“Immigration and multiculturalism are issues that this government is trying to address, but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40% of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country.”

Former Australian Member of Parliament, Pauline Hanson (1996)

Politicians are big players in the immigration debate. In the New York Times article we discussed in class, the author suggests that lack of inclusive government policy on immigration creates ‘parallel cultures’ preventing migrants from joining the national community. Arguably the blame should not stop there. Particularly in countries where voting is non-compulsory, immigration debates are often characterised by heavily loaded rhetoric designed to foster a culture of fear and votes at the ballot box.

The above excerpt comes from the maiden speech of former Australian Member of Parliament, Pauline Hanson to the House of Representatives in 1996. While the speech was heavily criticised by fellow politicians and the wider Australian public, Hanson’s One Nation party went on to win nearly one quarter of votes in the Queensland state election two years later. Every country probably has their own ‘Pauline Hanson’. US Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain recently mentioned his ideal border protection fence would be “20 feet high, with barbed wire, electrified. With a sign on the other side that says it can kill you”. Fellow candidate Michele Bachmann also has strong views on immigration, on record saying “not all cultures are equal…not all values are equal”.

And while the names may be different, the rhetoric is not. These people coming to our country, stealing our jobs, ruining our way of life. The language is highly emotive and elicits a stronger emotional response than fact-based discussion. It is particularly effective in times of high unemployment where the concept of our jobs becomes my job, and the reason why I can’t pay my mortgage and feed my family. It is also extremely dangerous, normalising racist attitudes and igniting violence against migrants.

Luckily for Australia, Pauline Hanson has resigned from parliamentary duties. Somewhat worryingly she is still a fixture of Australian culture, reaching the final of Dancing with the Stars and currently starring in the local version of Celebrity Apprentice. Her speech stands testament to the influence of political rhetoric on the immigration debate. Should politicians feel any responsibility for national cohesion? Is winning more votes really worth jeopardising the safety of newly arrived migrants?

by Alex Bitcon