While I agree with the concept that being a citizen or non-citizen does not a moral and worthy person make, I do not accept that the current discussion on citizenship has anything to do with this concept.

Many people in 'western democratic nations' have been asleep at the wheel, so to speak, and are waking up to a world that is increasingly being organised around them and for them by those who are not representative of them. I refer here to the United Nations and its various NGOs, and the overriding of national legislature and laws by this unrepresentative and non-democratic body. So we are now being introduced to the concept of a world without borders, and are going WTF!

I see these discussions on citizenship as a backlash to the 'global community' concept being slowly, deceptively forced on us. The concept that all cultures are equal, even though some cultures abuse the very human rights under the United Nations declaration, is an example of this.

The Howard Government is responding to this general feeling from the Australian community. Some might say populist, therefore the Australian communities 'betters' should override and decide. I for one would at least like an open, honest discussion and input to such a change to our particular part of the world.

Chrisse says that "Many people in 'western democratic nations'...are waking up to a world that is increasingly being organised...by those who are not representative of them." She worries about "a world without borders". She's referring to the United Nations and its various NGOs, and the overriding of national legislature and laws by this unrepresentative and non-democratic body.

Chrisse may have a point when she characterises recent manufactured discussions on citizenship as a backlash to the 'global community' concept being gradually forced on us. But she's chosen the wrong villain. The UN is the least of our worries. Over the past decade it has been ineffectual in asserting moral or any other sort of leadership in a range of crises notably in the Middle East. The incapacity of national governments like Australia's to control what happens within their own borders (and beyond) is much more profoundly influenced by transnational economic powers and the economic and military might of the US.

I share Chrisse's wish for an open, honest discussion on citizenship; but I fear that many Australians are being fooled into chasing the wrong rabbits down dead-end burrows.

Despite all the above criticism about the UN, I am yet to hear a viable alternative except a return to the law of the jungle.
Who will undertake all the other roles currently performed by the UN besides peacekeeping?
Maybe the UN would work better if a few nations didn't abuse their veto powers and paid their membership dues.

As for citizenship, the debate so far seems to be simply about achieving uniformity when what we really need is unity.

Getting a Driver's Licence for example, doesn't automatically make you a better driver and any proposed citizenship tests are only token gesture.

The real agenda is about maintaining social division for political gain.

A good article with some well made points.

Quote:

"We add an extra burden to their lives if we castigate them for failure to take part in extra activities that we assume to be the responsibility of citizens."

There is an answer to this: create two classes of citizen: that is, those to whom citizenship is important, who are willing to do jury service, vote, defend the country and its laws and the like, and those who are not.

Those who are willing to be citizens should receive all the rights of a citizen - that is equality under the law, assistance from the australian government whilst travelling, full social security, and similar measures.

Those who don't want to take the responsibilities of a citizen seriously should not expect the country to take their assumed rights seriously, whether they were born here or not.

Perhaps we should all need to take an oath of citizenship when we turn 18, and not just accept it due to an accident of birth.

Citizenship isn't supposed to confer morality it supposed to give the individual a seat at the national table and the right to participate in the course and direction of national interest. Not having citizenship means that while you may voice your opinion for or against, your opinion isn't valued or necessarily considered as to events or policies of national or social governance. Moral responsibility is to be taught in the home and with in the educational system. And exercised as example in law. Citizenship should be a living example of that collective morality. Crime is an exception and a very low percentage in the social experience ~5%. If the government of Australia is failing it's citizens than the citizens have failed to govern. Democracies require the attention of their citizenship to function as a democracy. Otherwise you end up with something quite different filling the void left by inattention and neglect. Of course if all the entities that make up that society are at odds as to whom or what is the most special, the most deserving, or the greater victim. Then citizenship isn't all that important. Choosing the faction that best represents your grievance takes a higher importance. Cultural vandalism. Way ta represent dude! Bring down the system man! Politics suck!
Excuse me. Did you actually admit to being Australian? Gross.

And doing nothing to ensure immigrants will contribute to social cohesion instead of disharmony makes one thing.

A Trojan Horse.