Mass migration and democracy cannot co-exist

Nation First looks into how mass migration is quietly dismantling the cultural foundations that make democracy possible.

Dear friend,

There is a reason democracy has thrived mostly in Western countries and in societies that have adopted Western norms. It is not democratic institutions alone that make democracy work, but the values that keep those institutions stable over time.

As history shows, truly democratic societies have been rare because the values that sustain them are the result of very specific historical and cultural conditions. They are not a society’s default setting.

Find out why by reading on…

---

---

• Democracy is not humanity’s default; it depends on specific Western values like individualism, trust, and rule-based fairness, which are rare globally.

• Mass migration from collectivist societies brings in value systems that clash with and gradually erode the cultural foundations of democratic institutions.

• Welfare systems built for high-trust, self-reliant societies are now strained by migrants who often remain dependent and fail to integrate.

• Australia is seeing the same trend: ageing migrants on welfare, higher crime among some foreign-born groups, and growing pressure on public systems.

• True national cohesion is undermined when newcomers prioritise tribe over nation, and history shows no society has become more democratic through mass migration.

---

---

A Harvard professor once described Western societies as W.E.I.R.D: Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic. What he noted was that Western values stood in sharp contrast with what has long been the default in most societies. Compared to most of the world, Western individuals tend to be more individualistic, more trusting of strangers, more rule-oriented, and less bound by clan, tribe, or extended family obligations.

This matters because values shape institutions. Individualistic societies tend to produce flatter social structures, stronger rule of law, and limits on authority. Collectivist societies, by contrast, tend to be hierarchical, loyalty-based, and more accepting of strong authority figures, conditions that naturally lend themselves to authoritarian institutions.

It is on this basis that mass migration and democracy struggle to co-exist. When large numbers of people arrive from fundamentally different value systems, there is little time or space for genuine assimilation.

Over time, if assimilation fails and numbers grow large enough, institutions that once depended on shared values begin to weaken or break down.

A clear example is the welfare system in many Western European countries. These systems were built in high-trust societies, where most people held individualistic values and aspired toward self-reliance. In that context, there was little fear of widespread abuse or permanent dependency.

Today, those same countries have experienced record levels of non-European migration in a very short period of time. Many new arrivals rely heavily on welfare, and rather than integrating into the workforce as promised, they have added strain to already aging populations. Native workers are now expected to pay higher taxes, supporting both a growing elderly population and a rapidly expanding welfare base. Add to that, there has been an uptick in crime, ethnic tensions, and an erosion of the commons.

In Australia, the situation is no different. Humanitarian migrants are notorious for remaining welfare-dependent even a decade after arrival in our nation. Since Labor took office, it’s estimated that about 50,000 migrants who entered Australia were over the age of 60. And in official Australian data, several overseas-born groups show higher per-capita offending and contact with police and higher imprisonment rates than Australian-born citizens, meaning immigration has, at least for some cohorts and offence types, imported additional risk and workload into policing, courts, and prisons.

This is not simply a socio-economic issue, but a cultural one. Many migrants come from more collectivist societies, where the priority is the extended family or clan, and status within that group, rather than contribution to a broader national society. If welfare benefits and occasional work already provide a better standard of living than back home, there is little incentive to fully integrate, upskill, or adopt new civic norms. With crime, it’s a lack of respect for local cultures. It is a mentality of tribe before nation. Group supremacy over individual aspiration.

So the question must be asked honestly: which societies that have experienced mass migration at scale have actually become more cohesive, more trusting, or more democratic as a result?

It is not a comfortable question, but it is a necessary one, particularly given Islamist terror attacks in both Australia and the United States in the past week.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen, with a Nation First staff writer

---

---

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

---