Shadow Minister: I haven't been absent and I do know about the appalling death toll earlier among people who were able to get on leaky boats in Indonesia because corruption there made that possible. That has now been stopped - and that's a good result and a credit in large part to the fortitude of the coalition post-Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments - by a combination of factors, including belated action by the Indonesians to get their harbourmasters into line, and Australia's strict no-sanctuary policy. That change encouraged the Indonesian authorities to tweak their own informal policy of not worrying about unauthorised arrivals because they were planning to move on to Australia.

I just have a moral objection to incarcerating people, who have committed no crime under international law, on remote islands conveniently outside Australia's political control. But I don't think I'm alone there, and neither is it truthfully a partisan issue.

The intent of my piece was not to discuss the detail of policy, over which there are quite rightly numerous differences of opinion, but to highlight what I saw as a developing informal belief that Australians who are citizens by choice (i.e., migrants from whatever source) have fewer rights to criticise policy than citizens who are Australian-born. I'm sorry if you think my argument was advanced in a supercilious manner. I thought it was in English, albeit with a few long words.

I'm sorry that long words confuse you so I'll try to be more succinct.

Firstly, as there are no longer any people detained on Manus, and only about 300 on Nauru, (far less than the people that labor and the greens drowned) and once the 1200 refugees are processed to the US, then the only ones left will be the illegal economic migrants who have no claim to asylum.

Secondly, given that there were only 4 people detained when Labor assumed the government, and that Labor/greens left the government with 30 000 people in detention incl 2000 children and more than 1200 dead, it is clear that the bleeding heart approach was a dismal failure so much so that Labor re-established the Manus and Nauru detention centres.

Finally, this is not a partisan issue, as, with the blood of 1200+ people on its hands, Labor has been compelled to acknowledge the merit of the coalition policies.

Dear Richard.

If you join any group of people and seek the acceptance of the existing members, to prove that you are "one of them", then certain conditions apply. You can't just join any group and then display opinions which show that you despise the group you aspired to join, and then act outraged when they don't accept you. A sporting shooter who joins an animal liberation society is never going to be accepted, no matter how long he is a member. An animal liberationist who spends 50 years in that organisation and then becomes a sporting shooter, will similarly be shunned and despised.

There are now around 30 "Australians" rotting in jail cells around Australia for plotting to mass murder Australians. So just because an immigrant plants his big toe on Australian soil, hardly makes them loyal Australians who should be fully trusted as fellow "Australians." So yes, immigrants should be careful about what they say about Australia and Australians, because the rest of us might consider you to be a poor candidate if you don't. Look at Abdel-Al Mageid. She made statements claiming that Islam was "the most feminist religion", and belittling ANZAC day, and became the most hated woman in Australia.

Non white immigration into European countries is becoming a growth cause in every European country, because multiculturalism is making once safe European societies into dangerous places. Why you want European countries to commit social self suicide is beyond me? But I suspect it is because you have been brainwashed into thinking that supporting cultural division in the world's most successful societies is what "intelligent" people do. You got that wrong, Richard, it is what dumb people do.

If you keep supporting European social self suicide, go right ahead. It is still a free country, no matter how much the multiculturalists want to change that. But such an opinion, which is clearly inimical to European civilisation, is not going to make you popular among your fellow Australians. Unless the "Australians" you consider your natural allies are the ones rotting in jail cells in Goulbourn jail?

Shadow Minister: Did you actually read what I wrote in my last in this series of Q&As between us, before coming back with your answer above? It seems you may not have done do, since I made precisely the point that as administrative policy the coalition government’s turn back-no sanctuary strategy was a significant success.

It achieved the desired political objective of “stopping the boats”. In part this was by requiring the Royal Australian Navy to ignore international maritime law in certain operational circumstances. And in part it was because this policy showed the Indonesian government that it was no longer practical to ignore the issue on its territory, or to continue its informal policy of wink-and-nod convenience by overlooking corrupt unauthorised departures from its ports.

Of course it’s not a partisan argument (I said that too) since Labor under Bill Shorten supports turn backs and exclusion. The upcoming Labor Party national conference may be interesting on that score.

For which bit of the Australian penumbra are you a shadow minister?

I repeat: My original post related to presumed/assumed entitlement to comment, given that I had only chosen to be an Australian and hadn’t involuntarily been born here. I assume from your engagement with me that you too believe that barrier to be less fact than, say, Trumpian Mexican wall fantasy. In which case, thank you

Scribe,

Thanks for acknowledging the success of the Pacific solution in saving lives, but it must be acknowledged that turnbacks while effective are only part of the solution and that offshore detention alone worked extremely well on its own for nearly a decade.

Having spent some time debating this issue, I have gone as far as reading the UNHCR convention and its updates with some legal interpretations as well as a book on international maritime law. So here are a few nuggets that might make reconsider your claims.

1. Interdiction on the high seas is generally prohibited, but there are quite a few exceptions incl people trafficking, so the turnbacks don't ignore any laws and are not illegal.

2 The UNHCR does not cover anyone that does not land in Aus.

3 There is no obligation whatsoever to accept economic migrants.

4 It is entirely legal to detain illegal migrants until such time as their asylum claims are processed, and there is no limit on the time taken.

5 There is nothing in the UNHCR to prohibit processing illegal immigrants offshore.

6 The tribunal to decide asylum status does not need any international oversight and if offshore is not subject to the Aus courts.

In addition to the above points of law, the main deterrent factor in the Pacific solution was offshore detention which in itself was extremely effective, which is why the Labor government set up Manus and Nauru.

I also look forward to Labor changing its policy on illegal immigrants as it will go a long way to keeping the coalition in power.

As for the moniker "shadow minister" I chose it in 2007 when Howard was in power as a shadow minister has no responsibilities other than dismantling the arguments of the incumbents.

Shadow Minister: Thank you. I see that we read the same literature. One might say: "We are all shadow ministers now".

Lego: I won't dignify your commentary with a response beyond this note, from which you will note that I have seen it.