The Forum > Article Comments > The nature of Australian citizenship > Comments
The nature of Australian citizenship : Comments
By Patricia Jenkings, published 18/12/2006Tracing the history of Australian citizenship since the first Act came into force in 1949.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Ian, Monday, 18 December 2006 11:38:16 AM
| |
Australian citizenship has been debased and is simply viewed as a convenient,'must have' by many who came here to get it then went back "home" with all the benefits.
Now we have people arriving with no idea of the responsibilities of Australian law or even behaviours. They will be keeping the courts busy for years while offering nothing to the ethos. Citizenship has been given away too cheaply and it is worth very little for some who receive it. Posted by mickijo, Monday, 18 December 2006 1:05:20 PM
| |
indeed citizen ship is given away too easily - if you're born here you just get it - what a joke! - no test- no nothing.
So to that end Andrew robb is terribly wrong - citizensahip for many is in fact a right many get just becuase - where as our immigrnr brothers and sisters have to be proficient in english enough to satisfy the gubment officials and have a knowledge of the responsibilities of citizenship - yep its already a requirement. So what's the fuss? Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 18 December 2006 1:15:22 PM
| |
It would appear that the only persons left in Australia that we can be certain are loyal subjects of Her Majesty are the members of Federal Parliament, who all, before being able to take their seats, have had to swear to be faithful, and to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. We can be absolutely certain, because no member would commit perjury, would they?
We can also be sure that this requirement, which is contained in section 42 of the Constitution, will persist for many a long year, as politicians don't seem to have the power to remove the provision, and if they took their seats without doing so, many people including myself would be able to sue them for $200 for each day they sat in Parliament. Isn't it fortunate that only the people have the power to remove the clause, and when they ask us to we can vote "NO"! I find it difficult to express the feeling that most people have toward politicians. One of the main reasons I voted "NO" in the republic referendum was so that this clause would be retained, as I am sure it annoys the hell out of many politicians, especially the committed republican ones. The main other reason I voted "NO" is the great comfort I get from the fact that the Prime Minister holds his office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. Much has been said about people who became republicans after 1975. What about the ones who became confirmed monarchists after seeing the Prime Minister being wiped like a dirty rag? Perhaps the politicians need to appoint some sensitive High Court Judges, who will interpret this clause to mean that it really applies to conserving water in the Murray River. That may sound a little far-fetched, but an examination of some of their other judgments, in which they have discovered implied clauses, reversed the meaning of others, and defied the common meaning of ordinary english words, shows that that it should not be too difficult a task. Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 18 December 2006 1:58:42 PM
| |
CITIZENSHIP and IMMIGRATION.
What takes Muslims from 'average and well educated born in the UK' to... say the Muslim Brotherhood ? Or.. What takes thousands of foriegn Muslim fighters into Bosnia ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-REROXvtg or... What takes Australian born and foreign born Muslims in Melbourne and Sydney from being 'average moderate' Muslims and sees them on trial for allegedly plotting terrorist actions ? What....has this to do with Citizenship ? It has THIS to do with it. On this little video, there is one crucial and unambiguous statement, all the rest could be discounted as 'skilfully produced emotive propoganda' if one likes, but this section cannot. It is where the Imam (Palestinian) is saying " The day will come when we will rule America, Britain and the entire world". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MqGaqQdm50&mode=related&search= Given that agenda, and the fact that we already have alleged Jihadis operating here, who emerged FROM the overall Muslim population, it does raise questions about Immigration, citizenship and future security. When you have viewed this short 6minute video above, can you still refer to Palestinian Children as 'innocent' ? I say their blood is on their parents and teachers shoulders. HOW DO RADICALS CONTROL MODERATES ? like THIS.... South Thailand [A mysterious group recently put up fliers announcing an Islamic state and warning Muslims not to work, open their shops or go to the bank or hospital for 10 days. "Otherwise we can't guarantee your safety," the fliers said. People listened. Shops were closed. People stayed away from restaurants, from karaoke bars.] Its as simple....as THAT. 13 men or even ONE man in Melbourne could easily achieve this. No one really knows how many there are, hence the fear. Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 18 December 2006 4:29:40 PM
| |
In the brief synopsis and interptretation of Australian Citizenship, the author conveniently left out the fact that Aboriginal Australians were denied citizenship until the late 1960's.
Patricia Jenkings ought to be embarrassed at this ommission. Posted by Aka, Monday, 18 December 2006 5:02:38 PM
|
We've still got a pretty good deal going with New Zealand, but we really lost out as far as Canada and the UK are concerned. In an age of globalisation, we should be working towards rebuilding those ties with our sister countries, not celebrating our petty little national differences.