I was born here yet I hardly give citizenship a thought. I definitely don’t value citizenship per se, especially because so many “Ustrayuns” are inconsiderate, law breakers, vandals, litterers and polluters. In fact day by day my displeasure at the people and authorities in Australia grows. It is high time to work on improving what we’ve got. We could start by ceasing government funding for discriminatory and unnecessary organisations like the ethnic community councils.

Well said sneekeepete,.

I think the common attitude is that citizenship is more like membership to some sort of exclusive club where its value is in direct proportion to the degree of "exclusivity" it invokes.

It's just another layer of tribalism and is more threatened by globalism than domestic issues.

Cultures simply change and evolve over time. Like the rest of the world, Australia 2006 is not much like the Australia I remember from 1996, 1966 or even 1956.

For example, at current population and ethnic growth rates, Spanish will overtake English as the most widely spoken language in the USA within 50 years. I await their plans to round-up and expel all the Hispanics and Mexicans from their lands.

I'm not at all sure I agree with the opening two sentences.

>>Few things can be as important to an individual as their citizenship. Along with a person’s name, sex and age one’s citizenship (or nationality) is a key defining individual characteristic<<

I know it is nicely hedged around with qualifiers - "few" things "can" be as important - but it is a bit of a long bow to draw, isn't it? Only politicians, and others who don't actually work for a living have the luxury of considering the country name on the front of their passport to be a critical "defining individual characteristic".

As has been pointed out already, for every one of us the particular location of our birth, and the residential status or otherwise of our parents, is a complete lottery. I didn't choose to be born where I was, nor did any of you. We arrive in this world, we look around, and we make the best job we can of the capabilities we are given, mental, physical and environmental. Surely, that is the "defining individual characteristic", not the label that we choose to slap on our foreheads marked "my country".

I'm sure the author is well-meaning, and would like us to reduce our natural levels of xenophobia through the gentle application of logic. Unfortunately, in order to do so he sees fit to magnify, even glorify, the condition of citizenship itself - which is, ironically, the very weapon used by rabid nationalists to support their own hatred of "things that are different".

The history of immigration thus far has been, I would suggest, overwhelmingly positive, and there is little reason to believe this will change in the future. What will change in the future is, of course, the nature and make-up of the country itself. Just as the generations of Irish, English, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese, Chinese and others have changed the country over the past sixty years.

It is not possible to stand still. Learn to love change, and the debate on immigration goes away.

Why do I get the impression that these people who say citizenship doesn't matter, national identity doesn't matter, live in whiter than white suburbs, whose closest encounter with the multiculturalism they so claim to love is ordering thai takeaway on a friday night.

I would have thought if one is committed to coming to a country, one would have the common courtesy of understanding the language the road markings are written in and the principle language spoken by thew majority of the population.

On this last point we have seen, recently, observed a demented Muslim Cleric complaining that he is being continually misrepresented by everyone because, despite parading himself as some form of "leader" he does not understand or can adequately communicate in English. I would claim it is his responsibility to ensure that his outbursts are commonly understood and not open to such misinterpretation if he wishes to don the mantel of "leader of anything".

So to the final statement “Australian society should be encouraged we should not introduce a discriminatory citizenship test in Australia”

Why should we be “encouraged” ?

Why should we not be “encouraged” to expect people who come here to exercise sufficient respect the systems and processes of life in Australia.

Every citizen is expected to respect the laws which govern us and as a first step, learning the language in which those laws are inscribed is not optional, it is fundamental.

If someone would care to translate, for the benefit of all English non-speakers, "ignorance" is no excuse under the law and lacking the ability to read English displays an "ignorance" of the grossest sort.

Is itn't time that we said to aspirant resident of Australia, you are welcome, BUT...

We are English speaking here and we dont offer multilingual brochures and services - go and learn English by integrating.

We welcome you for two years after that you must decide if you want to stay and hand in your passport and receive an Australian one (on predefined terms), or go back. No dual nationalities!

We live under British Law and principles. If you want to practice Sharia law, go home.

Finally let's accept that we still derive much of our export income from our "capital" meaning mining and rural produce. Immigration is like selling shares in our country. We should do it with caution.