How often do you hear the cliché that we’re a nation of migrants, except for indigenous Australians? For boosters of large migrant intakes and a big Australia, this is often regarded as their knockout argument. No one can argue against immigration because we are all migrants, one way or another.

Take this assertion-laden dissertation from the editor-in-chief of the Sydney Morning Herald, Bevan Shields. ‘Migration has been – and continues to be – undoubtedly good for Australia. We are a culturally and financially richer country for it. The Herald has a great history of advocating for a big Australia.’

According to Shields, ‘there is a wealth of evidence that there is little or no link between immigration and challenges such as housing affordability, cost of living and social cohesion.’ Is there really? Where has this wealth of evidence been hiding because I am certainly unaware of its existence?

In a similar vein, Herald columnist, Jacqueline Maley, claims that ‘it’s imperative that good-faith politicians reclaim the debate and remind Australians of how indebted we are, culturally and economically, to immigrants.’ I wasn’t aware that Maley had any expertise in economics, but that is not what the literature tells us.

One of the main conclusions of that literature is that immigration overwhelmingly benefits the migrants themselves, whereas the net economic benefits are zero or slightly positive. Among the resident population, there are both winners and losers: owners of capital and workers with complementary skills to migrants gain while workers with similar skills are losers.

Of course, rhetoricians don’t want to bother too much with facts and serious research findings. This is where the argument that we are a nation of migrants comes in. But does this simplistic point really end the debate? Are there not certain complexities that need to be considered before the adjudicator reaches a final decision?

In the 1890s, the percentage of the Australian population born overseas was over 30 per cent. The source countries at that time were predominantly England, Scotland and Ireland. The proportion fell continuously until after the end of the second world war, reaching a low of just under 10 per cent in 1947.

From that point, the percentage of Australians born overseas rose, reaching above 30 per cent in 2024. There were times when the proportion didn’t rise – in the 1970s and in the 1990s – but the overall trend is clear.  Today, nearly one-third of those residing in Australia were born overseas and nearly one-half have parents born overseas.

Since the 1950s, the source countries have moved around a fair bit. While England remained an important source country, at least up until the end of the century, those from Italy and Greece came during the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, China and then India have become very significant source countries.

Currently, 3.5 per cent of Australian residents were born in England; 3.4 per cent in India; and 2.6 per cent in China. There are also large numbers of New Zealanders living in Australia – they make up 2.3 per cent of the population. (New Zealanders are free to move to Australia without restriction.)

And here’s an important feature to mention in view of the current debate involving Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. In 2014, there were some 411,000 Indians living in Australia.  There are now 916,000. Historically, this is one of the steepest rises in the numbers coming from one country in such a short period of time.

(In theory, Australia operates a non-discriminatory migration program. Visas are granted based on their conditions being met rather than the country of origin. It is certainly true that the Australian government has done deals with the Indian government to facilitate the entry of Indian citizens and to allow them to stay for long periods. Both the Morrison Coalition and Albanese Labor governments made these arrangements.)

How do these trends mesh with the idea that we are a country of migrants? The reality is that the proportion of migrants in the population has varied greatly over time. During the first half of the twentieth century, Australia decreasingly became a nation of migrants.

After the second world war, the combination of the government’s ‘populate or perish’ policy pursued for national security reasons and the push factor driving many migrants out of the UK and Europe meant that the migrant proportion in the population began to rise and has continued to rise.

But here’s another important point to make: the migrants that came in the 1950s and 1960s were very different from the migrants arriving today. For starters, all the migrants in those earlier years were permanent – there was no temporary migration.

Most migrants then had only limited contact with their home country and the family and friends they had left behind. There was no WhatsApp or cheap airfares allowing regular visits to their country of birth

To illustrate this point, let me tell you a story about my mother’s best friend who was born in Germany. She met her future husband in Europe but came to Australia when she married. She had four children who are now grown up and have children of their own. The family only spoke English at home. The parents were very keen for the children to fit in and speaking perfect English was seen as extremely important. When the children became adults, they all felt a degree of dissatisfaction that they couldn’t speak German, but they could understand their parents’ thinking.

Nowadays, it is quite common for English not to be spoken in the homes of migrants.  According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2021, nearly a quarter of the population reported speaking a language other than English at home. Some 900,000 individuals also reported not speaking English well.

It is now estimated that there are nearly three million people in Australia on temporary visas, up from just under one million at the turn of the century. They include large numbers on student visas as well as those holding graduate visas, working holidaymakers and skilled workers.

Many temporary visa holders do not have the right to reside permanently but are able to string out their stay for many years. There has also been a significant uptick in the numbers of temporary visa holders claiming humanitarian status as asylum seekers.  While many are knocked back, the process is lengthy and costly for taxpayers.

The overwhelming impression is of a badly managed, out-of-control immigration program. The real issue is the excessive migrant intake that is straining resources, be it housing, infrastructure or services.

Instead of people coming to this country to join Team Australia, too many now come to be part of Hotel Australia. They don’t necessarily bother to learn English, associate only with their own ethnic group and flit back and forth from the country of their birth.

Saying we are a country of migrants is now saying nothing. Its meaning was lost years ago. It has no value in debating appropriate directions for immigration policy.