Well that's not much help. So the Constitution is old, in some places irrelevant, and hard to change. Thankfully. So we have to live with it and, if in the process that provides fodder for political barbs like this, we should just bite our tongues. Of course much of the law is like that. For example right now we have the wonderful legal spectacle of a fellow having allegedly killed several people with a car in full view of millions of witnesses around the world. Allegedly. Would I wish to change this very irritating way of avoiding damaging a court case? No. Just bite my tongue, as usual, because the benefits of having laws and constitutions outweigh the disadvantages.

Binoy: Often, these contain laws that are irretrievably archaic, and resist change by virtue of being embedded in a document deliberated over in another age.

The section 44 in Question:
Any person who is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

The first Phrase say it all. "under any acknowledgment of allegiance. etc."

If present History is anything to go by, there may be a few in Parliament now, who, although they maybe Australian citizens, may already have allegiances to Foreign Powers. Making it legal would make matters worse. Can you imagine some one with Allegiances to Iran, Egypt ;-) or even Saudi Arabia.

The immigration from Islamic Countries would triple over night & then there would be the demand for Sharia Law to be implemented to work alongside Australian Law, until Australian Law ceased to exist.

In fact if you have a Child & fail to Register that child, then the Child has no Nationality. I know two ladies in the Town I live in that have all sorts of trouble, Getting Married or a Drivers Licence, Bank Account, etc., because they were never Registered when they were born.

You know where you were born. It shows on your Birth Certificate, one of the requirements of getting Married, a Drivers licence, a Passport & a Bank Account. Even on the Census it asks you if you are Dual Citizen.

No, deleting this Section would be a bad idea. It's supported by the extreme Left because they hell bent on destroying Australia's Democracy.

cont
Binoy: It is a provision that nabs the unsuspecting member of Parliament.

Unsuspecting? Crap! You know weather or not you have Dual Citizenship. Being born in a foreign country doesn't automatically give you Citizen Rights. Except America, maybe. If this were so then I know of thousands of children who are citizens of Malaysia, having been born in Malacca or Butterworth between 1945 & 1969. Then there's New Guinea, & Japan. These children "are not" Dual Citizens. They were Registered as Australian Citizens at the Australian Embassies.

A bill of irrevocable rights could include a passage, that in essence says, that official Australian citizenship and taking an oath of allegiance, all that is required to terminate other alleged dual citizenship!

Without which, migrating Brits, Kiwis and Canucks etc/etc, should be obliged to renounce their British, NZ, Canadian citizenship etc, after or inside a four year window. Then be subject to the same written and spoken english test, as applicable to other, non english speaking migrants, seeking citizenship!

Furthermore, an irrevocable bill of rights, should remove other archaic discrimination, like that which prevents anyone receiving a government provided stipend/pension from nominating for a government position/representation?

It's completely ridiculous, these laws were crafted for us by an overseeing Monarchy/Crown! Thus we have Crown land and common laws guaranteed by the Crown etc/etc.

And should have been rewritten when we became Australian citizens, in 1943! To remove any and all archaic anomaly!

Another thing, our head of state should not only be one of us, but an ethnically authentic original Australian, whose status could be confirmed by DNA testing.

And our flag ought to changed, so as to include the official aborigine flag in the corner currently occupied by the union jack. The flag of a country that no longer recognizes us as the Brits we were until 1943, but treats us as aliens, with fewer rights than common former enemies, when we visit our alleged head of state. Who goes in to bat for them and against us, whenever there is a trade related conflict of interest!
Alan B.

This question should never arise,

There should be no Australian citizenship granted to anyone who has not renounced any other citizenship. Dual citizenship should not ever exist.

Further, no one who has ever held citizenship of any other country should be eligible for election to any representative body, or any court, tribunal or any such body that adjudicates on Australian law.

It takes a lifetime to become an Ozzie, & more than a lifetime to undo being something else.

It takes just a few minutes to become an Anzac and stand beside other Anzacs, as immovable obstacles. Like NZ pack howitzers and a Kiwi Maori lieutenant, forward spotter. Who called fire down on his own position to save many young lives and Nui Dat, Aug 18th.

Even as senior officers allegedly/reportedly, cowered inside their tents? Only to appear after the fighting was done to take the kudos, credit and rationed medals?

At the end of the day Has, what matters is what is in your heart, not were you were born.

Like say, Benedict Arnold and sell it for a song to the highest bidder egoistic quislings with loyalty only to the might dollar, themselves and their immediate family!

Many of who patently occupy your (born to rule) nationals by birth only, preferred positions? [I'd apply it to all real estate sales!]

And almost as sensible as selecting officers by virtue of privileged birth, demented or otherwise, rather than tried and tested field competency.

J B Petersen was a NZ born Norwegian! one of our earliest/more competent PM's was an NZ'er. Tony Abbott was born in (Mother) England!

I could go on, but the list is very long and this site still has word limits.

There's a story of a Christmas truce in the trenches during WW 1, that only ended when one high ranking, demented fool said, right oh chaps, party's over, back to the trenches.

Or Gallipoli, when some new chum knee deep in human excrement and human remains, under a hail of shrapnel, and the crack of high calibre long arm's fire, piped up, this must be what hell is like?
To which some stiff upper lip replied, yes, but at least their are no flies.
Don't forget your meds.
Alan B.

Correction and apologies, J.B.P., was a Norwegian born NZ'er.
Alan B.

The Australian constitution is a coercive document that is arbitrarily forced upon all the people who happen to live in this continent, including those born here, who have never agreed to it.

There is no need to amend that stupid document because it has no validity in the first place - what needs to go is this sheepish culture of adherence to laws that were made by others without one's consent.

Dear Alan B.,

Article s44(i) of the Constitution is completely outdated
and has no real place in Modern Australia and should
be rescinded.

Grant Wyeth writing an opinion piece for The Drum,
16 Sept. 2014 on dual citizenship stated that the premise
behind Article s44(i) of the Constitution came from an
era where pompous ideas about "national loyalty" were
predominant.

Today the campaign asking Senators to reveal whether
they're dual citizens serves to highlight how outdated
our Constitution is in our globalised age. Here we are
chasing and punishing Senators who took an oath of
loyalty to Australia when they became Australian citizens
and having left their country of birth at a very young
age - and were genuinely oblivious of a former citizenship
have been forced to resign. And all this when our Head of
State just happens to be British?

That doesn't make sense.

Let us hope that in this regard out of this silly undertaking
of "gotcha" journalism comes the public momentum to
remove the archaic Article s44(i) from our laws once and for all.

To all....define 'Australian' first then we can all discuss the merits for and against an artificial entity borne of political expediency in order to bind individuals into a society with focus toward a common goal.
The goal thus far has been to provide combatants in wars not of our making and spare me the common good because all winners lay claim to the common good

Foxy: Let us hope that in this regard out of this silly undertaking
of "gotcha" journalism comes the public momentum to remove the archaic Article s44(i) from our laws once and for all.

Yes, I could see you wanting to allow someone who has an allegiance to the Middle East & mahommadism to push the Middle East agenda in our Parliament. There are too many of those types in Parliament legally as it is & they are pushing, creeping Sharia Law, now, especially Dastardly & Ali.

Binoy: their previous nationalities (in Waters case, Canadian.

I have no love for the Greens, but was Waters Registered, by her parents, as a Canadian & an Australian or just an Australian? Being born in a Foreign Country doesn't entitle you to Citizenship of that Country unless the child is Registered as a Citizen of that Country when they are born. If they are then the Australian Embassy will refuse to Register them as Australian. Is this point being ignored on purpose? Is it a case of, "I don't want to know that."

Binoy:John Sackar QC, acting on Hawkins' behalf, withdrew the petition once evidence was revealed showing that the senator had renounced his German citizenship.

Well that was the natural course of action, Abetz had refused to answer until he was forced.

Binoy: But section 44 remains an anachronism in an age where dual nationality has become a pressing reality, less a matter of patriotism than access.

No it doesn't. It safeguards Australia's Democracy from those who would wish to subvert it.

Binoy: The Constitution continues being more a poor bill of fare than a bill of rights.

BS & if ya don't like it Binoy, feel free to find a Middle Eastern country, or any other for that matter, that will give you the same Rights.

Dear Foxy, Hear, hear and well said!
Cheers, Alan B.

Dear Jayb.,

It is one hell
of a penalty to pay for not checking on your relationship
with a nation you left at 3 years of age and never knew
to now have to relinquish your Senate seat because of
it.

Obviously there is the argument that the Constitution is
merely trying to ensure that the only allegiance our
Parliamentarians have is to Australia but again New Zealand
and Canada are not - Libya, Syria, Somalia, Russia or China.

As someone pointed out earlier on another discussion - if
you were born in either New Zealand or Canada (both British
Colonies at the time) and left when you were either a baby
or three years of age - there should be room for you in our
Parliament especially seeing as you were a naturalised Aussie
and had sworn allegiance to Australia and her people - and were
genuinely oblivious to any problems.

When Australian Senators have lived here for half a century
without causing a fuss - and done a good job, it makes no
sense to boot them out.

Instead of booting these people out, lets hold a Referendum
and choose anothers to boot out (as one journalist suggested.
We all know who we'd pick!).

Dear Alan B.,

Thank You.

I read in an article that fortunately in Australia we don't
have a significant culture of Constitution worship like
that present in the United States of America. Australians
have the good sense to realise that as much grand foresight
as our Constitution's authors may have had, their work is
not infallible.

And as stated earlier, in this regard, let us hope that out
of this silly undertaking of "gotcha" journalism does come
the public momentum to remove the archaic Article s44(i)
from our laws.

Well, people probably won't like what I'm about to say.
I think foreigners decietfully representing Australians in government and potentially deciding laws should be publicly executed by hanging.

I'm tired of the lies, tired of the msm and liberal lefts narrative mistruths and conjecture.

There is no reason whatsoever that I should be represented in my own country by a foreigner., and I don't see any reason why I should entertain or have sympathy for this lunacy.
Now I'm sure some may want to attack me for my opinion.
Before they do though, I want to remind them that I'm not the one who deceitfully lied to the Australian public.
Let em hang. No sympathy.

Dear Armchair Critic,

How long does a person have to live in this country
to no longer be considered a foreigner?

Nothing new here, the article is about special pleading for the two Greens ex-Senators who claim they were unaware of and did not suspect the possibility of their own dual citizenship.

However there can be no doubt that they were made aware of the few, simple, plain English requirements for Senate nomination and specifically in the guide and application.

The foolish, arrogant Greens politicians don't believe in Australian sovereignty anyhow, are trenchant critics of nationhood and the Greens and are for 'Open Borders' immigration.

The Greens, are the 'odd men out' in Australia and the world too, for their cultural cringe to anything foreign. Also for their willingness to genuflect to and assist billionaires like US George Soros.

Soros, who through his 'Open Society'(sic, he means an 'Open Go' for George the billionaire), is notorious for interfering in the domestic politics of others countries, was convicted for insider trading in France, is reputed to have nearly sent the Bank of England broke, and has a vested interest in dissolving separate statehood and borders for rather obvious reasons. The first reason being that democratic governments and State borders (which mean State laws) are inconvenient to him.

There may be no surprise either that billionaires like Soros who can easily manipulate markets to their advantage (which is where national laws inconvenience him) are all for flooding Europe and democratic nations generally with economic migrants. Again, there is no guessing why. But it does weaken the culture, the rule of law and the governments.
tbc..

It is telling that it is those who now challenge the Constitution are the same elements that frustrate the attempts of present and past Greens leaders to convert the Greens from a loose collective of serial activists, a protest party, to a party that can claim legitimacy through focussing on real, coherent policies and not solely be randomly bagging others.

The Greens leader has promised a new due diligence from the party. The ex-Senators have admitted fault, which as politicians they have tried to minimise of course.

Time to move on, but NEVER to bend over and serve the interests of wealthy foreigners interfering in Australia, Australia is a separate nation and is proud of the fact.

Australia will never lose its autonomy and independence to the 'One World' totalitarianism of International Socialists who are conveniently in bed with ruthless billionaires who don't even pay the taxes they should in their own country.

It is always interesting how the adherents to International Socialism claim to be supported by the many thousands who came to Australia as migrants. That is another lie, because those migrants and their children and grandchildren are assuredly reminded by their grandparents' life experiences one hopes, do NOT want to be under the boot of totalitarians, and definitely NOT being jerked about by some foreign billionaires as their overlords in cahoots with far left zealots.

Australian Constitution, Section 44 (i).
"44. Any person who -

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or ...."

In all this, spare a thought for those born overseas who cannot renounce their birth citizenship because the laws of their birth nation do not allow it; are they to be forever barred from public office?

Then there are the Irish, who, if a parent or a grandparent was born in Ireland are automatically citizens of Ireland.

How many MsP are affected by having relevant Irish ancestors?

Irish
http://www.dfa.ie/passports-citizenship/citizenship/how-do-i-renounce-my-citizenship/

Is Mise,

Sorry, I posted my link above not realising you had answered elsewhere and also your meaning.

leoj,

That's OK.

Let's go one better..... take a religion....claim it to be a nationality....and all those following that religion are automatically identified as being that nationality by that nation.

Where, and to whom, is the allegiance?

Take Australia....does it really matter who comes up with a good idea? or is it that one is concerned that the person at the trough isn't entitled because he/she is not perceived as being an 'approved' Australian.
I can just see it...a man jumps up and says danger! danger!, you're heading for a ravine and someone follows suit and says...'you're not one of us mate' so were not going to take any notice of you.

It seems to me that many an 'approved' Australian has been caught defrauding and deceiving.....this is not the domain of the non Australian but that of the common thief.
A society advances on the contribution of the few to benefit the whole and I'm not talking about the social welfare handouts.
Australian citizens having to do without because the system favours the freeloader.
Just hand it out....'plenty more where that came from' and if there isn't just borrow more...we're good for it!
The participants in this discussion seem to be more concerned about the politico, and his/her 'right to be' through origin than the competency of govt employees and the criteria under which they are employed.
Try calling Canberra and see if you can make any sense out of what is being said
Instead of promoting a system the produces the greatest good it seems you're trying to define the type of band aid that should be used.

Hey Foxy,
How long does a person have to live in this country to no longer be considered a foreigner?

That's a fair question, but you're actually asking me the wrong question.
The right question might be this 'What gift, bribe or inducement could I give you that you may be willing to allow yourself or your children to have laws decided for them by people who were born overseas?

The answer is none, theres nothing you can offer me that will make me think its a good idea.

So lets say you think it should be one way where I think it should be another...
You don't stand to lose anything, because you support being ruled by a foreigner, right?
But I don't agree with it, and I do feel that I have something to lose. Now you'd be willing to change the law to be the way you want it. But what is so important, what is it that you GAIN from being ruled over by a foreigner that is worth me losing my right TO NOT BE ruled by a foreigner?
So if we had it your way and allowed it, you couldn't ever say you had the support of the Australian people - because I'm an Australian and I disagreed.
Why would you want to do something that was against the express wishes of another Australian citizen in support of what a foreigner wanted?
Why would you sell me out like that?

I'd hope that you'd be getting some kind of payment and that its a large amount and worth it, because I cant see whats in it for you that is so important that you're willing to hang me and my family out to dry by supporting this.

I hope that puts my thoughts into better perspective for you.

Foxy: there should be room for you in our Parliament especially seeing as you were a naturalised Aussie and had sworn allegiance to Australia and her people

There in lies the difference, "you were a naturalised Aussie and had sworn allegiance to Australia and her people." There is no impediment to Naturalized Australians. A number of Politicians are naturalized Australians. &, As I have stated previously Registered Australian Children born overseas are not impeded as they have only Australian Citizenship, If they were also Registered with the Birth Country, they have Dual Citizenship & that then becomes a problem, Doesn't it?

Foxy: When Australian Senators have lived here for half a century
without causing a fuss - and done a good job, it makes no sense to boot them out.

These are supposedly educated people, mostly Lawyers nowadays. They should therefore be up to stick with the Law & Rules governing becoming Politicians. This is deliberate deceit on their part. Therefore they have lied & deceived Parliament & the Australian People. A very serious offence. The must be charged & sent to Jail, their Australian Citizenship revoked, then booted out of the Country.

Foxy: lets hold a Referendum and choose others to boot out.

You'd hold a Referendum for this, but not for Marriage equality? Just where are your priorities?

Hey Foxy, one more thing.
Please don't take offense but now I have to ask this question:
Were you born here?
Because if you weren't, then that in itself might give me some kind of reason as to why you'd be willing to give a foreign born person a concession and sell me out.

What I also can't understand is who in the hell thinks it's a good idea to move to a foreign country and start telling those people how they should live?
That because you've been 'granted' citizenship you think you have some sort of 'right' now to make decisions and govern on behalf of people who were born there.
What sort of person thinks that?
What of the character of the person who assumes that is their 'right'?
I would think little of a person who assumed that.

I haven't done that to anyone or anyone else's country so why should I accept it being done to mine?
Why should I feel sympathy when these people are meddling in the future of my country when they had no business being a representative in the first place.

And what 'you forgot' you we're born in a different country?
Come on, really?
They try to convince you of some dumb things these days but REALLY?

I'm sick of the progressives (and I'm not necessarily referring to you) habit trying to argue that 'people who do the wrong things are victims' when it suits them.

What's being born here got to do with it?

One can be born here and still have dual citizenship; it ain't hard.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
became law on 9 July 1990 and entered into force on
1 Jan 1901. The Constitution was given legal force by
the Act of the BRITISH Parliament.

It wasn't until the Australia Act of 1986 that removed
the power of the BRITISH Parliament to change the
Constitution as in force in Australia and the Constitution
can now only be changed in accordance with the prescribed
Referendum procedures.

Also our Head of State just happens to be British.

So your objections to us being ruled by a foreigner is
something that you need to seriously think about. As well
as objecting to the laws that we have being decided for
us by people whop were born overseas.

BTW - I was born in Australia. Thank You for asking.

Dear Jayb.,

My parents were Naturalised. I was born in Australia

Dear Armchair Critic,

My apologies for the typo.

It should read that the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 became law on 9 July 1900
(not 1990) and given legal force by the Act of the
British Parliament.

Dear Critic,

Regarding your right TO NOT BE ruled by a foreigner:

Nobody should be forced to be ruled by others against their will. Period.

(whether this/those other(s) happen to be foreigners or otherwise is irrelevant and only obfuscates the discussion)

Short of this basic principle of decency and non-violence, we currently live (though without consent) under a regime claiming to be a "representative democracy", where parliamentarians are claimed to be representing me and you. Should that description attempt to be correct rather than (as we all know) a mere piece of propaganda-slogan, then I should be able to elect MY representative, just as you should be able to elect yours: you may not constrain who can be my representative in parliament just as I do not constrain who can be yours.

What, or who is an Australian?
This seems to be a very complex question 'cos I don't get any definitions as to what an Australian actually is?

Foxy: How long does a person have to live in this country to no longer be considered a foreigner?

Forever it seems. A mate came to Australia from Britain when a child, grew up in Australia, joined the Army, served in Vietnam, worked all his life & was a TPI & on a Defence Pension. He went to Europe & Britain on a holiday. He arrived back in Australia & was refused entry because he was still a British Subject.

I figure if he can be kicked out of Australia for that then Politicians who purposely deceive the Australian Public because, they know, should be shot (euphemism.)

Simple, an Australian is a citizen of Australia.

ilmessaggio: This seems to be a very complex question 'cos I don't get any definitions as to what an Australian actually is?

Well you're a Rabid Lefty & it shows. You don't know anything much. you are just against everything for the sake of being against.

Foxy & others hell bent on getting rid of Sect. 44.1. Would you agree to a whole bunch of Yanks becoming members of our Parliament? ;-)

I think that the whole clause needs tightening up.
It should also ban persons who belong to political groups or religions
who advocate overthrowing parliamentary government.

That is clumsily worded but you get the idea.
If you have any doubt look at what is happening in France, Germany & Sweden.
Their laws are being superseded by Sharia law by use of "Islamaphobia"
clauses in "Hate speech" regulations. Canada is the latest example
where you have to be very careful if you criticism Islam.

I don't think we realise how complicated this can get.

It seems that some governments may consider that the children of a citizen - or the children of anyone born in their country - is automatically a citizen. So many of us may be citizens of other countries whether we like it or not, or know it or not.

And some of those countries may also have a rule that such citizens cannot become dual citizens: so we may be born here but, if our parents (or maybe even just one parent) come one of these countries, we are not only lifelong citizens of that other country but it doesn't recognise that we may be citizens of the country that we were born in, i.e. Australia.

In other words, we may be oblivious to the laws of other countries which may have very serious effects on us. If, say, we visit the 'home country' of our parents, and let's say, commit a minor offence, we may have no recourse to any Australian consular protection in the legal eyes of that country.

Gets messy :)

Dear Is Mise,

«Simple, an Australian is a citizen of Australia.»

What about kangaroos, qualas, dingos, emus and galahs? Are they not Australian? Are they not for example even more Australian than human children born to Australian parents and who have never set foot in Australia?

So who decides whether one is a citizen of Australia? Australian humans, right? That's called a circular definition.

---

Dear Jay,

«Well you're a Rabid Lefty & it shows.»

Possibly, time will tell as I don't know Ilmessaggio well enough yet.
Yet I am not a Lefty and consider his/hers a serious, difficult and contentious question.
Accusing someone of being a Lefty can be used to lazily evade addressing a difficult question.

«Would you agree to a whole bunch of Yanks becoming members of our Parliament?»

That could not happen unless a significant number of Australians were to vote to be represented by these Yanks.
In that hypothetical scenario, who are you to override their choice?

---

Dear Bazz,

«It should also ban persons who belong to political groups or religions who advocate overthrowing parliamentary government.»

The example you provided (Islam), is a backward negative one - but what will happen once, inevitably, the majority of the Australian people will grow out of this archaic concept of "government"? If you are going to prevent a peaceful transition by the people, then you inadvertently encourage a violent one.

My maternal Irish Grandmother came out over a century ago and on the bridal trail. My maternal grandfather was born in Tasmania and through him I can trace my Australasian ancestry back to the second fleet and through his maternal ancestry, back about 65,000 years?

That said, I've known foreigners with more heartfelt love for this country than many born here!

And just accepting they have a superior birthright that they just never earned or even deserve? Given how easily they'll put a few dollars more ahead of patriotism!

Simply put, you don't have to be born here to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for her!

It's a bit rich for folks not able to commit completely, even though born here, bitching because a representative whose politics is/was the real problem, wasn't born here!

There was a mass exodus a few years back from NZ, with the IQ improved on both sides of the ditch as the first consequence.

Now the opposite seems to be happening, with reversed results.

One remembers a few local yokels banging on about how many kiwis had taken up residence on the gold coast in a single year. When J.B.P., abolished death duties.

The following year around 3500 NZ'ers had arrived and taken up permanent residence and bought or started various small business ventures, which on average employed at least three full time Aussies!

So instead of coming here and taking our jobs, they came here risking their shirts and creating work for us rather than taking our jobs!

At the end of the day, if you don't want to be represented by a foreigner, vote for a national, even if we seem to be scraping the bottom of a very large barrel, with respect to native born Aussies willing to serve? Abusive drunks, bankrupts and one or two who'd not look too out of place, wearing brown shirts and jackboots?

Ain't that the (please explain) plane truth? Know what I mean? nudge, nudge, wink.

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Alan B.

The reference to 'foreign power' in the section of the Constitution is also Australia asserting its sovereignty, jurisdiction and so on, which is an expected and necessary thing to do diplomatically.

That the desire should also be expressed and confirmed in nominations for the highest positions of trust and responsibility in Australia is quite reasonable and expected too.

It is an intriguing thought that there are some here, mainly special pleading for 'their' side (which is foolish in itself), who might not see anything wrong or unusual in the possibility of someone being a member of parliament in Australia as well as in their 'home' (dual nationality) country.

Enterprising politicians (and what politician isn't modelling enterprise where his/her own advantage is concerned?), like Sam 'Dastardly' could save dollars to get paid extra dollars. Bargain!

Of course under the 'One World' government of OLO's International Socialists there would be no separate sovereign nations. But there would still be a need for paperwork and permits. A lot of paper and permits. But don't you 'punters'(sic) be worrying about that.

s44 is something, isn't it? When one thinks about all of the effort put into trying to sort the wheat from the chaff in selections and failing to do that. But wee li'l s44 has managed to do it for the Senate, twice recently. Wow!

Loudmouth: or the children of anyone born in their country - is automatically a citizen.

The USA is the only one I know of that this applies too. There may be others, but I don't think so.

Bazz : It should also ban persons who belong to political groups or religions who advocate overthrowing parliamentary government.

I'm fairly sure that that is covered under "Treason" in a different Section. I'll look for it & comment later.

Alan B: Abusive drunks, bankrupts and one or two who'd not look too out of place, wearing brown shirts and jackboots?

& The Greenies/PC & other Lefty self abusers. Don't forget them.

Yutsie: unless a significant number of Australians were to vote to be represented by these Yanks.

Americans always remain Americans unless they renounce their American Citizenship. If they renounce & take on Australian Citizenship, I have no problem. If they haven't renounced then I do. That is what this is all about. Durrr...

By the way, have you renounced your Indian/SiriLankan/Pakistani/whatever Citizenship?

Hi Everyone,

Foxy, yes I know there's a Union Jack on our flag, that does't mean I support a foreigner representing our intesests.
Also, this is 'touchy' as I don't want to imply that you are any less Aussie when you were born here.
But I must say in many cases it's the children of immigrants who are not assimilating, joining gangs and are causing much of our problems.

Is Mise, I don't support the idea of being represented by dual citizens.
Dual citizenship means dual loyalties, and I'll give you an example.
Take Jewish-Australians as an example, in all likeliness their real loyalty will be to Israel first. (No disrespect)
Why would I support a system that allowed the potential to be represented by those with loyalties elsewhere?
All I'm asking for as a requirement is a person whos loyalties and interests only involve Australia.

Yuyutu, you make a fair point in so far as equality, but if you don't want your laws decided by Australians, then you have the option to go elsewhere, it's not like I could or should have to go to a foreign country to be reprented by an Australian.

illmessagio,
You ask what is Australian, with a means to categorically say, 'you are' and 'you aren't', but what if I didn't like that 'yes/no' 'black/white' argument and I instead said lets make it percentage.
I've tracked my ancestry back about 8 or 9 generations in this country and still can't find out how I even got here. I'm told my ancestors came on the third fleet but I can't find evidence of it.
Early records can be obscure. My Great Grandfather was promoted to CO on the battlefield of Gallipoli after his CO was shot. I'm told he was Lieutenant Colonel but the Australian War Memorial only list him as Major and I need more info. My grandmother was part indigenous and came from the last Aboriginal family in the Burragorang Vally before the Warramba Dam.
How do I compare to Yassmin Abdel Magied (Queenslander of the Year) as represented as a percentage Australian?

[con't]
I could add more history: I have ancentors that built now heritage listed houses with their bare hands in the 1800's, family that took part in the Brisbane to Gladstone (may have been on a boat that took line honours) for decades and the Sydney to Hobart, another uncle that won the Morrish Medal in the VFL and my family contributed to this nation by fighting in all the major wars.
How does that compare as a percent Australian?

You see, if you don't like the argument, just change it.

And Alan B, you know I can't really argue with facts, dammit.
(Unless those so called facts have to do with global warming)

Dear Armchair Critic,

I don't think that many here are arguing for the
retention of dual citizenships for our politicians.

What I think is being questioned is the fact that
two Senators who worked hard for their electorates
and as far as I can tell did their jobs honestly
and well were forced to resign despite the fact
that having taken on Australian Citizenship and sworn
an oath of loyalty to Australia were oblivious to
the fact that by accident of birth they still had
retained their New Zealand and Canadian citizenships.
And that according to Article s44(i) of the Constitution
were not allowed to sit in Parliament as Senators due to
having dual citizenship.

It's this archaic Article that is the whole point of contention

Of course people have used this opportunity to bring all
sorts of lunacies into the argument ranging from
demonising the Greens to One World Totalitarianism, to
ruthless billionaires, to far left zealots, to international
socialists.

But as I pointed out - sometimes you just
have to let the "haters" be mad. They create their own storms
then get upset when it rains.

I can't speak for why we have a few radicalised young people
who do crazy things.

I can only speak on my own behalf.
I was born here, grew up here, was educated here, and
know no other country. And I find it rather strange that my
loyalty to this country should be questioned now because of an
opinion I hold about an archaic part of our Constitution.

I've been accused by one poster as having "a secondary agenda
of extreme multiculturalism where Australian values, traditions,
lifestyle, even citizenship is devalued; denied, and up for grabs."

My father would turn over in his grave if that were true.

Anyway, as we can see - when the subject matter involves
issues of deep human and moral concerns - people tend to see
things from a viewpoint of subjectivity. I guess in a public
forum such as this one - we're all fair game.

It is NOT 'archaic', especially now in this dangerous area of the world, for Australia, the Australian government, to be asserting its sovereignty, jurisdiction and so on, which is an expected and necessary thing to do diplomatically. That is inherent to and deliberate in the reference to 'foreign power' in the section of the Constitution.

That the sovereignty claim should also be expressed and confirmed in nominations for the highest positions of trust and responsibility in Australia is quite reasonable, deliberate and expected too.

All of this to excuse two politicians who were casual, frivolous, about their nomination for the Senate. It is unthinkable that anyone would do that intentionally they do it deliberately, which would be dreadful discourtesy to Australians.

Should be, "It is unthinkable that anyone would do that intentionally, which would be a dreadful discourtesy to Australians".

Dear Jay,

I can well understand your lack of concern for Americans (who do not renounce their American citizenship), but not your lack of concern for those (hypothetical) Australians who chose to vote for them regardless.

Candidates/Members must remember that they are only the servants of those who elected them. It is no different in principle to employing the best lawyer for your case even if s/he happens to be an American.

«By the way, have you renounced your Indian/SiriLankan/Pakistani/whatever Citizenship?»

No, but let me assure you that I never stood for political office (anywhere in the world), nor have I any allegiance to any country/nation whatsoever. This is just a matter of cold/cynical convenience - the age of national allegiances is now truly over, for good I hope. Besides, the formal possession of citizenships has little to do with allegiance or loyalty (see Armchair-Critic's counter-example). Some of my family collect 3-4 different passports, just in case, including of countries they've never been in - it can become quite handy in times of trouble.

---

Dear Critic,

«but if you don't want your laws decided by Australians, then you have the option to go elsewhere»

I don't want my laws to be decided by ANY people as I do my best to follow the laws of God. How would it help me to go elsewhere only to be subjected to other laws which would probably be even worse?

I chose the least of evils, but that doesn't mean that it isn't evil.

«Is Mise, I don't support the idea of being represented by dual citizens.»

Then don't vote for one... and pray. I'm also unhappy with the local member who is supposed to represent me, for a 100 different reasons, but cannot do anything about it: that's the foolishness of the Australian electoral system, which can only be fixed by proportional representation.

«Dual citizenship means dual loyalties»

False. It's mostly a matter of convenience, not loyalty. In your own example, most Australian Jews hold no Israeli citizenship (yet have dual loyalties).

Yuyutsu, "Some of my family collect 3-4 different passports, just in case, including of countries they've never been in - it can become quite handy in times of trouble"

As you probably know, It is not unusual for people with niche skills who work around the world to start weighing the benefits of different countries when their children get to the key school ages. So one parent and child/ren can be settled into (say) Australia (not always the preferred choice) because the education is satisfactory, but better (say) for the children, esp girls, to get a network of friends for the future.

Was only talking with someone the other day who is treading the paths worn by others, considering the relevant factors. Their employers can sort the money/assets matters. In this case, Oz for mum and daughter, day girl at secondary school of solid standing, with option for boarding. But it seems the university days will be o'seas again (some have a start here, then away).

I don't know how Australia might ever hold people like that. Not now that Oz and its cities like Syd, Bris and Melb, have changed the wrong way in some dimensions they might value.

The problem Alan, that you fail to acknowledge is that all voters thought they were voting for Ozzies. Well all of them in electorates that are still majority Ozzie population, Not the case in too many western Sydney electorates & some Melbourne ones as well.

Yuyutsu pray tell just where you found these Laws of this God of yours. Did he/she or it come & give them to you personally, or are they some much adulterated by time myths of some past historical or mythical personage?

If you think you can know the actual thoughts & wishes of some superior being, you are kidding yourself mightily.

Yutsie: I can well understand your lack of concern for Americans (who do not renounce their American citizenship),

It was not a lack of concern. I was trying to draw out those who want Dual Citizenship recognized as OK, especially if they are Green etc, to agree that it would be OK for Americans with Dual Citizenship. Those people, of course, normally despise everything American. But I see that my ruse was spotted, by the lack of replies to that point. You, as an exception but you understood it wrongly.

Still, waiting for a reply from that group. 😉

Yutsie: Candidates/Members must remember that they are only the servants of those who elected them.

It sounds good & it as it should be. Tell them that mate. They are only in servitude to their Party after they get elected.

Yutsie: nor have I any allegiance to any country/nation whatsoever. This is just a matter of cold/cynical convenience.

WHOA! You don’t sound like the type of person wanted or needed in Australia. Suggest you & your “Family” use your passports to Vamoose.

Foxy: unless a significant number of Australians were to vote to be represented by these Yanks.

I should imagine that the voting Public would not know that they had not renounced American Citizenship. If elected then it would become a concern once it was realized that they were dual citizens & have to remove themselves from Parliament.

AC: Take Jewish-Australians as an example, in all likeliness their real loyalty will be to Israel first.

Is Jewish-Australians anything like mahommadist-Australian? Judaism & mahommadism being Religions. Australian & Israeli being a Nationalities.

Did you mean Israeli-Australian? In that case would they hold dual Passport? If so, that would be a concern. Are you asserting that an Australian whose religion is Judaism first loyality would be to Israel?

The same assertion would be also true for an Australian whose Religion is mahommadism. Their first Loyalty would be for their Religion & it’s Sharia Law. A logical conclusion I would think.
AC: a person who’s loyalties and interests only involve Australia.

Exactly

Dear Leoj,

«That the desire should also be expressed and confirmed in nominations for the highest positions of trust and responsibility in Australia is quite reasonable and expected too»

If indeed anyone of foreign allegiance and loyalty wished to subvert Australia through parliament, then surely they would have renounced their foreign citizenship the same day they obtained Australian citizenship, then appear to be model citizens and proceed covertly.

All that s44(i) does is to disrupt the lives of benign citizens who happen to have contacts overseas. As I explained above, national loyalty is the least reason for anyone to retain a foreign citizenship. Actual reasons include:

* Being able to freely visit relatives in one's country of origin.
* Being able to do business there.
* Being allowed to hold property there.
* Avoid upsetting family-members.
* Being able to travel to and through countries which are at odds with Australia.
* Maintaining an alternate place of refuge in case of a disaster in Australia (natural disaster, nuclear disaster, war, dictatorship, Chinese invasion, etc.)
* Family matters (marriage, divorce, adoption, alimony, etc.)
* Keeping alternate licenses (driver's, medical, professional).
* Receiving a foreign pension.

---

Dear Jay,

«WHOA! You don’t sound like the type of person wanted or needed in Australia.»

But this is not how the Australian government feels - they're just in love with my tax-money; and there are plenty of other Australians who love what I do here. Now tell me how many Australian-born citizens are actually wanted or needed here, who prove their deep allegiance by sucking on Nanny's Centerlink/Medicare teats?

Seems that in British/Australian culture, honesty is the biggest of vices. Like it or not, admit it or not, patriotism is now a vestige of bygone centuries and claiming that you are a patriot does not make you one.

I think all this stuff and nonsense is just that!

Why we've had pollies born all over the place including super competent NZ'ers as have they, with some Aussies in their past political line up. With one notable Aussie expat given credit for pulling our Kiwi cousins out of the Great Depression?

It shouldn't matter where you were born if you're prepared to put your head up and be chosen on merit and the strength and lucidity of your argument! And could come from Tamworth, Toowoomba, Tipperary, Timbuktu or Alpha Centaurius, for all that it matters or improves shared outcomes?

J.B. Petersen, one of our more successful Q'ld Premiers, came from Norway via NZ.

Simply put, we are all boat people who came originally from somewhere else. And where you were born has little to do with your capability or intelligence, but maybe your genetic code, early inculcation and diet!?

Finally, the phrase, you weren't born under my heart but in it, resonates the loudest with reference to chosen homeland! Native born never ever choose where they'd live or swear allegiance to, as a place and or her people!

The Coral sea is a huge war grave filled with foreigners, who gave everything there is to give, for this wide brown land and her people! East Timor and the fuzzy wuzzy angels of PNG!

Should we discriminate against them for example, because they weren't born here?

Even if one or two proved to be the most capable and bothered to put their hands up for some of the most thankless positions, that native born just won't bother with, when there's some other more committed stranger, that can be blamed, pilloried and or thrown under a bus? Is willing to bother!

And given the reception? Why would they?
Alan B.

Dear Alan B.,

I think I'm developing a great big crush on you!

Alan B.

However it is facts not the theatrical emoting that are relevant. The conditions were always plain and spelled out to all comers. Others seem to have no difficulty. The two 'Showboat' Greens, Ludlam and Waters, have admitted fault and resigned.

They were slack. Sometimes, slack sinks ships, have you noticed? There are many examples. -Where those who were personally responsible did not have due care and regard for carrying out that responsibility. Fortunately in the subject case the consequence was only political embarrassment and a couple of superficial types departed the field. -To be replaced hopefully by more responsible people.

Greens leader Richard Di Natale admits governance deficiencies. Apparently and unfortunately for the Greens leader, politicians unlike ordinary citizens must have others to look out for them :(
-The last mentioned might be useful for later blame-shifting, which is not unknown where politicians are concerned either.

Past Greens leader, Bob Brown, as in, 'I got what I wanted and got out while the going was good', confirms the poor administration by the national Greens (framing his replacement, a bit of jealousy there, Bob?).

You are Either Australian or you are not.

I never liked the idea of dual passports.
You have people living in other countries for 6 months of the year.

A lot of the Greeks were living and working in Greece for 6months or more,
then they all raced back to Australia to claim welfare when Greece collapsed and they bought in austerity.

Economically, having dual passports can be used to take advantage of Australia.
Likewise, dual passports allow people to easily move between hostile countries and Australia.
I remember the dual passport pressure that was bought to bear on the Australian government by ethnic groups. It was always probably not a good idea,
Why not just have an ordinary passport like other Australians.
Globalism is a bad idea, as we are now witnessing.

Globalism just means people can take advantage of countries. We need to go back to
nationalism and pride in our own country and respect for its culture and values.

And don't come back with the, The- This isn't your country it is an Aboriginal country.

Every country in the world is held by conquering armies.
There are few countries who haven't been involved in conquest or tribal warfare,
except lost remote jungle tribes.

The Aboriginies were a Stone Age tribe. Britain built the lot. Every town and city
library and public building you see in Australia. The law courts, ethnic groups run to for justice,were built and bought into being by the British.
Everything!

Without the British and American weaponry and know how, the aborigines would have
lost the country to the Japanese.
And probably the Indonesians would have taken the country long before then,
if they didn't know the British were here and could well defeat them at that time in history.

No country in the world is said to be the owners of a country, if they don't have the army backing up the government.

So believe me when I say, at the present time in history, this country is owned and run by the British. That of course could end in the future with our declining birth rate, and
our belief in justice and a fair go. In fact we are too caring and fair for our own good.

So don't insult my intelligence by telling me that at this point in history This country Isn't
Brutish owned.

Yeah,yeah,yeah, brutish regarding armies is probably correct, but it was my spell checker, and I meant British.