If the Liberals mean to reduce low-skill, welfare-dependent, non-assimilating Muslim migrants, then say so immediately. By The Spectator.

It was the Whitlam Labor government that foisted ‘multiculturalism’ on Australia; a cynical ploy to branch-stack certain electorates by keeping close-knit communities closely-knit to voting for Labor.

This was achieved by locking them into welfare and communal voting dependency based on special favours to ‘community leaders’. And it worked. As union membership in Australia declined during the prosperous decades of the 1980s and 1990s, Labor instead relied not on ‘workers’ but on migrant ‘communities’ to maintain its electoral base. One community in particular.

The payoff was that these communities were not only permitted to maintain their ethnic and cultural communal roots, as opposed to assimilating into mainstream Australia, but were actively encouraged to do so. Anyone opposing this blatant scam was accused of ‘racism’ and quickly toed the politically correct line.

One Nation emerges in force 50 years later:

The only politician who dared speak up about this disgraceful undermining of the dominant Australian Anglo Judeo-Christian culture was tossed out of the Liberal party and treated as a pariah, and even sent to jail at the connivance of the Liberals.

Now, that particular politician is the most successful political leader in Australia and both major parties are struggling to work out how to counter her ever-growing popularity. Like the most successful leaders (or pop stars), recognition only requires her first name: Pauline.

The Liberals new immigration policy:

Cutting through the verbal maze and ‘pillars’ of the Coalition’s new policy, and stripped of all the PC jargon, it appears that the Coalition will be focussing on the quality of migrants as much as reducing the quantity; to bring in to this country people who share our ‘values’ and kick out those who demonstrably fail to do so. All of which is coded language for the two words the Coalition refuses to utter: radical Islam. …

The Coalition has been more willing to engage in discussions about Islam, but not when it comes to specifics like welfare, housing, NDIS corruption, crime or even immigration.

But in avoiding naming the actual problem their policy seeks to address — namely the high levels of Islamic immigration without integration — the risk is the Coalition will tie themselves up in knots in the coming eighteen months over which countries or cultures are deemed ‘incompatible’ with ‘Australian values’.

Let’s be frank. The problem is not in limiting Buddhists, Zoroastrians or Presbyterians. The problem is Muslims migrating in large numbers, often from countries or communities that are extreme in their antisemitic views, with large families who refuse to integrate, who live largely on welfare, and who are beholden to communal leaders or the local imam.

Refusing to name the problem doesn’t make it any easier to tackle; it makes it harder. The intention behind Mr Taylor’s policy is plain for all to see. The problem is that the moment he ties his vague ‘values’ mantra to specific individuals, cultures or nationalities, he will run straight into the ‘Islamophobia’ forces that refuse to permit any such examination.

It’s inevitable, so say it now:

To be frank, it would behove the Coalition to have the fight now rather than let it drag out all way through to the next election. If you mean we need to reduce the number of low-skill, welfare-dependent, non-assimilating Muslim migrants, then say so. Because One Nation most certainly will.