.
- It's immigrants expectations which offend.

"How then, can we sit in silence when the Australian flag is burnt and trivialised to 'just a piece of silk'?
- You can't control what others do, maybe they're burning it because there's too many immigrants telling us what and how to think.
People like yourself, whose opinions might one day become laws.

"Rather, we call for migrants to live as separate communities with their own identities."
That's not true, immigrants stick with their own because there is no real shared identity and people are naturally tribal, (just as you hang out with other immigrants and the university crowd) and especially so when they can't speak English.

Can you see, Aarushi?

By Armchair Critic's last response, he will NEVER accept you here, no matter how hard you try to appease him - Better stop trying!!

You come from a glorious culture of the great Rishis, who wrote down, studied and chanted the four Vedas in the divine Samskrita language, amongst whom were born and lived God's great Avatars, Shri Rama and Krishna, among whom Lord Shiva produced his magical Jyotirlingas, the culture which followed Sanatana Dharma and found and worshipped God in everything.

What is there to assimilate into?
A barbaric culture that worships booze, meat and gambling; which cruelly enslaved their own poor, bringing them here in chains, sentenced to 14 years of hard labour and the whip for stealing a loaf of bread; a culture that killed off the indigenous population with their alcoholism - the poor aboriginals who (good on them) for 10,000's of years built no previous genetic tolerance to that madira toxin; a culture who's highest ideals are commerce, entertainment and punishment and who use an akrita language to fit these "practical" lower ideals.

Nothing of course prevents you from CAREFULLY selecting and picking up some of their better achievements, such as in music, art, literature and material science.

Just ignore them who take pride in their slime and claim this whole God-created continent as if it were they who made it themselves, as if it was legitimately theirs by the sheer brute force of guns - it is naturally yours no less than theirs!

You make a good point Yuyutsu,
My Great great great great great great great great great great Grandfather Angus dating back to the 1810's (but I still couldn't find him in any fleet passenger manifest), came in chains for stealing a sheep. Was he a 'settler'?

You can't be accused of being a settler when you came here with a gun pointed at your head. Am I a settler because of the small amount of indigenous I have in me too, due to my grandfather marrying a part indigenous woman in the 1940's?

"By Armchair Critic's last response, he will NEVER accept you here, no matter how hard you try to appease him - Better stop trying!!"

I've got no problem accepting Aarushi as an Australian citizen or sharing her opinions, she has every right to do so but like I've always stated you put your views out there, and you're opening the door for others people responses.

She talks about educating people, and yet she's barely old enough to have any real lifetime learned wisdom, she's a student, may or may not still live with the parents, that said I credit her for having a go. This article might primarily be a product of many years discussion with her parents at the kitchen table.

Why can't you just call yourself Australian?
You think your name and photo doesn't give away your ethnicity?

This is no different than Foxy's old arguments when her parents were immigrants but she was born here.
Second generation immigrants still identify as immigrants and promote immigrants it seems.
Immigrants for immigrants, may as well have Albo here saying vote Labor.

[Cont.]
That said I'm not necessarily criticising Aarushi, rather the substance of her article.
She seems to think we should all be re-educated to think the exact same way, in a way that accommodates her.

But we are not all cloned robots, we are all unique individuals and we all have different opinions based on different life experiences, and there's no law stating any of us have to agree with each other.

And lets face it the blue collar worker used to be the majority before manufacturing nose-dived, and that made the white collars the only game in town, but these University people never seem to be completely in touch with things to begin with, living in their insulated echo chambers.

You tend to have these kinds of generic opinions from University students, because that's how they are trained to think, especially when being prepared for business environments when companies can be exposed to liability and litigation.

And I just binge watched 8 seasons of 'Suits', these legal people are supposed to be smart thinkers, and I think Aarushi hasn't yet dug into the nuances of the topic deep enough, but she's only young.

She doesn't identify as a second generation Australian,
She identifies as a second generation immigrant.
If that's how she sees herself, as an immigrant, then why complain and tell everyone else they need to be educated?
She's the kid at school, assuming everyone else is an idiot beneath her.
My distant indigenous relatives died in the Frontier wars, does her article give me a 'fair go' when she calls me a settler?
We ALL read the Rainbow Serpent in primary school, those of us that went to primary school in this country that is.

How many generations do you have to have until you just call yourself Aussie, and stop being divisive.
I don't need to be educated, I don't need to assimilate to anything.
She's the one identifying as an immigrant and trying to rewrite the rules, not me.
Her idea of Australia seems to be an immigrants hostel.
That said I wish her well.

Dear Critic,

«Why can't you just call yourself Australian?»

- Because we are not, neither me, nor you nor Aarushi, nobody is.

We were already born trillions of times, not only in different countries but also in different planets, galaxies and universes, not only as humans even, so what has the country in which we happen to presently park our body for a while, to do with us?

Coming from an Indian background, Aarushi should be able to quickly understand my first post where I explain that identity is a disease, so one better not acquire another one. Yet for you who comes from a culture that believes that we live only once, getting this concept may be more difficult.

I am not calling myself anything.
I try to rid myself of any existing vestiges of identification, all false - not acquire another, least of all to identify with violent organisations such as states.

I do not identify with my passports: I used to need them for travel, wishing we didn't have to have them in the first place, but now as I am unlikely to ever travel again in my current body, I probably no longer need them. Mind you, when our present body falls dead and we migrate to another baby body in a different country, we carry no passport and no human is able to check where we came from and decide whether or not to allow us into our new country of birth!

«Second generation immigrants still identify as immigrants»

Possibly, but like any other identification, that limits them and thus does not make them any happier. It is best for them not to identify as anything whatsoever. People consider me as a first generation immigrant, that is their choice, nothing I can do about it, but I do not identify as an immigrant and laugh it off when new immigrants think of me as a native Australian who has always been here...

Dear Yuyutsu

I take your point about sharing, but the author does seem to cherish both Australian values and her own cultural heritage.

I don’t read in her tone a desperation to be accepted, but rather a willing embrace of something she values. Most migrants, myself included, are here because we chose to be here and have an active preference for Australia over the places we left and other places we could have gone. For this reason, migrants sometimes have a deeper appreciation for life in Australia than the native-born who take its blessings for granted. For second-generation people such as Aarushi, things can be more complicated. They rightly share the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship but need to work out their identity and can be affected by racism and social disadvantage suffered by migrants and their children. By the third generation much of this often works its way through. Racism against people of Italian ancestry was once common in Australia. Now it is rare.

As I recall this has been called the “three As” – assimilation, alienation, accommodation – across the generations.

I see your point about “over-proving”, but I don’t think that’s the case here. Some of the hostility to migration we have seen recently is a backlash against overt support for Islamofascism violence seen in demonstrations, for example the ones celebrating Hamas’s atrocities on 7 October and subsequent marches including chants of “death to the IDF”, along with the horrific rise in anti-Semitism. If Australia’s relatively high migration intake imports these attitudes to the detriment of our society, then migration will become a divisive issue as it is becoming in Europe, and may lose its “social licence”. And hostility to migration can quickly morph into more generalised racism. That’s why I agree with the author’s calls to better integrate migrants into the community and be more selective in who we admit

Dear Rhian,

When you have three cultures: A, B and C, where A is more refined than B and B is more refined than C, I see no valid reason why followers of culture A should compromise and lower themselves to the level of B, how less so identify with B, just because people in general are afraid of C, not even if that fear is justified, not even if followers of B fail to differentiate between A and C.

Then of course, there are those who were born in culture A but either drifted away or did not receive adequate cultural education to begin with. It is sad to see them settling for B.