Prior to the last federal election, Anthony Albanese was the leader of the Labor Party. Following the election, he remained leader of the Labor Party, but his acquired title of prime minister necessitated a change in his priorities – from working for the party to working for the nation and its people.

It is clear from the series of political event failures during the latter half of 2023 that Mr Albanese is struggling with this transition. Amateurish ministerial performances in Energy, Immigration, Home Affairs, Indigenous issues, Defence – to name just a few – coupled with Mr Albanese’s own failures such as the poorly-researched Voice campaign, all powerfully suggest that the prime minister has failed to attain an operational level where his efforts are directed in the national interest.

There is one area of the federal government’s recent debateable decision-making that stands out when subjected to a calculated and sober analysis – immigration. It is here that logical questions are asked but not answered. Facts may be presented, but these are apparently ignored in favour of a higher ideology – wokeness. Where leadership is called for, silence prevails.

The mass immigration across the southern border of the United States demonstrates what Western nations should robustly avoid. The problems confronting the U.S. due to this lunacy have yet to emerge, so currently one may only speculate on how bad it will be. While a large number of suspected terrorists have been identified and detained, it may be confidently stated this will prove to be miniscule in relation to the impact of criminality and the further undermining of American society.

For the benefit of Australian politicians, the U.S. southern border farce is not a good example from which to gain any real insight or benefit. Estimating and computing future adverse impacts from immigration and using this data to assist in avoiding similar problems at home, does not figure with the current level of political thought. Australia is not alone here.

So where can Australian politicians look to obtain “on the ground” data on the social effects of modern migration? The answer is Europe, and the message is loud and clear.

In recent decades, most European countries have approved of immigration programs drawing people into their societies principally from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The results, for all participating countries, demonstrate a consistent social calamity, with, on current indicators, worse to come.

The question needs to be asked, and answered, “how did all this start, and why have European politicians been reluctant to identify immigration as the cause of their nation’s social decline?”

Quite apart from the arguments around future labour shortages, the following is an example of how mass immigration has dramatically destabilised a previously modern, amicable and socially advanced nation – Sweden. Critically, we need to ask the question – “how did this decline commence?”  

The following quotation is from my book “The Enemies Below – The Social War to Destroy Australia”;

In a speech to the Swedish people on Christmas Day in 1965, an upcoming prime minister, Olaf Palme, outlined his social vision for the nation’s future. He underscored the need for immigration, and this would be the dynamism in achieving the new “open” Swedish society. A decade later, the government formally adopted a policy of multi-racial immigration, but by 1988 many Swedes were already having second thoughts as to the wisdom of allowing relatively large numbers of culturally diverse immigrants into the country.

Solving the new social imbalances would prove to be far more complex than assembling IKEA furniture, but the politicians would, in time, demonstrate that at best they had been slow learners.

Olaf Palme’s “dynamism” didn’t quite work out the way he expected. The spheres in which immigration has created dynamic change in Sweden are largely found in gang warfare, violent drug dealing, bombings, shootings and sexual assaults. the government responds by punishing any media outlet which dares to suggest the nation has a problem with immigration.

Olaf Palme did not live to see the results of his “vision”. He was assassinated in 1986.

Of course, Sweden is just one example of massively declining standards in Europe as a consequence of the “modern” immigration. So, what have our politicians learnt from the European experience? Have they taken on board the negative impact of cultural conflict? Both questions have negative answers.

I grew up with Australia’s post-World War II immigration. I remember having friends at Chatswood primary school in Sydney from Britain and European countries whose parents came here, worked, fitted in and helped to make Australia a better place. During that era the country experienced positive diversity, not the belligerent nonsense thrown at us today.

Like most things over time, immigration has changed and today the immigrant intake is a mixed bag – some new arrivals offering advantages to the nation, others a dangerous mix of contrary belief systems, a propensity for criminal behaviour and a disregard for acceptable social norms.

The recent issuing of visas to Gaza residents was an abysmal decision. The needs of Gaza residents wanting to leave and go elsewhere are essentials such as language, culture, religion, labour requirements, and social collaboration. Common sense dictates that relocating residents of Gaza should be absorbed into a neighbouring country that offers these basic requirements. Moving these people to Australia – or any other Western country – is a mistake with likely future unpleasant consequences. Doing the “nice thing” has taken precedence over the national interest.  

Anthony Albanese performed well recently when he advised a radio listener she had won tickets to a Tay Tay concert. And he successfully allocated time to assist some footballers in obtaining US visas for the Las Vegas event. The signs that 2024 will see immigration allotted a similar level of accomplishment are not encouraging and the pre-election promises that things will be “done better” and there will be “greater transparency” are looking more distant by the day.    

The prime hurdle in the immigration debate is that there isn’t any debate, and the force behind this travesty is fear. Recently, a man in the UK, the former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Lee Anderson, stood up to the fear and loathing for daring to criticise the failed Islamic Lord Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. He lost his job, but we all have a lot more to lose should people like Lee Anderson be successfully silenced.