"We will decide who comes to our country"
About this Quote
A blunt six-word line that doubles as policy and provocation, "We will decide who comes to our country" is John Howard at his most effective: compressing a sprawling, messy debate about migration into a single, vote-ready claim about control. It works because it frames the issue not as humanitarian obligation or economic need, but as sovereignty - and sovereignty, unlike asylum law, can be felt in the gut.
The specific intent is to seize the terms of argument. "We" recruits the public into the decision-making class, even as the actual power sits with government. "Decide" implies rational, managerial competence; no panic, just a firm hand on the lever. "Who comes" subtly shifts attention away from why people flee and toward the supposed risk they represent. "Our country" seals the emotional contract: nationhood as property, borders as a front door, outsiders as uninvited guests. It's less a statement of fact than a performance of authority.
Context matters: Howard delivered this line in the early 2000s, as Australia faced boat arrivals and the Tampa affair, and as the post-9/11 security atmosphere rewarded hard edges. The subtext is an argument against moral blackmail: don't let activists, courts, or international norms tell us what kindness requires. But it also smuggles in a hierarchy of belonging, where compassion is conditional on compliance and distance. The genius - and the danger - is how neatly it turns a complex ethical question into a referendum on control.
The specific intent is to seize the terms of argument. "We" recruits the public into the decision-making class, even as the actual power sits with government. "Decide" implies rational, managerial competence; no panic, just a firm hand on the lever. "Who comes" subtly shifts attention away from why people flee and toward the supposed risk they represent. "Our country" seals the emotional contract: nationhood as property, borders as a front door, outsiders as uninvited guests. It's less a statement of fact than a performance of authority.
Context matters: Howard delivered this line in the early 2000s, as Australia faced boat arrivals and the Tampa affair, and as the post-9/11 security atmosphere rewarded hard edges. The subtext is an argument against moral blackmail: don't let activists, courts, or international norms tell us what kindness requires. But it also smuggles in a hierarchy of belonging, where compassion is conditional on compliance and distance. The genius - and the danger - is how neatly it turns a complex ethical question into a referendum on control.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List


