Border security of a nation state is about as basic and as fundamental as it gets.

It is the obligation of any government to maintain control of who comes into Australia and in the words of John Howard in 2001, “the circumstances under which they come”.

Immigration has to be sensibly sustainable and most importantly must never be subcontracted out to people smugglers and allowed to become self-selecting to anyone, particularly those who can afford to buy a seat on a boat.

Despite the Liberals drift to the left under Malcolm Turnbull and who knows to what extent that drift will continue if he receives his own mandate on July 2, the achievements on border control by The Liberals under Tony Abbott are unarguable

Contrast and compare these staggering stats from Chris Kenny in Weekend Australian 23/4

“…Border protection is the touchstone. We know the facts: Labor saw more than 800 boats bring in more than 50,000 asylum-seekers; 1200 were killed; 17 centres detained up to 10,000 people at a time; 8000 children were put through detention; the chaos cost more than $10 billion.

Since the Coalition turned boats back only one has arrived; none has been seen for 600 days; 13 detention centres have been closed; there are no kids in detention. Little wonder then that Bill Shorten is now claiming to be on board. “The truth is,” he told journalists on Thursday, “if you’re a cyber-criminal or if you’re a people smuggler or a terrorist, both Labor and Liberal are equally committed and we work together…”

The alternative to strong border control is what we see unravelling across Europe today.

It may make some people feel good but it can only end badly.

Rampant, unbridled and unfettered immigration and multiculturalism becomes divisive and can only end badly and should be called out for what it is:

Cultural apartheid.

We become a nation of tribes living in cultural enclaves. Think, Belgium and other places in Europe and the UK where entire suburbs have become no go zones even for the police.

Was a community of tribes the intended consequence of the Al Grasby Multiculturalism policy of the early 1970’s?

The root cause of many the problems we confront, as with most things, is government inserting itself into an area it has no business being and imposing and forcing an ideology on the people that should be a natural, organic and evolving process. The cultural mix has to find its own balance.

The illustration I often use to make the point is that of running a bath or a shower. You mix the water to achieve the right temperature. When it’s too hot you add cold. When it cools you bump the temperature up with a bit of hot.

It may come as a shock to those born since the 1970’s and those who see themselves as elites and arbiters of taste, fashion and culture and have only ever known multiculturalism as an instrument of government policy but Australia has, since 1788, always been a multicultural hybrid mix that made Australians uniquely Australian.

Citizenship and settlement is a contract and therefore comes with contractual obligations.

The host nation provides a new and better life and abundant opportunity.

For new arrivals, it should be understood and spelt out that it is incumbent upon them and those that receive the privilege of citizenship to accept and embrace the values, mores and traditions of the host nation whilst if they want to, maintaining, at a secondary level, their own traditions. But Australia MUST come first.

I find it interesting that in recent weeks even some far, way out there leftists have had their Road to Damascus Moment.

Fairfax columnist and former ABC Media Watch presenter, Jonathon Holmes recently wrote in The Age in his piece The Pacific Solution’s brutal fact: we need it, “…We cannot, without risking social disruption, take more than a tiny fraction of them. And as John Howard famously said, it should be our government that decides who comes to this country, not a free-for-all scramble for a place on a leaky boat…” And they don’t come more far, far left than Margo Kingston who recently tweeted “..I think Muslim refugees should seek refuge in Muslim nations unless they embrace Western values..”

Well, that’s two of the cognoscenti that have finally seeing the light but we may well wonder what took them so long?

The Labor lite, Liberal Candidate in Mackellar Jason Falinski’s thinking is not only at odds with mainstream Mackellar and Australia but also leftists, Kingston and Holmes.

Falinski’s own words reflect his thinking on border control;

“…By removing the restrictions on those wishing to move to Australia we would improve our prospects in growing our market. We’d improve our networks and innovation. And we’d make ourselves once more relevant to the world….”

And if you disagree with him you must be a xenophobe. “some” as he calls it, would be the majority of mainstream Australia.  His own words again;

“..If, however, Australia’s political leaders feel that it’s easier to pander to the xenophobic tendencies of some in our community by expelling “illegal” migrants in vast numbers..”