Opposition Leader Peter Dutton mustered the press with his suggestion for a referendum to make it easier to deport criminals with dual citizenship.

It centres around the Citizenship Act and the ability of the government to request a person have their citizenship removed in extreme circumstances. This relies on the courts agreeing – something they are not inclined to do given the left-leaning, activist spell that seems to have been cast over them in recent decades. Even criminal convictions related to terrorism fail to convince the court.

There has been a lot of back-and-forth on this one, with Parliament changing the rules to side-step the weak stomach of the courts to sate public anger about citizenship being prioritised over the safety of Australia.

‘My argument is if you betray your allegiance to our country in that way, you should expect to lose your citizenship. What we’re proposing here is a discussion about whether we’ve got adequate laws, about whether the Constitution is restrictive.’

Mr Dutton is at his most comfortable talking tough on crime. He does very poorly when it comes to protecting civil liberties from the criminal behaviour of the state.

Here, he is mostly in agreement with the expectations of the public, including migrants.

The idea that removing citizenship is some horrific international no-no is akin to the Woke mind virus that comes out of unelected international bureaucracies. They worship open borders and ignore the spread of terrorism across previously safe nations. Their stated dream of a borderless paradise for refugees, regardless of their behaviour, has somehow embedded itself in the legal and (most of) the political class as seen by their instantaneous knee-jerk to the suggestion.

These people remind me of the free trade purists, raised on the mantra tariffs are taxes while ignoring real-world data that shows the immense harm free trade in competition with slavery has caused.

Unfortunately, the point is not whether Mr Dutton has his spirit in the right place, but rather whether the process of implementing the idea would cause more harm than good to a country in a fragile economic and social position.

I would also argue that the courts are so ideologically broken that they would find a way to ignore the decision, making it a fool’s errand.

As Treasurer Jim Chalmers pointed out, ‘Last time he tried to impose these laws the High Court threw them out.’ And you can bet Labor would do everything possible to radicalise their base of migrant voters against the Liberals as we saw them attempt during the Voice to Parliament election with the Indigenous community.

Therefore, this particular election thought bubble only works if the Coalition leaves it on the campaign trail.

Leave it as a policy line that can be used to criticise the lack of effort Albanese put into vetting migrants and the spread of religious hatred under his watch.

Which is not unreasonable, given Labor leaves pretty much all of its good ideas on the floor, trampled after the votes are cast.

Former Attorney-General George Brandis is probably correct when he says the ‘last thing Australians want from the next Parliament is the distraction of yet another ideologically inspired constitutional referendum’.

A referendum is almost always a terrible idea, for both the country and the party that suggests it. Ask Albanese. He is still licking his wounds from the Voice to Parliament.

These activities waste money, waste time, and risk cracking open the Constitution to others who might want to make their own changes.

The Greens, for example, are itching to scratch away at Section 44. One of their policies states:

‘The Greens’ plan: Hold a referendum to amend Section 44, allowing dual citizens and other disqualified groups to run for office. The referendum would be held at the same time as a general election, minimising costs to the taxpayer.’

They do not have the power to agitate for this on their own, but a broad discussion on dual citizenship would be the perfect opportunity to exploit Dutton’s proposal.

‘It’s insane, and none of us were told about this,’ one Liberal figure is reported to have said.

Is it insane? No.

As a concept, banishment was used in the Old World for exactly the same reason. People who were too dangerous and held a desire to destroy the country were kicked out. Oh, but you cannot leave someone stateless! screech the human rights organisations, who held a reverent silence during the Covid era. In my view, they made themselves stateless and I do not care, just as I feel no sympathy for the ISIS brides rotting in the Syrian desert after their husbands died in their spiritual quest to rape, pillage, and murder.

Should we chuck out foreign criminals who insulted the gift of citizenship? Absolutely.

Is Mr Dutton strong enough to lead a referendum on the issue? Absolutely not.

There are other ways to solve the problem of criminality entering Australia, the most obvious being to stop handing out citizenship like candy. The threshold to become a citizen is too low. Our expectations for potential citizens are too soft. And above all, a strict policy of assimilation must be restored. Mr Dutton could find just as much election traction in championing integration with the side benefit of improving the behaviour of millions of people rather than a few.

However, if tough policeman is the only hat he wears confidently, he could always advocate for extensive mandatory sentencing. Introduce uniquely nasty jail terms for terrorists or even hard labour. There is nothing the young fear more than being taken outside and asked to do some gardening. Chain them to the train lines and let them clean up the lantana. Tough punishments would deter the casual criminal from making Australia their home.

Flat White is written by Alexandra Marshall. If you would like to support her work, shout her a coffee over at donor-box.