Foreign Policy, Politics

In Defence of the Immigrant—A Response to Lauren Southern  

Australian news coverage has been dominated in recent days by self-styled Canadian right-wing “provocateur” Lauren Southern — a 23 year-old Youtube personality who travels the world, speaking out on issues ranging from anti-feminism to multiculturalism and immigration. Southern believes that Australia should not accept immigrants from Asia or Africa. “Do you want to retain your culture?” she asks fans in a recent video promoting her Australian tour. “Do you want to retain your borders, family, identity? Or will the boats keep coming? Will the no-go zones keep growing? And will you become another victim of multiculturalism?”

Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter that the boats stopped long ago and these ‘no go zones’ do not exist in Australia — plenty of followers have skolled the Kool-Aid. It certainly helps that protesters drawn to her recent Melbourne show resorted to storming the stage in a bid to shut the event down after the Victorian police slugged her promoters with an unjustified $68,000 security bill — both events which have helped her promote her tour while drawing sympathy from sections of the public.

Southern professes that her views are not racist, telling us that her criticism of Muslims could not possibly be racist since Islam is a religion and not a race. Yet she conflates the concepts of race and culture when they suit the anti-immigrant narrative she seeks to weave. She tells us that the only way to preserve Western values is if we limit or exclude immigration from countries which aren’t White.

One wonders what Western value she was trying to preserve when she joined a European far-right group in blocking boats involved in search-and-rescue missions for asylum seekers stranded on leaky rafts in the Mediterranean Sea. When an asylum seeker boat capsized near Christmas Island 8 years ago, resulting in deaths, Australians of all political stripes showed compassion and sympathy in the wake of a tragedy and directed their anger toward the people smugglers and government policies responsible. Sadly, this is a compassion which Southern seems to lack despite showing compassion elsewhere —for example, in her coverage of attacks on white South African farmers.

There is certainly a wrong way to do immigration and the European approach in recent years is a prime example. Pressuring less-wealthy countries to accept asylum seekers, many of whom entered the continent with little vetting, has given far-right parties a cause celebre while raising legitimate concerns about national security, crime, and free-riding on welfare. It has also raised the concern that economic migrants are taking the places of those genuinely fleeing persecution.

Other genuine concerns include the disproportionate influx of young men without family support, distinguishing those fleeing persecution from those fleeing poverty. Over a million asylum seekers entered Germany with the backing of Chancellor Angela Merkel who was finally forced to back down after a political backlash which has seen far-right parties not only rise in Germany but across the continent in Italy, Hungary, Austria and Poland. Even billionaire George Soros, a public enemy of the anti-immigration crowd for his funding of progressive organisations, declared earlier this year that the migration crisis one of the greatest threats to the European Union’s survival — vocally backing the right of EU member states to determine whether they will accept refugees — surprising many of his detractors.

Although Europe’s ‘open borders’ and the sheer volume of immigrants can be blamed for the problems, the blame also lies with welfare policies and industrial regulations which act as disincentives to finding gainful employment. Bad policies have paradoxically led to many asylum seekers depending on the charity of European taxpayers for longer than they would need to, leading to the ghettoisation of some communities. Due to strict laws which protect native workers’ rights, many newcomers are forced to rely on the black or grey labour market, leaving them vulnerable to threats, crime and exploitation. Yet incentivising immigrants to work through the loosening of industrial regulations and the paring back of welfare would hasten their integration into wider society and dispel the uncomfortable image of groups of unoccupied men congregating at train stations and other public places.

The Australian experience has been markedly different. While the government’s ‘turn back the boats’ policy remains controversial, it has allowed for stricter controls and vetting of new arrivals and has decimated the market of exploitative people smugglers. As a result, headlines about drownings off our northern shores have not been seen in years. It has also meant a decline in the number of asylum seekers who continue to languish in offshore detention centres.

Satyajeet Marar

There are calls to implement tests for cultural values including respect for the rule of law and freedom of speech amongst other things we broadly value. And why not? A vast majority of immigrants come here seeking a better life precisely because Australia is seen to uphold those values. As an immigrant from India where anti-blasphemy laws have led to the persecution of atheists, Australian values was certainly one of many draw-cards for me. The same can be said for many immigrants from places like Iran and the Palestinian territories. To Southern, none of this matters because of the place of birth on our passports. But hey, this is about culture and not race, right?

Australia’s Skilled Immigration Points Test also means that we can accept high per capita immigration and not worry about migrants not being able to contribute to the economy. Immigrants are more likely to start businesses that employ people and pay taxes that support our ageing population. While some neighbourhoods take on an ethnic character over time, this by no means implies the existence of a ‘no go zone’ or any lack of integration. Social scientist and urban planning professor Sandeep Agrawal of Ryerson University notes that integration is a multi-generational, ongoing process and a reflection of an individual’s values and their participation in wider public life — not their postcode.

This is by no means limited to non-white immigrants. Predominantly Italian and Greek neighbourhoods continue to retain their character and an overrepresentation of these demographics in parts of our major cities decades after they sprung up. In many cases, one generation of immigrants moves on as another moves in, as seen in the Toronto, Canada area where traditionally Italian, Jewish and Portuguese neighbourhoods have gradually given way to newer arrivals from Brazil and other nations.

It is perfectly possible for someone to practice their Islamic faith, speak the language of their heritage with their relatives, eat their traditional food and still remain a patriotic Australian who speaks English, works hard or runs a business, cheers the Socceroos and respects our laws. Coalitions of Islamic community organisations have vocally condemned terrorist and terror-sympathising groups. Why wouldn’t they? A vast majority of the victims of these groups are Muslims. Many have fled here from countries which have fallen prey to groups like ISIS taking advantage of power vacuums created in-part by failed Western foreign policy and military intervention. This is a vastly different picture to the caricature painted by Southern which reflects a small minority she actively seeks out to portray as the norm.

The Trump administration recently received flack for ignoring a report that found that even refugees in recent decades have been a net benefit to the system, paying their fair share in tax despite a reliance on government services by many to get a start in their initial years. This net fiscal benefit is likely to broaden once the impact of their children and grandchildren are factored in.

None of this denies that different communities have their own issues. Malcolm Turnbull recently spoke out about African gang crime in Melbourne. There is no denying the overrepresentation of Sudanese youths in statistics for some crimes, including violent crimes, relative to their population size. And this an issue that has been raised by members of their own community. If we fail to have a frank discussion about these difficult issues and how to address them, we don’t just let Melbournians down, we let the Sudanese Australian community down. However, the discussion must acknowledge all the facts — Melbourne is undergoing a general spike in youth crimes and certain violent and sexual offences.

Australia is by and large, a successful pluralistic, multiethnic society where people of all stripes, racial and ethnic backgrounds are part of a dominant culture while retaining aspects of their cultural heritage and individual identity. Although this integration is never immediate and can sometimes be an intergenerational process, prudent policy decisions mean that we’ve avoided the pitfalls made in European nations and continue to fine-tune a system that welcomes people willing to embrace our way of life. Debate continues about our intake of immigrants due partly to stresses placed on our urban infrastructure and services by population growth and ensuring that everyone feels a part of the Australian project as they settle and build a new life as Australians. If these issues are to be resolved, our positions must be rooted in reality. Not the emotive dictates of demagogues.


Satyajeet Marar is a Sydney-based writer and former president of Macquarie University Liberal Club.   


  1. martti_s says

    The writer totally ignores the Jihad by immigration which is a real reality with a goal to turn the new home country to Shariah and prepare it for the Caliphate. He also neglects the fact that there is a smuggling industry where the people ported to Europe are not at all refugees but people whose goal is to get to Europe to profit from the social benefits and standard of living.
    For instance Denmark has an immigrant population of 5% who comprise 40% of the expenses of the social security.

    Lauren Southern is NOT racist let alone supremacist. Her worry about the way the Western societies are degrading under the strain of uncontrolled immigration is real.Polygamia, child marriages, honor killings, FGM and sectarian violence are problems that the West has refused to see or discuss in the media. The pressure has mounted, the political balance is disturbed, free speech is going down the drain and the media is tainted, earning its ‘fake’ attribute better and better avery day..

    The S***thole countries are expulsing their citizens. Africa has 150 million people ready to take the trip to Europe. This is a real problem that will not go away if we look elsewhere.

    • Jack B Nimble says


      ‘……Denmark has an immigrant population of 5% who comprise 40% of the expenses of the social security…..’

      This nearly 20-year old claim about Danish immigrants [source — ] has no independent verification, apart from being repeated verbatim on other web sites like freerepublic. The ‘data’ were supposedly leaked by a pro-immigration Danish MP, Ritt Bjerregard, which seems implausible.

      Interestingly, Southern’s own grandparents were immigrants FROM Denmark [ ], and she is very comfortable with white – to – white immigration [ twitter[dot]com /lauren_southern /status /969568183483957249 ]. Hmmmmmm……

      • Constantin says

        Mr. Nimble,

        The “unverified” fact you dispute is in fact more than solidly documented. It is true that the MSM is not in a hurry to show these disturbing statistics. However, to satisfy your curiosity I refer you to this policy explanation by the Danish Social Democratic Party: The numbers can easily be worked out by someone with access to a handheld calculator: “The contradictions between a liberal immigration policy and the continued existence of the welfare state has most recently been emphasized in an analysis from the Danish Ministry of Finance, which shows that immigration from third world countries costs the Danish exchequer more than DKK 30 billion (€4bn) a year. ” Compare that with the social protection budget and you will see that Daniel Pipes has been ultra-conservative in his estimate. The “data” is now “leaking” from sources you may deem more credible. LOL

        • Jack B Nimble says


          According to Hansen et al., non-Western immigrants DO contribute to the Danish economy through direct taxes and VAT, in a proportion roughly equal to their numbers relative to the overall population size–that is, they are not free-loading on native citizens.

          Because non-Western immigrants often have lower education and skill levels than natives, their per-capita contribution to the Danish economy is less, leading to a small net negative effect. This net negative effect is nowhere near that implied by Pipes et al. The 2014 estimate was a TOTAL [not per capita] net negative expenditure of 550,000,000 Euros for 1st-gen non-Western immigrants and 1,680,000,000 Euros for offspring of 1st-gen immigrants. The net amount is basically the difference between taxes paid by non-Western immigrants and value of govt. services received. Although these raw sums may seem large in absolute terms, they are 1.8% of the total annual public budget in Denmark. That is hardly a crushing burden.

          Source — Hansen, M.F., Schultz-Nielsen, M.L. & Tranæs, T. [2017] The fiscal impact of immigration to welfare states of the Scandinavian type. J Popul Econ 30: 925-952. See especially their Table #2.

    • Kenneth Eisenberg says

      You’ve stated some valid under reported trends. FGM is particularly horrible and as a result doctors in the US are performing procedures to prevent subsequent mutilation and death of the victims.

      Polygamy and child marriage are two other serious problems imported by third world migrants. Government’s pianissimo response is a legitimate cause of anger.

      Jewish citizens in Europe are subjected to daily assault by Muslims from Africa, and the Middle East.

      Sexual assaults frequent by male Muslim mobs from these countries seem unstoppable.

        • Vincent Lam says

          This is truly eye-opening. As an Pan-Asian immigrant, the worst ideology I can espouse is Consumerism, while repulsive to some locals, causes no imminent harm to society at large. To know that there are places a critic can’t go and run the risk of being arrested is a true failure of multiculturalism.

    • Idris Lahawi says

      The writer is Indian, and Australia has seen a mass influx of Indian migrants into the country. There’s no wars in India or poverty in the sense for educated folks. Yet, they ALL want to migrate to White territories. I don’t see Indians trying to migrate to Japan, or China. Why do they always want to flock to white majority countries?
      Anyhow, the real point that this author doesn’t get is that mass migration from third world shi*holes, the migrants DON’T assimilate, but rather, they segregate. And I say this as an Egyptian immigrant to the United States, with a brown complexion. I notice that none of the fresh off the boat immigrants, specifically from India, Middle East, and some Chinese, choose to assimilate with their neighbors. Instead, they want to live in neighborhoods that are segregated from American whites, and live with one of their own. The flock to a Chinese only neighborhood with Chinese restaurants, or the Indians will live in an Indian neighborhood surrounded by Indian restaurants. Where is the damn assimilation?
      Furthermore, even though I have an American passport, I’ve notice on my trips to Africa, the local African people don’t consider non-white/non-black American citizens as Americans. So if you’re Chinese American, they just call you Chinese from China. Same with Indians.
      Lauren Southern is NOT racist, and she doesn’t stand for political correctness as this stupid author does. Mass immigration is a problem for countries. Plain and simple. I came to America to eat burgers and apple pies, not samosas and chaat masalas.

  2. Cameron Downey says

    Hi Satyajeet,

    It is refreshing to read an article on immigration that isn’t headed with “Racist bigot wants to keep neighborhoods white” or something to that effect. On the issue of ‘Turn back the boats’ policy, it is interesting where the sentiments of proponents of this view may lie. The fall in migrant deaths and ‘decimation’ of human traffickers is surely a good thing? Perhaps it is possible that advocates for this policy are acting with the preservation of human life as their paramount motivator? This may or may not be the case, but I feel this discussion has been stifled by criticism of a person’s moral character and a vying against those with a different viewpoint to promote one’s moral superiority.

    I am personally indifferent to your background and how you arrived in Australia. I do however, think that some of the wind blowing in any of your critic’s sails will have decreased as they are forced to challenge you on your points, rather than your ‘white privilege’ or ‘fascistic nationalistic’ standpoint.

  3. John says

    “She tells us that the only way to preserve Western values is if we limit or exclude immigration from countries which aren’t White.”
    Do you have an actual quotation for that?

    • Shenme Shihou says

      He doesnt. In fact, Im pretty sure I have never heard Southern complain about East Asian immigration. I dont even think she has mention immigration from Muslim countries such as Indonesia. Southern is really only concerned with mass migration from countries with cultures hostile to democracy- specifically Middle Eastern and Central Asian muslim countries.

      The author is saying “It is perfectly possible for someone to practice their Islamic faith, speak the language of their heritage with their relatives, eat their traditional food and still remain a patriotic Australian who speaks English, works hard or runs a business, cheers the Socceroos and respects our laws.” Which, of course, no one denies. What Southern argues, as far as I can tell, is how much does that happen when mass economic migration goes unchecked?

      The debate isnt “can immigrants assimilate”, the question is “how well do immigrant from mass migration assimilate”. Right wing Southern argues that Middle Eastern and East Asian Muslims dont assimilate and ‘left wing’ Linda Sarsour says they shouldnt.

      • Shenme Shihou says

        *Middle Eastern and East Asian Muslims* should say Middle Eastern and Central Asian Muslims.

      • @ Shenme Shihou

        I think you are doing it on purpose now. Before at least you might not have known about her.

        “I dont even think she has mention immigration from Muslim countries such as Indonesia.”

        When she is against Muslim immigration, why does she have to name every single country?

        “Southern is really only concerned with mass migration from countries with cultures hostile to democracy- specifically Middle Eastern and Central Asian muslim countries.”

        The her flirtation with silly conspiracy theories and with white nationalist groups should end… and as must:

        “He doesnt.”

        No just her tweet linking to a document which makes it pretty clear who the right type of immigrants are.

        I am not quite sure why the conservatives need or want such people and why such space is wasted on such figures.

        • Shenme Shihou says

          “When she is against Muslim immigration, why does she have to name every single country? ”

          Shes not against immigration. Shes again mass immigration from countries with cultures hostile to democracy. Her work with Generation Identity was targeted specifically at Lybians. She wasnt offering bacon to them to make sure they are Muslim. Nor is she at the LAX protesting the Chinese as they exit the Delta terminal.

          She certainly doesnt like Islam

          “The her flirtation with silly conspiracy theories and with white nationalist groups should end… and as must:”

          Or else what? You gonna beat her up?

          “No just her tweet linking to a document which makes it pretty clear who the right type of immigrants are.

          So, where is the quote?

          “I am not quite sure why the conservatives need or want such people and why such space is wasted on such figures.”

          Idk, ask them.

          • @ Shenme Shihou

            “Her work with Generation Identity was targeted specifically at Lybians.”

            Playing dumb gets you nowhere and neither will sheer dishonesty such as this.

            “Or else what? You gonna beat her up?”

            Or else what do you think. She is a Racist. End of. And a response like that is certainly telling isn’t it.

      • Peter from Oz says

        ”“It is perfectly possible for someone to practice their Islamic faith, speak the language of their heritage with their relatives, eat their traditional food and still remain a patriotic Australian who speaks English, works hard or runs a business, cheers the Socceroos and respects our laws.” Which, of course, no one denies.”
        I don’t deny it is possible, but is as rare as hen’s teeth.

        • Andrew_W says

          “I don’t deny it is possible, but is as rare as hen’s teeth.”
          There are 650,000 Muslims living in Australia, the vast majority are patriotic law abiding Australians, if they we’re there would be much more that 0.6% of that population in prison.

          • Shenme Shihou says

            I doubt that. Pretty much no one is patriotic anymore.

          • Taylor says

            Patriotic and law abiding until it suits their religious calling to not be patriotic and law abiding.

    • Niley says

      Take a look at the countries she includes and the ones she omits from all of her talks about immigration. She has no issue with white immigrants despite their cultural values being inconsistent with western values.

  4. Chinese in Montreal says

    A well written piece, bravo!

    As a potential non-white immigrant in Canada myself, I do find that the left who style themselves as allies of immigrants are in actuality hurting my chance of becoming one with their indiscriminate compassion and suffocating political correctness. At some point, there will be a backlash if problems caused by immigration are ignored and anyone who wish to talk about it is branded racist immediately, or when relatively straight forward measures to improve the quality of immigration like border patrol and vetting are hampered by emotive even hysterical charges like ” concentration camp”, “kidnapping children”. I understand that Canada or any other countries do not have an obligation to accept immigrants like me, and it is immigrants’ duty to convince the native population that we are of value to them. It certainly hurts the chance of folks like me if whenever people think of immigrants, they think of islamic terrorists/illegal immigrants/drug smugglers, etc.

    To be sure, I do think the West needs immigrants. Go have a look at Silicon Valley and some of the most prestigious research labs, they are filled with young, innovative and dynamic immigrants from around the world. And to be frank, for whatever reason, (to much cuddling by society perhaps?) native Canadians/Americans/Australians seem to favor relatively easy university programs like business, finance or humanities over hard core science and engineering. In my field of study, 90 percent of my fellow graduate students are non-white non-Canadian, and I suspect it is the same in US or Australia as well. Well, you guys do need engineers and scientists, right? Besides, based on current demographic projection, the welfare programs in the West is simply unsustainable without an influx of young, well-educated immigrants to maintain the population pyramid structure, or at least slow the aging of society. Japan and South Korea are some of the most conservative culture in the world, and they are forced to open their borders, not out of the goodness of their heart, but out of cold calculation of economic necessity.

    P.S. I understand most readers of Quillette are perhaps right of centre on the issue of immigration, and I applaud editors’ effort to introduce reasonable left of center point of view into this debate.

    • Burlats de Montaigne says

      “Go have a look at Silicon Valley and some of the most prestigious research labs, they are filled with young, innovative and dynamic immigrants from around the world.”

      That is hardly representative of the skill set of the vast majority of immigrants. Most are illiterate, low skilled manual workers who have nothing to offer but their labor. In the age of automation there is no longer a requirement for large numbers of manual workers…. except perhaps in the countries most of them come from.

      • “Go have a look at Silicon Valley and some of the most prestigious research labs, they are filled with young, innovative and dynamic immigrants from around the world.”

        And not to change the topic, how many citizens were let go to make room for cheaper immigrant IT workers?

        • Chinese in Montreal says

          @benita canova I would be surprised if Google and Facebook which have a starting salary over 100,000 CAD for recent graduates would take immigrants over native ones for cost saving reasons. It seems to me in today’s globalized world, a successful company competing on the global stage needs a global talent pool, other wise it would be at a disadvantage vis a vis its competitors. There is, for example, a clear demand for AI researchers that is not met even with a highly liberal immigration policy(
          It is highly unlikely any native AI expert would fear he will be displaced by cheap Chinese or Indian labour. The same is definitely true in a lot of areas, where employers are desperate to find qualified workers and are paying big money for it.

          @Burlats de Montaigne your impression is certainly wrong in Canada which has a points system . It is equally wrong in the US, which according to Pew research(, recent arrivals more likely than native to hold a bachelor degrees. You can argue about safety, culture etc which are hard to quantify, but in terms of economic benefit, the economists seem to be quite unanimous that immigration, even low skilled ones, in the end contribute more to public purse than they take in in terms of benefits.(

          • Robert Paulson says

            @ Chinese In Montreal

            ” I would be surprised if Google and Facebook which have a starting salary over 100,000 CAD for recent graduates would take immigrants over native ones for cost saving reasons. It seems to me in today’s globalized world, a successful company competing on the global stage needs a global talent pool, other wise it would be at a disadvantage vis a vis its competitors. ”

            I personally know people at Google who have told me otherwise.

            Also, regarding cutting-edge AI researchers, those are a very small segment of the labor force and do not represent most tech workers. Most programmers and analysts are in direct competition with foreign labor. You seem to have bought into the tech industry propaganda regarding a “talent shortage”. I suggest you examine their motives a little more closely – “talent shortage” = “worker bargaining power”, so of course they are going say that.

          • Burlats de Montaigne says

            Of course, “documented” immigrants are vetted and accepted based on their potential to add value to a society. However the vast majority of “immigrants” do not pas through any vetting procedure. Undocumented migrants, economic migrants and “refugees” make up the bulk of the incomers to my country. We were told that most of the unfortunate souls bobbing about in the Mediterranean were all doctors, nurses and professors. Somehow I doubt that. Those kinds of people buy plane tickets.

          • pjibs says

            “… recent arrivals more likely than native to hold a bachelor degrees.” I doubt Pew took into account the millions of not-legal arriving immigrants when measuring for bachelor degrees.

          • Cristiano Fernandez says

            I work at Google, and have worked at Netflix before I joined Google. I live in Silicon Valley so I can shed some truth to this matter. The vast majority of foreign workers that work in Silicon Valley, are NOT the best and brightest. Rather, the H1B visas that they are on, or the OPT work permit for International Student graduates, is more of a cheap labor program or indentured servitude system. Tech companies cry that there’s a “tech labor shortage”, but the truth is, they know that foreign workers all want the coveted green card to live permanently in America, so they know they’ll shut up, deal with a lower pay salary, and remain loyal to the company until the company finally sponsors them for the green card. That’s the vast majority of foreign workers I’ve encountered in Silicon Valley.
            Just to clear one point, America doesn’t need foreign workers to be the best in cutting edge tech. We put a man on the moon without foreign workers. Denmark is doing fine without foreign workers. So is Japan. So the argument that we need immigration to stay relevant is truly absurd.
            Silicon Valley is also not diverse. It’s all ASIAN – some diversity. Even White Americans get blocked out from tech jobs because the Asian manager prefers to hire one of his own. I’ve seen this happen in front of my eyes.
            This is not to say that a company like Google does not hire the BEST foreigners, it does. But guess what? Those foreigners are coming from countries like Spain, Romania, Germany, and Russia. What do they have in common? All White/European countries. Those foreign workers don’t care for green cards, and can always give the middle finger to Google if they are exploited for cheap labor. But in reality, they are specifically soughted for their genius abilities. Google wants to keep them so they get paid great with full benefits, and also Google has to get them green cards else their work visa durations expire and are forced to go back to their respective countries. In short, these specific foreign workers don’t work for Google so as to get a green card. The green card is awarded as a result of keeping them out of necessity. For Chinese and Indian foreign workers, they only come here to get green cards. A company knows that so they are the ones who get easily exploited.
            Not to mention, Silicon Valley is a hell hole with mass influx of migrants (China and India), and no assimilation to Western values. Just look at the number of Chinese and Indian restaurants. An American restaurant does not survive in Silicon Valley anymore.

    • Shenme Shihou says

      I dont think the West needs immigrants, but not many people are concerned with migration from East Asia. As I said before, I dont think Lauren Southern is even very concerned with East Asian migrants. Generally when someone is opposed to mass immigration (as virtually no one is opposed to immigration totally) they are not complaining about the disproportionate amount of Chinese nationals in the Duke University Medical Department.

    • Robert Paulson says

      “And to be frank, for whatever reason, (to much cuddling by society perhaps?) native Canadians/Americans/Australians seem to favor relatively easy university programs like business, finance or humanities over hard core science and engineering. In my field of study, 90 percent of my fellow graduate students are non-white non-Canadian, and I suspect it is the same in US or Australia as well. Well, you guys do need engineers and scientists, right?”

      I’m a white American who majored in STEM, and I totally agree with you. On the other hand, we don’t need the level of high-skilled immigration that we currently have. The majority of my graduate classes were filled with Chinese nationals here on visas who all got jobs with companies that would sponsor them while a lot of us Americans couldn’t find jobs after graduating.

      I just interned for a tech company that told me at the outset they were interested in training for full time, but during the internship they hired a bunch of H1-B’s from India and didn’t hire any of the interns, even though they told us we exceeded their expectations.

      While I agree with you that white Americans/Canadians need to hustle more, Asian countries that send immigrants here also have no problem protecting their domestic economies and putting their interests first. Do you know if any Asian tech companies that will sponsor Americans to immigrate and work over there? No, because they’re aren’t any.

      • Chinese in Montreal says

        Hi, thanks for your comment.

        I also have friends working for big Tech companies in Canada and US, though I myself is more of an academic type. While any labour is of course in competition with any other labour, there is a certain fixed pie fallacy that I would like to point out. I don’t think Facebook or Google or any tech company would be as big and successful and employ as many people directly or indirectly as they are today without immigrants. In the extreme case, Apple and Google would certainly not exist in the first place. Steve Jobs’ father was from Syria; Sergey Brin was born in Russia, and Eduardo Severin, the guy that was betrayed by Mark Zuckerberg in the movie Social Network (a fantastic movie BTW), was born in Brazil. It is totally understandable that a potential job seeker would like to have as little competitors as possible, it is also extremely important to keep in mind that the jobs that are being offered are not a fixed resources being divided up among a pool of job seekers, at least not so in the long term. Arguably the reason Silicon Valley is so fantastically successful and contribute so much to US economy is its very open culture. I very much suspect that this most successful part of US economy would not exist in the first place if the US had a closed door policy in place. Which is why when Macron want to recreate the success of Silicon valley in France, the first thing he did was to create an express tech visa category.

        I agree completely with your sentiment that Asian countries need to open up more. They are already doing that, though much tentatively. ( It would be quite ironic and tragic that just as Asia is becoming more like the West, the West is trying to reinvent nationalism. Although I don’t think it will come to that. the current phase seems more a rebellion against the excessive open door policy and excessive PC culture pursued by the left. Even Donald Trump seems to only want to have a points system a la Canada, not to shut the door closed completely.

        P.S. I am so sorry for your experience, I sincerely hope you will find some gainful employment very soon.

        • Jordan Ronhert says

          What does Steve Job’s father being from Syria have anything to do with pushing more open-borders policies into Silicon Valley? Steve Jobs is half white, and his Syrian Father and American Mother abandoned him and threw him up for adoption. He was raised by American parents! Sergey Brin was raised in America as a young child so he assimilated and is American as they can ever be. He’s also from Western values. Still not an argument to bring in fresh off the boat H1b workers from India and China. And Eduardo Severin has no real involvement in Facebook except act as a line of credit. He was thrown out of the company, and has since given up his US Citizenship and moved to Singapore. Again, he was raised in America as a child. He didn’t come on an H1B.
          It seems that you are alluding to that the United States, or Canada for that matter needs to just open to gate and allow every foreigner in with a STEM degree. So why just stop with you? Why not empty out every Chinese and Indian STEM graduate from their country and bring them here to America? When does it stop? When the labor supply reaches a point that it exceeds demand and wages go down the gutter for tech jobs? At least, that’s what the NAtional Science Foundation wanted to do as Eric Weinstein discovered. The H1b was to increase the labor supply to reduce wages for tech jobs. They succeeded. In effect, they also destroyed the culture of the Silicon Valley. Most white families (who are liberal and progressive by the way) are moving away from areas like Cupertino and Santa Clara, because they don’t want their kids to be studying alongside with Chinese and Indians, who have monopolized the academia system in those respective towns.
          Can you name me one Chinese American in the past 5 years that has created a publicly traded company that has been proven tech? I don’t think so. The same can be said about Indians. Facebook (started by an American). Google (Started by American born, and Russian born). Netflix (started by an American). Amazon (started by an American). Microsoft (started by an American). Apple (started by an American). All American, and all WHITE if you want to play the race card. So tell me, what have the foreign Chinese or Indian done lately? Being CEO of Google or Microsoft is not the answer I’m looking for.
          The reason you don’t see many Chinese American or Indian American founders of big tech companies is because the culture doesn’t teach them to be creative. It’s hit the books and just become another slave to the 9-5 corporate lifestyle.

    • Kenneth Eisenberg says

      Chinese in Montreal: the operational term is reasonable. In the US the opposition is not to immigration, but the illegal swarming that is occurring now.

      Yes, recognition of your radical “allies” on the radical left as poisonous is a start. These narcissist ‘neo-maoists’ see themselves as some revolutionary vanguard. They want disruption, racial and ethnic as the precursor of… they don’t know, most will lose interest, but the damage they are doing to the body politic may not be wholly repairable.

      (I have a Han daughter-in-law).

    • White & Proud says

      you got it right…”an influx of young, WELL-EDUCATED immigrants”

  5. I’ve been to middle eastern countries and experienced first hand what they call their ‘culture.’ It’s quite barbaric and chaotic by western standards. There’s no respect for rule of law and they don’t even know what a line is — they just circle around and grab like animals. Good luck assimilating, especially when there is zero desire to adopt western habits of common courtesy and self reliance.

    • Rob says

      Your grandparents probably said the same thing about Italians and Poles.

      • Maureen says

        So what if they did? Even if people in the past had criticisms about now well-integrated immigrant groups, you can’t make the logical leap that therefore ALL immigrant groups are entirely the same and will integrate with equal success. Are do you buy the hogwash that all cultures are equal? Those Italians and Poles could have just as well been Somalis or Bangladeshis and the outcomes would have been no different?

        • harrync says

          Maureen – A good point, which I don’t see expressed as often as it should be.

    • @ AA

      Which Middle Eastern country have you been to exactly? I don’t think you have – based on what you have said. Some of us have actually have been to ME – Iran, Oman, Syria, KSA, Qatar and Jordan. And I would add Egypt and Libya too.

      “There’s no respect for rule of law”

      There is. In fact the way rule of law is applied is precisely what the problem is. Middle Eastern countries rigidly apply rule of law and force their citizens to behave like Children by enforcing law through such a rigid illiberal culture code.

  6. Adam Procter says

    Enjoyed the piece but needed to point some things out.

    Firstly for the non-Australians, the author is actually conservative, we call our centre right party the Liberal Party where he is the former president for his universities chapter.

    One of the most often heard claims was that she blocked search and rescue boats, partially true, she blocked the ship when it was in harbour with no migrants on board. These ships have now been banned by both Italy and Libya as their direct link to people smuggling becomes more apparent. The first ship they banned was the ship she blocked.

    The counter narrative to the above is that with a right wing govt in Italy of course they blocked immigration.

    One point that deserved far more attention was the following; “this integration is never immediate and can sometimes be an intergenerational process”.

    This is where the real conversation needs to start, to write this concedes that people like Southern have legitimate concerns. How then can we integrate new arrivals into our culture quickly so as to create a positive outlook upon them. How do we create the conditions for perceived economic success in the future, so that any new arrival is not viewed as competition for diminishing resources.

    Here lies the real problem, immigrating people into a country where a brighter tomorrow is not perceived to exist.

    • Jordan Rouches says

      It’s a very simple thing to fix – you have to first limit the number of immigrants, put country quota caps, and put a cap on the number of immigrants you take. For example, no more than 100,000 new immigrants can come into Australia through work visa and permanent residency routes. Of those 100,000 spots, country caps should be enacted so China or India don’t unfairly eat up all available spots and create a less diverse pool. Lastly, you need to be taking in some really high end skilled folks (graduates from top 50 universities who have experience doing high level work), not some low tier database admin worker from India. You should also have interviews for residency to assess whether the person passes a assimilation test (speak really good English, shares same values, passess a civics test, and has a good moral record). The biggest thing is to really really limit the number of visas each year, and to work on the small batch of new migrants to assimilate. Bringing 2 Chinese fobs and putting them into a majority Australian born town would make it quicker for them to assimilate by force rather than bringing in 20,000 Chinese at once who would hang out with each other and form their own cluster instead of assimilating with the new host country.

  7. Hamr says

    There was so much intellectual tap dancing with/around facts, studies, statistics and policy in this article, that it should have had background music to enhance the reader’s experience.

  8. Stuart says

    A disappointing article where the defense of multiculturalism amounts to little more than the same tired “diversity will deliver us to utopia” arguments that are constantly spewed out by the various morally virtuous charitable institutes that our various property barons control in order to ensure an unending stream of more people

    Until Australia was recently deluged with this flood of people in the name of ‘multicultural enrichment’ Australian culture was 90% derived from people of Christian Western European decent with the majority of that coming from just 3 nations within the British Isles.

    Australian culture is BECOMING a mixture of what its absorbed – to the detriment of the host society that built this nation and generated the social capital that made it the envy of the world. Now, just like with Europe, we are absorbing a host of incompatible cultures and populating our cities with a large number of people people who neither like existing colonial white Australians nor wish to participate or be absorbed into our nation.

    Our cities are being stuffed with people from a cornucopia of different nations and cultures each blending a little bit of what it means to be Australian away from those cities that they’re inhabiting – in Tibet this behavior is referred to as cultural flooding and is recognised as a form of genocide, in Australia it is called ‘Multiculturalism’ and is celebrated.

    Policies that encourage multiculturalism and the mass migration of population groups from a different ethnic and cultural composition to the host society, effectively steals our major cities and our cultural centers away from the heartland Australian values that built our nation.

    Is it anyone people ask the question what does it mean to be Australian, when we’ve filled our cities with people from competing cultures? Every additional person and culture doesn’t enrich Australian culture – it dilutes it.

    At best will result in a bland global city, devoid of the unique character for which Australia was previously famous and culturally divorced from the heartland of Australia, which it feeds upon like parasites.

    At worst it will become descend into a corrupt dystopia, filled with corrupt ethnic enclaves, each competing with the other to see who can gouge the most out of the rest of Australia for their own communities benefit.

    Why work and sacrifice to built a better nation for yourself, your kids and your neighbors, when every bit of sacrifice is in turn monetised by corporate elites as they stuff the country full of more consumers – consumers who dislike your culture, dislike your people, and have no interest in anything that your society can offer, other than our welfare and and short cut to a better life?

    Australia was built – it was a first world nation with one of the highest standard of living in the world BEFORE we had multiculturalism forced down our throats by Peter Scanlon or Frank Lowy, simply so they could pack out their malls with more consumers.

    The migrants of today are not leaving their nations to carve our cities and farms from the bare earth, leaving everything and everyone they knew behind to travel to the other side of the world to build a new live with no guarantee of success – they’re looking for a short cut to a better life, at our expense, where even if they fail they’re still immeasurably better off than if they remained in whatever nation or culture they emerged from in the first place.

    Multiculturalism has delivered NOTHING other than a few tasty inner city restaurants and to sate the pallets of our intelligence, who grow fat on the proceeds that a swelling population delivers to them, while they side step or remain aloof too all the social costs that ordinary Australians end up incurring.

    • Rob says

      “Australian culture was 90% derived from people of Christian Western European decent with the majority of that coming from just 3 nations within the British Isles.”

      I thought Australia had a lot of Italians, Greeks, and other non-British immigrants who were regarded with extreme distaste by WASPs when they arrived?

      • Tubbles says

        There was quite a lot of discrimination to start with but the Non-British immigrants of the post war period quickly earned their stripes and respect. Symbolically the building of the Snowy Mountain Scheme from the late 40s, heavily reliant on hard working migrant labour, cemented this change of attitude. The fact that 121 workers of many different nationalities gave their lives working on that dangerous project is an enduring reminder of the commitment of that wave of migrants.

      • ‘I thought Australia had a lot of Italians, Greeks, and other non-British immigrants who were regarded with extreme distaste by WASPs when they arrived?’

        Well, that’s consistent with 90% people being of Christian Western European descent. The ‘majority’ coming from Britain could be as little as 46% of the total (ie. a bit more than 50% of the 90% of Christian Western Europeans). I have no idea if those figures are actually correct, btw.

    • Rafael says

      “Until Australia was recently deluged with this flood of people in the name of ‘multicultural enrichment’ Australian culture was 90% derived from people of Christian Western European decent with the majority of that coming from just 3 nations within the British Isles.”

      Australian culture was 100% indigenous until the British invaded and stole the land, inflicting genocide. That s not the fault of the descendants of those invaders, but to ignore that history in the context of a discussion about immigration is either sheer ignorance or white supremacy.

      • Stuart says

        So…. Australians should stand aside and allow their culture to be subsumed, give up all the social capital that they’ve worked to build and accumulate for the benefit of themselves and their children, simply because of transgressions that occurred nearly two centuries ago?

        Sins of the father aren’t the sins of the son and two wrongs don’t make a right. Pointing out transgressions of the past in no way helps justify the transgressions being committed today.

        • Tubbles says

          Exactly. Let’s open world history and reaffirm indigenous property rights going back to the stone age.

        • For god’s sake, this is never going to happen. Don’t be so dramatic. The migrant/ non-white population in most Western countries is about 10%. The media and politician make a big deal of it. But no, there’s no way that white people/ western culture ever be swallowed. There is a bit of clash of culture due to silly policies at the moment. However, that doesn’t mean that anyone should descend into wild anxiety.

          • Stuart says

            White Americans will never become a minority…
            (estimated date on which it will occur 2045).

          • AMW says

            Sorry but this is completely wrong. In many cities in the UK for example (including large areas of London) traditional native Britons are now in the minority. This wouldn’t be a problem if the non-native communities were integrating, but they aren’t. In a recent poll in London (for instance), tolerance of homoexuality was at its lowest for decades. Care to guess why? Time and again we are seeing the authorities applying different standards to law enforcement for ethnic communities for fear of either causing racial tensions or being labelled racist.
            if history teaches us anything it is that whatever the people within it think, no civilisation is immune to being consumed by another one.
            Western societies have fought long and hard for the freedoms we all take for granted (and which are not enjoyed by the vast majority of the rest of the world) – don’t be so sure that we can’t lose them.

          • Paul says

            i just read an article in the last couple of weeks that argued minority populations only have to be about 10% to have a significant effect on a culture. unfortunately i can’t remember where i read it but i did find a similar article on the freakonomics blog from way back in 2011- (

      • White & Proud says

        all backward peoples must be give way for the future.

    • White & Proud says

      Very true….I was in Spain back in the late 90s and while in Granada, I heard there was a Muslim section of the city where from afar I could see Muslims in old garb. I told my brother (who lives in Spain) to take me closer to check it out, but he said no, it was a NO GO ZONE for non-Muslims.

    • Lilliane Strauss says

      Really well said. When I ask American girls who love to travel what they think of Australian culture, they tell me “Surfers, Steve Irwin/Crocodile Dundee burly male types, and cool white guys with hot accents”. This is also indicative of Asian girls I have met. They don’t look at Australia as, “oh yeah, the Muslim Hijabi I’ll find there or the Indian guys”. Nope. When I go to Japan, the last thing I want to see is an enclave of Hijabis, or Indian people. They are NOT Japanese to me, even if they hold a Japanese passport.

  9. The West has become so inundated with postmodern magical thinking that it is now considered “refreshing” when a brave soul calls a spade a spade, not because they are referring to he social construction of a spade, but because in its being it reveals itself as a spade. So when statistical evidence suggests that Sudanese youth are exceptionally prone to violent criminality, there is no need to explain further — just let it be what it is in its being.

  10. Cheester says

    If you’re trying to defend Muslims as immigrants with good intentions for the places the move to, you are absurdly selective with the information you choose to take in or outrightly intellectually dishonest. No countries have become better by taking in large numbers of Muslims, and we’re seeing the absolute disaster that occurs when they do in Europe right now. If these people have so much to offer, why aren’t they making their own countries great? They’re victims of ISIS, which their own culture spawned? I’ll pass on taking that risk in my own backyard, thanks. Why are European governments censoring speech and limiting research into crime statistics involving the new waves of immigrants? If these people are as wonderful as they’re made out to be, surely we would find that their contributions to society greatly outweigh their detriment, right? This writer seems to have the same problem that almost all liberals have – they can’t make their arguments with a complete set of facts.

    Furthermore, you neglect to mention the fact that denying these boats entry has significantly lessened the deaths incurred by these hazardous, ill-planned excursions by reducing the number of attempts. Seems like it would be something that an intellectually honest person would include when discussing the topic.

  11. augustine says

    The absence of any sense from the author that it has been, and remains, a *privilege* to lawfully migrate to a prosperous and inviting country from one that is underdeveloped stood out strikingly. Numbers of immigrants (arrived mostly before 1990 I think) surely do harbor this sentiment but it is scarcely in evidence today. It is a cardinal sign of civilizational and social decay at an international level.

    The idea that multiculturalism and open immigration policy are a boon to humanity is not questioned in the least here. This is really the heart of his message. Mr. Marar merely concedes well-known concerns here and there and tells us they will assuredly melt into a harmonious future for all. (Isn’t that what history teaches us?). Perhaps he is genuinely appreciative of his good fortune to have residence in Australia but I wonder if he is not even more appreciative of his opportunity to escape a real multicultural dystopia (India).

    I have travelled in ME countries also and what AA says above about the differences are accurate. The people there may be lovely in their own way but in culture and tradition they are radically dissimilar. I wish them peace and prosperity– in situ– partly because I would not want to see *their* ways and peoples diluted to oblivion either.

    Are Australians or Europeans or Americans wrong to look at India’s religious and class strife and violence, centuries in the making and as potent as ever, and say to themselves “This is the future we fear we are headed for because globalists and Socialists have influenced our societies”?

    Who has the right to decide how a country should develop and who should be a part of it? Mr. Marar’s answer would seem to be rooted in assumptions based on an expansive, liberal vision that is sure to come if we only believe.

  12. Brett McSweeney says

    As with many things, it is the dose that makes the poison. A trickle of immigrants from almost any background can be handled and integrated and be widely welcomed by the local population in a country like Australia.

    The flood – as most of the west has been experiencing lately – not so much, and it is generating a lot of discontent, as can be seen from opinion polls on the levels of immigration. Forcing high levels of immigration onto our nation – for what purpose, exactly? – is extremely undemocratic.

    • Rob says

      I don’t know about Australia, but immigration rates to Canada peaked in 1900-1913.

      • augustine says


        Can you qualify your remark and tell us about the religious/ethnic/racial makeup of people immigrating during that peak period, c. 1900? And similarly, who was already established in Canada at that time?

        Should those considerations matter to us?

        • Rob says

          Primary sources of immigration in the period were Italy, Poland, and the Ukraine. All Catholic countries. All with extremely low literacy rates and extremely high birth rates. And considered culturally aliens by the anglo protestants of English Canada.

          The retroactive papering over the strong cultural antipathy between Protestants and Catholics, between immigrants of Northern/Western European and Eastern/Southern European origin, is remarkable. If your grandparents or great-grandparents were anglo protestants in North America, and you told them they were the essentially the same as dirty, illiterate papists, you’d get a punch in the face.

          “Pressed to increase immigration by business and railway interests with visions of an insatiable world demand for Canadian resources, Sifton and his immigration authorities balanced their ethnic anxieties against a frantic search for settlers. They listed ideal settlers in a descending preference. British and American agriculturalists were followed by French, Belgians, Dutch, Scandinavians, Swiss, Finns, Russians, Austro-Hungarians (see Austrians; Hungarians), Germans, Ukrainians and Poles. Close to the bottom of the list came those who were, in both the public and the government’s minds, less assimilable and less desirable, e.g., Italians, South Slavs, Greeks and Syrians (see Arab Canadians). At the very bottom came Jews, Asians, Roma people and Black persons.”

          It turned out not many British or Belgians wanted to settle in the rough Canadian prairies, so instead we got Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, and Jews fleeing hardship and pogroms. The cities got Italians and Greeks, who were regarded with extreme distaste by the locals.

          • Tubbles says

            There is always going to be animosity when you have migrant waves encountering local populations. I certainly remember the Catholic and Protestant battles of the 50s but at the end of the day, apart from a few punches and insults thrown here and there, we didn’t see prolonged open warfare. Nor did Little Italy or China Town become “No-Go-Zones” – at least not to the extent we are seeing today in Europe.

          • augustine says

            Any basis for animosity between Catholics and Protestants, or between Greeks and Danes, pales by comparison to civilizational differences between Europeans as a whole and Muslim or African societies. This fact appears to be amply supported by the actions of the Canadians you cite here. They could choose and they made their choices along particular ethnic and racial lines.

            Differences in cultural outlook and values matter but even more important is who gets to decide (Sifton et al. in this case). The overwraught politics of immigration today is far more concerning than issues of any differences between peoples.

          • KCJ says

            Rob, I would note that those groups were specifically targeted in order to populate the prairies as their experience with harsh winters was deemed necessary to survive homesteading on the prairies. This is somewhat different from the current situation where the cultural or geographic background of potential migrants is not (to my knowledge) a factor into their acceptance into Canada.

  13. Brian says

    Satyajeet, thanks for this thoughtful and moderate piece. But Brett has it right, it is all about the numbers, the dose will determine whether it’s medicine or poison for a previously dominant culture. The indiginous western European cultures look to be in serious, probably irreversible trouble.

    “The only different between a migration and an invasion is that the invasion is opposed by the recipient state.”

    In the end there are only TWO kinds of cultures:
    1) those that defend themselves and survive and

  14. Tubbles says

    For me it’s all about sustainable social responsibility. Western nations through naive humanitarianism have put themselves on a course to becoming sh**holes. The signs are everywhere. Just look at a single city like San Francisco. What happens when when every single country end to end is a sh**hole? How can that possibly be better for anyone?

    • Rob says

      Immigration has nothing to do with humanitarianism. Our economic system relies on growth, and you don’t get growth in a country with plummeting birth rates. Business owners want immigration so they get a steady supply of both cheap workers and consumers. Government planners want immigration because they know our social welfare systems (pensions, medicare, etc.) are a pyramid scheme that will collapse without new young taxpayers being relentlessly added to the base of the pyramid.

      You can disagree with both of those economic arguments for immigration. You can oppose businesses’ desire to keep labour costs down and the government need of new taxpayers. Just be aware of the trade-offs you’ll be making if we reduce the intake of immigrants. Most aging, developed countries are heading for demographic crisis as their ratio of younger worker/taxpayers to dependents relentlessly shifts from the 7:2 of the mid-20th century to the 3:2 of the near future.

      • But growth to infinity is the strategy of a cancer cell and most of us no longer see any benefit at all from overall economic growth.

        What we do see from immigrants of all stripes these days are gang rapes, drug dealing, larceny, homicides associated with drunken driving and do it yourself jihad, a sense of completely unmerited entitlement, contempt for the host population and demands welfare and special consideration in employment and admissions to colleges.

      • Tubbles says

        There are many ways to skin a cat. Hungary and Poland are now fast approaching replacement fertility rates. In fact now that I think of it, Hungary may have already hit a fertility rate of 2.1 in the last year. So plummeting native birthrates can be turned around very quickly if you implement family friendly policies. In the meantime, you can continue a highly selective immigration policy to ensure skill shortages are met.

        • Tubbles says

          Correction. I have searched high and low and can’t find the reference to the 2.1 fertility rate in Hungary I mentioned earlier. I suspect it might have been a Steve Turley video, a commentator well known to exaggerate. Still there a number of recent articles that point to an uptick in Hungarian fertility albeit it still remains below replacement.

  15. Kessler says

    As far as I know, Australia has very strict immigration policies – that mostly work. The same goes for USA – as I understand, refugees are heavily vetted. It’s EU that is a complete mess and I’d say it needs Lauren Southern.

    • ga gamba says

      Australia and Canada have points-based immigration that favour those who are young, highly educated, and already speaking English (or French in Canada’s case) at a high proficiency. This process is also expensive, so one needs a bit a wealth to undertake it. This site explains Canada’s.

      Of course, there is an argument to be made about the ethics of taking the best and brightest from a third-world country that has a talent shortfall. Should it be the Philippines’ responsibility to educate nurses and doctors who first must go the Middle East to gain work experience that improves their chance to emigrate to Canada? Why is Canada condemning so many to work in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait for three to five years? Moreover, so many young nursing graduates need experience to immigrate that private hospitals in the Philippines no longer see the requirement to pay them a salary. For some who genuinely want to be a nurse and remain in their homelands, for example due to family obligations, they seek paid employment in dire state-run hospitals, which requires connections, or they give up their dream and enter the BPO sector to chat with Amazon customers about their lost parcels. Quite a waste of a demanding education, yeah?

    • Your understanding about the US is wrong. For two generations it has been the policy of the ruling class to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration.

    • While it is true that Australia has some of the strictest immigration policies, the rate of immigration into Australia has climbed to about 2% of the total population per year. We’ve recently flown past 25 million people decades ahead of projections. We’re simply growing too fast.

      Seeing the problems this is causing, I’m a single issue voter on reducing immigration back to more sustainable early 90s levels. Everything else I care about will be much harder to achieve if we don’t do this.

    • Plugger says

      @Kessler, you are correct. Speaking as an Australian with a partner who went through the immigration process let me assure you it’s build tough and it’s expensive.

      Your options are limited and if you don’t have a family that can financially support you, you will be living pay cheque to pay cheque until you earn your permanent residency.

      Unfortunately we have particular social benefits which are easily abused and an increasing amount of immigrants who become disillusioned with the process are taking advantage of them… (queue the backlash)

  16. Concerned European says

    The Australian condition is not as you impress it to be. There is no safe or secure method of en masse immigration, nor any definitive certainty that any of those men or women who come here most certainly will enter the workforce to give benefit to the nation and its people. Frankly, it is nothing but outright lies to suggest as much, the truth lying in the very legislation that you vaguely refer to.

    The migrant population in Australia is exploding and there is a significant attack upon the culture of our nation through immigration. Do I doubt the possibility of an immigrant to come to our nation and adapt to our culture? No, indeed it is very possible. But how can we expect this to happen when we have hundreds of thousands coming every single year, all coalescing within the cultural sects that are burning holes in our social fabric? Why is it that a places like Rhodes, or Wolli Creek, or Strathfield are flooded to the brim with Asiatic migrants?

    This is not just a betrayal against the native born Australians, but it is a betrayal against the migrants themselves. They do not come from here to experience just another copy of their homeland in a different location. They come here to live in Australia, a Western European country that, while young, calls upon the rich history and heritage of Europe.

    If we’re to replace all Europeans with foreigners, of whom move here and live among their kind like they were to live in their own country, what are we then to say of Australia other than naming it a patchwork of different cultures and identities waiting to boil over and seek their own autonomy or independence?

    Australia is more than just a place of freedom of speech so atheists such as yourself can run from India to avoid persecution. It is an identity attached to a culture derived from Europe which is only here because of the White Europeans that brought it here. Do not destroy the very thing that makes this country a unique nation that makes it so attractive to foreign migrants.

    The dream of a big Australia is superfluous because the beauty and richness of our country will be destroyed if we are to bring in masses of migrants who do not share our common heritage and do not adapt to our national culture, inevitably leading to burning to crisp the social fabric that we have so carefully weaved.

    You do yourself disservice supporting the abhorrent migrant program who does not in any form make an effective immigration program. Look at the migration instrument, look at the statistics, go to the suburbs in which entire storefronts are in nothing but foreign languages manned by immigrants who don’t speak a word of English. Open your eyes and see that the Australia you seem to so appreciate is dying right in front of you.

  17. C Young says

    These opinions read rather oddly from Europe. Perhaps ‘liberal’ means something different in the southern hemisphere?

    The Australian immigration model – extra-territorial camps and points based immigration – is advocated by the UK’s most right wing party – UKIP. A party that is always derided by liberals.

    Extra-territorial camps have recently been advanced at the EU level by Mateo Salvini in Italy – head of the Lega – universally described as a party of the far right.

    • Laura Thuijls says

      Liberal in Australia means conservative. Our liberal party is right wing (like the Tories in the UK). The other big party in Australia is called the Labour Party, which is left wing. But in comparison to the polarisation between the Democrats and republicans in the US, our two main parties are still rather centred and have a lot in common.

      • c young says

        So ‘Liberal’ = ‘Conservative’. Thanks.

        Almost as good as the Russian ‘Liberal Democratic Party’ – in fact a quasi fascist party.

  18. David Smith says

    Satyajeet Marar,

    I don’t know why you’re hesitating to call Lauren Southern a racist. She sees white people or “Western Culture” as being a racial inheritance as opposed to a set of ideas that any reasonable person can accept. She thinks in terms of groups and not individuals, and she bases her belief in immigration policy on such terms. She is a racist: must she be a Ku Klux Klan Member or dressed in a Nazi uniform to be identified as such? Just because Social Justice Warriors have overused the term, does not make the term any less accurate or valid.

    This whole nativism nonsense is not new, it was a big part of World War 2, it’s just racial today, and aimed more towards brown and black people. In the U.S. fear of immigrants played a major role in alcohol prohibition, which actually increased the power and influence of immigrant criminals who were then as today, forced to live in ghettos, because forces conspired to keep them out of the job market (protections of native citizens to artificially keep labor prices up, mostly driven by unions). And it’s easy to predict that myopia and poor judgement will lead to the same kind of stupid and irrational policies that existed back then (tribalism and reason are incompatible) and to also predict 2-3 generations from now, will be saying they were not as racist or as xenophobic as their ancestors in the early 21st century were.

    When immigrants can’t get jobs and have to live in ghettos, the criminals end up being the dominant force in their communities, we’ve seen that throughout history and that it exists independent of race and culture. But everyone wants to think that what was driven by racism, xenophobia and tribalism in the past, is driven by legitimacy, reason and benevolence today. Sorry, but this is just showing, as I often tell my conservative friends, the natural tendency not to learn from the errors and evils that our ancestors committed, because as conservatives we often find comfort in creating noble lies about those who came before us.

    I’ll agree that the numbers of immigrants are a problem, however, most of these “cultural determinism” explanations are just old rehashes of evils we’ve seen in the past that nobody taught the current generations were a product of irrationality, bias and fear as opposed to reason oriented to finding actual solutions.

    • Rob says

      Yes, for a site that trumpets reason and independent thinking, we’re seeing a lot of irrational hysteria in these comments. A lot of people here enjoy challenging the orthodoxies and simplistic emotional narratives of the left. But poke at the issue of immigration and you see just how emotional and irrational the right can be about its own sacred beliefs.

    • augustine says

      “She sees white people or “Western Culture” as being a racial inheritance as opposed to a set of ideas that any reasonable person can accept.”

      I don’t know her ideas so I’m not defending them, but this statement is from somewhere outside of reasoning. Western culture is of course associated with a particular (and highly complex) group of people and events. It didn’t happen to any other “reasonable” people, even if they created particular civilizational wonders of their own.

      “forced to live in ghettos”
      What force would that be?

      “because forces conspired to keep them out of the job market”
      What forces?

      “tribalism and reason are incompatible”
      Like religion and reason are “incompatible”?

      “have to live in ghettos”

    • Peter from Oz says

      We can solve all those problems of which you speak. Limit immigration anfd make sure that we do not accept people who are from countries which contain people whose ideology involves destroying the West.. Problem solved.
      The ”anti-racist” view on immigration always amuses me. They seem to be almost religious in their fervour to force the citizens of their country to change their attituds to foreigners. Why?
      It’s as if they have said themselves : ”We must import masses of people from completly different cultures so we can then force Australians to acknowledge their racism and fix it with draconian anti-free speech legislation. There”ll be a job for us for years if we can be the smug sods who go around calling native Australians racists.”
      Let’s face it the so-called anti-racists are oikophobes who get their jollies crying ”racist” when anyone stands up for Western values. The anti racists are oikophobes, those pitiable self-loathing projectors of bile and mistrust who, frankly, need to be scorned.
      Sinistra delenda est

  19. @David Smith

    Smith? Your fake name is as imaginative as your argument. To call it an argument is actually being generous. You don’t address the very real practical concerns posed by masse migrations from underdeveloped countries to advanced western democracies. You spend most of your breath on virtue signaling your superior cosmopolitan sensibilities, which unlike the ‘nativist’ nuckle staggers, are based on rationality and a disinterested compassionate objectivity.

    You, unlike the xenophobia, racists etc have elevated yourself to such soaring heights of sophistication that you don’t even need a country any longer — you are the endstate humanoid, a citizen of the world. Here’s some advice: stop trying to impose your endstate multiculturalism on people who actually value their unique heritage, create a country with likeminded world citizens and promptly deport yourself to it.

    You spilled a lot of figurative ink but did not actually provide a rational argument we could discuss in a meaningful way. You did what is all too typical of zombies on the left these days: start everything by first calling names and labeling as ‘evil racists’ so you don’t have to think about their arguments, recant an incessant string of perceived historical injustices perpetrated by the evil white man and his superior western culture, and then top it off with a self-referential pat on the back for being so much better than everybody else (oddly enough this includes your ancestors who sacrificed much to build the civilization you are apparently more than happy to flush down the toilet).

    Smith? You are a paragon of leftist groupthink and the primary reason why so many are simply deciding to #walkaway.

    • Damn. Now I need to screenshot this comment and repost it on twitter whenever I get a generic copypaste response like the one from Smith.

  20. Southern doesn’t have a problem with immigrants. She has a problem with immigrants who do not assimilate and adopt the cultural values of the countries kind enough to allow them in. Like all sane people, she things cultures should be preserved, and immigration carefully modulated. She is against mass immigration by ethnic groups seeking to transform their host countries. In other words, she is against “invasion”. Sounds sensible to me.

  21. Steve says

    Picking on immigrants is a red herring. Western culture is largely exhausted, and borderline suicidal. There is no interest in preserving the Christian heritage that is the foundation of the West. Fewer and fewer intelligent people are even able to articulate what this heritage is. Most smart people have absolutely zero understanding of what Christianity is, and why it is at the core of our culture. The “myths and fairy tales” brigade are at full gallop; “deep stupidity” has swept across the West, rendering those with 150+ IQs among the most deluded. If anything immigrants may slow the rebarbarization. At least Muslims believe in something more substantial than empty drivel such as “diversity”.

    • Andre says

      “Christian heritage that is the foundation of the West. “

  22. Is immigration good? The better question is good for who?

    The United States is said to be a “Nation of Immigrants”–and this is true provided we also understand that the United States is a “Nation of Nativists”. Historically, America has accepted large populations of immigrants, and each immigration wave has produced virulent and politically significant periods of nativist backlash. You can find the “Trump” phenomenon in Harrison’s election in the 1880’s, culminating in the total domination of the Republicans by the 1920’s, and the immigration restrictions put in place at that time. America, with Trump, is simply repeating a similar cycle, which will probably end similarly.

    I suspect the whole thing could be modeled similar to the waves of predator and prey populations in biology.

    If you want increase and intensify nativism, increase and intensify immigration. The more immigration, and the more different immigrant populations are from native populations, the greater and more virulent nativism will be.

    If you want to reduce nativism, restrict or eliminate immigration. This will allow for a gradual assimilation and a reduction in nativist politics.

    What you cannot have is a pronounced and long-term immigration wave and no nativism (or the idea you can just call people “racist” and they will just go away), especially when most immigration is being pushed by capitalists to lower wages and break unions. You can no more engage in class warfare without political consequences than you can engage in racial warfare without political consequences. The people who are harmed by your policies will turn against you and vote against you.

    What I see coming from the Diversacrats and the Capitalist is a desire to have the cake but eat it too. It won’t happen anymore than you can expand a predator population while simultaneously thinning the prey population.

    Immigration means in the long-term politically more racism, more division, more polarization, more ethnic nepotism and corruption, and less good government and meritocracy. It also means more corporate profits, at least until some crazy populist takes over and nationalizes all the industries.

    • Another way to phrase it:

      Do you like Trump as President? Do you dislike Trump as President because he is not the real deal on immigrants, and you want to see someone who will take the immigration threat seriously, and is not afraid to break a few eggs?

      If so, open borders is the policy that will rapidly lead to an Uber-Trump as President. Also, antagonize the native population, so as to make sure they develop a collective identity and feel persecuted–look at how that worked magic in Germany.

  23. Why?

    Every time the debate over immigration comes up, this is the question I ask myself. Why? Why should we want immigration? This article doesn’t present any compelling reasons (I can’t believe this “aging population” argument is still being used), and, even if it did, the decision should be the native population’s to make.

    Get this straight: There is nothing wrong with a people wanting to preserve their way of life.

    As an aside, I’m not a big fan of Lauren Southern, but the header image you guys chose signals, from the very beginning, that she was never going to get a fair hearing In this article. I hope this isn’t the direction you’re taking the site, Claire.

    • The answer is we don’t need immigrants at this point at least not in the massive numbers we have coming now. The United States is not growing like it was in the past. Big business, and I am a capitalist ( I just don’t think Business should always get what it wants), needs immigrants. There was just a study that came out that claims that 22% of households in the United States don’t speak English as the main language at home. I am not going to be embarrassed about wanting to protect western/american values. You want to come to this country you better be able to prove you have a skill we need here that can’t be found at home. You better want to learn our language and you better want to assimilate For so called migrants and asylum seekers you better be fleeing from almost certain death and prosecution to be able to come here. That doesn’t make one racist at all to believe any of those things.

      • I agree with all points. I’ve hardened on this issue a lot in recent years. I used to be pretty libertarian on the issue of immigration. Frankly, though, the more the issue has been pressed by the left and immigrants, the less interested I am in hearing arguments in defense of immigration. Now that I’ve changed my views on some of these issues and started paying attention, I realize my state has undergone a massive cultural shift while I was asleep and living in a city where the changes were fairly difficult to notice or easy to ignore. What’s weird is that it’s something that I always knew and felt deep down but buried for a multitude of reasons. I feel like there are a lot of things we all know deep down but ignore for one reason or another. Having young children has also helped shift my perspective. It seems I’m not alone, either. I have probably watched over a hundred #walkaway testimonials at this point and concerns over immigration is a common theme in many of them, regardless of the color of the person’s skin or their sexual orientation.

        As far as asylum seekers go, it’s an excuse that is being stretched to get the maximum benefit for people who want to get into the country. I’ve seen domestic abuse cited as a reason for seeking asylum, and that just doesn’t cut it for me. I also don’t think economic asylum is a valid reason for letting people in. I think of it in terms of a life raft. A life raft can only hold so many people. If it takes on too many people, the raft sinks and everyone dies. I’m not willing to put my family and countrymen in jeopardy to give people I have no kinship with a chance at a better life. That may seem cold, but life is full of hard truths. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a utopia.

    • The aging population is a good excuse. An aging population+welfare state is unsustainable. Like a ponzie scheme, you need fresh blood to keep it going. If you got rid of the welfare state, an aging population is fine.

      • Rob says

        J: So you’re cool with dropping public education, health care, and pensions?

  24. ga gamba says

    I’ve been a migrant most of my life. I’ve lived and worked in several countries in both the Middle East and Asia. Europe too in my youth, but that was under my father’s employment visa, and also the USA on a student visa for graduate school. In all cases I was legal, and I experienced it was in the less developed nations that impose the greatest burden not only to migrate but also on the conditions of life. You can’t get a visa if local nationals can do the job, and rightly so. Would you be amazed to learn in some countries a migrant may not apply for a credit card issued by a local bank where he has an account because “there’s the risk he may acquire debt and flee”? Would it astonish you to learn migrants may not purchase real estate? Or even a car? How about countries that impose minimum income thresholds to get a driver’s licence or sponsor one’s immediate family members to join the person? Once you get used to the burdens it no longer smacks the gob to be told by police that the citizen driver who rear ended you is not at fault because “the accident would have never happened if you weren’t here.” There is a logic to it.

    I’m not complaining; I’ve accepted the trade-off. With the rough comes the smooth. Living in shitholistan has its merits, especially when one is an invited worker on a generous expat package in a country that has no income tax. I make no demands on the host nations; calls to prayer by the muezzin at dawn are part of life. I’m not a member of an NGO banging on government doors and crying in the streets. Yet, I keep coming across this sense of entitlement from those who want to migrate to the West that it has the obligation to not only accommodate them but to bend over backward and celebrate them too. No, they nations and their people don’t. For whatever reason. “But, but, but… the country is a land of immigrants. Haven’t you seen that poem on the Statue of Liberty?” Yeah? Things change. They no longer have serfdom and slavery too and you don’t hear insistent demands for those to return. And poems aren’t the law of the land.

    To those current immigrants who share the same thoughts as Mr Marar, that’s some neck you have to pass judgment on your host country. You’re a guest. Behave like one. The West needs to re-evaluate its policies and deal with the sending states on a quid pro quo basis. Perhaps the economic and social liberalisation demanded and enacted will make those countries better places for its own citizens to live and they’ll stay put. Moreover, newcomers immediately enjoy the investments made by generations of citizens. That should come at a price. Dissatisfied with those marvels, immigrants then begin to impose demands on the host nation that require further investment. It’s not the UK’s responsibility to sort out incomers’ English as a second language deficiencies and publish laws and other government documents in Urdu, Tagalog, and Pidgin – all at the taxpayers’ expense. The demand for these are to gain government funding for NGOs and employment for the community members. “We need more Tamil speaking nurses in the hospitals and the classrooms!”

    The Trump administration recently received flack for ignoring a report that found that even refugees in recent decades have been a net benefit to the system, paying their fair share in tax despite a reliance on government services by many to get a start in their initial years.

    No, they’re not paying a fair share because they are immediate beneficiaries of investment that made the nation such a well functioning and desirable place to live. Who expects 5-star service and amenities at 1-star prices? Immigrants expecting streets paved with gold. Further, it was found it’s the few high net worth immigrants who are the net contributors; the great majority are net recipients. Without wealthy immigrants immigration would be a net cost to the host nation.

    I concede immigration is a multifaceted issue where both benefits are reaped and costs are incurred. Immigration is primarily a redistributive policy, transferring income from workers to owners of capital and from taxpayers to low-income immigrant families. in the US, to generate the surplus of $35 billion, immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion. The willingness of less-skilled immigrants to work at low pay reduces consumption costs, i.e. the costs to consumers of goods and services like health care, child care, food preparation, house cleaning, repair and construction, for citizens of recipient states. This results in positive net benefits to the economy. However, these low-wage workers simultaneously generate a redistribution of wealth from low- to high-skilled native-born workers. Further, guest worker programmes, such as the H1-B visa for high tech workers result in the displacement of citizens. And it isn’t just high-skilled workers who have access to guest worker “trainee” programmes. When I lived in the Philippines I met numerous Filipinos who had all worked in the US legally in franchise bakeries and fast food restaurants for minimum wage. I’m sorry, but those jobs ought to go to citizens such as students and part-time workers; when there’s a shortfall wages need to adjust upward in accordance with the law of supply and demand. Workers are being imported to disrupt basic economic principles in favour of the capital controlling class.

    When it comes to illegal immigrants the findings are difficult to asses for the US because it doesn’t even know how many of them exist. A study found (PDF) the average household headed by an illegal immigrant used nearly $14,400 more in services than it paid in taxes, for a total fiscal drain of $55 billion per annum. Illegal immigrants have on average only 10 years of schooling, and it’s very unlikely they will ever be net provider to the nation’s treasury.

    I am not an advocate of positive discrimination (a.k.a. affirmative action) programmes, but they exist presently. Increasingly it’s being found that the beneficiaries of these, such as university scholarships and lower test scores, are from the current immigrant groups. Black Americans whose ancestors lived in the States during the slavery era have a much more legitimate claim to these set asides than a new immigrant from Nigeria or his/her children. “Where are you from?” doesn’t cut it in the history of discrimination.

    A deep rethink on immigration in required.

    • Well said. In particular I appreciate hearing about your experiences as an expat. The current anti ICE hysteria needs to be put in perspective. The playing upon our guilt is growing old.

  25. Rob says

    I’m glad the Quillette posted this article. This site exposes many of the irrational shibboleths of the left, so it’s refreshing to see it also take a run at the irrational shibbeloths of the right.

    1) When people in Western countries are polled, they give wildly incorrect estimates of how many immigrants are in their country. If a country is 3 per cent Muslim, respondents estimate it’s 12 per cent Muslim, etc. So right off the hop this issue is rarely grounded in empirical facts.

    2) There’s also collective amnesia at work. Immigration to North America peaked in the early 20th century. And despite the revisionist narrative that immigrants from Europe were welcomed by a European culture, the people at the time certainly didn’t think so. Immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland were regarded as illiterate, papist brutes who didn’t understand democracy and who had enormous families. Nativists rioted over letting such ‘scum’ into the country. There were fears in America that the country would be taken over Catholics breeding like rats, at a time when many Protestants regarded Catholics the way Muslims are sometimes regarded to today – as alien fanatics who could not be assimilated into a civilized country.

    3) People don’t understand that our public welfare systems – our pensions and health care and public schools – are a pyramid scheme where each generation doesn’t come close to paying its way, but passes the costs of its services down to the next generation, that is expected to be significantly larger and able to absorb the costs. That was fine in 1958 before birth rates in the West crashed. In Canada in 1958 there were 9 working teachers for each retired teacher. In 1983 that ratio was 5:1. Today, it’s 1.5:1 and will soon by 1:1. Imagine what that does to pension plans. If we cut immigration rates substantially, we’ll have to resort to some combination of substantially increased taxes or substantially reduced public services to make up for the rapid decline in worker to dependent ratio.

    4) I work in the knowledge industry. Half of my colleagues are first and second generation immigrants from non-European countries. Without them, our company would not be able to compete in the global market for our services.

    Which isn’t to say immigration should be off the table as a political subject, or that opposition to immigration is always rooted in bigotry. But we should discuss the issue rationally, using fact and empiricism. There are real and material trade-offs involved in setting immigration rates, and we should regard them with open eyes and minds.

    • You can’t tell me those numbers are always 100% right. We have people flipping out in the United States over Trump wanting to have a citizenship question on the census. With illegal immigration at least in the United States as far as I am concerned its a massive guess. Its not wrong to say we only want people coming into our country that brings something the country needs period and are willing to assimilate. NOTHING.

    • I always find the “muh birth rates” and the “muh skilled workers” arguments for immigration fascinating, especially when women chronically report having less children then they want. (E.G. its not a conspiracy by men to chain them to the kitchen).

      Muh birth rate can be addressed by insuring affordable family formation, and driving the usurers and speculators out of higher education and the real estate market (see Victoria, BC).

      Muh skilled workers can be addressed by creating an education system that educates people with useful skills, instead of indoctrinates them with MultiKulturkampf propaganda.

      • Rob says

        Even in countries with heavy subsidies of child care, birth rates are far lower than they were in the past. And birth rates were dropping steeply long before real estate prices went crazy.

        We aren’t going back to the birth rates of the 40s-60s. No matter what public policies and incentives we give. It’s just not happening.

        And of course the other big factor in the aging population is relentlessly increasing life expectancy. A teacher starting her career today is expected to live to 90. This has a massive impact on the long-term viability of our health care and pensions systems, but nobody wants to talk about because it makes seniors uncomfortable.

        • Jack B Nimble says

          ‘….A teacher starting her career today is expected to live to 90. This has a massive impact on the long-term viability of our health care and pensions systems….’

          Some pension systems, most famously US Social Security, were set up to be pay-as-you-go plans. Many state governments, in contrast, offer actuarial-based defined-benefit pension plans to public employees. In those instances, employee and employer contributions are reviewed periodically, along with investment gains/losses and demographic trends, to ensure that assets are at least theoretically equal to liabilities. This supervision is typically the responsibility of a management board. Of course, that doesn’t prevent some governors, especially Republicans, from raiding the asset pools to fund short-term tax cuts at the expense of long-term solvency. Same for public employee health plans, particularly when the governor appoints the management board (wink, wink).

    • ga gamba says

      are a pyramid scheme

      If anyone tries to model the dynamics of a Ponzi scheme s/he will be struck by two observations:

      1) It will fail;
      2) The failure can be put off for a long time leading to the mistaken conclusion that it can be avoided.

      We are faced with two choices, but only one of them is ethical:

      1) Without their consent we stick the future generations with the obligation to support us. We impose a claim on their earnings which the gov’t seizes on our behalf;
      2) As workers now we gradually accumulate capital to invest in productive capital that provides us an income to live on when we retire.

      I think of all the environmentalists who often bemoan how we are failing in our responsibility to care for the planet for the benefit of the future generations. Odd, isn’t it, that no one is making the same argument about all the debt we’re handing to them. It’s toxic too.

      Whilst we’re at it, let’s add the obligation of UBI to the mix. Just shake the magic money tree ever more frantically.

      • Rob says

        If we stop the pyramid now, which generation gets caught taking the hit? Do we substantially cut health care, pensions, medicare, or education? Increase taxes on income or on property? Because the huge shortfall will have to be made up somewhere.

        A betting man would back the Boomers, who have been determining government policy since they were born. So pensions and medicare kicked down the can for another 20 years, while spending on education is slashed and income taxes increased.

    • Rob:

      Re 1) when it comes to muslims, 3% can feel like 12%, especially where burkas and other garb are involved. Muslims are just that different. They impose themselves like no other immigrants. Do we have Jewish prayer rooms in public schools and universities?

      Re 2) In the u.s., immigration peaked in the early 20th century because strict laws were passed. As for irish, italians and poles, they were not refugees. Nor were they pouring over the border illegally. They did breed like rats and introduce new levels of drunkenness and violence, so fears were not unfounded. (I’m irish italian polish btw).

      Re 3) immigration is not the only solution.

      Re 4) are you suggesting that Europeans or those of European descent are not able or willing to work capably in the “knowledge industry?”

      • Rob says

        Half of the students who graduate from STEM fields in Canada today are Asian. They get better grades in high school and better grades in university. If Canadian students of European descent want those spots in school and those jobs, they need to work harder.

        In a competitive global knowledge economy you’re competing against rivals all around the world. My company hires the best, and don’t care where they or their parents are from.

  26. Andre says

    I’m an immigrant myself (20 years in Canada), and I support Lauren’s position on immigration. It all matter of welfare, cultural values and numbers. I’ve worked and paid taxes from day one. Why should my taxes support illegals? Some cultures adapt their values better than others. Some cultures are more violent than others. Some cultures have more incompatible traits than others. 1% in a 100,000 is still a thousand. Contempt to the Western law and values is dangerous and costly to the society. The illegals show their contempt to the rules the moment they cross the border. Why should I pay for extra police and security in my formerly peaceful country?? Do we want metal detector and armed guard at every mall or supermarket??
    Sorry but the author failed to address my concerns.

  27. dirk says

    I’ve never been in Australia, but from books and TV I know about the Aboriginals, and the Papuas from new Guinea. They have a very nice life, everything grows there, palmtrees, banana, cassava, legumes for proteins, pigs run around and grow fat, wild animals to hunt, the people are very artistic (we have here a museum of aboriginal art in Utrecht, very nice to go), so, nothing to complain. But! They earn only 2 dollars a day, if left on their own.I would say, again, what’s the problem?? But it seems, worldwide rules have been altered, human rights this or that, equal rights, pursuit of happines. Whites have misbehaved, everybody his fair share. Half of the youngsters in Africa want to escape to Europe. The funny thing is, we Europeans don’t know how to respond to these claims! Really funny. I have worked 20 yrs in Latin America and Africa, and felt very happy there, but back in Europe, I am flabbergasted!

  28. I’ve been reading Quillette for few months now, this article forced me to post a general response:

    It is improbable that the author was persecuted in India because he was an atheist. Atheism is a part of the ancient Hindu school of thought i.e. Nastika. It is common for my fellow citizens to pull this standard line as an excuse to immigrate.

    Indians have a standard metric for success and it ends with immigration to a developed nation. White people do fall for this out of their guilt for colonialism.

    Also, various commentators wrongly believe that India is a multicultural dystopia. India has a vast population and numerous dialects and tradition which swings about a central core of Hinduism.

      • @KD

        It’s BJP, not PJP. And they have formed an alliance called NDA with other regional parties.

        The massacres have happened, and no doubt will continue wherever tribal alliances collide. People have accepted this reality here unlike the west.

        My point was – compare the numbers with the population size and variety of culture, caste, religion and dialects, you would be surprised how often people work together rather than kill each other.

    • KDM says


      That sounds about right actually. I’m reading Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley (published in 1961) and there is a few chapters on India. He said much the same thing as you except that he was talking about the early twentieth century and late 19th century.

      The English were offering the upper castes in India an Anglo education in the hopes that they would be like “missionaries” and spread the knowledge around and it would trickle down to the general masses. Except that the upper classes of India horded their knowledge and used it for a way out of Indian society. Either by way of emigration or by gating themselves off from the poor & working class (or untouchables or whatever the castes are called in India). It sounds like things haven’t changed much today.

      I don’t understand why western educated Indians don’t move back to change their institutions, economics and culture of their home countries? There are a lot of billionaires in the West from India who could really get an economic revolution started in their home country, thereby improving the lot of a slew of indigenous Indians.

      The same goes for people from Latin America, Asia ect…
      Why don’t they take the skills learned in the US and the West and start changing the culture of their home countries so that there is no longer a need for out migration.

      • Rob says

        Why did the educated and ambitious Italians, Irish, and Poles who immigrated to North America in the 20th century not return to their countries of origin to make them better places?

        • Dr. Derp says

          On that subject, why doesn’t the “brain drain” talk ever turn to Eastern Europeans today?

        • ga gamba says

          An interesting feature of Italian immigrants to the United States between 1901 and 1920 was the high percentage that returned to Italy after they had earned money in the United States. About 50% of Italians repatriated, which meant that often times the immigrants did not care about learning English or assimilating into American society because they new that they would not remain in America permanently. Source:

          Statistics by nationality are quite striking. According to a report in 1908 comparing the departures in 1908 with the arrivals of 1907, 61% of the Southern Italians returned home. Croatians and Slovenians (59.8%), Slovaks (56.1%) and Hungarians (48.7%) also had high return rates. The lowest rate, 5.1%, belonged to the Jews (categorized as “Hebrews”). This is understandable since they fled the pogroms to save their lives and had nowhere to return. Surprisingly, when you think of all the nostalgic songs about their homeland, the Irish rarely went back — only 6.3%. Others with a low return rate were Czechs (7.8%), English (10.4%) and Scandinavians (10.9%). In the middle range were Germans (15.5%), Serbs and Bulgarians (21.9%), Finns (23.3%), Poles (33.9%) and Northern Italians (37.8%). Interestingly enough, the Irish and the Swedish were also groups with a very high percentage of woman immigrants. Source:

      • Dr. Derp says

        Why should we brown people be forced to leave our homes and go to a country we’ve either never known, or consciously decided to leave?

        If India, or Ghana, or Brazil, or whatever wants me to settle there, they can do what China does with scientists, and offer me a nice job with a commensurate salary. Until then, I’ll be right at home in the USA.

    • augustine says

      “India has a vast population and numerous dialects and tradition which swings about a central core of Hinduism.”

      How do any of these features refute a claim of multicultural dystopia? If you care to, please provide a synopsis of Hindu-Muslim relations over the past 12 or so centuries.

      • @ augustine

        My statement address the fact that the dominant culture is Hinduism/ variant of Hinduism. Different cultures exist as different species do in an ecological niche. All cultures vie for resources which inevitably lead to clashes sometimes. However, the clashes are exceptions not the rule.

        The synopsis that you ask for is vast in its scope.
        I will try to provide that briefly:

        The caste system in India was a socio- economic hierarchy which provided stability to the nation for centuries. However, invaders from the middle east found ways to destabilize that and impose their version of hierarchy on the Hindus. Their efforts to convert the Hindus were moderately successful, although the hierarchy was diluted. The wars fought were largely for territories and resources rather than cultural or religious in nature. The Europeans harbored the belief that Christianity with its redemptive value would uplift the downtrodden. It didn’t happen and neither did the dream of the Muslim rulers to unite the nation under Islam.

        In India Islam is largely moderate and incidents of terrorism from the native Muslims are rare. Most of the earlier converts to Islam/Christianity were the tribals and lower caste. It could be argued that tensions in India are mostly due to class/caste struggle where neither party wants to give up their caste identity. The lower caste identity is fiercer due to positive discrimination and quotas.

        To sum up, Indian Muslims have been tempered to moderation in the past 12 centuries and Hinduism had curbed its genocidal tendencies before the birth of Christ.

        • augustine says

          @ smokinsaadhu

          Thank you for your reply. Probably we mainly agree on “what is”, while we disagree on the nature of various components.

          “Different cultures exist as different species do in an ecological niche.”

          This is a bad comparison on different levels. Plants and animals do not have an ability to make peace. Their niches vary according to unforgiving, “random” processes and functions. There is perhaps a rough analogy between ecological and social but human agency changes everything. We can do better because we are conscious of the concept of doing better.

          “All cultures vie for resources which inevitably lead to clashes sometimes. However, the clashes are exceptions not the rule.”

          Clashes are exceptions to what? Peace is the rule then? I think clashes are also the rule only they are less frequent. The two repeat cyclically– as a rule– wouldn’t you agree?

          I’ve read any number of expats’ accounts of the dysfunctional state of affairs in India. You seem accepting of Muslim terrorism because it is “rare” but corruption levels, a key element in any dystopia, are almost unimaginable compared to many other countries. There are too many facets to discuss here but it seems like yours is a country that no one would deliberately seek to replicate, by way of ethic-religious mixing in particular.

          “People have accepted this reality here unlike the west.”

          Does this acceptance extend to other miseries? If so, has such acceptance yielded any net reduction of suffering in India’s people?

          “Hinduism had curbed its genocidal tendencies before the birth of Christ.”

          That is truly virtuous. Yet there is something in Hindus and Hinduism that has prevented Islam taking over completely, in spite of Islam’s genocidal tendencies.

          Thanks again.

          • @ augustine

            I appreciate your well thought response.

            Different species do not make peace, they have boundaries and come to an arrangement that serves them well. When survival is at stake, the invisible boundaries disappearand conflict between two cultures/species the predator/dominant culture wins or will inflict maximum damage. In short the pacifist culture will be subdued.

            Enlightened people tend to presuppose innate goodness and decency in others. However, the natural behavior of human which has not been tempered by a civilised culture cannot be expected to be moral. Culture is a repository of knowledge accumulated by a group of people that have more similarity than differences.

            Peace is as somebody said-an interval between wars. Within a culture peace is the rule, between cultures war is the rule.

            Expats lied to you, whenever Indians go west, they denigrate their own. They tend to identify more with the developed nation than their poor backward citizens left to figure their way out of the supposed sorry state of India. In isolation, for a vast nation like India, incidents can give the appearance that they represent the general state of the nation. Corruption and similar vices have a negligible effect on the already poor country. The cyclical cause-effect needs to be appreciated. Acceptance of misery? Isn’t that what Peterson is telling the wayward youth of the west?

            No nation need willingly replicate the Indian multicultural system, it is inevitable. In the course of history, either the Judas within a culture will sell it out or will be conquered forcibly. No middle path like Buddha’s will be any help.

            From a western perspective such as yours, India might be a dystopia; people fleeing in droves towards Utopia, Genosha perhaps?

            Apart from virtue, Hinduism has been an inert culture, with perhaps large inertia too.

            Thank you for your kind and detailed response.

      • Oh come now, its not a ban a blasphemy, its a ban on “hate speech”. Richard Dawkins is not getting flak for “blasphemy” against Islam, he is getting it for “hate speech”.

        Persecuting people for “hate” is a secular thing, that only rational and humane people who have transcended the pitiful superstitions of their ancestors do. Persecuting people for “blasphemy” is something irrational and stupid people do, and its completely different.

      • Ram says

        It is a lie to say that Indian Atheist has been prosecuted by the state. The state I belong in India is ruled by Marxist and they openly declare that they are atheists. India has a tradition of theist and atheist streams of thoughts coexisting. The Hindu fundamentalist became vocal only when their faith was singled out for criticism. They are actually picking intolerance attitude from the Islamist fundamentalists. The author of this article seems to be from Kerala. His name says so.

  29. Cristian says

    Southern is an identitarian she admit as much, i dislike all identity politics, and im with S.Harris on this, the worst identity politics is the one the majority of a nation hold, majority of Australia is still white, majority of Canada is still white, same with U.S. being a white identitarian in one of those countries is to me just as bad as being a Muslim identitarian in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other like minded countries where non-Muslims are treated as second class citizens.

    You can definitely be against immigration with out embracing identity politics as Southern has.

    • Rob says

      The far left and far right are mirror images of one another on so many issues. Identity politics is an obvious one.

  30. Constantin says

    Let me start by pointing out that, without verifying or even looking at what Lauren Southern has said in Australia, I do not believe that she opposed “immigration” as in “legal immigration”. The chance is 99.9999% that her entire objective has been severely mischaracterized from the start. It is sad to see that some inheritors of the tradition of free speech – so central to our civilization – deign to portray a persons as a “professional provocateur”. One would have thought that diversity of opinion is welcomed in the civilized world. Not so much anymore – it seems! The dilemma of policy making in our time is that left wing extremism has made any criticism and concern related to culture and religion susceptible of an accusation of racism. No rational being will deny that that a sound immigration policy should be concerned about the cultural input of newcomers and their values – unless this is becoming a taboo. If all cultures are the same and people of whatever race they may belong to come in with the notion that honor killing is a moral imperative that supersedes local law and custom, the result will not be pretty. One does not need a PhD in social sciences to figure that out. The questions of how much a society should invest in civilizing troglodytes and how much hardship to endure in the process, are fair policy questions that should be open to a healthy debate. Being on one side or the other of that equation should not qualify one as a “provocateur” (professional or not) unless the purpose of the exercise is to impose a certain point of view. Let’s be clear: Lauren’s issue is not with the color of potential legal immigrants, but with the ideologies and values they may subscribe to and the fact that unchecked migration (as opposed to “immigration”, brings in a lot of uncivilized characters. The claim that the identitarian group in Europe with whom Lauren Southern was associated blocked rescue ships is an absolute and direct lie. The attempt was to stop NGO’s from encouraging and facilitating unsafe migration from Africa in defiance of the national sovereignty and laws of their own countries by providing a “ferry service” from within 10 miles of the Libyan coast. This practice was in fact putting people in grave danger as smugglers will overload dingies not capable of seafaring and take large groups of people 10 km out at sea – not to be “rescued” but to be picked up – which is a different proposition. I find it troubling – indeed offensive that Quillette published this dirty propaganda aimed at deplatforming and isolating a decent human being. Shame on you Quillette for publishing this. A couple of decent paragraphs recognizing that Europe has the right to decide whether to accept “refugees” appear only superficially to be decent and thoughtful. Genuine “refugees” as defined in the Geneva Convention must be accepted once they reach the signatory country. Yet the Convention did not imply also a duty to provide ferry transportation and facilitate the business of people smugglers in the process on a scale unimaginable. The argument that workers’ rights laws must be loosened in order to accommodate the horde of newcomers is simply offensive. How far does the author propose the sacrifice of “native workers” must go? Be specific if you have some great idea to share! I dare you Mr. Marar to point us exactly to the video recording – minute and second- of a Lauren Sauthern posting that opposes legal “immigration” from any place on this planet – by people who endorse the key values of the Enlightenment. It is not decent to regurgitate in writing information derived from unverified biased third party accounts (even if they still clamor the position of main stream media in society). You are definitely wrong. Lauren has many friends from every corner of this planet and has never discriminated on geographic or racial terms. When it comes to culture – however – she makes her point quite strongly and she is hated for it by the ideologized multiculturalists. You do not happen to be one, because you admittedly fled anti-blasphemy laws – which are a cultural value I am certain you do not want to follow you into your new country. The idea that respecting a host country’s laws and customs is sufficient to make one a desirable immigrant is simply wrong. A desirable immigrant is one who would not, placed in a majoritarian position vote for a different set of values and laws. Since there is no example of Muslim majoritarian societies evolving past a basic and quite intolerant theocratic model of governance, the fact that law respecting Muslims do not challenge the separation of Church and State while in a minority position should only give comfort to a fool. The real test of social integration is whether someone adopts the fundamental – often unwritten – values that underpin a society and give it cohesion (of the sort that facilitate the common self-referencing as “we”). A recent article in Quillette revealed the sad reality that a supranational identity animates the vast majority of Muslims – no matter where they live. Simple obedience to local customs while not in a position to enforce or facilitate change does not mean that that we are exactly the same. You are correct in stating that is perfectly “possible” that someone can practice the Islamic faith, eat traditional food, maintain language and customs from their former home and remain patriotic enough to speak English, earn a living and cheer Socceroos, while respecting the laws as currently established. The problem is that the same person with exact the same “probability” is likely to vote for the implementation of Sharia and end of the separation of Church and State, whenever the option becomes viable on a ballot. It is true that theocrats particularly the radicalized types have no qualms imposing untold hardship on Muslims and that many have fled and must attempt to flee as a result. We had the same problem about 500 years ago – give or take. Westerners do not take comfort from the fact that sheltered Western based Muslim Community groups condemn terrorism. This is not creating a “norm” for the reality of the Muslim world anywhere else. In religious terms – most centers of Islamic scholarship explicitly refuse to condemn terrorism as “un-Islamic” and measures taken by local Arab dictators against virulent theocratic challengers only conveniently can be portrayed as a manifestation of some sort of an intrinsic Enlightenment movement in the Muslim world. What you describe as a “norm” is a myopic and vague description of the peaceful behavior of Muslim communities when clearly in an insignificant minority status. Only someone who does not follow the news and has no idea of how the world looks like these days would remain unaware of the sad fact that the “norm’ you describe gets quickly shattered when Muslims amass beyond a critical point. I am saddened by it and whish just as much as anybody else that not to be the case. I will, however, completely refuse not to observe and accurately describe what I see with my own eyes and live as if reality does not exist. I fear that the one painting a caricature is you and not Ms. Southern. You may, naively, believe that all Westerners are concerned with is who is dead weight on their pocket book and that if one pays taxes one is becoming with necessity a “gift” to the society. It is true that bums are not particularly liked, but money is not all there is to belong to the Western civilization. Why not bolster the Sudanese community in Melbourne to 20 million before we find a solution to whatever plagues that community? Yes – acknowledging the facts of migrant criminality – is a good first step in deciding appropriate policies. Let’s abandon for a moment the cheap trick of covering the effect on criminality statistics based on age of any ridiculous spike caused by an influx of migrant youth. Shall we? I am particularly disheartened by your last paragraph. You say that integration in a dominant culture (presumably desirable) is often an intergenerational process and far from being immediate. You recommend “prudent policy” and imply that keeping in check numbers and values might be desirable – yet you end with a caution against someone you really do not know at all.

    • Paul Ellis says

      Not wishing to carp but paragraphs really help readability, you know. A solid grey block of text such as yours is an offputting thing.

  31. X. Citoyen says

    Your piece is so familiar to me, Mr. Marar, that I long ago named it the little-more-crime-and-terror-but-spicy-food narrative. I can’t condemn you too harshly, though, because you might not see the social costs of immigration as clearly as natives do. Admittedly, these costs are not even as obvious in big U.S. cities because long-standing crime problems disguise them—unless, of course, you happen to be poor or working class. But you do see it in smaller Canadian cities that have never had these problems until recently. Ottawa is a good example.

    After years of denying that gangs exist in Ottawa, the police finally admitted it about 10 years ago and soon after created a “Guns and Gangs” unit. It became a little hard to deny because the drive-by gang-style shooting sprees were a little hard to pin on either of the favourite fall guys, “people with mental health issues” and “right-wing extremists.” But you’d never know from police press conferences or media coverage who’s involved or that the gangs showed up shortly after a very specific mass-migration event. Oh goodness me, no! All the talk is guided toward “the gun problem” (more often even than the “gang problem”), and police and media always talk about working with—get a load of this euphemism—the “affected communities.”

    A newcomer can eventually figure out who these mysterious affected communities are, but not because the police or media wants to name them. Po-po toes the line. They’ll announce that an affected victim from the affected community affected ignorance about the shooter, so they’re appealing to the unaffected public for witnesses. It’s the affected communities themselves who spoil the subterfuge when they berate the police for not solving the crime without any cooperation from them, and Canadian society for not giving their affected son jobs (= free money) and the many other things they’re entitled to after being rescued from their home and native hellholes.

    There’s another big benefit of multiculturalism. Believe it or not, you used to be able to drive onto Parliament Hill in downtown Ottawa in your own car without passing through security. I don’t mean 60 years ago; I mean I did this in 2001. I drove up, got out, and took some photos of architectural details on the buildings. I later went over to chat with the only two—that’s it, two—RCMP officers on Hill duty. I note that both wore only standard cop gear and seemed like they were probably picked more for their public relation skills than their tactical savvy.

    Back then, too, you could stroll onto the lawn in front of Parliament from the street and have a family picnic without even seeing security. You could then walk up to the front doors of Parliament and tour inside and out during business hours, watch politicians going in and out, even chat with the PM as he walked the halls without bodyguards. The whole area was wide open and teaming with thousands for Canada Day celebrations.

    What’s left of this will soon be gone. It’s already bollards, fences, CCTV, security checkpoints, searches and item restrictions, police carrying assault rifles, and so on. Last year’s Canada 150 celebration, billed as the party of the century, was a total flop, in large part because Parliament Hill was turned into armed camp (have a look at the photos online). People waited for hours in line-ups to pass through metal detectors at armed checkpoints surrounded by truck and bomb proof barricades, while police tactical teams in full-battle-rattle roamed the streets, often with those very cuddly looking German shepherds. I don’t blame the security for the less-than-jolly atmosphere. It’s hard to pull off friendly when you’re kitted-up for urban combat.

    The euphemism of the chattering class is “It’s just the times we live in,” as if we had all changed in some fundamental yet mysterious way that isn’t worth discussing. But the only thing about us or our times that has changed is Muslim immigration. I say it again: The one and only cause of all these changes in Ottawa is Muslim immigration. Like all our city centres, it’s being turned into para-militarized zone you see in countries our immigrants come from. Our liberties are also being whittled away by the kind of surveillance state you need in—Wait, can you guess where? You’re right, those same benighted parts of the globe they hail from! This form of Islamification is never discussed because, as you know, it’s a small price to pay for the spicy food.

  32. Rick Phillips says

    Interesting debate. One point not well covered is what exactly is “multiculturalism”. Is the implicit assumption that assimilation will occur correct? Or in the alternative does “multiculturalism” imply a series of monocultures presumably living harmoniously side by side the objective.

    This article and comments make a number of references to Lauren Southern but no links to her thinking are provided. Here are a couple of references for those who would actually be interested in finding out what she does think about these issues.
    Lauren Southern and Dave Rubin: Milo, Immigration, and Violent Protests (Full Interview)
    Lauren Southern challenges multiculturalism in Melbourne – Full speech

  33. mehboring says

    Immigration isn’t a right, but a privilege. White people have a right to exist in their own countries, as do others. Japan should never become minority Japanese – or even 5% white. Etc. “Multiculturalism” and mass immigration can only harm all of it. History shows that, except nowadays our governments encourage such things and instead of calling them what they are – invasions – they call them “refugees.”

    • Vegeta says

      Those are just your opinions. People in white countries have chosen to vote for policies which have allowed for non-whites to become part of their society and country. People in Japan have not. You don’t have a right to impose your views about what your country should look like on others.

      • Rob says

        It is curious that that it’s the people least exposed to immigration – older people in rural regions – who are most frightened by it, and the people who actually live closest with immigrants – the younger and the urban – are fine with it.

        • I think its “like the Now–do you think I can score some hash off Rajib”


          “Damn, what is the future going to be like for my grandchildren in 30 years.”

          • Rob says

            Young people today are less likely to smoke pot than the young 20 and 30 years ago. Nobody smokes hash anymore – it’s hydroponic pot grown locally, usually by white dudes. And in Canada at any rate, white youths are more likely to use drugs and alcohol than the children of immigrants. In fact, one of the reasons 20-somethings today have less of a booze and drug culture is because of the increasing proportion of immigrants in that age group. Go to a college campus on a Friday night and you’ll see it’s mostly the white kids getting hammered at the student bar and Asian kids studying in the library.

            It turns out when kids actually grow up with people from different backgrounds they consider it normal. And when old people have little exposure to them, they let stereotypes and sensationalist media portrayals distort their view.

        • Paul Ellis says

          You sure? On what do you base your statement?

  34. Susan says

    I have lived in the desert areas of the western and southwestern USA most of my life and the unending refrain is “conserve water- drought”. As a good citizen I xeriscaped my yard, cut way back on watering, didn’t ask for water at restaurants. Now, I see hijabis pushing strollers through the neighborhoods and parks, my city celebrating Immigrant Day, and a guy in the middle of the mall throwing down a prayer rug. So I have decided to have a lawn and water.

    • dirk says

      I recognize this, same happens with littering and throwing rubbish. You do that because you don’t feel responsible for the area, community, town, country. It’s none of your business, let the garbagemen clean the stuff. It also has something childish. Without education and a sense of belonging (exactly what’s missing in certain immigrant groups) this will not change. Do you also grow ocotillo?

    • Dr. Derp says

      This doesn’t make any sense. What the hell do “hijabis” and “Immigrant Day” have to do with quitting water stewardship?

      • Rob says

        Of course it doesn’t make sense. Fear kills reason.

        • dirk says

          In fact, I didn’t understand what the strollers meant, I understood strollers carrying gallons of water, but don’t know.
          Every community lives due to sacrifices carried out for the common good or the future. And, logically, immigrants are less prone to join in. Susan, can you explain?

  35. Tubbles says

    Irrespective of where one stands on the immigration debate, there is little doubt we are sitting on powder keg issue and nowhere is the TNT more tightly packed than in Europe. It’s probably a given the EU will eventually collapse as European countries increasingly shift to the Right and Nationalism. The West has given the world a lot of good things, but history shows our capacity for violence is unrivalled when the hornet’s nest is disturbed.

    The last thing we need is another European battleground and millions of dead. I’ve given up on Islam reforming itself. If it hasn’t happened in 1400 years, it’s not going to happen now. So what is the solution? Send all the immigrants back to where they came? Can’t see that happening and it’s probably the wrong thing to do especially given we effectively invited them in the first place.

    Ultimately the West must bear total responsibility for our current situation. It was totally naïve to think the EU experiment and multiculturalism would work and then for good measure, open up the borders. It is therefore incumbent on the West to find a solution. One thought I had is that the 40 million Muslims currently living in Europe could be given their own European country to live in. Obviously, this would mean a part of Europe will need to be voluntarily sacrificed and it would involve an unprecedented population shift. For me, Britain is the obvious choice. The country already has several Muslim majority cities. It has a natural moat around it and is big enough, once depopulated of its current non-Muslim population, to support Europe’s 40 million Muslims and banished ex European Leaders such as Tony Blair, Theresa “The Remainer” May, Angela Merkel etc. and their sympathisers. Of course, Britain would need to be completely stripped of its cultural heritage which would follow the country’s resettled populations on the European continent and the Channel crossing would have to be flooded or bricked up.

    Apologies if I have upset a few Brits here but come on, the weather is better in Spain anyway. Ok so now that I have now earnt myself a permanent ban from UK and a British fatwa, has anyone got a better idea that doesn’t result in bloodshed.

    • Constantin says

      Dear Tubbles,

      I wonder whether Germany should not volunteer in that capacity for reasons that are too obvious to be re-stated. LOL

      • Tubbles says

        I had thought of Germany for the reasons you suggest. How much collective guilt will the Germans feel this time around? Presumably the most guilty in Germany, the leaders, will flee into exile after the EU collapses. Where will they go? Will they seek asylum in a Middle Eastern country? Merkel permanently forced to wear a Hijab will be nice to see but hardly justice for the disaster she has unleashed in Europe.

        It is not unreasonable for European countries to seek reparations from Germany for Merkel’s madness. Perhaps the debts of the poorer European countries could be written off in compensation. But it’s not that simple. Nor is it entirely Germany’s fault. Other European leaders past and present were also complicit.

        The problem with sacrificing Germany to Islam is that it is pretty much landlocked and therefore doesn’t have the advantage of Britain’s natural moat. The other advantage (or disadvantage depending on your point of view) is Britain will also certainly go down a socialist path in the near future, further exasperating its existing problems. Within 10 years the voluntary depopulation of Britain non-Muslims will have started in earnest. My guess is former colonies like Canada and Australia with populist governments will feel feel the most sympathy and will take in loads of “white flight” migrants even though they probably don’t have the capacity to do so. So Britain, remains in my opinion with some irony, our best option for avoiding the “rivers of blood” predicted so astutely by Enoch Powell. Perhaps the only question remains, will the country’s top islamophile, the next monarch, King Charles choose to stay behind?

        I had considered Greece. It’s huge debt will never be repaid so conceding it might not be such a loss but it is probably an advantage to retain the country as a buffer between the rest of Europe and the Middle East. Greece also would not be large enough to support a population of 40 million.

        How things pan out in the next 10-20 years is anyone’s guess but one thing for sure, we’re in for interesting times and Europe will be the focus. I am so looking forward to King Charles’s memoirs which no doubt will be mostly written in his new accommodation at the Tower of London.

        • augustine says

          @ Tubbles

          Well, England maybe, but probably not Scotland. Some conservatives these days call it the Dead Island for good reason. I think your timeline is a little off, though. How long did it take for the Spaniards to bring Andalus back to civilization? About 300 years as I recall. And Islam is only a nascent phenomenon in Europe right now…

          • Tubbles says

            True Augustine, but it would have taken them 5 times as long if they had today’s Liberals aiding and abetting the enemy. I concede the Scots might be hard to convince. Perhaps the Muslims will just have to build a wall or if they are worried about cost (I assume Soros’s funds will run out by then) they could just renovate the existing Roman wall.

    • Rob says

      Pop quiz (and no using the internet to cheat):

      Which European country has the highest population of Muslims, and what proportion of the population do they make up?

      • augustine says

        Well, it will have to be the Muslims building the wall because you know the Scots won’t spring for it.


        My guess is France

        • Rob says

          Yep, France. 9 Per cent. I’m guessing if you asked the average Fox fewer how many people in France today are Muslim, he’d guess 30 or 35 per cent.

          Fear is the mind killer.

      • Tubbles says

        I have an unfair advantage because I examined Muslim population numbers a few months back but I can’t remember the exact % Some of the Balkan countries have Muslim populations approaching 50% or maybe even higher. Of the larger countries France has the most at around 7%. It’s a bit of a trick question though. Is Turkey (almost 100% Muslim) part of Europe? For many years they wanted us to believe they were. Not sure about that now.

  36. Peter from Oz says

    It should be pointed out that the Liberal Club at an Australian University refers to the Australian Liberal Party, which is actually a Conservative party and not liberal in the American sense.

  37. If Lauren Southern was fat would anyone give a damn of what she said?

    • Tubbles says

      Come on, blame the current ascendancy of the conservative viewpoint on the scientific fact that we are better looking.

    • Andrew_W says

      I don’t pay her much attention because of her age, few 23 year olds have enough maturity to show wisdom, just look at the rest of the student age population.

      • I hate to say that I agree with this. I’ve followed here a little bit over the last few years. I didn’t mind her at first, but I can’t take her seriously as a journalist. If she wants to be an activist, that’s her business. As far as You Tubers that cover culture war and politics, I much prefer someone like Tim Pool.

      • dirk says

        @Andrw & TB: so, not too young, and not too fat. But what about those 2 kalashnikof’s?? Does it help?, or mitigate?

        • Andrew_W says

          “Kalashnikof’s”? Those aren’t Kalashnikovs, do you really think Southern would be waving around a pair of Russian rifles when the US makes so many?

          • dirk says

            Thanks Andrew, I just guessed without knowing precisely (and realizing that some smart Quillette commenter would correct), but for an amateur, they look like ones. But, the question still remains of course, because, I wonder which of the two types are deadlier!

          • dirk says

            I only now , at closer look,see that Southern has 2 different rifles, and they look indeed quite more up to date than the old Kalashnikovs. I wonder what message she wants to spread with those guns. Is she seeing too many Super Woman moovies?

          • dirk says

            What I read in my todays newspaper, a children’s rhime of the 1990s:
            I met her in the attic
            with a loaded automatic
            I met her at the bank
            with a US army tank

        • Southern took trash photo as a joke. I wouldn’t take it too seriously (One clue: she’s not an American, but she’ wearing the American flag). It’s pretty obvious why the writer chose it, though.

    • Kenneth Eisenberg says

      Ooo! Fat-shaming. If you worked at Curves – your’e fired. If she gave a talk with no press coverage of the counter protestor/rioting,feces tossing Anti-fa types, would any one know she was even in town?

    • Constantin says

      Dear TB,

      Clearly not if the thinking is relegated exclusively to the penis! LOL

  38. Melbournite says

    The culture/values test is an excellent idea. A culture is ultimately comprised of the views and desires of the inhabitants of a country; it can only survive if said inhabitants share broadly similar values. An influx of new individuals with antithetical values will inevitably weaken and degrade the existing culture, and those individuals can come from anywhere, be of any race, and practice any religion.

    Also, as a life-long resident of Melbourne I can say there are definitely no-go zones here. Dandenong, Footscray, parts of Richmond, parts of Frankston, parts of Melton, as well as multiple country towns that are in the grip of a methamphetamine crisis. The CBD can be pretty dangerous too. They may not outwardly resemble warzones, but the civil unrest and crime within them is quite real.

  39. Gregory Bogosian says

    “the uncomfortable image of groups of unoccupied men congregating at train stations and other public places.” How exactly is that uncomfortable?

    • Yolov Swaginovski says

      @Greg for the same reason that it’s uncomfortable to see men hanging outside the unemployment office.

  40. Rob says

    35 per cent of Canadians agree there is too much immigration to Canada. 60 per cent disagree.

    Of Canadians who have been here for 3 or more generations: 37 per cent agree, 58 per cent disagree.

    When you look at university graduates, those numbers are 25 and 70.

    Age 18 to 44: 31 per cent agree, 63 per cent disagree.

    Age 45+: 38 per cent agree, 58 per cent disagree.—immigration-and-minority-groups/focus-canada-winter-2018—immigration-and-minority-groups—data-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=8e2f4661_2

    So there is no demographic in Canada where more people are against Canada’s current levels of immigration than for it. And the younger and more educated Canadians are, the less likely they are to believe immigration levels are a problem.

    • Rick Phillips says

      I assume these numbers reflect the views of Canadians about immigration. There appears to be significant support for Canada’s immigration policy. ( ). Where support appears to come off the rails is when that immigration policy is not implemented as stated. The Canadian discussion about immigration is often confused by the conflation of what constitutes an immigrant, refugee and illegal migrant (the latter has not gone through the immigration process and may have claimed refugee status by illegally crossing the border). Canadian’s are by and large open to legitimate immigration (including refugees) but are concerned about persons who may claim to be refugees but who could turn out to be economic migrants. Canada has limited capacity to process refugee claims in a timely manner and provides significant assistance to refugee claimants. This provides an opportunity to some to play the system and could if not addressed turn opinion.

  41. My understanding is that Australia is the only country in the world with a policy of mandatory detention. Might have been worth a mention?

  42. Coolius Caesar says

    Wow, this was 100% purely a hit piece against Lauren Southern:

    “She tells us that the only way to preserve Western values is if we limit or exclude immigration from countries which aren’t White.”
    That’s an absolute lie. Nowhere has she said she opposes immigration from “non-white” countries.

    “she joined a European far-right group in blocking boats involved in search-and-rescue missions for asylum seekers stranded on leaky rafts in the Mediterranean Sea.”
    1) Generation Identity aren’t far right 2) They were opposing human smuggling by ngo’s 3) Their work inspired Italy to start turning away “asylum seekers” 4) There was a story not too long ago about a boat from libya where the “asylum seekers” threatened to kill the boat’s crew if they didn’t take them to italy…

    “Sadly, this is a compassion which Southern seems to lack despite showing compassion elsewhere —for example, in her coverage of attacks on white South African farmers.”
    In South Africa the white population is being persecuted and murdered, in many cases with open support by the South African government. That’s in no way the same as “asylum seekers” crossing the Mediterranean. No one forced them to get into the boats.

    I stopped reading after the above garbage.

  43. AMW says

    “Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter that the boats stopped long ago and these ‘no go zones’ do not exist in Australia”

    I suggest the author watches this video.
    Okay, technically it isn’t a “no go” zone – at least as long as you are happy to give up your normal freedoms in favour of the rules of the local community.

    This is the level the authorities in many western countries have sunk to today – you aren’t allowed to do anything that might antagonise members of communities or certain religions that are arguably incompatible with the liberal democratic values of your country in your own country in case it causes violence (from them), civil unrest (from them) and the police will do everything in their power to deny you your normal rights and legal protections in order to prevent this from happening.

  44. codadmin says

    The only people who want open borders for the Western nations are anti-white racists. It’s really that simple when their motivations are examined closely.

  45. “Racism” is a magic work, like “abracadabra.” It need not have a specific referent to work its magic. Non-racism, meritocracy, equality of opportunity and anti-slavery are, like physics and social sciences, the inventions of the European Enlightenment, and are thus the inventions by the new “despised class,” the Gramscian scapegoat class, the “hegemony”: whitey toxic male oppressors.

    The fraud committed by mega-corporate owners of media in collusion with authoritarianism-promoting unelected governmental rulers is now exposed and thus censorship is being rushed in to try to cover up the “immigrant” rape culture, the European no-go zones and the grotesquely bad employment and economic prospects for citizens in their own European homes. Academic fraud is rampant. Mainstream journalistic fraud is rampant.

    Weissen raus = Juden raus. And we shall fight that sentiment without cease.

  46. “Immigrant” is a term that describes a law-abiding person who agrees to normal process and jurisdiction of the host nation. Not hoaxers, invaders, sleeper-cells, people who despise lhe laws and culture of the host nation. There is no such thing as an “undocumented” immigrant. All persons are documented, even if they throw away the paper documents they own, documentation still exists.

    “Asylum seekers” sounds nice, but it is usually a term used for NGO-recruited economic migrants (fraudsters) wishing to sap the resources of nations that are failing to provide jobs for huge numbers of their own citizens. Remember the Iraq-Iran war 1980-1988? Would it have made sense to import tens of millions of the citizens of those nations as “asylum seekers?” No, bankrupting the Western science-inventing nations is a bad idea.

  47. Goodwill Gone says

    Glad to see that there was considerable ‘pushback’ to this piece ven from the first comment. Maybe the author is well-intentioned, and maybe he’s not. Southern is farther right than I am (I began far left and have veered to right-of-centre), but she’s not wrong.

    My forbears were actual ‘refugees’ (the term didn’t even exist then; they were just ‘foreign immigrants’) from what we would now call sh*tholes. They fled with their lives. They accepted the values, language, and customs of their new home. They accepted their civic responsibilities ahead of rights, and WORKED to gain rights. They were moved to rural spots that needed population, and they stayed and WORKED. They integrated. That’s the model for immigration.

    Safe to say that immigration is topsy-turvy, thanks to the moral weakness of left-liberals. Time to right the ship, and hence ‘Southerns’ have popped up. Good on her.

    Only a tiny percentage of immigrants are fleeing with their lives. Let them in. Demand that they integrate. The overwhelming rest are economic migrants, and most of them have nothing positive to offer their Western host nation. The world isn’t in a position to wait until their children or grandchildren integrate. Ship them back. Why do we not demand that they take responsibility for, and build, their own nations?

    Over the past 50 years the developed Western nations have given billions of ‘aid and development’ dollars to the nations whose populations now pour into the West. Where is the accountability? Where is the development? Where is the infrastructure and civil society?

    Develop your nations. Build your nations. Clean your house. Keep your backward, medieval values if you wish; but don’t bring them to the West.

    Too many bad actors, teat-sucking migrants, and wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’ve brought too much violence. Impossible not to conclude that there’s something wrong with the Arab and African nations that no matter the support and aid by every other continent and nation, that they are simply unable to create civil, peaceful societies.

    And, sadly, it’s also impossible to conclude that there’s not something wrong with Western left-liberalism that has allowed this to happen to the West. Nobody goes to Asia, Africa, or an Arab nation and makes demands of its governing bodies or culture. The idea is laughable.

    I’m not in love with the new crop of ‘Southerns’, but they’re an entirely natural reaction to the excesses of open borders and the bleeding-heart left-libs who have welcomed them with no demands whatsoever.

  48. Saturn Black says

    If a police officer tells you that you’ll be breaking the law by going to a certain place, how is that anything other than a no-go zone?

    Just like your mainstream leftist buddies, I bet the only research you did on Lauren was reading your mates’ articles. This is why all these claims about her have become so exaggerated. None of you even bother to watch her videos which are all freely available on YouTube. The entire Melbourne talk is on there and it had nothing to do with race.

    Not gonna waste my time refuting your points when you clearly can’t be bothered doing the research. You lefties are going to do yourselves out of business with your laughable high school journalism standards. Get real kid.

  49. White & Proud says

    This article belongs to alternet or salon, bastions of pc culture. I see nothing wrong with Souther defending White culture/institutions. When blacks and other so-called people of color (what an odious term) are not only allowed but encouraged to be proud of their race/heritage by the regressive left, why can’t Southern or I do the same?

    The fact is, we are being sold out by the political class. We are told to shut our mouths and go along with the plan of letting in millions of illegal aliens from peasant societies. Politicians know our birth rate is too low to replenish future voters so they are willing and eager to invite hordes from the third world to settle here and gets tons of freebies in exchange for future democratic voters. Trump smelled this rat and took advantage of it; and the silent White majority (soon to me minority) rose up and said, WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

  50. Manuel says

    “While some neighbourhoods take on an ethnic character over time, this by no means implies the existence of a ‘no go zone’ or any lack of integration.”

    So how’s that integration business coming along? Why is a police officer scared sh**less of a 23 year old Canadian planning to interview people down a public street? This is just a documented anecdote of course, but the author of this piece has made no effort to gather national statistics on the problem of integration. So much for data driven, dispassionate reasoning. I have come to expect better from Quillette.

    On a personal note, I am a European immigrant currently residing in Canada. I admire Western culture and enjoy its fruits every day. And I am getting really, really sick of fellow immigrants spitting in their plate after stuffing their mouth to capacity, all the while cultivating an aura of self-righteousness worth of a diva.

  51. Summing up: The writer got into Australia as a worthy, deserving immigrant. The poor who try to migrate are undeserving. Close the door behind him.

  52. Completely onboard with your criticisms of Lauren Southern in regard to immigration – I don’t know enough about Western Europe or Britain, but I can say that in my own country where also LS comes from, immigration has been an overwhelmingly positive thing economically. I don’t even live in a metropolis but in my midsize city all one has to do is visit the small retail shops in any commercial area to see that they are mostly run by immigrants. (I suspect it is the same in Australia too).

    … yet everything isn’t dollars and sense either. Again, I believe commentators such as Southern are overwrought in their criticisms of the `cultural’ threat that high immigration has for Western countries. Yet, are any and all criticisms of high immigration inherently `racist’? No too. And this is what anyone questioning rates of immigration have been faced with for decades now. That should be a part of any critique of Southern as well…

  53. Sarah Allsop says

    I began reading this article with an open mind, but found there are a number of points the author makes that are flat out wrong. I linked to the study on refugees referenced in the article and (1) the report cited by the New York Times was never publicly released by the DHS, and (2) when the final report was released, it came to the exactly opposite conclusion, namely that refugees were economically a net drain on the economy.

  54. With all due respect Satyajeet, your arguments pretend that you are the typical immigrant, when in fact you are far from that. You are plainly well educated and share Western Values.

    Such, however, if far from the typically the case with immigrants, especially those who come illegally or seeking asylum. You try to hide this cold hard fact behind the shield of racism, but to many that word has lost its power from its systematic misuse.

    And before you finish composing your allegations of my racist motives, let me inform you that I don’t hate immigrants – I was raised by them – my own blood. But they were of the type that immigrated to the US in the 1920’s-40’s. I saw firsthand how they maintained their ethnicity and culture in their home yet respected that it was their duty to assimilate into the larger culture, not expect the larger culture to assimilate to them.

    The problem with today’s immigrants is that most don’t want to join a new culture and adopt it’s values – they want to flee poverty yet continue the culture and values that created the poverty in their homeland. The audacity it takes to immigrate to another culture, then go on welfare and protest against the people that let you immigrate. If my immigrant relatives saw their peers acting like that the police wouldn’t of had to quiet them, or even the opportunity to do so.

    And because you raised the race issue – let’s confront it head on.

    Why is it when brown people want to keep their homeland brown the liberal types support them and scold white people, yet when brown people go to white homelands and white people object the same liberal crew calls the whites unempathetic racists?

    Why is it the same people who despise the white man’s colonization in history, which undoubtedly helped those cultures advance in the long term even if exploiting them in the short term, yet have endless empathy when brown people come to white countries and create problems that seem to continue through the short term into the long term simply because they refuse to assimilate?

    My Answer: They hate white people and this is what motivates their politics. And many white people have become very keen sense of this and they don’t care if people of your view cry “racist.” A “racist” use to be something we called a person with an irrational hatred of brown people. Today “racist” is something liberals call someone of whom they have an irrational hatred.

    What do you think is going to happen when this European immigration experiment gone wrong continues to create problems and tension year after year, decade after decade? When the immigrants unwilling to assimilate to Western Culture start politically asserting that Europe is a “multi-cultural” zone rather than the homeland of whites? If history is any indicator the answer is mass violence. And the blame will go on the immigration, and the voices like yours that promoted it and apologized and accused to shield the immigrants from their obvious obligation to assimilate.

    I empathize with the poor of the world. I recognize every day that I’m so lucky not to be born someplace where everyone wants to flee and with good reason, and that I have done nothing to deserve this luck. But I’m also aware that 80% of the world lives off less than $10 per day and the West can’t take them all in, even if they would assimilate, because if we did it wouldn’t afford our standard of living to all, it would just kill our culture and destroy our standard of living. It’s like being on a life boat with 100 people trying to climb on – I wouldn’t blame them for trying to climb aboard let alone hate them for it, but I would also fight them because I would know the alternative is that I will be in the water with them.

    And if you can’t see the merits of the very simple concepts I have addressed above, then I say it is your views and thinking that are driven by racism, not mine and not Lauren Southern’s.

    • dirk says

      What’s worse even, they are not even stimulated to assimilate, al least, until rather shortly. They were given classes in Arabic and Koran, and voices who criticized this, were honed and ridiculed. That’s changing now, but such things are not something of the short terms, of course, and I wonder what will be the next moove of our government. Always something to wonder about!
      I just read in my newspaper that, in the 17th century, Holland was awash with immigrants, because of the demand of sailors, butchers, carpenters, workers of all kind of jobs for the float of ships of the trade companies, without that there was any problem with such influxes. But also, that somebody without papers caught in a city, begging or hanging around was warned to get off, second time caught cut one ear, third time hanged.

  55. The very introduction of the article is problematic. Can you show me where she’s having a problem with “immigration”?

  56. It is painfully ironic when an Indian immigrant from a nation where a barbaric caste system is still intact thinks he is in a moral position to criticize a defender of Western values like Lauren Southern. It’s time that people start calling him out on it.

  57. Bolland says

    Getting tired of all the conflation, disingenuousness, and relativism in these kind of articles and the comments below them. It’s really only about one bad ideology and its subscribers. Take a wild guess.

  58. Scotty says

    I thoroughly reject any articles premise that continues to erroneously conflate ‘immigration’ with anti asylum seeker sentiment. This is about cohesion, infrastructure, environment and the total immigration rate (including temp visas) full stop and NOT about refugees or asylum seekers.

  59. Zoe says

    This author says that Australia doesn’t have no-go zones, yet when Lauren went to Lakemba in Sydney (a place with a strong Muslim population) people yelled abuse at her on the street and a police officer stopped her from walking down a public street to a mosque to interview people outside it. Watch her YouTube video on it.

    They also talk about refugee ships. The ship she and Generation Identity were protesting was not picking up refugees.They were helping to smuggle in illegal economic migrants. Research by the UN and EU confirmed this, but it had been generally ignored in the media. The same boat she was protesting has this year been blocked from docking in Italy. Also 42 mps in Germany have put their names forward to bring charges of people trafficking against the NGOs like the one Lauren protested.

  60. Erik SKM says

    At first blush the author presents as a moderate voice of criticism. Euphemisms and dysphemisms aside, his critics might still be persuaded that Ms. Southern is not as careful with her language as she should be. Indeed self-styled “provacateur” she needs to be careful not to step on the wrong people’s toes.

    But his tone soon grows from loosely fair to loosely unfair, then flippant, and finally, closing with the accusation seemingly out of nowhere that she’s a demagogue, it gives itself away. His is a fake moderate voice.

    The revelation thus casts a shadow backward across the article, putting it in truer perspective.

    The tone is violent hate, resentfully masked until the author has, with suggestion, laid the ground to seriptitiously slide onto the very end the conclusion that Ms. Southern is a demagogue – a malignant accusation without evidence! – libel.

Comments are closed.