The Immigration Debate by the Numbers

Whatever happened to immigration — as a political issue, that is? As a socio-demographic issue, of course, immigration has continued on its merry way under the bipartisan Big Australia policy after the temporary COVID breather in 2020 and 2021.  Annual net overseas migration (NOM), defined as permanent and long-term (16 months or more) arrivals, primarily overseas students and backpackers, minus net departures of same, had been around the 190,000 mark prior to the ‘No Entry’ sign being put up on our borders. This plunged NOM into historically rare negative territory, a 1-in-100-year immigration reversal.

NOM has subsequently bounced back to rude health, making up for ground lost during its bout with COVID mania.  The Coalition’s final Budget in 2022 baked in new policy settings which plan for a well-above-average increase in NOM, to 235,000 every year from 2024-25 (targets from which the new Labor government has not dissented).  Historically, NOM has been responsible for driving the majority (around two-thirds) of Australia’s total population growth compared to natural increase (births minus deaths), accounting for Australia generally having the highest rate of population growth amongst comparable OECD countries. Of the 34 OECD members, Australia sits second for foreign-born people as a proportion of total population (29 per cent).  Every four years, the new NOM is forecast to add another million people to a country of just 26 million.

So it looks like ‘business as usual’ again for the ‘Big Australia’ immigration lobby which includes those from both sides of politics, the overseas student industry, property developers, think-tanks such as the Grattan Institute and peak employer groups, which rather likes a constantly increasing supply of cheap labour.  Not everyone is cracking open the bubbly, however. A large majority of the Australian population have long been opposed to Australia’s excessively high immigration inflow and they remain so today.

All pre-COVID opinion polls (‘quickie’, snapshot surveys by Newspoll, Essential, Lowy, Centre for Independent Studies, etc.) have shown a majority of voters (variously between 55 to 65 per cent) opposed to high immigration-fuelled population growth.  Only 10 per cent think immigration has been too low.  Post-closed-borders, Nine Media’s Resolve Political Monitor in February 2022 found that this mood has not shifted following the economic slowdown of the mad COVID policy response – 65 per cent of Australians still want immigration at a lower level than existed pre-pandemic, with only 22 per cent wanting it restarted at the same or higher levels.  The more comprehensive survey, by The Australian Population Research Institute of Oct/Nov 2019, found that 72 per cent did not agree that Australia needs more people, whilst their post-pandemic July 2021 survey found the new government NOM target gets the tick from only 19 per cent of voters, with 42 per cent wanting a lower number and a further 28 per cent preferring nil immigration — net zero, to repurpose a term much in-vogue just lately.

When asked by Essential) why they wanted reduced immigration, large majorities of Australians think that ‘increasing immigration levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure’ (63 per cent) whilst almost half (48 per cent) fear that ‘increasing immigration levels would create more competition for jobs and slow wage growth’.  The TAPRI surveys concur that quality-of-life consequences of Big Australia immigration loom foremost in people’s minds, not least thoughts of  further urban congestion (‘Our cities are overcrowded and there is too much traffic’), the cost and accessibility of house ownership and rentals, infrastructure stresses , agricultural and natural environment lost to development, etc.

Most voters, TAPRI finds, are unconvinced by ‘elite justifications for high immigration’ such as immigration being essential for economic growth, including meeting skilled worker demand (only 26 per cent agree that economic health depends on immigration) whilst 61 per cent prefer dealing with skills shortages by raising wages and productivity measures such as improving skills training for locals.  Australians don’t need an economics degree to see the economic downsides of high immigration in their personal lives: it places their jobs and wages at risk, it affects the cost of housing and access to health, education and other services and, whilst it does boost aggregate GDP, it doesn’t move the needle on per-capita GDP (including real wage growth), the practical metric of living standards for your average Australian.

Immigrants are also a drag on government finances because many (particularly elderly parents of immigrants arriving here under the family reunification program) consume far more in government welfare than they have ever or will ever pay in taxes.  The mooted tax-revenue boost from immigration to fund an ageing population also never materialises because the immigrants themselves age and need ever more immigration to fund their own welfare needs in old age. Around and around the mulberry bush we go in a giant Ponzi scheme. 


Repeat after me, ‘Diversity is our strength!’

Neither are most Australians sold on the alleged ethnic diversity benefits of mass immigration that is the migraine-inducing drumbeat of Australia’s leftist elites.  From 2004-05 to 2018-19, as TAPRI notes, the proportion of net migration to Australia coming from the UK, Ireland and Europe fell from 21 per cent (it had been as high as 42 per cent back in 1980) to just 5 per cent today, whilst Asia-origin migrants rose from an already high 45 per cent to a whopping 72 per cent.  Fully 85 per cent of net migration now comes from Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

So have Australians welcomed this?  No, we haven’t.  Only 29 per cent agree that ‘we need more people to increase our cultural diversity’ whilst a majority (53 per cent) think that ‘cultural diversity is a threat to Australia’s own culture and identity’. 

When the inevitable woke hysterics start shouting that all this polling shows ‘Australia is racist!’ and that white Australians are racial supremacists who really don’t like brown people, it is useful to note, as TAPRI does, that majority opposition to mass immigration is common across all birthplace groups. The annual quarter-million NOM Big Australia target doesn’t find much favour at all, even amongst those born in Asia (whose heaving metropoles may have culturally conditioned them to believing that bigger is better). Of these, only 30 per cent want to see their home-country levels of overpopulation reproduced in Australia. 

This opposition to immigration from earlier cohorts of immigrants poses something of a dilemma for the Left because that would make off-white, as well as white Australians, guilty of ‘racism’. Since woke logic insists only white people are capable of racism, this would cause major cognitive dissidence if the wokeists were to stop their virtue-signalling long enough to think about it. When woke leftists say ‘race doesn’t exist’ followed immediately by ‘racial diversity should celebrated’, we can conclude that leftism is a distressingly common mental disorder.


No mainstream political voice

Despite the consistent majority of Australians being rather frigid towards Big Australia, this is not reflected in the mainstream political sphere, where immigration and population policy has (apart from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation – PHON) been subdued as a campaigning issue.  This is quite unlike other Western nations where immigration is a huge public matter with ‘asylum seeker’ caravans to the US making the ‘real and present’ case for a Wall or, in the EU, where large armies of Muslim ‘refugees’  marched unmolested through borderless Europe to be welcomed by every political leader from Merkel to Macron.

For Australia, however, as TAPRI’s 2017 survey notes, “whilst over half of all Australians want to see immigration reduced, only 4 per cent of all candidates in Australia’s previous [2016] federal election wanted lower immigration”.  This failure of immigration to resonate politically may be due to Australia’s island nation geography making it hard to dramatise the issue beyond boats where, even with the advent of a Labor government, maritime turnback of alleged ‘refugees’ (in reality ‘economic migrants’) remains policy across the Australian political aisles as a matter of electoral necessity (in the 2019 TAPRI survey, 58 per cent of voters agreed that ‘all boats carrying asylum seekers should be turned back’, a sentiment with which only 21 per cent disagreed).  The headline-grabbing visibility of flotillas of boat-people entering Australia illegally makes rescinding the turnback policy political kryptonite. But turnback, however, is really a sideshow.  It allows governments to puff out their chests to show a muscular commitment on immigration control, thus acting as cover for their core commitment, in bipartisan harmony, to the massive legal immigration that takes place out of sight daily.

It is also all quiet on the immigration front because of the relative lack of salience of immigration as a political issue in Australia.  When Australian voters are asked to rank issues according to their relative significance (as opposed to a simple dichotomous yes/no, agree/disagree), immigration rates are lower in importance than a number of more pressing issues. In April 2019, Essential Research found that, although 25 per cent of voters rated immigration as a ‘most important’ issue (assigning it a 10 out of 10 for importance/salience), it lagged eight other issues including health (40 per cent rating it as a ten), national security (35 per cent), economic management (33 per cent) and even climate change (for which 26 per cent gave it a perfect ten).  As a result, immigration hasn’t found a mainstream political home commensurate to the level of its popular concern it evokes and has struggled to break out its PHON ghetto.


Strange bedmates

The policy exile of immigration as a politically defining issue in Australia is also due to immigration being hard to electorally pigeonhole here compared to other countries.  Ethnicity looms large in the UK, for example, where Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for former Labour PM Tony Blair, crowed in 2009 that immigration as a campaigning issue

…didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 … was to open up the UK to mass immigration … the policy was intended … to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. 

There were votes in it.  In the 2005 British General Election, 80 per cent of Caribbean and African immigrant voters had ticked Labour, whilst only about 3 per cent voted Conservative.  The British Asian vote also went 50 per cent for Labour and only 10 per cent for the Conservatives.  In the US, likewise, a large majority of non-white immigrants support the immigrant-friendly Democrat Party – in 2020, Hispanic/Latinos split 59-38 per cent Biden over Trump, whilst 72 per cent of Asian immigrants voted for Sleepy Joe.  Both as a policy issue and as a voter demographic, immigration is an active political faultline in the US and UK.

For Australia, however, the same level of immigrant political tribalism does not apply.  Decades ago, the trend was for immigrants to largely vote Labor (unless they were specifically of Cold War anti-communist lineage), but this no longer holds true and both major parties pitch for the votes and pork-barrels of vote-swinging ethnic blocs.  As a result, immigration is looked on favourably by both major parties, each delighted to drag Treasury on board with the Big Australia agenda (‘does my GDP look big in this?’).

Immigration’s negative effect on working class jobs and livelihoods, however, does make curbing immigration a natural political fit for the working class populist Right (Trump, Brexit, PHON, etc.) but it also has its more mainstream champions such as the ALP Right’s Bob Carr and even, in an unguarded moment, ALP Left mavericks such as, briefly, Kristina Keneally, who when Shadow Minister for Immigration said that, back when borders were reopening, that Australians should get a “first go at jobs” rather than “overseas, temporary labour that undercuts wages for Australian workers and takes jobs Australians could do”, noting that “one in five chefs, one in four cooks, one in six hospitality workers, and one in ten nursing support and personal care workers in Australia hold a temporary visa”.

Keneally took an earlier dip, in May 2020, as shadow minister for home affairs, observing the sheer level of immigration “has hurt many Australian workers, contributing to unemployment, underemployment and low wage growth”.  Keneally was, naturally, howled down by the enforcers of respectable opinion (adds fuel [SMH],  Hansonite populism [AFR], etc.) and she was publicly spanked by her own party for deviating from immigration orthodoxy; then opposition leader Anthony  Albanese joined in, saing he was “not happy”).

A small subset of otherwise incompatible economists also have found themselves on the same immigration-restrictionist page.  When Ross Garnaut (advocate of universal basic income, a carbon tax and big-spending and heavy-regulating government) has a meeting of minds with free-market, light-touch government advocate Judith Sloan can agree that “the federal government’s irresponsible immigration policy implemented for over a decade and a half has had a number of adverse effects, including contributing to low wages growth”, we can see a view that goes well beyond mere ideological banner-waving over immigration.  Garnaut noted in a passable imitation of Donald Trump that “the overall effect [of mass immigration] was to integrate much of the Australian labour market into a global labour market for the first time”; translated from GloboNewspeak what he is saying is that Australia has opened up to cheap imported labour at the expense of local workers.  When he wrote that “increased immigration contributed to total GDP growth, but detracted from the living standards of many Australian working families”, Sloan wryly noted that “Gosh, I could have written that sentence myself”.

There has always  been an element of the labour movement, too, that has dared to challenge immigration dogma.  The White Australia Policy was instituted in 1901 through the Immigration Restriction Act and required prospective immigrants to pass a dictation test in a European language (thus sharply limiting non-White immigration). This was the fruit of early trade union agitation, with support from the ALP, which sought to protect Australians jobs from cheap imported competition (which primarily came from non-white countries).  Whitlam legislatively killed off the policy in 1973, for being ‘racist’ and ’chauvinist’, as the woke Left saw it, pleasing corporate Australia no end.

Over in the US, the leftist leader of the United Farm Workers union in the early 1970s, Cesar Chavez (a third-generation immigrant and a US Navy veteran), kept afloat labour movement wariness of immigration.  He opposed farm employers’ use of low-wage, often illegal, immigrant labour because they took the jobs of Americans (many of whom were themselves long-established and legal immigrants) and put downward pressure on general wage levels.  Chavez was an icon of the Left back then, as he remains today.  In 2021, Biden’s staffers chose a bust of Chavez (who was Hispanic, thus passing the woke test, and who was a trade union militant, thus clearing the class struggle bar) for the presidential office.  Chavez also offered his union staffers and members to the government’s Immigration Naturalisation Service as volunteers to police the Californian border with Mexico, promising they would turn over any border-crossers to the feds. Not surprisingly, since that aspect of Chavez violates the woke code of today’s no-borders/no-deportations/amnesty-now, the Left and has largely memory-holed that opposition.


Immigration, race and Marx

As for the hard Left (Greens included), immigration is amongst the wokest of issues, a political purity test that comes with the peril of being looked upon as some sort of political pond-life should opposition be given voice.  The keenest administrators of the test, according to TAPRI, are degree-holders (25 per cent of the Australian population) who are mostly (except, perhaps, for engineers) bred in our universities’ petri dish for wokeness.

Perhaps they should read their unexpurgated Karl Marx, whose only substantive contribution to the hot immigration issue of his late nineteenth century day, when one-fifth of Ireland’s starving population flooded into Britain during and after the Potato Famine, was decidedly unwoke. In an 1870 letter to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt, friends of his in the German communist diaspora in the United States, Marx stated the obvious that mass immigration by desperate labourers “forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class”.  Marx would have torn bleeding strips off any leftist then, or now, who would invoke an abstract moralism about welcoming all immigrants, because ‘diversity’ or whatever, whilst ignoring their impact (‘material’ and, note, ‘moral’) on the native working class.

Engels was forthright, too – “the English working-man has to struggle with a competitor upon the lowest plane possible in a civilised country … the wages of English workingmen should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him”.  Engels added that “I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland.”

If the blood-thinning medication trading under the name of Warfarin was called by its base ingredient – rat poison – no one except a lunatic would go near it.  If the Big Immigration policy that drives the Big Australia vision and makes sacred ‘Diverse Australia’ were to be marketed under its actual ingredients  — wage-tanking, welfare-receiving, traffic-clogging, nature-degrading, Open-Borders globalism and the death of the Australian national identity and culture who but a lunatic — or a woke leftist — would have a bar of it?

18 thoughts on “The Immigration Debate by the Numbers

  • brandee says:

    Another population booster apart from those mentioned is the otherwise conservative supporting Murdoch print media. On that Judith Sloan is a lone voice who writes of the adverse effect of large immigration. But for unit builders [High Rise Harry], food retailers, mobile phone outlets, airlines, etc., the more consumers the better and they are in the government’s ear.
    Bob Carr has been the only Premier against the rapid expansion of Sydney. Perhaps he realised that the Federal Government who regulates the immigration flow benefits from a tax increase whilst the states have to cover the cost of hospitals, police, schools, roads, trains, dams, power, etc.
    The bulk of new migrants go to the biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. How is this so smart?
    London has taken 2000 years to almost reach a population of 10 million. Sydney has gained a population of 5 million in only 230 years, so are we to continue on this trajectory for 2000 years?
    Immigrants need to be suited to our culture so we need not select on their need but on our need. The biggest criminal families in Sydney have Middle Eastern names and a culture that practices violence and payback. What failed immigration or refugee policy allowed that problem to come to Australia’s shore?
    Do we really have any obligation to allow a huge number of Afghan asylum seekers? For any help they gave Australians during our military intervention they were justly paid so they were not helping us we were helping them at a huge cost to the Australian budget. Lets keep that perspective!

  • Tony Tea says:

    Over the last 15 or so years I have wondered to what level the Chinese government is behind Chinese money flowing into Australian real estate. I mean, if I’m a Chinese person who thinks that I wouldn’t mind immigrating to Australia, is that easy to do? Or is the government behind it as a de facto belt and road, or belt and street? Is China setting us up with a classic drug dealer move to get us on the hook? Are they still buying up great swathes of Sydney & Melbourne sight (site) unseen?

  • Ceres says:

    The ingredients of mass migration as spelt out in the last sentence, seldom see the light of day. Ordinary punters experience and complain about it but MSM call that racist and resort to the lying cliches like, diversity is our strength. Isn’t propaganda telling a big lie and then keep on repeating it?

  • Botswana O'Hooligan says:

    As a victim of immigration for I fought long and hard to get my wife a visa, then a permanent visa, then citizenship, I believe that we need to have the whole nine yards of it exposed before a Royal Commission. My wife had all the wrong attributes for she came from the dreaded black hat country, white, Christian, fluent in English, engineering degree, immediate employment where she has averaged paying about 40K a year in income tax, and paperwork drama by the ream to get a medicare card, open a bank account, get a tax file number, tasks that took time and money. During that travail I met many other people in the same boat but without going into detail I noted that other nationalities who have about zero compatibility with our mores, waltz in. Go for a walk around any large city and see just how integration works for in some areas one gets the impression one is in Asia or India or just about anywhere else except Australia and the thought of a another third World country springs to mind and believe you me, we don’t want that.

  • 27hugo27 says:

    Botswana 0′. I grew up in a time when front doors were left open, keys were left in ignitions, and money was left out each night to pay the milkman (You being older than I could confirm and add to this memory) Despite apocryphal tales of bodgies, widgies, rockers etc i never saw a fight involving more than two people, and rarely saw that! Now we are supposed to look the other way, and suppress our instincts and opinions when we see first hand or on the news, hundreds of Africans involved in Street fights, as the police call them “youths” or “teens” and celebrate the wonderful “diversity” they bring. Not to mention endless break- ins, stabbings and carjacks. I didn’t pay my taxes, obey the laws (not the covid ones!) to sign up to forced multiculturalism, which IMO is a huge negative. BTW, my wife, a Malaysian Chinese, had to pay a fortune to get her residency here, despite having a business degree from Canada, being fluent in 5 languages, and paying big bucks for a nursing degree and being more Conservative than me in all the issues that matter, she has lost many friends on her anti China, anti plandemic stance, and doesn’t care! And yes, Drive through any city in Australia and see majority immigrants and wonder whether the govts/bureaucrats are downplaying statistics. Sorry if I’ve offended some readers here, but i weep for the deliberate destruction of the West from within.

  • Geoff Sherrington says:

    The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry noted in March 2022 that “The most pressing challenge facing business today is a shortage of skills and labour. With workplaces under enormous strain, it is placing a handbrake on economic growth.”
    The Chamber, in a fit of circular logic, is stating that we have a problem servicing our present population, so the cure is to increase it. An alternative interpretation is that we have imported people who cannot care for others as well as themselves, so the cure is to do more of the same.
    Of more concern is the failure of government to express the clear wish of the majority of the voting population, namely, no large immigration scheme.
    I can remember my Aussie grandparents, who were born around 1890-1905. They had their Australian ways and they passed them on. I am now 81, so I have been an Aussie for 35% of recorded Australian history, a history of which I am immensely proud to have played a part. Now, when I look around, I see rather fewer Aussies and rather more from Asia, Africa, New Zealand, Pacific Islands etc.,, not all of whom remind me of my heritage and not all of whom I would like to see in increased proportion. This is not the forum to say why, but I suspect that many readers here will be thinking similarly. Geoff S

  • Tony Tea says:

    Apropos nothing at all, the historian Neil Ferguson has a list of what he calls his “Six Killer Apps” which saw the West emerge from a group of warring and argumentative European regions and charge ahead of the rest of the world. They are:
    Protestant Work Ethic.

  • Farnswort says:

    Thank you, Mr Shannon, for this thought-provoking and important piece. Canberra’s extremist immigration policy is trashing the Australian quality and way of life. And for what? Ordinary Australians do not benefit from mass immigration.

    I would argue that immigration is the “everything issue” as it impacts nearly every facet of national life. It deserves far more attention and scrutiny. Unless immigration is immediately reduced, Australia as we knew it will be lost foreover.

    Appallingly, it looks like the Albanese Labor government is planning to ramp up immigration levels even higher: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/08/grand-bargain-to-open-immigration-floodgates/

  • Farnswort says:

    Geoff Sherrington: “The Chamber, in a fit of circular logic, is stating that we have a problem servicing our present population, so the cure is to increase it. An alternative interpretation is that we have imported people who cannot care for others as well as themselves, so the cure is to do more of the same.”

    It is moronic, isn’t it? Australia has been running one of the world’s largest immigration programs in per capita terms for a decade and a half. We have imported millions of extra people supposedly to fill “skills shortages”. Despite this unprecedented migrant influx and resultant population explosion, we are still said to be suffering from “crippling skills shortages”. This would suggest that Australia’s immigration program has been wholly ineffective in plugging whatever legitimate skills shortages existed and has actually made things worse.

  • Farnswort says:

    It should be remembered that the Howard government initiated the Big Australia push:

    “[Immigration] numbers were ramped up during the final years of the Howard government, with an effective doubling of the intake. Immigration increased even further under Rudd and remained at extraordinarily high levels – around 240,000 a year in net terms – until Covid forced the closure of Australia’s borders.”


    John Howard was often labelled an ‘arch-conservative’ by his opponents. But radically altering one’s country through mass immigration is hardly a conservative policy.

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Good piece Phil and good comments. Anything I might have said has already been said by Phil and the commenters, and rest easy 27Hugo27 , for if you’ve offended anyone I think they would be in a very small minority here, and I would certainly not be one of’em !

  • 27hugo27 says:

    Cheers Peter M. As Mark Steyn wrote, demography is destiny.

  • Farnswort says:

    Mark Steyn has also remarked: “Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes.”

  • 27hugo27 says:

    Yes Farnswort, i would not be surprised if something like the Statue of David is destroyed soon, such is the mood of the barbarian philistines in our midst. And possibly with our leader’s consent. Nobody has explained the Notre Dame fire to my satisfaction, indeed, it is all but forgotten in this crisis ridden world and Mini Micron was quite happy to have it grotesquely repaired. I’m sure the “Voice” movement will require the tearing down of most of our monuments and statues, to the glee of the labor/greens /ABC types. That’s what they call progressive!

  • Farnswort says:

    27hugo27, I view mass immigration as part of the campaign to bury the ‘old’ Australia, culturally and demographically. It is certainly one of the reasons the woke Left champions open borders.

  • Farnswort says:

    “Some historians looking back on our era will probably marvel at the fragile economic arguments used to justify the present migration policy. Even more they will wonder at the self-deception of those who defend the policy largely in the name of ethics and morality.” – Geoffrey Blainey

  • pmprociv says:

    Thanks, Phil, for articulating so clearly such an important issue — I couldn’t agree with you more.
    While we never actually hear what exactly “racism” means, xenophobia is a universal human instinct: the ability to recognise and respond defensively to a stranger is genetically hardwired into our brains, for good evolutionary reasons. It underlies the tribalism that influences all our communal behaviour, from the smallest of groups right through to nation states.
    From the first time I heard the term “multiculturalism” articulated in Oz (was it by Al Grassby, Whitlam’s shady Minister for Immigration?), my alarm bells haven’t stopped ringing. Having travelled through many parts of the world, and read widely, I have yet to come across a country in which piling ethnically diverse people together has worked over the long term. Each person likes to feel as if he/she belongs to a special group, superior to that of their neighbours. And the only reason their special group is not as advanced and affluent as they’d wish is that others (enemies) have blocked them, often way back in ancestral times. This thinking is promulgated behind closed doors, even in Australia, down through generations, despite official admonitions to the contrary. Anyone even superficially familiar with the history of Europe should be aware of this; just look at the residual states of Yugoslavia, not so long ago a “harmonious” agglomeration of almost-indistinguishable tribes who’d lived together for millennia (although rarely in peace). The future of our own country, with its ongoing ghetto-isation (praised and encouraged by governments, and the ABC and SBS) does not at all look promising, despite the specious verbiage and “inclusivity” (which invariably means exclusivity for other groups).
    Worst of all is the mindless accusation that only Europeans can be “racist”. The Chinese hierarchy is currently worried about its “stagnating” population growth. So, what do they do about it? Encourage immigration? Maybe import a few Sri Lankans, or Syrians, or Somalis? You’ve got to be joking! They’re not stupid: they have a Yellow China Policy, although we’re not allowed to even mention that for, by definition, we’re the only racists, not them.

Leave a Reply