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.