When I was born, all Australians had the right to travel, study and work without restriction in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. We simply lost those rights - without any hint of popular consultation - when our various governments stripped us of our British Subject status.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

You beat me to it AKA, good on ya!

Patricia Jenkings provides us all with a wonderful illustration of how 'terra nullius' was not just a legal myth but also a state of mind, a disremembering on a grand scale, a’whitefella’ amnesia lost in its own toxic forgetfulness. And it appears this author has a Phd in social policy and education. How embarrassing is that !!??

For a much more informed opinion on the 67 referendum (its 40 years next year!) -
See this excellent explanation penned by Dr John Gardiner-Garden which is a Background Paper 11 from 1996-97 titled - “The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum”

Follow this link;

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/bp/1996-97/97bp11.htm

Here is an insightful quote from this paper. It states:

“Many popular notions associated with the 1967 Referendum belong in the category of myths. The referendum was not whole-heartedly supported by both sides of politics, did not end legal discrimination, did not confer the vote, equal wages and citizenship on indigenous Australians and did not permit for the first time Commonwealth government involvement in Aboriginal Affairs”

There are so many myths about the 1967 referedum, but what was the actual question that was asked?

It was:

"Question: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled 'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population?"

The effect was to make the Commonwealth, rather than the states, have responsibility for indigenous affairs.

Aborigines in most states had the vote already, they were already considered British citizens, see:

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/ab_vote.htm

The 1967 referedum was important for Aboriginal rights, but it must be placed into a different perspective than simply saying that it gave Aboriginals the rights of other citizens.

For another source see

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/HistoryEarlyFederalPeriod

Hamlet, Yes thats right, we did have legal entitlement to vote on the basis of British citizenship (not that we were ever asked if we wanted to adopt a second citizenship) but other laws and regulations impeded and denied access to this supposed 'right' of citizenship.

1897 Queensland Aboriginal Protection
and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act
provides for Superintendents to direct
Aboriginal people where to live. No right of
appeal.

1904 Queensland Torres Strait Islanders
under the control of the Chief Protector and
subject to the same legislation as Aboriginal
people in Queensland

1905 Western Australia Aborigines Act
provides for management of reserves
and some medical care and rations as well
as employment relations.
Protectors (who were police officers) were
established in various districts.
Provisions stopped cohabitation between
Aboriginal and others.

The by-line to the topic "Tracing the history of Australian citizenship since the first Act came into force in 1949" places the spot-light right on the major deficiency of this article. How is it that Patricia Jenkings, a former political advisor, has not commented upon the most significant aspect of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, its apparent un-Constitutionality?

Section 44 of the Constitution, in its second paragraph, makes express reference to two classes of persons as being exempt from the disqualifications for membership of the Parliament set out in its first paragraph. Those two classes of persons are Officers or members of the Queen's navy or army (ie. of the UK forces) in the one case, and Officers or members of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth in the other. Clearly both classes of person, being resident within Australia, are recognized by the Constitution as possessing equivalent status with respect to the very pinnacle of the expression of citizenship, legal fitness to be chosen as a member of either House of the Parliament. Equally clearly, both classes of persons do not possess this status as something deriving from their official positions, but as representatives of a much wider class of persons in each case, adult subjects of the Crown by right of birth in the UK now resident in Australia on the one hand, and adult subjects of the Crown by right of birth in Australia or from naturalization under its laws, on the other, all of whom share common nationality and rights under the Constitution. The only thing peculiar to the Officers or members of the respective forces is that they are in receipt of pay from the Crown, which in any other case would disqualify them from being chosen to sit in the Parliament.

Section 44 has never been altered since Federation. The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (renamed 1973 the Australian Citizenship Act 1948) would therefore seem un-Constitutional. The new affirmation appears to lack proper foundation in law. Those having made it may be not yet properly Australian.