In maintaining their relevance, our political oligarchs commonly resort to appealing rhetoric in enhancing enthusiasm and tribalism amongst their respective camps.

But despite Liberal/ Labor attempts to differentiate themselves from one another, Australia’s commitment to maintain a ‘non discriminatory’ immigration policy forever remains.

However, using this ‘non discriminatory’ notion to base immigration policy is unfeasible, misleading, and negligently oblivious to the inevitable fruits which emerge.

In truth, all immigration systems including Australia’s, are necessarily discriminatory. Those who do not enter Australia as per the law, or fill out forms correctly, or meet certain language, skills and familial requirements, are denied citizenship. There are only a certain amount of migrants who are permitted into Australia each year, as while 189 770 migrants came in 2015, that number omitted many others who would happily come across. Consider: 75 % of Ghanians, and 74 % of Nigerians would move to another country if granted the opportunity. Life in Australia compared to Sub Saharan Africa would be idyllic and yet, our country discriminates against these people by denying their mass entry.

While billions would come to Australia if given the chance, it would seem logical that visa/ humanitarian positions should be given to those who most appreciate our country. The trouble is, under our ‘non discriminatory’ immigration system, these services are not always given to the most deserving. Australia has in recent years imported a substantial Muslim problem, which divides itself from the mainstream, and generally expresses anti- Western sentiments. Meanwhile, African gangs have brought a whole new meaning to ‘diversity’ in Melbourne, with car jackings, armed robberies and unprecedented gang violence the new norm. When one African mother was asked why her son had turned to criminality, she replied that Centrelink money was ‘not enough’ and there were ‘too many laws’.

While not openly discussed, some groups have behaved better in Australia than others. White South African, British, and New Zealand migrants particularly stand out for their integration, and commitment to reward the country who provided them shelter. Notably, this metric isn’t merely a matter of European- descended migrants, who naturally assimilate quicker by way of genetic similarity. Vietnamese migrants also deserve praise for their services to Australia, who didn’t exhaust the benefits of our welfare system before biting the hands which fed them. Put simply, our ‘non- discriminatory’ system has allowed in disruptive groups while subsequently restricting the intake of more meritorious folk: a patent example of discrimination.

Australia’s current immigration system also quantifiably discriminates against the interests of Australian people, who our country has a racial, political, cultural and civilisational duty to protect. For those who frequently visit this blog, you will be well versed on mass immigration’s negative consequences. But as a refresher or to new visitors, mass immigration discriminates against the Australian people by: increasing housing prices and congestion, lowering wages for the working class and young professionals, damaging the environment, decreasing social trust and cohesiveness, expanding welfare costs, degrading national character where it exists, disrespecting our nation’s values, permitting the growth of horrific Islamic practices across Sharia courts in female genital mutliation, child marriage, as well as the Islamisation of our defence force, promoting subversion, the disrespect of our law enforcement, terrorism and domestic violence, allowing for African criminality, defiling the sacrifices made by our ancestors, forcing peoples of different IQ capacities together, and leading us towards a zero sum competition for resources with a potential to end ugly, as ethnic conflicts often do.

There is another aspect of Australia’s ‘non discriminatory’ immigration system, that belies all rationality. For what truly bothers the globalist likes of Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, isn’t that Australia’s immigration system discriminates against the native born. Rather, they are terrified by a policy that would discriminate against racial, cultural or national groups, rather than judge people as individuals.

While this might be a noble concept to pursue, it is utterly impractical. For when a state deals with hundreds of thousands of potential migrants per year, it is extremely difficult to dissect, analyse, and interpret every aspect of an individual migrant’s future potential to integrate Then comes the question: should we use a rule to establish policy, or the exception? Anything other than implementing policies based on patterns of particular migrant groups is short-sighted, selfish and places the individual good before the far more consequential national good.

As such, discrimination against other people is necessary at the collective level to protect our country, just as how for practical, logical reasons, taxi drivers often refuse blacks service, and club bouncers are quicker to throw out intoxicated males rather than intoxicated females.

To some this might seem horrifying, but in truth, even the most tolerant among us make these collective judgements everyday. Consider: transnational corporations including Facebook, Twitter and Google harp on ad nauseum about diversity and inclusion. But imagine if someone applied for work at any of these companies, and had a swastika etched to his/ her forehead. Would any employer look past this ghastly appearance to solely judge this person as an individual, and entirely discard their own common sense?

Our nation also needs to make broad judgements on immigration because in many cases, it is impossible to identify the good migrants from the bad. This is especially the case when dealing with Islamic migrants inclined towards terror.

For instance, no amount of vetting could have ever prevented the eventual child of 1990’s Libyan refugees, from massacring killing 22 innocents at a Manchester concert.

Closer to home, many of Australia’s ISIS terrorists have been the children of refugees, born in this country. And while Yassmin Abdel- Magied is no terrorist, the Australian people would have certainly been better off without her entitled, ungrateful, Islam-apologist worldview. But how could any immigration department have detected this child refugee, would later shame the country who gave her so much?

While our political class might profess to enact a ‘non discriminatory’ immigration system, its subsequent policies are anything but. Once discrimination becomes an inevitability, the question as described by Vladimir Lenin in the context of class struggle, remains as to ‘who’ and ‘whom’ shall benefit from this system.