Is Mise,

Glad you mentioned the "Queen of Australia", because that is what she is as far as our connection with her goes. Most of the anti-monarchy mob don't know this, always rabbiting on about the 'English Queen'.

The more this citizenship farce goes on, the more reason there is to have a complete ban on dual-citizenship; or, people should stay where they were born.

Is Mise, Ttbn,

Are you suggesting that the Queen is dual-citizen ? Perhaps she is also a German citizen, given Germany's 'blood and soil' stance ? She didn't also take her husband's Greek citizenship when they married, by any chance ?

But surely this notion in many countries, that the children of one of their citizens are thereby citizens, unto eternity ? It's citizens all the way down ? Surely that intrudes on the sovereignty of other countries ?

Joe

"Surely that intrudes on the sovereignty of other countries ?"

Of course it does, and that is what is happening in Australia where we stupidly tolerate dual-citizenship. It intrudes and cheapens Australia.

But it makes life easier for those of us fortunate enough to have dual citizenship, no visas for instance in many places.
As the Constitution recognizes dual citizenship then no law of the Australian Parliament can negate that, the only way is by referendum.

The solution is for politicians, or aspirants, to make sure that they are clear to stand for election; not an onerous task one would think.

//Are you suggesting that the Queen is dual-citizen ? Perhaps she is also a German citizen, given Germany's 'blood and soil' stance ?//

And Canadian and New Zealandish. I reckon there might be more support for a republic if people knew our head of state was a bloody Kiwi.

//But it makes life easier for those of us fortunate enough to have dual citizenship, no visas for instance in many places.//

Fun Fact: Her Majesty doesn't require a passport to travel.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-queen-doesnt-need-a-passport-2017-4?IR=T

Is Mise

“... the Constitution recognizes dual citizenship...” (Is Mise)

Does the Constitution actually mention dual citizenship anywhere apart from Section 44? Try as I may, I can't find anything but the current wrangle about politicians and dual citizenship. All I could find is this from Wikipedia:

“With effect from 4 April 2002, there are no restrictions (under Australian law) on Australians holding the citizenship of another country.
Prior to 4 April 2002, it was still possible for Australians in some circumstances to hold dual citizenship, including:
those born in Australia who automatically acquired another citizenship at birth;
migrants naturalising in Australia, provided their former country did not revoke their citizenship;
children born overseas to Australian parents who automatically acquired the citizenship of their country of birth (e.g. the U.S. or Canada) as well as Australian citizenship by descent”

So, there are no restrictions on dual citizenship. But, how was it enabled in the first place? I can't see the writers of the Constitution putting in anything about dual citizenship those days. I don't remember any changes to the Constitution. We were all British subjects up to 1949.

If it's not in the Constitution, then it has to be an Act of Parliament (Immigration Act 2007, I think is the latest) and, if that is so, the law an be changed by parliament, without reference to the people.