The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Dual Citizenship Revisited (2nd revisit)

Dual Citizenship Revisited (2nd revisit)

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
AJ Philips,
I am of course aware that a referendum is required to change the constitution. My question is about whether one is required to change the INTERPRETATION OF the constitution.

The current decision is very far from the most reasonable outcome. The most reasonable outcome would be that dual citizens must file for renouncement of all foreign citizenship before standing for parliament, and not take up their seats until such renouncement is confirmed. Which is what this latest bunch did, yet the court still disallowed them.

I don't know what the founding fathers intended, but it is pretty clear that it wasn't this. For a start, the concept of citizenship was far more loosely defined in those days. And British citizenship wasn't even considered foreign.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 10 May 2018 2:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And British citizenship wasn't even considered foreign"

Not only that but every Australian was a British Citizen (give or take a few) and the framers of our Constitution were British citizens all and became dual citizens themselves.

There is no way that they meant people of British citizenship to be excluded from standing for Parliament; pity that they framed the clause the way that they did.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 10 May 2018 4:07:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

The High Court decision didn't change the interpretation of s 44(i), it clarified an ambiguity. The High Court decided to narrowly interpret an implied exception on to s 44(i).

The decision was harsh, but their reasoning was sound in my opinion:

http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2018/HCA/17

An entirely different bench may have interpreted the implied exception widely, and with equally sound reasoning too. Sometimes it can just be the luck of the draw. Either way, I don't think the High Court has overstepped any marks.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 10 May 2018 5:48:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Paul, your old Greek neighbour should be in trouble. She should have been sent packing back to Greece years ago.

If after 50 years she has not bothered to learn the language, she has not made any effort to become an Ozzie. With no English it is highly unlikely she has ever done anything to earn her own living, or paid any tax to cover the cost of her old age support.

It is exactly this kind oh migrant we could very well do without.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 10 May 2018 8:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

Totally agree with you on the old Greek. Shame on her. On the other hand, she could be an invention of Paul's.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 10 May 2018 8:35:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No ttbn, this lady is not an invention of Paul's, she is actually my neighbour, and a very nice neighbour indeed. As for kicking out, there are several on this forum who I would give the royal order of the boot long before this lovely lady. If you got out more and mixed a little you would understand there are many people in Australia that for them English is not their first language, and they struggle with it, even after many years here.

This ugly nationalists fervour of jolly jumbucks and flag waving some like to engage in, is in my view pathetic! I understand how people think, and for most their culture of birth is what is important to them, but its not their top priority. For most, family is what comes first, followed by the trials and tribulations of day to day living, then the thought of who we are comes down the list. A person can be proud of their culture, and still be a proud Australian, even if they can't speak the lingo and might fail some stuiped 5 year language test bunged on by the local branch of the Nazi party!

Issy, with out any evidence I would think many of the men, they were all men, who sat in the first parliament of Australia, and were not native born, most of them being British by birth were there probably illegally. That has been the case for the past 117 years. Sir Henry Parks, the man I credit with being the driving force behind Australia the nation, was born in Coventry UK in 1815 and died in Annandale Sydney in 1896. Parks was technically never an Australian, he died before the nation came into being, but I rate him as one of the greatest Australians to have ever lived.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 11 May 2018 6:09:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy