Saw this article this morning and thought it may generate some interesting views

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sunday-explainer-new-powers-allowing-the-government-to-revoke-citizenship-20150530-ghce2q

Should we revoke Aus citizenship of dual nationals that go to fight for IS? What about those that only have Aus citizenship? Do we disown them or only if they qualify for citizenship of another country.

Should this be decided by a government minister or by a court?

Banjo "Should we revoke Aus citizenship of dual nationals that go to fight for IS?"
Yes, Revoke their Australian passport and let their other country deal with them. I believe we should not allow these fighters back into Australia, but their family back here in Australia should not be penalised for his actions.

" What about those that only have Aus citizenship? "
No, they need to come back to Australia, face the courts, and be jailed here. They are our problem, and we should deal with our own citizens.

"Do we disown them or only if they qualify for citizenship of another country."
If they aren't already a dual national, then I doubt another country would grant a terrorist citizenship! We need to own these people and deal with them through our court systems.

"Should this be decided by a government minister or by a court?"
Definitely through a court system, either here or overseas.
We don't want our politicians to have any more power than they already have.

Basically I agree with Suseonline. The only other proviso I think should be added is: ISIS fighters that are returning to Australia need to be isolated from the general population from the time they arrive until the Court has decided their fate.

We don't know the intentions of these terrorist/Islamic extremists; we don't really know why they want to come back. So rather than risk them doing harm to others while awaiting their trial (potentially with their freedom under threat) we need to ensure they are contained.

//Should we revoke Aus citizenship of dual nationals that go to fight for IS?//

A quick search hasn't uncovered any statistics but I suspect that the two most common types dual citizens will be Australian/British citizens and Australian/New Zealand citizens. Is it really fair to go palming these murderous cnuts off to the poms and the kiwis? Bit of a bum deal New Zealand - we'll take your Russell Crowes and your John Clarkes, and in return you can have these terrorists that we don't want any more.

//What about those that only have Aus citizenship?//

Yes. Let them rot over in the Middle East where they can't do us any harm.

//We need to own these people and deal with them through our court systems.//

Why? The cost/benefit analysis doesn't stack up. I can't see any benefits to letting them back in - only considerable costs. Whereas exiling them has numerous benefits and won't cost as much. You do the math.

We should revoke citizenship of any non born Australian that commits a serious crime, that being to take the life of a fellow being, commit violent rape of commit any act of terrorism.

If they happen to be Australian born and, depending on the severity of the crime, they should have their passport revoked and be made wear a transmitting bracelet for life along with life long reporting requirements no if's no buts.

Innocent citizens must be protected from anyone who brings harm to others.

Yes, citizenshiip should be revoked.

In the case of anyone accused - and particularly the case of a sole Australian citizen - are we all relaxed and comfortable with Dutton's take on the matter:

"You don't need too much evidence. It's an administrative decision."

Would we be happy to see this sort of diminution of the rule of law in other areas?

Agreed Poirot. It should definitely be a decision of our court system, and not a politician.

I remain suspicious as to this PM's strong drive to take the passports of 'terrorists' though.

Do we have an actual definition of a terrorist? Who decides what that actually means?
Surely we should revoke the citizenship of ANY dual nationalist who has been convicted of a violent crime while overseas?

Otherwise, wouldn't this decision just be another anti-Muslim, "let me save Australia from the Muslim hoards" that our PM likes to use?

Peter Costello explained after the London
bombing of 2005 was troubled by the fact that
young people born and raised in a democratic ssociety
could turn to terorism and kill their fellow
citizens in the name of Islam. He gave a speech at the
Sydney Institute in which he argued that freedom and
tolerance can be protected only within a legal
framework that is accepted by all.

Here's just a little of what he said:

"To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty
first: loyalty to Australia.
One pledges to respect the rights and liberty of
others and to respect the rule of law."

"Terrorists and those who support them do not
acknwledge the rights and liberties of others -
the rights to live without being maimed,
the right to live without being bombed -
and as such they forfeit the right to join in
Australian citizenship. The refusal to
acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by
out legal institutions stabs at the heart
of who we are. There is one law that we are all
expected to abide by. It is the law enacted
by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution.
Ultimately this law is going to be enforced
whether anyone acknowledges its legitimacy or not."

Therefore citizenship should be revoked only by a
court of law. If we believe that there is a
legal framework that we are all expected to abide by.
Then it follows that people who do not obey our laws -
must be judged within that legal framework.
Our law courts.

Judges should not be involved. They do not represent us. They are not elected. At least we have some control over politicians, small though it is. If a relevant Minister cannot come to the right decision (I don't think that the stripping of citizenship would be automatic), then there is not much hope for democracy. Whereas, we have no say in what activist, self aggrandizing judges do.

A problem isn't it, not having the death penalty for those who wish to be, or are mass murderers.

As ISIS are claiming to be a nation, & definitely want to be one, controlling most of the middle east, let them issue their fighters with citizenship.

God help us, with Obama controlling the fight against ISIS they'll soon have a number of countries for whom they can offer citizenship.

With our fool judges & their softly softly sentences of serial rapists & prospective murderers, our courts would have these cut throat terrorists back in the community quick time, & it would only be a matter of time before they go off again, or kill here.

There is no truer saying than "a leopard does not change it's spots", & neither do serious criminal types, or those vicious types who join terrorists organisations.

Making sure prospective boat people knew they would be turned back cured that problem, letting these clowns know there will be no return, should they chose to join ISIS or similar warlord type armies should fix this one.

Right on, Poirot, and I'm pleases to see a softening of your stance, SOL. Are young people not allowed to make mistakes in Australia? Seems a tad unkind. Certainly it should never be up to a politician to decide who to make an outlaw. We have no reason in reality to make war on ISIS, or any other group attempting to clear their countries of the invading soldiers of the USA and it's vassals. The people we are bombing, maiming, murdering displacing, rendering homeless orphans had no intention of invading Australia. Our soldiers are not defending us, they are attacking people who refuse to follow the dictates of the USA. Hardly something to be proud of. The kids who go there to support members of their extended family are aware of this. So their decisions are excusable, if regrettable, so when they find they've made a mistake, we should help them to regain their senses, and use them to teach others not to be so stupid. Why create enemies of their friends and families within our own country by being vindictive?

Fox,

That is a lot of words. However once again your spin that Costello somehow agrees with you is made without grounds or evidence whatsoever.

Courts are not there to make the decisions that are the responsibility of government and ministers. Ministers are responsible and answerable to the Parliament, but Courts are not.

The parliament passes laws and the powers are delegated to Ministers who may then delegate to others. With delegation comes accountability, reporting, monitoring and review and appeal mechanisms.

The High Court has been scathing about government trying to pass the buck to courts to do what government should do, specifically, make decisions. The High Court rightly sees that as government and the Parliament itself evading responsibility and accountability.

Unfortunately, governments of either complexion, red or blue, have created all sorts of quangos, quasi nongovernmental agencies that swing from the taxpayer's teat being funded by government (which has NO money except that taken from taxpayers), but are able to avoid the direct scrutiny of Parliament and ARE NOT accountable to the electorate as politicians are. With a few exceptions, such arrangements are usually government escaping responsibility and refusing to grasp some nettle and understand and explain some complex matters (to the public).

A timely example could be the Human Rights Commission. If ever there was a case for that body it has long disappeared into the fog of the decades long past, well before many taxpayers were born.

We should not be enabling ministers, their delegates and ultimately government and the Parliament to evade their due responsibilities and accountability that they sought at election and are very handsomely remunerated for.

Why is there this faith in the legal system? A bunch of greedy people who are delighted that their membership avoid their taxes and leech of the public purse. Really? You would think that we should be taking money off them rather than giving them another free lunch. Here is an idea all legal fee's have 30% sent straight to the ATO, job done!
The terrorists that come back should be first put on the sexual offenders register in the well founded belief that they are rapists and murderers. Also they should be offered to Iraq and Iran on the assurance they will not face the death penalty. Job done and can you imagine the little cowardly diddums facing life in the fast lane.

Peter Costello's words came from his book,
"The Costello Memoirs," pp. 358 - 361.
Taken from Appendix 6. "Worth Promoting,
Worth Defending: Australian Citizenship."

The Costello Memoris is a frank
look inside the engine-room of the Liberal
Party and the Howard government. It makes
interesting reading as it answers quite a
few questions and charts the victories and defeats
in one man's very public life.

JBower, I wasn't aware the people working in the legal system don't pay taxes?
Where did you get that from?

The mere thought of some of our politicians having the power to be jury, judge and executioner of our citizens who are overseas makes my skin crawl.
Anyone can be a politician. Just think of the idiots in the shooter's party or One Nation, just to name a few.

I want a proper judge, whose only long-term job is to work in the legal system, to decide who is guilty or not of crimes, not some dubiously talented politician who may only be a politician for a short time.

Suse,

"Just think of the idiots in the shooter's party or One Nation, just to name a few...."

I take umbrage at that though I agree with your main points, the Shooters Party MsP have worked diligently for their constituents and, unlike the Greens, have never lied about anyone or anything and have never hidden behind Parliamentary Privilege.

Suse,
As I understand it, Immigration Ministers have always had the power to make decisions on individual immigration issues.

I seem to recall a certain mufti, that referred to women as 'cats meat', getting ministerial approval for a permanent residency visa, and that is only one example.

I also often see judges being critisised for supposedly wrong decisions.

Suse, just when I thought you proved you do have some common sense, you go and spoil my illusion with this pearl of wisdom - "let me save Australia from the Muslim hoards" that our PM likes to use?"

Where on earth did you dig up this lie? Show us the link to Abbott proclaiming he will save us from the Muslim hoards!

Quite honestly I wish that was government policy, but it isn't.

Why do you have to be so damn obstinate?

There you go Poirot and Suseonline - you have a new friend and like-minder thinker - ybgirp, well done.

Perhaps that might open your eyes to the way many of us view your perspective on Islam, based on your comments.

ConservativeHippie,

"There you go Poirot and Suseonline - you have a new friend and like-minder thinker - ybgirp, well done."

ybgirp's been around here longer than you - so your brief comment designed to goad wasn't really necessary : )

Here's a thing - it seems conservative pollie, Corey Bernardi, thinks Abbott's brilliant idea of removing sole Oz citizenship stinks as well!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-01/anti-terrorism-citizenship-changes-absolutely-wrong-liberal/6512594

"As a matter of principle, I think it's absolutely wrong for us to take away citizenship from an individual whose sole citizenship is Australian," he said.

"And particularly be able to do it without any reference to a court of law, at the arbitrary whim of the [Immigration] Minister, I think the principle is entirely wrong.

Senator Bernardi said no-one wanted to stop terrorism and extremism more than he did, but he described the proposal as a "step in the wrong direction".

"The principle that someone with only Australian citizenship can be stripped of that citizenship, without a court of law, by ministerial directive, for an offence, I think is a very dangerous precedent because who's to say the range of offences won't be expanded in the future," he said."

"This is the sort of power creep that I think is very dangerous from any Government."

Tony still thinks it's a great idea.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/01/abbott-still-backing-plan-to-strip-sole-nationals-of-citizenship-says-mp?CMP=soc_568

CH - I think Suse was referring to Abbott's non-stop dog-whistling and flag draping to keep the kindling under his terror hysteria bonfire - it warms the cockles of his political heart.

//I take umbrage at that though I agree with your main points, the Shooters Party MsP have worked diligently for their constituents and, unlike the Greens, have never lied about anyone or anything//

I think you may be gilding the lily a tad.

Q: How do you know when a politician is lying?
A: When their lips are moving.

They're all as crooked as each other; it's the policies, not the politicians, that you should be worried about.

//"As a matter of principle, I think it's absolutely wrong for us to take away citizenship from an individual whose sole citizenship is Australian," he said.//

And once again Cory demonstrates what a barking lunatic he is. I suspect he is trying to emulate the ancient roman Senators, and has had all his copper piping replaced with lead. Whatever the case, he is as wrong on this point as he is on everything else: exile, while a bit old-fashioned, is an entirely appropriate and reasonable sentence for some offences. I don't care if the sentence is handed down by the courts, the politicians, or some homeless guy they give $20 to do it: in this case the sentence is more important than the sentencer.

Poirot "CH - I think Suse was referring to Abbott's non-stop dog-whistling and flag draping to keep the kindling under his terror hysteria bonfire - it warms the cockles of his political heart."

Quite right Poirot, only I didn't say it quite as nicely as you. : )

Conservative Hippie, I don't know why I seem to upset you so much. This is an online opinion forum, and it is only my opinion I gave. I am not trying to be obstinate at all!

If even the God-fearing Cory Bernardi is worried about the idea of stripping Australian (Muslim) citizens of their citizenship, especially if they have no other country they have citizenship with, then I am even more concerned about Abbott and his cronies going down this slippery path.

//If even the God-fearing Cory Bernardi is worried about the idea of stripping Australian (Muslim) citizens of their citizenship, especially if they have no other country they have citizenship with, then I am even more concerned about Abbott and his cronies going down this slippery path.//

Ah yes, beware the slippery slope. Always a trap for young players. For we know where slippery slopes lead: poor old Cory sliding all the way from gay marriage to 'animal husbandry'. Watch out for the slippery slope.

But why shouldn't we, Suse? If it can be proved these men have taken up arms in the name of IS, why shouldn't we exile them? This is not the same as unreasonably denying an innocent man asylum or citizenship: it is saying, 'You had your chance, you wanted to take up arms overseas, so fcukk off: we're full. We have enough narrow-minded fcukwits in this country without your mob trying to import your fascism'.

It is not the same as saying all muslims are evil. If anybody tries to cart off Mr. & Mrs. Bajwar from down the street in the name of national security they will have to do so over my DEAD body. Getting along with your neighbour transcends the bounds of religion.

Toni Lavis,

"//I take umbrage at that though I agree with your main points, the Shooters Party MsP have worked diligently for their constituents and, unlike the Greens, have never lied about anyone or anything//

I think you may be gilding the lily a tad."

If I am gilding the lily, then kindly shew me where.
The S&F MsP have worked diligently for their constituents and what is more they consult with them.

If you think that my remarks on the Greens is gilding the lily, then I think that what is in the public record is sufficient justification for my statement.

We might be jumping the gun a bit, on a number of grounds:

If an Australian citizen has joined ISIS or al-Nusra and committed crimes in Iraq, or has been complicit in crimes against Iraqis, then in the first place, if they come into the custody of any agency of the Australian government, then they should be handed over to the Iraqis. Perhaps after a military tribunal. [Get stuck in, ybgrir}.

Citizenship is not an absolute: back in 1949, when the Citizenship Act came into force, Aboriginal people immediately became citizens, but obviously that didn't mean they had the full rights of Australians: they still couldn't vote in Federal elections, they couldn't drink, and in some States, their movements were restricted. Discrimination and citizenship could obviously coexist, right or wrong, under that Act.

Somebody mentioned electronic bracelets: but if any Australian citizens can be shown to have committed offences, they would probably face jail time. The issue of bracelets could come later, much later.

Dual citizens, presumably those who are citizens of another country before they become Australian citizens, take an oath to observe Australian law. In that sense, their citizenship is surely conditional on observing Australian law, and not breaching it: so to the extent that this oath is binding, they endanger their Australian citizenship by fighting for a de facto enemy of Australia's, i.e. committing offences against Australian law. If so, then their Australian citizenship can be revoked by a court, even now. As well, there are probably international conventions in relation to dual citizenship which spell out the conditions under which such dual citizenship can be revoked.

Personally, either way - dual or single citizenship - I support the notion of a summary investigation back in Iraq, and if any evidence can be produced which conclusively shows that the person has committed offense against the laws in Iraq, they should be handed over - with our diplomatic support and observation, of course. Once they have done their time in Iraq, if that's the Iraqi courts' sentence, then they can face trial here.

Joe

Loudmouth said;
Dual citizens, presumably those who are citizens of another country
before they become Australian citizens, take an oath to observe
Australian law. In that sense, their citizenship is surely conditional
on observing Australian law, and not breaching it:

If they swore the oath on the Koran, the oath would be invalid anyway
as the Koran contains a chapter that allows moslems to lie to infidels
if it benefits moslems.
How can anyone swear the oath on a book that allows the swearer to lie ?
This has implication in court cases also, as they could not be charged
with false swearing.

another problem created by the progressives like Fraser, Rudd, Gillard who insisted on allowing many with destructive ideolgies and practices into the country. Now we are reaping the benefits. As per usual the conservatives are left to clean up the mess. No one is ever held to account for allowing many of these traitors in our country. And yes some are home grown but obviously influenced heavily by the likes of the leading Iman who still refers to aussie women as meat. Just love the way regressives create the mess and then scream loudly about human rights when the problem is addressed. Pauline Hanson with all her faults had more brains than all the professors in social sciences put together.

Use the law courts in a time of war, I think not.

By that thinking we would have had, to round up all the
German prisoners caught in World War 2 and bring them back
to give them a fair trial in our law courts to see if they were
actually fighting a war with us.

We shouldn't have to prove that an enemy shooting at us in the field is guilty of doing so. Law courts are for civilian matters

War is a matter for Government,generals and intelligence agencies.
What proof does ISIS have that anybody is actually fighting them
in Syria or Iraq, maybe they should bring combatenets back to their law courts for a fair trial. It seems to me there is no proof that the American planes and drones are attacking them, only 2nd hand eye witness accounts.

Who's to say it was actually an American pilot flying those planes
you see on Camera TV footage. You should prove that in a court of law before you can shoot at them.

Ridiculous.