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.