Australians never voted for Albo’s open borders


By Stephen Saunders

The “Race Card” stifles local opposition to Albanese Open Borders. But he’s an anomaly. Sensibly, most wealthy nations run on low rates of population growth.

I deny Anthony Albanese triggered this piece. With his coltish arena gigs for India’s Narendra Modi. No, it was a world-weary reader dissing my previous article:

The same voting bloc whose living standards are destroyed by these [open border] policies will line up in the rain to vote for it. Vocally, if need be, violently…

Fair point. In this latest Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) survey, our graduates and younger people do seem to lean a bit that way.

According to TAPRI and my other citations, however, the all-up 2023 majority would still favour “Lower Migration Party”. If they had a choice. They don’t:

Desired level of immigration

Source: The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI)


Mass migration is endorsed by Liberal, National, Labor, Green, and Teal. Who said Coles versus Woolies was boring?

The Race Card normalises Open Borders.

How does the Down Under franchise of Race Card work?


Post 2009, Australia’s top 10% have hoovered up most “benefits” of growth. Yet the Albanese Government busts immigration records, paying lip service only to the resulting rental crisis. It has generated a per capita recession. And ignored the chasm between burgeoning population and battered environment.

Wouldn’t his so-called population debate be reawakened? No, that’s smothered in three words. You’re a racist.

This mantra invokes fear and fumbling. It scarcely needs whispering. At the same website, a reader parodies our parochial paralysis:


I don’t think there’s a single other country in the world which would place limits on immigration? If Australia does it (or even allows discussion) the whole world will realise how racist that we are!

What if Open Borders tarnishes Albanese’s political capital? He’d blame everyone else. Ditto if The Voice goes down.

It’s less he needs to stage-manage voters. No, the elite must police themselves. We feel their pain.

Though Senator Hanson’s prospective immigration plebiscite never mentioned race, she looked to have racist “form”. The Senate thrashed her.


Albanese’s immigration ambush, as she tweeted, betrayed election promises. ABC Fact Check cadre “proved” the opposite.

Local workers and wages, in Senator Keneally’s moderate 2020 opinion, ought to come first. Dial immigration back.

Team Albanese flashed her the Card. Media piled on. She walked it back. Took that hospital pass to Fowler Electorate.


Member Dutton links extreme rental/homeless distress to the immigration deluge. He never mentioned race. He wouldn’t dare. He specified low migration in numbers.

Nonetheless, woke Guardian and Nine pundits brandished the Card. Another reader of mine despairs at these “progressives”:

Progressives in this country draw the line at protecting the poor, the young and disenfranchised, if it comes at the cost of de facto open borders.


Few wealthy nations practise Open Borders.

Open Borders, declaims California pol-sci prof Sarah Song, has emerged as the dominant normative position.

Implying rich nations are (should be) practising voracious immigration. Presto, world and national economies win. “Skill shortages” get sorted.

Sceptics are sin-binned as nativists. Code for racist.


Ticking Song, and every other box, this recent New Yorker essay sort-of acknowledges voters. But they should leave immigration policy to the higher-ups:

Economists love immigration. Why do so many Americans hate it?

After 3,700 words of noodling – economists win. Nothing re the environment. Because United Nations net-zero emissions will save the planet. Except it won’t.

Though still pushing “global migration”, New York Times (NYT) is getting uneasy. Gosh, maybe it’s “unpopular” with Americans.

Never mind, NYT still has their corporate net-zero pledge. Australia’s endangered mallees and wombats are thrilled. Except they’re not.


Check current Washington Post and London The Economist. Rich nations are – should be – immigration raptors. Rich Anglophone nations, more like it.

Canada, Australia, also New Zealand, have cranked annual net-migration well above 1% of population. Joining in is UK. So much for Brexit – taking back borders.

Joe Biden’s one-million immigration looks huge. Pro rata for 330 million population, less so. Woke media or not, their growth engine isn’t (yet) population per se.


Although, under Democrats or Republicans, America skims world talent. Alone, Apple Inc doubles Australia’s GDP. Clumsily, we raid Bhutan, for More Migrants Please.

As government funded ABC and SBS skates over the pertinent points, many European nations have low or even negative population growth rates, China and Japan being similar.

Song’s California is a global economic titan. Historically, the top immigration state, in the top immigration nation. Now it has negative population growth.


Atavistic Albanese has accelerated Australia to 1.9% population growth. Three to four times higher than most European nations. Easily twice the rate of Modi India.

His blitzkrieg bypasses voters and parliament. It suits our retro “democracy” of donors and stakeholders.

Albanese approaches Open Borders nirvana.


As we emerged from COVID, Scott Morrison strove to restore “Big Australia” immigration. Albanese concealed the next-level blueprint.

Influencer Abul Rizvi disparages Home Affairs boss Mike Pezzullo. Albanese retained him regardless. Gunning for 400,000 and 315,000 in net migration over 2022-24:


Source: 2023 federal budget


Under Kevin Rudd, Albanese was Infrastructure Minister. Forget infrastructure, as he blitzes Rudd’s 24-month migration record. By 140,000 plus.

Just two years ago, COVID border-closure shrank net migration to a 100-year low of negative 85,000. Albanese’s pretext to overtop Rudd.

While his Treasury gaslights voters. With their cockeyed claim, our population is trending “smaller and older”. Due to migrants “lost” [unarrived] during COVID.


Now Albanese has gone next, next level. With his impetuous “qualifications mechanism” and “mobility partnership” for Modi.

On the page, the mechanism resembles a passable forgery.

Carte blanche, post-secondary Indian qualifications are recognised here. And vice versa. Wait on – Indian qualifications aren’t generally the same standard.


Re the partnership, this is the gist of various reports.

Five-year visas for Indian students – no numerical limit. Eight-year work rights – for all Indian graduates of Australian universities. Three thousand at a time, Indian graduates or professionals can enter for two years – or permanently.

Visibly unbalanced. Stakeholders wouldn’t care. They’d just see dollar signs of potential Indian investments.


Remember 2019. Bill Shorten was admonished for failing the “Chinese-Australian” electorates. Ditto Morrison in 2022. Special “stakeholders” proliferate.

Now check Minister O’Neil. Her odd slant on “Australian values” reads like – More Migrants Please. Whatever happened to kelpies and mateship?

No fair go – if hardly any of her huge intakes are refugees.


Intakes raked in, with all regard for Treasury GDP. Limited regard for migrant accommodation and employment. Utter disregard for existing residents.

Prime ministers pump Australia as the multicultural nirvana. Influencer George Megalogenis is giddy. Not only are we 30% (only emulated by a few autocracies) overseas born. We’ve cracked 50% “migrant origin”.

What of it, George? Should we do victory-laps over India and China? Preen over USA and wealthy European nations also having low rates of immigration?


George, what would be your environmentally “sustainable” Australian population limit?

For globalist Rudd and salivating urban planners, 50 million is a slam-dunk. They seem to assume, UN net-zero can square our (arid) environmental circle.

Under Albanese Open Borders, voters are so last century.


At the Albanese jobs summit, 146 immigration stakeholders were deputised for 17 million voters. Low-migration voices weren’t in the tent. They might be racist.

As our population lacks a say on population, what’s democracy for? Song again:

Part of what it means for a political community to be self-determining is that it controls whom to admit as new members.


Self-determining? Never mind RBA’s Michele Bullock – it’s Treasury determines our membership numbers.

Their long-term net-migration target is a huge 260,000 annually. “Broadly average”, insinuates the Guardian. Ventured Albanese, his figures were lower than Morrison’s:

Net overseas migration

Fibbers – 260,000 tops three times our all-time average. Four times our 20th century average.


Our post-truth Greens simultaneously support – big migration, a rent freeze, and NIMBYism. In the above TAPRI survey, voters much prefer lower migration. Even net-zero.

Schools and universities can help reprogram this “incorrect” thought. Distract younger citizens from increasing inequality, diminishing services, and a crashing environment.

No surprise – NYT has the bait-and-switch. At all grade levels, young minds should swot climate change. Not the comparative equality of the mid 20th century.


Asserts the globalist Ken Courtis, Albanese’s India pivot could sustain Australia for “30 years”. Our population shell-game, Ken, might fail sooner.

But our lower downs won’t get much back in the way of equality politics. Not while our higher-ups can amuse themselves with imported identity politics. Here’s how they can kiss off the lowers:

We couldn’t do that much for you – we had to address a global climate crisis.

About the author
Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. He is also a co-founder of MacroBusiness. Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.