There has been a noticeable shift in racist rhetoric targeting immigrants and asylum seekers, with the term “Deport!” increasingly replacing the earlier phrase “Go back where you come from.” This change reflects broader global trends, particularly influenced by heightened governmental use of deportation, such as in the United States.

Ghassan Hage, an honorary professor of anthropology at the University of Sydney, highlights this linguistic evolution as more than mere semantics. According to Hage, while both expressions aim to undermine an individual's national belonging and call for their removal, “Deport!” conveys a different dynamic of power. Unlike the previous phrase, which functioned largely as a personal lament or assertion of ownership over the national space, the call to “Deport!” involves an appeal to state authority, implying complicity between racists and the state apparatus. In this sense, “Deport!” positions the state as an active enforcer of exclusion, with racialized individuals as the direct targets of institutional action.

Nasser Mashni, president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, notes that “Deport!” has become a common retaliatory comment on social media directed at immigrants and people of colonized backgrounds, underscoring the normalization of such rhetoric online.

Hage situates this shift within the context of changing political cultures, emphasizing that racists are not merely expressing idle fantasies but are responding to increasingly exclusionary state practices. He points to the contrast between the past, when racist rhetoric mainly reflected a subjective claim of entitlement to determine national belonging, and the present, where there is a clear invocation of state power to act on those claims.

This transformation has consequences for anti-racism efforts as well. Historically, in Australia, there was a distinction between First Nations anti-racism—often skeptical of the state—and immigrant anti-racism, which tended to have more faith in state institutions. However, recent events, including responses to the crisis in Gaza, have intensified the recognition among immigrants and colonized communities of systemic racism embedded in state structures. For these groups, institutional racism is experienced less as isolated incidents and more as a pervasive and harmful environment.

In discussing this toxic environment, Hage draws from an anthropological study comparing garbage workers—who can detach themselves from the waste they handle—and sewer workers—who cannot. He likens contemporary anti-racists to sewer workers who must constantly engage in self-reflection and cleansing to address the pervasive nature of institutional racism. This metaphor underscores the ongoing challenge faced by anti-racist activists in both acknowledging their own positions and striving to decontaminate the broader societal context.

Hage’s analysis underscores the importance of understanding racialized political discourse not only as isolated acts of prejudice but as reflections of deeper entanglements between societal attitudes and evolving forms of state power.