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.