Australians never voted for Albanese Open Borders

Ticking Song, and every other box, this recent New Yorker essay sort-of acknowledges voters. But they should leave immigration policy to the higher-ups:

Economists love immigration. Why do so many Americans hate it?

After 3,700 words of noodling – economists win. Nothing re the environment. Because United Nations net-zero emissions will save the planet. Except it won't .

Though still pushing "global migration", New York Times (NYT) is getting uneasy. Gosh, maybe it's "unpopular" with Americans.

Never mind, NYT still has their corporate net-zero pledge. Australia's endangered mallees and wombats are thrilled. Except they're not.

Check current Washington Post and London The Economist . Rich nations are - should be - immigration raptors. Rich Anglophone nations, more like it.

Canada, Australia , also New Zealand , have cranked annual net-migration well above 1% of population. Joining in is UK . So much for Brexit taking back borders.

Joe Biden's one-million immigration looks huge. Pro rata for 330 million population, less so. Woke media or not, their growth engine isn't (yet) population per se.

Although, under Democrats or Republicans, America skims world talent. Alone, Apple Inc doubles Australia's GDP. Clumsily, we raid Bhutan , for "More migrants please."

As government ABC-SBS skates over pertinent points. Many European nations have low or even negative population growth rates, China and Japan being similar.

Song's California is a global economic titan. Historically, the top immigration state, in the top immigration nation. Now it has negative population growth.

Atavistic Albanese has accelerated Australia to 1.9% population growth. Three-four times higher than most European nations. Easily twice the rate of Modi's India.