Why are more and more migrants supporting Pauline Hanson?


Latest polling has revealed that one in five voters in migrant-dominant parts in Sydney are supporting Pauline Hanson and her party, One Nation. Originally reported by the Daily Telegraph, this secret research carried out by the Labor Party shows that approximately 21% of voters in the Division of Banks and 16% of voters in the Division of Reid, both migrant-heavy federal seats held by Liberal MPs, are supporting Ms Hanson and her party. This has baffled both the mainstream media and leftists for obvious reasons, as it is unfathomable to see migrants supporting the “racist”, ‘’xenophobic’’, and “bigoted” One Nation.

This certainly does not mean that 21% of all migrants in Banks support the party, as the polling was carried out on all residents regardless of place of birth. The research obviously included migrant and non-migrant voters. However, it does show that more and more migrants are switching their support to One Nation. The Daily Telegraph has learned that Labor has already internalised this information having realised migrants are turning towards Pauline Hanson, with a Labor insider telling the newspaper that most of these migrants were once Coalition supporters. But why are migrants supporting a political party that wants to introduce zero net migration and ban Muslims?

Many people fail to understand that most legal migrants arrive in a country like Australia aiming to assimilate. Many of these migrants are disillusioned by their home countries and are influenced by the images of the West they’ve seen in television and the media: developed white countries with high living standards and opportunities. This level of Western cultural awareness along with a desire to reap the benefits of living in developed Western countries are what drive migrants to assimilate and integrate into the Western way of life. Many of them dream of living the Western lifestyle, and they come here to do exactly that.

Yet it all changes when these migrants, who’ve conformed to the legal process and given their all in order to have the privilege of migrating to an advanced country, witness the presence of so called refugees who’ve been taken in for free and have jumped the queue. How is it fair that they undertake a legal process which takes a number of years while these refugees are fast tracked? How is it fair when legal migrants want to enter a white country find that when they arrive in cities that are filled with refugees who live on and abuse the governments’ dole?

This is a classic example of how the left is completely misunderstood about One Nation’s immigration policy, while also being ignorant about what actual migrants want. It is clear that they are under false pretences of thinking they’re the voice of the non-white migrant when migrants themselves are supporting this allegedly “racist” party. Legal migrants don’t want to see refugees taken in, because it is unfair for the chosen few who’ve entered the country the proper way. And because these legal migrants pay tax, they don’t want to see their taxpayer money wasted on refugees who live off the system.

One of the major reasons One Nation is becoming more popular among migrants is the prevalence of crime and terrorism committed by Islamic migrants and refugees. Asian migrants, for example, arrive from countries that already face or have historically faced conflict with Islam. In Southern Asia, for example, Muslims are seen as a threat to their culture and heritage, which makes it obvious why migrants from that region would reinforce this opinion having seen events like the Sydney Siege, the Parramatta shooting, 9/11 and the Apex gang wreaking havoc in Melbourne.

One Nation itself has done well in trying to appeal to non-Muslim migrants and differentiate them from Muslims. Malcolm Roberts, for example, praised Hindus for their levels of assimilation after explaining One Nation’s stance on Islamic migrants. Hindus, unlike Muslims, don’t want to change Australian culture to suit themselves, practice their religion privately, are skilled legal migrants actively contributing to Australia’s economy, and don’t follow a violent religion that justifies terrorism.

This is not the first time migrants have been known to support right-leaning parties and politicians that represent stronger borders and civic nationalism. Donald Trump received much higher Latino support than Mitt Romney or Bob Dole, with each receiving 29%, 27% and 21% respectively. Hillary Clinton herself had much less support in comparison to her predecessor and her husband, with 65%, 71% and 72% respectively. This is because legal Mexican migrants who made up the ‘Latinos for Trump’ group opposed the presence of illegal Mexican immigrants living off the state using their taxpayer money. And they, just like white Americans, are affected by the crime committed by illegal immigrants for which the crime numbers speak for themselves.

The left may dismiss these results as an example of the minority within the oppressed minority contributing to the racist white Patriarchal oppressor. Yet it clearly shows that legal migrants also favour stronger borders. Does that make them racist and xenophobic too? No. It makes them logical, same as the white One Nation supporters, and white proponents of strong borders in general. One Nation can capitalise greatly on this phenomenon, as it is clear that legal migrants want to see safe Western countries free from violent illegal immigrants. Not only because they wouldn’t want to see the same situation in their previous nation, but also because they want to assimilate and live peacefully according to the Western lifestyle that they willingly adopted in their new country.

Author Details