On my reading, this would involve allocating points under various risk headings to produce "an enforceable integration framework to assess aspiring migrants' suitability for life in Australia".

Or the proposal to establish "an intelligence-led threat identification and risk profiling capability incorporating immigration as well as national security and criminality risk".

Take, for instance, the intention to "better align visa and citizenship decision-making with national security and community protection outcomes". What does this mean?

The most powerful case against the proposed revamp is that the arguments in the document are illogical, mean-spirited, self-defeating, misleading and poorly expressed.

But to what end? If the objective of a humanitarian program is to help the most vulnerable, ruling people out because they fail a points-based "integration framework" is folly. Far better to focus on ideas to build the nation's capacity to support and integrate new arrivals and make them feel secure and wanted.

What is less ambiguous is the proposal for a revamped citizenship test and citizenship pledge to "strengthen accountability for commitments made at citizenship conferral" - code for being able to take citizenship away if commitments are broken.

What isn't said is that the power already exists to take permanent residency away from those who break Australian laws.

Indeed, the thrust of the document is to make permanent residency, and citizenship, harder to get and easier to lose, which would undermine the most basic object of resettlement: making the new arrival feel secure and welcome.

This is not just a threat to individuals seeking to rebuild their lives. It is a threat to national values of inclusion and cohesion that should go no further.