On what grounds should a granted citizenship be revoked and has this ever been done?

I understand the Minister has the power to take this action.

This last week it was reported in the media that some persons, reported to be australian citizens, refused to stand in court in respect of our laws and legal system. Should this not be seen as contempt for our society and therefore granted citizenship be withdrawn.

It seems to me that such a person lied when taking his oath of citizenship and was fraudulent in the application. Why should he continue to be able to vote, hold an australian passport and sit in judgement on other citizens?

Interested in your thoughts.

There is a man languishing in Parramatta Jail, today, Sunday the ninth of August 2009, because the State of New South Wales has revoked his Australian Citizenship, and is enforcing New South Wales citizenship against him. His name is John Wilson, and he is being medicated with warfarin, to keep him quiet. He is arbitrarily detained under the Mental Health Act, and Act copied from the former Soviet Union to restrain dissidents.

John Wilson’s crime is wanting to get a jury trial. That is all he wants, nothing more and nothing less, and he is prepared to die if necessary to do his bit to expose the corruption that is the New South Wales Judiciary. He was prepared to die for this country on another occasion. He wore the famous slouch hat and khaki uniform of a Digger.

The blokes who show utter contempt for the judiciary in Australia, are completely within their rights, as Muslims, they are refusing to bow before a quasi god, appointed by a man made government, who does not any longer worship the Christian God, we used to believe in, as a Nation. They will get their chance to call upon Jesus Christ, in due course. Kevin Rudd promised them that. If a Muslim comes to Australia and commits a crime, he must submit to Christian justice. A single magistrate is not a Christian Justice, but when a Justice sits on the bench in a court, and has a jury of twelve disciples on his right hand, he is following the Rules of Justice from the Holy Bible and specifically from the New Testament. Jesus Christ taught the separation of powers adopted by the United States. The Bush quasi Christians, refused Christian justice to the Guantanimo Bay detainees, and may have been within their rights.

The Power of Almighty God used to take away the right to be a subject of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by executing those deemed unworthy. It was originally only on the verdict of a jury, and Judges who inflicted it were hated. They deserve jail, John Wilson doesn’t

In another discussion I am advocating the introduction of Court Attendance Notices, to be issued by the Australian Federal Police. There used to be an absolute right in Australia to a Habeas Corpus Writ before the New South Wales Government unilaterally declared its independence, and abolished civil juries to appease the godfather of organized crime in Sydney.

Since 1970, there is no Writ of Habeas Corpus in New South Wales. There is an order of similar kind available, but since John Wilson has upset the New South Wales Judiciary, on numerous occasions they will probably refuse to give him a writ anyway. However a subject used to be able to keep applying to a different justice, over and over again until he found a Christian but no longer. You only get one suck these days.

The Federal Court of Australia has the power to issue Writs, granted by s 23 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and that power should also be extended to the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The High Court still has rules allowing a person to apply there, but John Wilson has no money, as he is now a pensioner, since the State Government destroyed his dental surgery, and the Sheriff smashed all his equipment. Centrelink has suspended his pension while he is in New South Wales Custody, and suspended his Australian citizenship, on an arbitrary order of a New South Wales Magistrate.

If a person could wander into any office of the Australian Federal Police and issue a Court Attendance Notice the Writ would be unnecessary. It would be possible to allege that the Keeper of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second Prison at Parramatta, is offending against S 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) and holding John Wilson as a slave, and exercising the powers of a slave keeper over him. This crime carries a penalty of 25 years imprisonment or a fine of $165,000 so it should be obeyed. Otherwise it could be alleged the Warden is offending S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), and that fine is $122,000

Does anyone here in this Forum know Kevin Rudd well. John Wilson, the man in Parramatta Jail, is his opportunity to make himself unpopular with the New South Wales Judiciary, but immensely popular with the great majority of Australians. Suggest to him that he picks up the phone to Brendan O’Connor, the Minister of Home Affairs responsible for the Australian Federal Police, and get an Officer of the Commonwealth, to go out to Parramatta Jail, and interview the Warden.

The Officer should take a copy of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), and show it to the Warden, together with a copy of the Australian Constitution, so the fellow understands that the Constitution is binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.

The Australian Federal Police Officer should open the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) Reprint 3, at Page 207, Crime against Humanity—imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, and give that worthy a chance to take John Wilson to the gates, and let him go. If he refuses he should immediately arrest the Warden, and use whatever force is necessary to take him before the Magistrate to be committed to trial. If John Wilson is released, the Australian Federal Police Officer should ascertain from him the name of the man or woman who issued the warrant for his detention.

He should then immediately issue a Court Attendance Notice on that person, and have him attend a committal hearing before a Magistrate with a view to having him tried for breaking the Statutory Commands of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Two birds will be killed with that one stone. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will be recognized as a Law of the Commonwealth, and a State Public Servant will become an Australian citizen.

Kevin Rudd has a golden opportunity to deliver on his promise made at the Australian Christian Heritage Forum, in Canberra on the 7th August 2006, to govern Australia under the Constitution. Kevin should ask himself, WWJD, and grant John’s prayer

By the power of the Australian Constitution and nothing else, John Wilson should be immediately released. He represents the whole of Australia in that all he wants is a fair go under the law. He has a right to call upon the Commonwealth to come to his aid. In 1988, the Parliament of the Commonwealth enacted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is to be found, in S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) where it is referred to as the Covenant. It is cited in S 138 (3) (f) Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) and the Parliament of the Commonwealth has directed anyone who can read, that it may be found in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 .

It is the basis of a crime attracting seventeen years imprisonment or a fine of $122,000. Every Judge and Magistrate in Australia who issues a warrant without complying with its provisions, is a criminal. Articles 9,14 and 15 of the Covenant read as follows: Article 9: Everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. John Wilson has suffered that, along with hundreds of other aged pensioners at the hand of New South Wales Public Officials. So too has Marcus Einfeld after being sent to jail, by a fellow Judge, and not offered a fine.

Article 14 says all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

As a trained lawyer, Brendan O’Connor is in a position to tell Kevin Rudd that a lawyer cannot change the law without a case. John Wilson’s is the case that will define the Rudd Government. It will test the way that the Parliament of the Commonwealth views itself, because if it is sincere, we can trust the Federal Labor Party to deliver what it promises

Banjo, I imagine that these alleged terrorists who refused to stand in court are not the first to do so, no matter what their religion or cultural background.
I believe that anyone refusing to stand in court should be held in contempt of court, but I think it is up to the Magistrate whether they go this way or not?
Peter the Believer, you say this man John Wilson '...is being medicated with warfarin to keep him quiet.' Warfarin is a blood-thinning medication used to treat people with suspected deep-vein clots, as well as other medical disorders. In no way will it keep him quiet at all!
As far as I know, our courts are not known as christian courts are they? We follow the English method of court systems and the laws set down by our Australian Parliament.
Anyone who breaks our laws will be dealt with equally by the courts, regardless of their religion. I assume when people emmigrate to our country, they are made aware of our laws and must agree to abide by them if they wish to stay here.

Moondoggy,
I have never heard of someone getting their granted citizenship revoked. That is why I asked the question.

It is not a matter of religion, if one takes an oath to honour the laws and ways of this country, that oath should be kept. If I were in another country and the people stood to acknowledge their flag or an eminant person, so would I. It is disrespectfull not to.

At a citizenship ceremony, the participants swear an oath of allegebce.

If a person is not prepared to abide by the laws and customs of a country, what right has he to expect the entitlements that go with citizenship?

Dear Banjo,

Go to the Australian Government website:

www.citizenship.gov.au/loss/-

and click onto - 'Revocation of Australian Citizenship.'

It will tell you that:

1)An Australian citizen by birth can't have their Australian
citizenship revoked.

2) The only way in which citizenship may be revoked is
by making false statements in relation to the person's
application to become an Australian citizen, that is
fraud.

3) Lying about a criminal offense, of 12 months or longer,
prior to the granting of citizenship.

4) Migration related fraud or Third Party fraud - such as
fraudulent conduct by a migration agent in the citizenship
application.

Anyway, look it up and satisfy yourself.

If you're going to banish people for demonstrating in a
court of law - then where will it stop? Will we outlaw
all demonstrations that we don't agree with? That smacks
a little of totalitarian regimes or dictatorships - doesn't
it? I don't think we want to go there.

Contempt of Court is another issue - and a valid one -
in the case you describe.

No need to get hysterical Banjo - as Moondoggy says, it's called contempt of court and it's not exactly a rare offence.

If you want to talk about revoking citizenship, there's some pretty ugly historical precedents.

Besides which, I understand that the accused in question was born in Australia. Of course, you'll be pleased to learn that he's a Muslim of Lebanese descent.

These idiots should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I think that's sufficient.

"Under current Australian law, persons who acquire Australian citizenship by birth cannot be deprived of that citizenship, nor be deported.

By contrast, persons who have gained Australian citizenship by grant-of-application can only be deprived of that citizenship and be deported in strictly limited circumstances (usually involving fraud in their migration or citizenship application).

Commerce and industry supports the capacity of the Immigration Minister to issue orders for the revocation of Australian citizenship where there is sufficient tangible evidence of fraud in the migration or citizenship application/acquisition process.

Furthermore, constructive and thoughtful public debate would be welcomed on two relevant issues, namely the revocation of citizenship for persons: proven to have engaged in the class of criminal activity known as “crimes against humanity”; or, convicted of serious, indictable criminal offences in this country within a defined period of the grant-of-application of citizenship."

http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/issues_papers/Population/POP02.pdf

Moondoggy got it Right about warferin, in fact it was in rat killer.
So if the bloke took lots he would be silenced forever, PTB has got it wrong.
Yet again.
I see no benefit in taking citizen ship away from these idiots, after all they will have little néed for t the rest of their lives.

Foxy,
Thank you for that, but I am well aware that a citizen born here cannot have his citizenship revoked. However I did say a person granted citizenship.

http://www.austlii.edu.au:80/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca2007254/s34.html
Which states:-

The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person's Australian citizenship if:

(c) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

So the Minister does have the power to revoke if he deems it to be in the public interest. I might add that if apersons citizenship is revoked, it then leaves the way open for deportation, but that is another question.

The question I am asking is what do people think are grounds for revoking a granted citizenship?

In the recent case that brought this to public attention at least one of the persons that refused to stand was born overseas and I understand some persons in the gallery also refused to stand. There is no doubt that these people were in contempt of court and, to my mind, also demonstrated contempt for our society.

Just how tolerant are we supposed to be in accomodating others? Do we accept that they can not be serious in making an oath

Dear Banjo,

I somehow don't think that any Minister is
going to take away a person's citizenship
simply because they were 'In contempt' in
a Court of Law. That is, they refused to
stand up. I don't think those actions
qualify as being - 'contrary to the public
interest.'

If we went around judging people only by their ability
to take oaths, stand up in court, salute the flag,
et cetera we'd not necessarily end up with a nation of
patriots. As history has shown - some of the biggest
traitors in the past were the ones that gave lip-service
to fidelity.

I imagine that the offence would have to be
far more serious than the
one you describe for a Minister to consider taking
away a person's Australian citizenship.

Belly,
RE: “ Just how tolerant are we supposed to be in accomodating others?”

Rather than ‘tolerant’, I think more appropriate words might be stupid or impotent..

--I recall we were not able to deport a convicted drug runner because it might contravene some UN covenant we had signed re "the rights of the child" .http://austlii.law.uts.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1995/10.html

--I recall we couldn’t stick with a deportation order on a convicted criminal who had no-citizenship--due to family connections.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/23/2170552.htm?site=news

--And, how many times have we --had to accept-- people who had destroyed their papers so their point of origin could not be traced.

It’s a joke -- I’m sure Australia's immigration laws must have been written by the Chaser team.

Banjo “I think achieving an extended criminal record should be grounds for revoking citizenship and expelling from the country like the killer in Victoria Ince (although he may not necessarily be a citizen, if he were his citizenship should he forfeit) must be returned to Turkey, regardless of his pleadings… An extended criminal record culminating in killing someone must be enough to expel him. At least he has been in detention since coming out of gaol but his appeals are not a warranted or justified burden for aussie tax payers to have to shoulder

“he is being medicated with warfarin, to keep him quiet.” (whilst it is a rat poison it is also used in the long term management of blood conditions as an anti-coagulant)

From extended continuous and current personal experience, I can assure you “warfarin” has absolutely no impact on ones vocality

From which I will assume the rest of the post tends to be more “dramatic rant” than fact.

Col,
You have erroniously attributed those comments to me. Please check.

Foxy,
Do you not believe that making an oath is serious? I do.

My marriage vows were, and are, very important to me.

If I sell an article for an agreed price and another person then offers me more for the item, I have to say sorry you are too late the item is sold, even if the item has not been picked up and paid for.

I see keeping ones word as basic to our society. How can we just disregard a breach of contract as unimportant. Or do we endorse 'cultural privilege'

I do not see how a person who has no respect for one of our basic institutions should still be able to vote, stand for election, hold an Australian passport and sit on a jury.

Those alleged terrorists now in jail in Melbourne will be tried under our laws and will face lengthy jail sentences. If citizenship were revoked those same alleged terrorists might be free to wander about their country of origin without restraint.

I know what you are getting at Banjo and I have often thought perhpas a probationary period of citizenship which can be revoked in the case of crime. But in hindsight this would not work, people are often at their best behaviour while under scrutiny so it would defeat the purpose.

In many cases there is often no longer a country of origin where refugee status has been given.

And better anyone convicted of a crime face our system of justice than a potentially skewed one overseas and one where their actions might be considered in the 'hero' category

There are two reasons why a person can be held against their will.

1) they have been committed of a crime

2) They have been "committed" by a magistrate.

Does anyone know why he is in there? crime or mentally ill.

What exactly is the medication?

The state govt. does not have the power to revoke citizenship, but can make a recommendation to the fed. minister.

Before we can continue this discussion can someone answer these questions.

If a person is not prepared to abide by the laws and customs of a country, what right has he to expect the entitlements that go with citizenship?

Banjo, one would think if someone severely offended against the country that adopted them they would simply cop the same penalty as any other citizen of that country. After all, a citizen is a citizen. What is far more disconcerting is the fact that many a citizen rather then enjoying entitlements has had to wear injustice which a citizen should not expect to have to endure especially when abiding by the law of that country.

When should citizenship be able to be revoked? One good example is a non citizen who applies for and receives citizenship and is then subsequentially found guilty of willful terrorism against Australia. His citizenship should be immediately revoked followed by deportation to a country of Australia's choice. Put another way, if you take a homeless person into you home and give him food and shelter and he then proceeds to insult you at every opportunity, rapes your wife and smashes your possessions do you think he deserves the privellege of staying in your house? When we take in people from "disadvantaged countries" and grant them citizenship this is in effect the same as giving shelter to a homeless person.

The problem with this country is that the Government is too lenient in granting citizenship. It seems happy to accept anyone from anywhere with any belief. Even when individuals publicly make subversive statements and incite others to do the same they are apparently untouchable. They're surely laughing to themselves about how gullible we are while they invite their like minded relatives over.

Dear Banjo,

I understand what you're saying and of course an
oath is something that I too take seriously.
But the law as it currently stands is the law -
and the Australian Citizenship Act of 2007 allows
in very limited circumstances the revocation of
citizenship - and only for convictions of actions
prior to the acquisition of citizenship.
We also have to remember that under the law a person
conferred citizenship after fully disclosing all relevant
factors is the equal of any other Australian citizen
and therefore cannot have their Australian citizenship
revoked.

The only exception is as you pointed out - unless
a Minister thought, "It would be contrary to the
public interest for the person to remain an Australian
citizen." And, that's a judgement that only a Minister
can make.

However what we can do is try to influence public opinion
and our MP's to change the laws as they currently stand.
Once the majority supports something the MP's are forced
to take notice.

The problem with this country is that the Government is too lenient in granting citizenship. It seems happy to accept anyone from anywhere with any belief. Even when individuals publicly make subversive statements and incite others to do the same they are apparently untouchable. They're surely laughing to themselves about how gullible we are while they invite their like minded relatives over.
Posted by A. Dobrowich, Monday, 10 August 2009 7:40:01 PM

I agree, but it is only a few years since we made it 4 years before being eligble for citizenship and introduced a farcicle test. So don't expect too much, too soon.

The big difference between home grown citizens and those granted citizenship is that those persons granted citizenship were adults who had to fill out signed application forms, then take a public oath. They were fully aware of what they were doing and what is expected of citizens. If they do not respect our institutions and our society, they lied in obtaining citizenship. Their application was fraudulant.

They only wanted citizenship for what they could get from it. Probably the Australian passport, which is highly valued.

A person who states in a public place that he has no respect for our judicary should not be a citizen.

At present they are laughing at us, I agree.

Foxy,

Re: “However what we can do is try to influence public opinion
and our MP's to change the laws as they currently stand.
Once the majority supports something the MP's are forced
to take notice”

Forgive me for laughing –but, do you honesty believe that ?

I think there are a lot of laws & policies that if the electorate had had a direct vote would have been thrown out, long ago.

I can recall statements from Hawke and/or Fraser --skiting --about how they did things with immigration policy that were opposed by the majority of Australians.

For many of our law makers the wishes of the electorate come well down the list of opinions to be considered!

Citizenship is a funny thing. It is suspended when a person goes to jail. Australia was settled initially by slaves sent here after their citizenship of the United Kingdom was suspended, and they were transported halfway around the world. It was not supposed to be suspended in the United Kingdom unless a person had had a jury trial, and was convicted, and a jury decided the punishment. That was a real democracy, and anyone who is a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan will recall the song, To make the Punishment fit the crime.

The Glorious Revolution in England followed on the rampages of a Judge Jeffries, who was also known as the Hanging Judge, who on the instructions of Roman Catholic James the Second, in 1685, tried over 800 people and ordered 200 executed. He sent 600 off as white slaves to the United States as convicts. The English army would not fight for James, and he fled to France.

Australia had a Glorious Revolution, in 1995, when Paul Keating’s government introduced the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth). We then suffered the equivalent of eleven years of Cromwellian Rule, under Howard, where the rule of law was suspended, and a tyrannical Parliament enacted silly laws which led to Street Protests in Sydney and Melbourne.

Under the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) the Australian Federal Police should have intervened in many industrial relations disputes, particularly the one in Western Australia where the asses in the Howard Government were intent on inflicting severe punishment on legitimately striking unionists.

We had a Home Affairs Minister initially appointed by Kevin from New South Wales who was a former Attorney General in corruption central, the New South Wales Government. He resigned on the 6th June 2009, and the way is now clear for the Commonwealth to extend complete citizenship to the people of every State, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State, by enforcing S 268:12 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) against every Judge and Magistrate in Australia. We expect great things from the Honourable Brendan O’Connor, and KR.

There is still one enemy of the people in the Rudd Ministry, and he is an enemy of the people because he was a New South Wales solicitor before entering Parliament in Canberra, and as a solicitor has been uncritical of the conduct of the Judges and Magistrates in Australia who were the slave-masters of the Howard Liberal Government.

He still tolerates insubordination by staff in his department and in some of the departments he administers and he is in conflict with the Acts made by the Labor Government between 1983 and 1996. He has no idea what the separation of powers is, or how it is supposed to work, and has continued some of Philip Ruddock’s wrong thinking. Until the 6th June 2009, he shared responsibility for law enforcement with another former New South Wales Solicitor, who had been Attorney General in New South Wales, and had been there when the suspension of Commonwealth citizenship, by the Liberal Party in that State took effect, in 1970, and was probably instrumental in continuing the misapprehension, that States are Equal to the Commonwealth.

The Australian Labor Party was ambivalent about Australian Citizenship. It was pushed by the States to grant them unilateral independence, from the Commonwealth, and Bob Hawke granted it to them by the Australia Act 1986, no doubt hoping that lawyers would tell him it was an oxymoron, and no one can continue a Constitution and repeal it in the same Act. Not one lawyer in a responsible position, since 1986, has been prepared to tell the Government it is almost totally unlawful.

In 1986 the Hawke Government continued as a law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This law makes the Commonwealth paramount, but has not been enforced for twenty three years, mainly because it strips power from State lawyers and restores it to the people. It has been subject of numerous posts here on OLO.

It has been a criminal offence carrying a penalty of seventeen years imprisonment, to fail to apply the Covenant, since the 16th October 2001. Will the AFP now enforce it

Banjo “Col,
You have erroniously attributed those comments to me. Please check.”

You are correct.. I should have addressed the comment to “Peter the Believer”

Please accept my profound apology Banjo.

Col R

And maybe "Peter the Believer" could respond

I know I carry on a bit sometimes, but I am a passionate Australian, and love our Country, but cry at the injustice I see inflicted upon innocent people by ruthless and mercenary individuals, who are clearly breaking the written laws of this my Country.

I despair at the fear I see in the eyes of some politicians. I have known a few, over the years. One of them has a Crucifix and Holy Bible on his desk in Canberra, but is fearful of raising the question of State Corruption in Canberra, “because they have all the guns!” Quote.

Citizenship should carry with it the right to have the Commonwealth Government stand behind every person, when they claim the protection of the Laws of the Commonwealth. The Australian Federal Police symbol has a Crown on the top of it. It is the Paramount Police Force in Australia. The Act creating that Force, in S 8 states that its duty is (b) the provision of police services in relation to: (i) laws of the Commonwealth;

The Commonwealth Australian Federal Police is therefore able to ensure that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is recognized as a law of the Commonwealth, by the simple expedient of prosecuting an offender under S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth).

This will upset Father Frank Brennan, who has been on a junket around Australia trying to convince us it is not yet law. It would upset Kathy Branson, the former Federal Court Judge, who is now the Human Rights Commissioner, because it means she has been refusing to accept complaints against Judges and Magistrates. But what the heck. Lets give it a go!

I subscribe to blue dog theory. Blue dog theory is that if you have a credible stick, your little blue dog will obey your commands. No stick and your blue dog will not. True fact from life experience. There have been no blue dogs, to keep the lawyer cattle honest since Federation. In 2001, the stick was put in the cupboard. It is clearly time it was taken out

'On what grounds should a granted citizenship be revoked and has this ever been done?'

These terrorist should be made to sign a statement when taking on citizenship declaring they agree to it being provoked if they commit certain crimes. The idiotic Governments of the last 30 years who embraced multiculturalism have a lot to answer for. The loonie left have got off lightly. They created this problem and their only answer to it is to label opponents of this mad policy bigots. I see the young muslims again creating havoc in France (like every other country they inhabit). Oh well that is secularism for you.

Sometimes you write the most hilarious things, runner.

>>I see the young muslims again creating havoc in France... Oh well that is secularism for you.<<

Actually, newsflash: that's religion for you.

Mind you, you are not alone in your ability to "get a laff". Here's PtB in full flight...

>>...a jury decided the punishment. That was a real democracy, and anyone who is a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan will recall the song, To make the Punishment fit the crime.<<

Gilbert was a satirist. This song is satire. Identifying it as an example of democracy in action is side-splittingly funny.

http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/mk206.html

The Mikado was a despot. As Wikipedia so aptly put it, "[s]etting the opera in Japan, an exotic locale far away from Britain, allowed Gilbert to satirise British politics and institutions"

No juries were involved, PtB.

But more seriously, the question that is raised by this thread, and that lurks in the background like the proverbial elephant in the room, is the very nature of citizenship itself.

We seem to be quite happy to rabbit on about rights and responsibilities when it involves new citizens, i.e. ones who have recently arrived. But this effectively sidesteps the question why the same rules should not apply to all.

How about we start to call a spade a spade.

The underlying question is: how can we send these people back where they came from, with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of justification?

Be honest. That's what this thread is really all about, isn't it?

Horus certainly seems to think so.

Pericles

<< The underlying question is: how can we send these people back where they came from, with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of justification?

Be honest. That's what this thread is really all about, isn't it? >>

I think you've got to the numb of this entire thread.

Apparently some citizens are "more equal than others".

I was born in Australia, so automatically am a citizen and no matter what I get up to, my citizenship can never be revoked. But if you emigrate to Australia, swear an oath (which I never had to) and become a citizen, you can be sent back to your country of origin.

Bloody great double standard of 'mammoth' proportions.

Preicles,

In addition to Gilbert and Sullivan, I think that Rogers and Hammerstein's "You've got to be carefully taught" may make a further contribution to your response, and to some aspects to this discussion as well.

Ooops - typo I typed "numb", I meant to say "nub".

Well, I still have my citizenship even if I do make a mistake.

The difference between a citizen and a subject is important. In the Australian Constitution the presumption is that we are all subjects, and we certainly were on the 9th July 1900, when the referendum held to create Australia was held.

That document was not supposed to be altered except by a referendum, so getting us reclassified from subject to citizen, is a slimy Liberal Party trick. This is the dying gasp of a fundamentally dishonest Political Party, and without a referendum, the Liberals made us members of a number of republics, nine in all. This is lifted directly from the 2007 Act. The Commonwealth is destroyed by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, and we have no High Court willing to hold it illegal. But then they were all Liberal Party appointed or approved, during the eleven years of Liberal Rule.

You can buy a lady for a night in Kings Cross in Sydney, how much worse is it when a government buys the whole High Court.

1 Form of pledge no. 1
From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
2 Form of pledge no. 2
From this time forward,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
Compare this with the Oath of Allegiance that remains unrepealed in the Constitution. It says:
I AB swear that I be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second her Heirs and successors according to law, So help me God.

What sort of scurrilous scum, would substitute this pledge for the Oath of Allegiance. Liberal Party Scurrilous scum, that is who, the same scurrilous scum, who started to dismantle the Australian Government, and substitute Gangster Ruled Governments in its stead that continue to this day in all three eastern States.

Rudd said he would rule under the Constitution. This is his big test

Fractelle,

Re: “Ooops - typo I typed ‘numb’, I meant to say ‘nub’.
Well, I still have my citizenship even if I do make a mistake”

To be honest Fractelle, your …um, predicament, has more commonality with the Cornelia Rau case , than any of the others – detention rather than deportation is probably the biggest danger you face.

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, but a rat remains a rat, no matter what he is called. The Australian Citizenship Act 2007, should be hung around Turnbull’s neck, like a dead chicken in a bag, until the Liberal Party find a leader who has one ounce of loyalty to the Commonwealth.

I suspect there may have been disagreement over this Act within the Liberal Party, but since it is secret society, with its proceedings hidden we will never know. They would certainly have been supported by Mark Latham, and Kim Beasley, but would Kevin Rudd support this if he was pushed. He came out as an honest man, who took the proper Oath of Allegiance when he entered Parliament, who still takes Holy Communion in the Anglican Church, and asks for the blessing of Almighty God on this nation as we all do every Sunday.

The undeserving underperformers in the Liberal Party don’t deserve to be in government ever again, but Almighty God is a merciful God, and in his mercy, He will probably hear the next prayer delivered by the Liberal Party to the collective soul of Australia, which is sixty five percent Christian, if they repent and campaign against this dirty gangster sponsored Act.

The thunderous silence from Malcome, should see him called Malgohome, after the next election unless the Liberal Party can find an honest leader. It is a measure of Peter Costello that he has refused to be a leader of such a rabble. I would think a Christian would find an irreconcilable conflict between the Pledge, and his Oath of Allegiance, but an atheist or an agnostic see nothing wrong.

There are some Christians in the Liberal Party. I was there in Canberra on the 7th August 2006, when Kevin Rudd said he was one, supported by a number of other Labor Members, and there were a few Christian Liberals and Nationals there too. Peter Costello was not one of them, but I think his brother was there. This was where Kevin Rudd sucker punched John Howard.

As a collective community Australians must be the most laid back society in the world. If a Parliament in Iran or Pakistan tried to pass a law totally insulting to the Main Religion in the land, riots would be guaranteed. Today I went into Information Victoria, which stocks Commonwealth Acts, and asked for the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, and the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, and because they are never asked for they are not in stock.

Fortunately the Commonwealth is up to date with technology, and in Comlaw, with Google, a copy can be downloaded and printed instantly. Both make interesting reading. I am of the opinion that lawyers in the Liberal Party nobbled the Australian Federal Police and kept them on Serepax, for the past eleven and a half years of Liberal rule. They have adequate power to be an enormous force for good.

The Australian Citizenship Act 2007, is one of the Acts that do not mention the Queen. Probably that is because it an insult to Her. Australian citizens should take an Oath of Allegiance, but no longer. One AFP function is to provide police services in respect of the laws of the Commonwealth. (S8 (1) (b).) An Australian Federal Police officer is granted immunity from any requirements to register their motor cars, or obtain any licence whatsoever, in the performance of their duties.

No wonder the Commonwealth, is most uncomfortable when an Australian claims to be a Commonwealth Public Official, and up until now, has failed to extend the protection of the Australian Federal Police to persons claiming Statutory authorization to be a Commonwealth Public Official. Sections 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 extend to every Australian the right to be a Commonwealth Public Official provided they make that claim. There are first class and second class Australian citizens, while the Australian Federal Police is controlled by politicians.

By S 35 Australian Federal Police Act the Commissioner has the power to recognize any person as a consultant or independent contractor, for law enforcement purposes. This means anyone could be an Australian Federal Policeman

I've recently read a very interesting Editorial
in our local newspaper - "The Manningham Leader",
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009,
which may put things into perspective, and I quote:

"Our communities are known for their tolerance and
understanding. In the past 30 years, in particular,
we have welcomed migrants from a range of backgrounds,
including those from places where ethnic and religious
conflict are a part of daily life.

We have taken refugees from a number of countries
including Lebanon and Somalia. And we have welcomed
migrants from a spectrum of religions, from Christian
to Muslim.

Our neighbourhoods have shown a capacity to support
the migrants' social, cultural and religious differences.
Now, in the aftermath of the raids on several houses in
Melbourne's northern suburbs, we confront the fears
about extremists in our midst.

While no one believes complacency is a desirable approach
to alleged terrorist threats. It is also true that this
should not equate to chronic suspicion of outsiders.
Our communities should be made up of the vigilant, not
the vigilantes.

It is understandable that many neighbours of those men
who have been accused of being part of a terrorist plot
will be shocked at the events in their streets.

Yet they must know that the vast majority of law-abiding
Muslims are also shocked by these events.

Communities across Melbourne have shown their resilience
in the face of similar concerns before. They must do so
again to demonstrate how the fabric of our neighbourhoods
relies on an essential decency and tolerance to function
properly.

Extremism by its very definition is rare. We need to be
aware of its potential threat, but not be crippled by
fear."

Pericles, Fractelle and Foxy: hear, hear!

Banjo, you might be unpleasantly surprised by the percentage of Australian born from anglo and Christian background who behave daily with deep and utter contempt towards our courts and laws.

Why should they be allowed to get away with this? Why can't we send them 'back'?

Are you advocating two different classes of citizenship? You could be onto something here.

Perhaps the 'citizenship test' should be taken by everybody, and an oath sworn. When you pass you are a class A citizen and are allowed to vote. If you do not sit the test, or fail, but are born here, you are a class B citizen should basically shut up, are not allowed to vote or partake in any public institutions and probably pay a bit more tax, because the class A citizens have so much more to do AND have more responsibility, what with the rabble and all.

The privately schooled kids, who are the ones with capable goal orientated parents, of course will have no trouble passing this silly test, being coached to give the correct answers and at last we will have a meritous properly educated elite look after things.

Please note: I'm a new Australian, passed the test, swore my oath of allegiance to Australia, thus a keen bonafide class A citizen. And I know for a fact that there are many Aussie born citizens who do not have a clue would seriously bomb in the test. It bothers me that they get to vote in our elections and make wild statements about 'rights and responsibilites' of others on public forums.

Yes, Banjo, let's look at this all citizens being equal before the law crap.

Foxy,
Your post is interesting, but I think more suited to the thread in the articles section. 'Not in the name of our Islam'

This thread is about those that obtain citizenship here by lies and deception and, when exposed, what to do about that.

I did note the sentence regarding vigilance and agree that we must be vigilant and acknowledge that there will be some persons that obtain citizenship with absolutely no respect for us or our society.

My opinion is that the magistrate, in this case, should have ordered those that held our judicial system in contemp be charged and the immigration minister be requested to consider revoking citizenship.

If we value our society, our standards must be maintained and it is not good enough to simply ignore blatant contempt and hope it will go away.

I noted the comments of percles and Fractelle in relation to deportation, and simply say this is not my object as, if a persons citizenship is revoked, that person would then revert to the previous status of 'permanent resident', which still would enable them to a whole range of social benefits. There is specific criteria to be met before deportation can be considered.

People.
I understand all those awaiting charge were born in Australia.

Thus they are home growen citizens

Banjo

If you are an Australian citizen; you are an Australian citizen - equally subject to the laws of this country whether you were born here (how does that make you a better person?) or born in another country.

You are still arguing for a double standard. Do not insult our intelligence further.

Thank you.

But, it’s not just with “citizens”. We even have a problems deporting non-citizens who have behaved badly –sometimes, very badly.

Once someone gets a foot in the door – it seems all our civil liberty defenders can’t find it their bleeding hearts to say, GO! ( They must be real push-overs for door-to-door sales...persons!) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2977#68985

Dear Banjo,

Anybody can stand up, say an oath with
no intention of meaning it or believing in
it. It's called lying and it's very common.
Amongst all people.
Promises are constantly being made and broken.
If you start revoking citizenship on those
grounds - you may well end up with the same shortage of
labour problem that existed soon after the second
World War. Then it'll be back to square one once again -
looking overseas for
people to do the work.
How often are you going to keep on revoking citizenship?

Anansi and Fractelle,
So what you are actually saying is that persons who obtain benefits by fraud, deception and lies should be able to retain those benefits.

If that is OK by you, it is not by me. Welfare cheats lose their benefits do they not? So why should citizenship cheats not lose the benefits?

The big difference between born here citizens and those granted citizenship is that, those granted citizenship, are adult and did so at their own instigation. They made voluntary application and signed it. They were given information about our citizenship and they swore a public oath. We are so tolerant that we even allow them to retain their native citizenship.

Now you are accepting that some be allowed to publicly be contemptous of our society and stll retain all the benefits of being citizens. We generously granted citizenship to these people and should rightly expect a high ethical standard from them. Those that are not fair dinkum are not fit to be citizens.

Thankfully, most persons granted citizenship take it seriously and honestly, but that does not excuse those that are knowingly deceitful.

I believe it to be an insult to all to whom we have granted citizenship, when we allow continued benefits to those who abuse our standards.

JMCC,
At least one of the persons who openly showed contempt for our judicial system was alien born and I am given to understand some in the gallery also were contemptous.

Banjo

At risk of repeating myself:

<< So what you are actually saying is that persons who obtain benefits by fraud, deception and lies should be able to retain those benefits. >>

In a word "NO".

Like every Australian citizen who breaks the law so they shall be held to account by Australian law and sentenced, if found guilty, in accordance with Australian law.

What is the point of becoming an Australian citizen if you are not entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come with being an Australian citizen?

Why are you so insistent on double standards for people born here and people who migrate here?

Dear Banjo,

Answer Fractelle's question - why the double standard?
Shouldn't everyone be held accountable according to
Australian law?

Australia has a reputation as an egalitarian and tolerant
country, a place where people feel they can stretch
their wings. What you're suggesting with your double
standard goes against that.

Fractelle and Foxy,
There is no double standard!

The born here citizens have NOT lied, cheated or deceived us whatever their opinion of our society.

The persons granted citizenship, that now hold us in contempt, HAVE lied, cheated and deceived to obtain that citizenship.

They are adults and knew exactly what they were doing.

So the reason their citizenship should be revoked is because they have lied, cheated and deceived. It is not accidental.

Exactly the same as welfare cheats and their benefits should be withdrawn!

Dear Banjo,

As another poster pointed out to you - many of
the people you're accusing were actually born
here. The others came as small children.
Our jails are full of people who have lied,
cheated, and committed crimes against our society.
Their citizenship hasn't been revoked.
And, as you well know - our country was founded on the
backs of convicts.
As Fractelle said - if a person commits a crime -
they should be tried according to Australian law,
and punished accordingly. That's fair enough.
Why revoke the citizenship of only a select few?
All 'criminals' lie, cheat and deceive.

Under John Howard - there were quite a few deportations.
One example was the case of the young Croat, (who came to this
country with his parents as a child).
They were citizens. He grew up here
and was educated but was deported to Croatia for
criminal activities committed.

In Croatia he didn't speak the language, didn't have
any relatives, the government didn't want to
help him, and he was forced to live on the street.
Due to appeals by his family in Australia (at the state
of his condition) - he was finally allowed to return back to
Australia.

This is simnply an example of what will end up happening with
the scenario that you're proposing - at great cost
to everyone involved - and will give a bad reputation
to Australia on the global scene.

It's obvious that these Johnny come lately's who publically show complete contempt for the laws and customs of this country have only acquired citizenship to give themselves a secure platform from which to launch their attacks on us. As Banjo says they have obtained citizenship fraudulently. They knowingly and willingly swore and oath and knowingly and willingly broke it.

This cannot be likened to a "mere" criminal act. Most criminals have the objective of personal gain or gratification not the complete overthrow of the Government and the conversion of Australia to a fundamentalist religious state. The objective of these individuals was/is ultimately treason.

The only fitting response to this behaviour is revocation of citizenship and deportation. If this is seen as a double standard then so be it.

Banjo,
There are existing parallels to the two tier “citizenship” scheme you’ve mooted:

Many firms currently (& quite legally) utilize such a system. New employees often go through an probationary period .If during that period they do anything untoward, your employee status may be terminated .

And , if one gains employment under false pretences ( i.e. misstating qualifications & experience ) the may similarly have their employee status terminated.

(seems we are more particular about choosing employees than citizens!)

Foxy,
Not that it will make an iota of difference –but just a couple of corrections to your piece.

The gentleman we both referred was:
--Deported to Serbia not Croatia
-- WAS BORN IN FRANCE!
--Had a father who was a Serbian citizen and resided in Serbia

In dealing with Australian immigration matters –we should never say never.
Anyone deported or rejected today is likely to re-apply and be admitted tomorrow.

Peter the believer,

Your first post mentioned "John Wilson, and he is being medicated with warfarin, to keep him quiet."

Warfarin is a blood thinning drug, used for treating cardiac conditions. Only if too much were used would it keep anyone quiet (permanently)

Where on earth do you suck up this BS?

Reading the rest of your posts I would suggest you give the thinners a rest.

Horus,
I have not proposed a two-tier system or a probationary system for citizenship, nor do I intend to, although I am aware of such things.

What is needed is for our governments to insist that our existing laws be upheld when there are blatant acts that clearly show persons were not honest when obtaining citizenship.

In this case a person who was an Australian citizen clearly showed contempt for one of our basic institutions and no action was taken. We granted this person citizenship and his actions demonstrated he was fraudulant in getting citizenship. He should be charged with contempt of court and the minister should use his power to revoke citizenship.

It seems another instance of 'cultural privilege' where we turn a blind eye to wrong doings by some.

Foxy,
I think you well know that I am only referring to those to whom we have granted citizenship. You would also know i am not talking about deportation. Most people are open and honest when gaining citizenship, but the are some that obviously gain theirs by deception and when exposed they should not continue getting that benefit.

A foreign person, a visitor, a temporary or permanent resident and a born here citizen can show disrespect and contempt for us and all aspects of our society. But a person granted citizenship cannot without disclosing that he obtained his citizenship fraudulantly.

I am a bit surprized that you think that a person can gain a benefit by deception and still retain that benefit. A welfare cheat obtains benefit by deception and when exposed he loses the benefit, and rightly so. It is not often a citizenship cheat is exposed and when it does happen, it should be acted upon so as the integrity of the process is maintained.

Dear Banjo,

So what sort of punishment are you advocating
exactly? - I'm a bit confused here - because I
thought you were talking about deportation.
And, please, make sure that the punishment is
not a disproportionate punishment
for the "crimes," they've committed.

The Minister has to be very careful so as not to make
the same mistakes as in the past cases of Vivian Alvarez
Solon, Cornelia Rau, Robert Jovicic... (google them
to refresh your memory).

Dear Horus,

Thanks for correcting me in the case of Robert Jovicic.
However the fact remains - he came to Australia as a
2 year old, and lived here for all of his life. He'd
only ever been to Serbia once - did not speak the language,
and at the age of 42 was deported because of some burglaries
that he'd committed to satisfy his heroin addiction.
He became ill and was found desolate and living on the
streets of Belgrade. The Immigration Minister re-instated
his permanent residency back to Australia and said the
"incident," was "regrettable."

I think that we'll all have to agree to disagree on this
particular subject

Foxy

I agree. The Robert Jovicic case was one of bureaucracy gone mad. All that needed to be done was for Jovicic to serve his time in an Australian prison for his crimes.

Banjo

I don't think I understand you any more either. You are still demanding that Australian citizens who migrated here be treated differently to those, who through accident of birth, were born here.

People don't just step off the boat or plane and are automatically granted citizenship, there are applications, assessments and criteria to be met. Please start doing your homework:

http://www.immi.gov.au/migrants/

There are no special attributes for people who happen to have the luck to be born here.

Just as an example (not to enter into a game of Australian born versus migrant criminals PLEASE) Martin Bryant was born in Australia, after murdering 35 innocents, one could hardly claim he showed respect "for the laws and customs of this country".

Fractelle and Foxy,
The punishment for fraudulantly obtaining citizenship is clear. Cancelation of citizenship. I suppose the Govt could charge the person with fraud as well, if it so desired, but I think the cancelation of citizenship would surfice, especially if he could not re-apply. The person then would revert to the previous status of 'permanent resident'

I am well aware of the steps and stages taken to obtain citizenship.

What you both do not appear to understand is that a person obtaining citizenship has to fill out and sign an application form and swear an oath, in public, on the day of receiving the citizenship. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is a big occasion for all concerned.

I am not suggesting that the immigrant citizen be treated differently to any other person that has committed fraud. The benefits obtained by deception should be canceled. In this case it is the benefit of citizenship that was obtained by deception.

If a person who has been granted citizenship publicly voices contempt for our country or society, he is in fact disclosing that he obtained his citizenship by fraud. If he was honest he would not have gone through the process and made a sworn oath.

Please do not come back and say the 'poor' bloke did not understand or made a mistake. He has to be living here at least 4 years. It wont wash either to say he suddenly woke one morning and realized his contempt for Australia. He still wants that passport and our protection. There is no excuse, he has been deceiving us!

Foxy says:
He was “deported because of some burglaries”

Wikipedia says:
“By 2004 his criminal record numbered some 158 criminal convictions”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jovicic

Cheers!
Catch you again next time.

The report that he is medicated with warfarin, came from his son who visited him in prison. John Wilson is about 68 years old, and probably had high blood pressure from the stress of arrest and detention. They say the Police were none too gentle.

Warfarin can have serious side effects, as this report states: If left untreated, this can lead to severe tissue damage (gangrene). Seek immediate medical attention if any of these unlikely but serious side effects occur: painful red rash, dark discoloration of any body part (e.g., purple toe syndrome), sudden intense pain (e.g., back or muscle pain), foot ulcers, unusual change in the amount of urine, vision changes, confusion, slurred speech, one-sided weakness.

There is a tendency in some who post here to shoot the messenger. My message to them is stop it. The report on John Wilson was that his speech was slurred, and he was confused. I have not been to see him personally, and he has not indicated a willingness through his son to have a solicitor visit him, with a view to having his incarceration judicially reviewed. The report said he was being medicated on warfarin.

John has been trying for some sixteen years to have the legal profession recognize that to sit without a jury is a criminal offence. Judges and Magistrates are members of the legal profession. The legal profession cannot maintain control over you and me, unless they maintain the secular merger of Church and State accomplished by the abolition of jury trials. John Wilson and John Bauskis, were in conflict with Justice Michael Adams, after Adams sent Bauskis to jail for two weeks, for wearing a T shirt with “JURY TRIAL IS DEMOCRACY on while sitting in the audience at a proceedings in the Supreme Court.

There are people prepared to pay for the required legal services. I would think that the refusal to allow a lawyer to represent him, is probably a sign that he is suffering side effects from warfarin. There are some good lawyers, but there are also some very evil ones.

Dear Horus,

Robert Jovicic committed crimes because he had
a drug problem - he was a heroin addict.
The amount of burglaries he committed does not
change that fact.

May I humbly suggest that you check out the
following websites:

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2008/ce08018.htm

and

http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2008/02/23/2170559.htm

They're slightly more accurate then Wikipedia.

As I've stated previously - here again is -
the following information:

Robert Jovicic was removed
from Australia to Serbia in June 2004 AFTER
serving a prison term for burglary and theft charges.
He'd paid his dues to society.

Mr Jovicic first arrived in Australia with his
parents in 1968 at the age of two, had only visited
Serbia once and did not speak the language. He was allowed
to return to Australia in March 2006 after he became
destitute and began sleeping on the steps of the
Australian Embassy in Belgrade. John Howard wanted the
man to become a Serbian citizen...

As Senator Chris Evans, Minister
for Immigration and Citizenship said,

"The case of Robert Jovicic is one of the many
regrettable immigration matters left unresolved
by the Howard Government... I have made it a
priority to act on those cases and return integrity to
Australia's immigration system..."

"The Howard/Costello Government politicised Australia's
immigration system to serve the interests of the
Liberal Party, not the interests of Australia."

"...the Rudd Government has also moved quickly to honour
its election commitment to end the former Government's
failed Pacific Solution - a policy that cost taxpayers
$300 million and ultimately saw the majority of refugees
who were held offshore end up in Australia."

You and Banjo - are entitled to your opinions on this
topic. I simply happen to totally disagree with you
both.

Enough said.

Thank you Foxy.

Banjo & Horus

What Foxy said.

There is no point in repeating ourselves over and over. An Australian Citizen has equal rights, obligations and responsibilities to all other Australian Citizens.

End of Story.

No No No Australians do not have equal rights before the law. If you are a criminal and a serious criminal at that, as they have progressively lifted the bar on who must be given a jury trial since 1900. In 1900 it was 3 months imprisonment, but now its up to five years a Judge can give you without a jury trial.

If you don’t rock the boat like John Wilson is, in simply wanting variable interest rates tried in a jury trial, you are mostly ok, but you can still lose your driving licence by State Law, and become a second class citizen in your own country. Complain and State Police Thugs will beat you up, imprison you, and medicate you.

States should be abolished, and stripped of their usurped Judicial Power. There should only be one judicial power of the Commonwealth available to everyone equally, not reserved for Police Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Criminal lawyers should be hunted down, prosecuted and stripped of their exclusive brethren status, even when they have been made into Judges and Magistrates.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is law, but criminal lawyers would lose their clout if it was enforced, by a few well placed prosecutions by the Australian Federal Police. We live under gangster rule, and while most of us are alright, there are still many whose lives are a misery, like the sex slaves who work in Sydney brothels, to this day. There are 100,000 homeless at least and probably another 65,000 at risk. These would all be fixed and settled, if we had the legal system we had when Bob Hawke complained we had 100,000 unemployed in 1970

Foxy and Fractelle,

As I have stated before, you both believe that any person that obtains benefits by deception should keep those benefits fraudulantly obtained. Good to see that welfare cheats have some support!

Dear Banjo,

As another poster once said on another
thread - "Distort me once, shame on you,
keep on distorting me - and I'm out of
this dysfunctional excuse of a discussion,
there's always another around the corner."

I'm done here.

Banjo

What Foxy said, except beyond mere distortion:

<<<< Foxy and Fractelle... you both believe that any person that obtains benefits by deception should keep those benefits fraudulantly (sic) obtained >>>>

Complete fabrication on your part.

Banjo, based on your 'logic', you are no longer entitled to be an Australian citizen as you have defamed and misrepresented Foxy and myself to obtain 'benefits' for yourself.

Oh dear me, an entire thread started as an excuse to bash migrants, to dredge up the old division of them versus us, to uphold the belief that a migrant should just be TOTALLY grateful that he/she lives within our culture and that to question it's authority deserves revocation of citizenship and probably deportation. Adolf Hitler would be proud, he of course went further, but I'm sure he'd approve of some of the ideas presented by one or two people in this thread.

MaryE,
I suggest you read the posts again. This thread is not about immigrants. It is about whether or not those that gain by deception should retain their ill gotten gains.

Clearly Foxy and Fractelle believe, at least, some people are entitled to retain benefits gained by deception and falsehood. They said welfare cheats should not, but some others can. So they are the ones with the double standard.

I wonder just how extensive is the double standard.

If a person obtains a drivers licence by deception should he retain that licence? My answer is NO.

If a person obtains a job by deception should he retain that job. My answer is NO.

If a person claims education quals obtained by falsehood should he retain those quals? My answer is No

If a person obtains citizenship by deception and falsehood should he retain that citizenship? My answer is NO. Foxy and Fractelle say YES

You see, I am being fair and consistant, Foxy and Fractelle are inconsistant and portray the double standard.

I was wrong to say that they did not understand. They do understand but are not prepared to admit they are wrong.

Banjo, should a 'new' citizen have citizenship removed for breaking the speed limit? Admittedly probably only after being caught.

What if I get to know of a new citizen's habitual law breaking on this part? Do I then have to ring the number on my fridge magnet to report this subversive and nefarious activity?

What when I find out from my good friend that her husband (a new citizen) got caught riding on the train without paying his fare, refuses to pay the fine and is offered to make this up by doing 'community service'. The authorities neglected to check on the newness of his citizen status-he looks and sounds like a 'real Aussie'.

Do you think new citizens should have citizenship revoked before conviction of a crime? You know, the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit. Are you willing to support reinstating if on appeal a conviction gets squashed? Does a new non-citizen even have a right of appeal?

I'm not even going to address that whole ugly can of adultering worms, characters who have utter contempt for those legally binding marriage vows.

Welfare cheats, they're desperate or rather completely bamboozled and confused persons trying to make sense of our convoluted bureaucratics gone mad maze ending up having to pay anyway.

Banjo

You are becoming very offensive indeed, your latest piece of defamation:

>>> Clearly Foxy and Fractelle believe, at least, some people are entitled to retain benefits gained by deception and falsehood. They said welfare cheats should not, but some others can. So they are the ones with the double standard. <<<

At no stage have I stated that people are entitled to retain benefits gained by deception and falsehood. I will repeat an earlier post I made:

>>>>

May I remind you of one of my original posts to this thread:

Banjo

At risk of repeating myself:

<< So what you are actually saying is that persons who obtain benefits by fraud, deception and lies should be able to retain those benefits. >>

In a word "NO".

Like every Australian citizen who breaks the law so they shall be held to account by Australian law and sentenced, if found guilty, in accordance with Australian law.

What is the point of becoming an Australian citizen if you are not entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come with being an Australian citizen?

Why are you so insistent on double standards for people born here and people who migrate here?
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 13 August 2009 6:25:20 PM <<<

What part of being tried under Australian law being applied to ALL Australian citizens don't you get?

I have also provided you with a link to the procedures for becoming an Australian citizen. No system is ever perfect, but then we can't prevent Australian born people being criminals either. Nor, it appears, can we prevent Australian born people from wilful ignorance.

Do not defame, distort and fabricate my opinions here any further.

Banjo

As you appear to be too lazy to conduct your own research here is the current legislation on Australian Law with regard to citizenship obtained under false or fraudulent circumstances:

"Can Australian citizenship be revoked?

The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 allows for revocation of Australian citizenship in very limited circumstances and only for convictions for actions prior to the acquisition of citizenship. Australian citizenship can be revoked if:

* a person has been convicted of making a false statement or representation in relation to the person's application to become an Australian citizen
or
* a person is convicted of a serious criminal offence at any time prior to becoming a citizen involving a sentence of 12 months or more
or
* the approval to become an Australian citizen was gained as a result of migration-related fraud
or
* the approval to become an Australian citizen was gained as a result of third party fraud; for example, fraudulent conduct by a migration agent in the citizenship application
and
* it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

The Australian Government supports the notion that there should be certainty of Australian citizenship status. An Australian citizen by birth cannot have their Australian citizenship revoked. Similarly, a person conferred citizenship after fully disclosing all relevant factors is the equal of any other Australian citizen, and therefore cannot have their Australian citizenship revoked.

People who have their citizenship revoked become the holders of an ex-citizen visa and are therefore subject to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958, including the requirement to be of good character.

The Migration Act 1958 provides for the cancellation of a visa, and removal of the former visa-holder from Australia, if the person is found to be no longer of good character."

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/loss/deprive-citz.htm

Why you couldn't check this out for yourself is beyond my understanding, instead you have made false statements about Foxy and I, making you as reprehensible as any other fraudster.

Dear Banjo,

Fractelle has summed up our position on this
thread quite clearly. If you still don't
understand it - its you who's refusing to
admit that you're wrong.

Obviously, we're not going to get any
further in this discussion - what we
have to say is unacceptable to you,
and what you're saying is unacceptable
to us. So as there is this breakdown
in communication - let's just go on our
own way - and agree to dsagree on this topic,
without any further to do - about who's right
or wrong. I don't want to continue with this
'stereotyping,' and 'counter-stereotyping,' jazz.

See ya!

Banjo said the topic is not about immigrants. Well, that's a nice bit of sidestepping Banjo. Why you would feel the need to sidestep I don't know. This topic is about revoking granted citizenship, it's not about revoking anyone's citizenship, but only the citizenship of people who have come to this country and then obtained citizenship. In other words MIGRANTS. And we all know from your other posts on other topics that you don't particularly like migrants, unless they totally submit to your idea of what our culture is. This topic is just another chance for Banjo to migrant bash yet again. This is as plain as day, and if Banjo would be honest and admit it, then there would be no need for me to make this type of post in the first place. It's amazing the number of barrow pushers on the OLO site. Belly and Banjo love to push their anti migrant barrow, whistler always pushes his womens legislature barrow, Peter the Believer and Under One God like to constantly push their religious barrow, antiseptic adores pushing his "I hate feminism" barrow etc etc, there's well over a dozen barrow pushers here who almost always slant their posts towards their particular barrow. But I think that's ok and I welcome it. What I take issue with is when it's pointed out that a barrow pusher is pushing the barrow, he jumps in and immediately denies it. Now that's funny.