An immigration debate in an era of rising extremism is fertile ground for a noisy minority keen to distort the facts to sell their “white Australia”.

There’s nothing new about debates around immigration in an Australian election campaign and it’s sensible that they happen.

There’s also nothing new about politicians weaponising debate around immigration levels, which Australia has seen in the lead-up to the federal election.

But 2025 is different in many ways.

The emphasis has shifted, reflecting broader disenchantment with both politics and policies in Australia and internationally that aids those who would blame social and economic challenges on migrants.

It’s created an environment ripe for right-wing extremists — albeit a noisy minority — to sell anti-immigration messages fuelled by misinformation, racist views, conspiracy theories and a desire to build their imagined “white Australia”.

Yet, for all the rhetoric of the past few decades — often taken to relatively extreme levels even by mainstream politicians to capitalise on anti-immigrant sentiment — Australians still overwhelmingly think multiculturalism has been good for the country.

They think migrants have been good for the economy and reject discriminatory migration, even if many have concerns about how many migrants Australia can absorb.

With that broad acceptance of the benefits of migration, it is critical to separate two quite different themes in the immigration debate:

• The debate about immigration based on concerns it drives too much population growth; and
• The anti-immigration sentiment based on race, ethnicity or religion – the traditional fodder of racist beliefs.

Recent history

Efforts by conservative politicians to build political capital out of anti-immigration sentiment have included the rise of Pauline Hanson’s far-right One Nation party in the late 1990s on an anti-Asian immigration platform.

One Nation later expanded this focus to include an Islamophobic stance on migration following the  Cronulla race riots in 2005.

Similarly, then-immigration minister  Peter Dutton argued in 2016 that his own Liberal Party should not have allowed Lebanese Muslims to migrate to Australia in the 1970s based on their later  purported over-representation in terrorist movements.

Some now say  Australians are angry about the effect of rapid population growth on their lives and are frustrated their voices are not being heard by our political leaders.

Issues such as housing affordability and the changing nature of Australian cities have  sharpened concerns around immigration over the past few years and has even brought warnings that an election fought on immigration could cause civil unrest.

Behind the rhetoric

The Scanlon Foundation’s  Mapping Social Cohesion Survey for 2024 shows that while nearly half of the survey sample believed Australian immigration levels are too high, 85% of Australians continue to believe that multiculturalism has been good for Australia.

More than 80% agree migrants are good for the economy and about three-quarters do not believe we should reject immigrants based on ethnicity, race, religion or their arrival from conflict zones around the world.

The  Scanlon 2024 findings suggest that concerns about the size of the national immigration programme do not translate to support for discrimination.

It found many ordinary Australians are able to simultaneously feel positive about migrants and what they bring, while still expressing concerns about their effect on population growth. Those concerns include a perceived overstretching of resources in areas like housing, health and urban amenity.

The radical right

Some  extreme and radical right social movements in Australia — as is the case internationally — have weaponised immigration-linked concerns around resource distribution to support fantasies of racial homogeneity and purity and rigid hierarchies of social value and power.

They deploy anti-immigration sentiment as a central plank in their efforts to drive social polarisation and create fear and anxiety about social change. It’s part of an effort to  accelerate the collapse of society to usher in an exclusivist state of white Australians.

Extreme right narratives elevate the concept of an ultra-nationalist “white nation” while simultaneously claiming this imagined “nation” is under constant siege and attack from ethnic, religious and racial “others”. It’s a path designed to incite "white extinction anxiety".

The most extended example of this is the so-called  Great Replacement Theory, originating in 19th century Europe and the UK but popularised in 21st century France.

This theory argues that “white” populations, who once took their majority status for granted, now risk becoming minorities in countries because of global demographic shifts, including declining birth rates in “white” populations.

Once a dose of  conspiracy theory suggesting secret forces control and shape populations to suit their own dark purposes is added to the mix, it is easy to see how these messages gain traction with vulnerable individuals and groups.

Those messages then resonate with people seeking certainty, reassurance and someone to blame for their grievances and discontents.

The idea of “white” communities under siege, in terms of their loss of status, power and culture, has become entrenched in conservative mainstream politics and anti-immigration themes are prominent across many Western countries.

It’s visible in the US since the 2024 election of Donald Trump and in European countries, where political parties such as Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally, have made anti-immigration policies central to their electoral appeals.

Anti-immigrant rhetoric that cuts across the spectrum from extreme to mainstream right includes the scapegoating of immigrants for  high rates of youth gang crime,  terrorism and the housing crisis facing Western countries, including Australia.

This rhetoric gains traction despite evidence showing new migrants contribute positively to Australia’s economy and society while recording lower crime rates than native-born Australians.

This is mostly because skilled migration  makes up the bulk of Australia’s migration intake and  more than 80% of migrants are in jobs, compared with just 60% of the wider Australian population.

Migrants also are generally better educated and even when unemployed are less likely to rely on unemployment support. Crime among recent migrants is not linked to ethnicity and has more to do with socio-economic and other factors.

The extreme right do not trade in facts, but are occasionally aided by a media focus on youth crime that appears, at times, to focus disproportionately on young men of colour.

Neo-Nazis frequently express their hatred of African and Indian migrants — particularly in online posts — and unite around the call “Australia for the White Man” and other deeply racist sentiments.

Most recently, they have attempted to exploit publicity centred on the federal election, stating that they would  form their own political party and carry out disruptive activities designed to gain attention, most recently by disrupting a Welcome to Country at the Shrine of Remembrance on Anzac Day.

These are the actions of a tiny fringe of extremists, yet they strategically use social and mass media as force multipliers to spread their message.

Their proposed solution is mass deportation of non-whites, though a split exists in their movement. There are those seeking to build a mass movement for immediate action and others with segregationist tendencies who would build a national socialist utopia on private property in regional Australia.

Australia’s neo-Nazis remain a tiny, yet loud, minority, who, to some extent, unwittingly serve as a moral compass for parties of the left and right and unite them against hate-filled rhetoric. It also helps identify those populist politicians who might adopt hate-filled views.

Even looking past the extreme fringes, Australian debate on immigration remains polarised.

Those in favour, including the Business Council of Australia, tend to highlight the  economic benefits, while opponents emphasise the strain on resources and the effect and strain on cities.

Migrants are somehow presented as a monolithic block, viewed simultaneously as economically productive model citizens and an imposition on local resources.

The humanity of migrants, the vast majority of whom come to Australia to build a better life for them and their families, is lost amidst this noise.

Greater planning and resources are required to sustain Australia’s migration boom, but so is debate that stops talking about migrants as mere numbers and looks to them as people with aspirations who can benefit Australia.

Dr Josh Roose’s research into the far right in Australia is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant (DP200102013).

Originally published under  Creative Commons by  360info. 1 May