The Political Illusion of “Good” and “Bad” Migrants

Last week, Australia’s Liberal Party appointed Angus Taylor as Opposition Leader and swiftly rolled out a series of pre-prepared migration policies, claiming they would “reduce the economic burden on local residents.” Among them was a controversial proposal first raised when Sussan Ley was leader, suggesting a ban on migrants holding citizenship from 37 countries in the Middle East and Africa. Even former immigration minister Peter Scarr publicly expressed concern.

Faced with backlash, Taylor did not reflect on shortcomings in current migration or broader policies. Instead, he introduced the rhetoric of “good migrants” and “bad migrants,” laying the groundwork for tighter controls and scapegoating migrants as the source of social problems. It raises an uncomfortable question: could Australia — long proud of its multicultural identity — drift toward something resembling the deportation rhetoric promoted by Donald Trump in the United States?

The Roots of Migration to Australia

Many Australians over thirty who were born locally often say Australia was originally a white country, and migrants of other nationalities were only considered later. That narrative simply isn’t accurate.

Australia’s modern social structure is built on successive waves of migration to a continent that originally belonged to Indigenous peoples. While school curricula often highlight the transportation of British convicts between 1788 and 1868 as the foundation of modern Australia, post-war migration from across Europe was equally transformative. In the 1950s, large numbers of Italians arrived under government-assisted schemes. Greeks, Germans, Dutch, Croatians and others filled labour shortages in manufacturing, construction and services, while leaving lasting marks on food, music, religion and community life. Even in earlier periods, Asians had already settled in Australia.

At the same time, this history cannot be separated from the dispossession of Indigenous peoples. “Hard” violence included poisoned food, livestock attacks and massacres. “Soft” oppression involved the forced removal of Indigenous children and assimilation policies. If deportation becomes today’s answer to social anxiety, is it not eerily similar in logic — expelling those deemed inconvenient — only in a modern form?

The Benefits Migrants Bring

Although migration has become a political buzzword in recent years, Australia’s self-image as a multicultural society demands recognition of migrants’ longstanding contributions.

Migrants fill critical labour shortages and sustain key industries. The healthcare system depends heavily on overseas-trained doctors and nurses from India, the Philippines and the UK, serving both cities and regional areas. The technology sector relies on skilled migrants in software engineering, data science and cybersecurity — roles consistently listed on priority occupation lists due to domestic shortages. Blanket nationality-based restrictions would weaken innovation and competitiveness.

In construction and infrastructure, skilled workers from across Asia help address shortages in trades such as carpentry and electrical work. In higher education, international students and researchers support university finances and foster global collaboration.

In short, migrants are not a burden; they are pillars of Australia’s economic and social functioning.

Migrants Are Not “Stealing Resources”

The belief that migrants “take resources” is often emotional rather than factual. During economic strain, job insecurity or longer wait times for services, visible differences make migrants convenient scapegoats.

In reality, Australia’s skilled migration system is structured around labour shortages. These visas target occupations where domestic supply cannot meet demand due to ageing demographics, digital transformation and infrastructure expansion. Migrants fill gaps rather than displace local workers — and their participation generates further economic activity and job creation.

As birth rates decline, without replenishment of the workforce, the tax base shrinks and pressure on healthcare and pensions intensifies. Migrants contribute income tax, consumption tax and tuition fees. They are not merely consumers of services but contributors and funders of public systems.

Housing shortages, healthcare strain and school overcrowding stem largely from planning systems, infrastructure delays, tax incentives and long-term policy design — not from a single demographic variable. Blaming migrants oversimplifies structural failures.

Challenging Taylor’s Claims

The framing of “good” versus “bad” migrants deserves clear opposition. When politicians speak vaguely of “values” while sidestepping policy failures, the damage extends beyond targeted communities — it erodes rational public discourse.

Take Chinese migrants as an example. Political narratives sometimes portray them as sympathetic to the Chinese government or as conduits of foreign influence. But foreign interference is a political and institutional issue, not an ethnic trait. If infiltration exists, it should be addressed through transparent legal mechanisms — not racial generalisations.

Political participation patterns are shaped by upbringing under different systems, not genetics or inherent cultural deficiency. Values evolve through civic education and engagement, not through stigma. Moreover, the Chinese community itself is diverse, including migrants from mainland China, Hong Kong and other regions with differing political experiences.

When targeting China proves politically inconvenient, some rhetoric shifts toward African or Middle Eastern migrants as alleged “sources of social problems.” Yet Australian Bureau of Statistics data show many sub-Saharan African migrants possess tertiary qualifications above the national average, and second-generation outcomes continue improving. Migrants from Middle Eastern backgrounds show high rates of entrepreneurship, particularly in small business. These realities contradict stereotypes of low education or poor integration.

There is no objective category of “good” or “bad” migrants. When governments fail to address housing supply, public infrastructure and economic transitions, redirecting anxiety toward outsiders becomes an expedient distraction.

Government’s Own Contradictions

Some argue that even if policy is harsh toward African or Middle Eastern migrants, surely returning Australian citizens would be treated differently. Recent events suggest otherwise.

The case of so-called “ISIS brides” illustrates policy inconsistency. Young women who travelled to Syria and later sought to return to Australia with children — many of whom hold Australian citizenship — have faced refusal or prolonged security review. While national security concerns are legitimate, citizenship traditionally guarantees the right of return.

Australia’s Citizenship Act and constitutional principles protect citizens’ fundamental rights, including recognition of nationality and return. Administrative delays and opaque processes create tension between law and practice. Even under the Albanese government, procedural delays and lack of transparency have left women and children in prolonged uncertainty.

When governments emphasise security and “values” while selectively applying obligations to their own citizens, the line between migrant and citizen blurs. The issue is not emotion but principle: are citizenship rights conditional on public opinion? If so, “values” discourse becomes political theatre.

Major Parties and the One Nation Trap

Both the Liberal and Labor parties publicly distance themselves from One Nation, yet risk drifting into its rhetorical territory.

The Liberals have struggled with visa backlogs and inefficiencies that delay permanent residency for urgently needed professionals in healthcare, IT and engineering. Temporary visa holders remain in limbo, unable to plan stable futures, while family reunification faces long delays.

Labor, meanwhile, lacks a long-term, evidence-based migration strategy linking intake levels to housing supply, infrastructure and social integration. High housing prices are tied to zoning rules, infrastructure bottlenecks and tax incentives — not simply migration numbers. Yet both parties often default to discussing caps rather than systemic reform.

Taylor’s “good/bad migrant” framing mirrors One Nation’s long-standing threat narrative — simplifying complex structural issues into emotionally charged binaries. It may deliver short-term political gains, but it solves nothing.

Injustice Beneath Labels

Australia’s migration challenges are not reducible to “too many people” or “cultural incompatibility.” History and evidence show migrants have sustained the economy, healthcare, technology and education sectors.

When politicians weaponise fear and identity labels, they are not governing — they are campaigning. Such tactics may resonate with anxious voters in the short term but erode social trust in the long run.

A genuinely inclusive Australia requires transparent, evidence-based policy and equal responsibility toward all citizens and residents — whether new arrivals or second-generation Australians. Migrants are not the problem. Political fear and policy failure are.