Political Crossfire Forums

[kotzabasis]

AUSTRALIA PROTECTS ITSELF FROM DISLOYALTY
OF SOME MIGRANTS

The Treasurer Peter Costello, is to be congratulated for his forthright and insightful comments he made in his address to the Sydney Institute, that migrants with dual citizenship who do not abide with the laws of Australia and who are not loyal to its values, should be stripped of their Australian citizenship.

If Costello as a potential future Prime Minister of Australia is to convert the above comments into the backbone policy of the country, then the latter will stay erect against its internal foes.


For a related argument to the above see: "Australia Protects itself from the Disloyalty of Some Muslims". [url=congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com]congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com[/url]

[ToonArmyIsComing]

What a shameful comment. So basically, the Australians who do not have dual citizenship can get away with murder with one punishment while the Australians who have dual citizenship will be punished more because of their dual citizenship?

Have you heard of a concept called equality?

[Ch33kY]

kotzabasis wrote: migrants with dual citizenship who do not abide with the laws of Australia and who are not loyal to its values

I always understood ethnic, cultural and religious tolerance to be an Australian value. Does Costello have dual citizenship? If so, he'd better be loyal to his word and piss off :lol:

[Blinky]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: So basically, the Australians who do not have dual citizenship can get away with murder with one punishment while the Australians who have dual citizenship will be punished more because of their dual citizenship?


How on earth did you draw that conclusion? Let me assure you that Australians without dual citizenship (those who were born here or who have renounced their previous citizenships) cannot get away with murder. The post is about stripping Australian citizenship from people who hold dual citizenship. This cannot be construed to be unfair.

If you are granted citizenship to any country you are obligated to obey its laws. Its that simple. If you can't do that, then your host country should be able to take back your citizenship. Why? Because as a citizen of Australia you are entitled to all sorts of welfare (free medical, unemployment benefits, government funded housing, child support etc etc etc). Why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?
Offer a convincing argument as to why a criminal (who can just as easily live in their country of origin) should be allowed to live in Australia and make use of its opportunities. I bet you can't...

[Blinky]

Ch33kY wrote: kotzabasis wrote: migrants with dual citizenship who do not abide with the laws of Australia and who are not loyal to its values

I always understood ethnic, cultural and religious tolerance to be an Australian value.

They are. How does that have any relevance to the comments made by Costello?
Is tolerance towards criminal activity an Australian value?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Blinky wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: So basically, the Australians who do not have dual citizenship can get away with murder with one punishment while the Australians who have dual citizenship will be punished more because of their dual citizenship?


How on earth did you draw that conclusion? Let me assure you that Australians without dual citizenship (those who were born here or who have renounced their previous citizenships) cannot get away with murder. The post is about stripping Australian citizenship from people who hold dual citizenship. This cannot be construed to be unfair.

If you are granted citizenship to any country you are obligated to obey its laws. Its that simple. If you can't do that, then your host country should be able to take back your citizenship. Why? Because as a citizen of Australia you are entitled to all sorts of welfare (free medical, unemployment benefits, government funded housing, child support etc etc etc). Why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?
Offer a convincing argument as to why a criminal (who can just as easily live in their country of origin) should be allowed to live in Australia and make use of its opportunities. I bet you can't...

So there is one type of law for immigrants and then there is another type of law for the people who were born in Australia? I didn't know Australian justice system worked on that discriminatory basis and punished those who were not born in Australia more than those who were born in Australia.

[Blinky]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Blinky wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: So basically, the Australians who do not have dual citizenship can get away with murder with one punishment while the Australians who have dual citizenship will be punished more because of their dual citizenship?


How on earth did you draw that conclusion? Let me assure you that Australians without dual citizenship (those who were born here or who have renounced their previous citizenships) cannot get away with murder. The post is about stripping Australian citizenship from people who hold dual citizenship. This cannot be construed to be unfair.

If you are granted citizenship to any country you are obligated to obey its laws. Its that simple. If you can't do that, then your host country should be able to take back your citizenship. Why? Because as a citizen of Australia you are entitled to all sorts of welfare (free medical, unemployment benefits, government funded housing, child support etc etc etc). Why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?
Offer a convincing argument as to why a criminal (who can just as easily live in their country of origin) should be allowed to live in Australia and make use of its opportunities. I bet you can't...

So there is one type of law for immigrants and then there is another type of law for the people who were born in Australia? I didn't know Australian justice system worked on that discriminatory basis and punished those who were not born in Australia more than those who were born in Australia.

It doesn't. Neither of my parents were born in Australia but they would both receive the same punishment that an Australian born person would for any crime. They are both immigrants, who renounced their previous citizenships in favour of Australian citizenships. Again, this is not about whether you were born in Australia, Germany, Pakistan or on Mars - unless you have chosen to retain citizenship in your country of origin. And besides, we're not talking about deporting people for littering or parking offences.
I'm still waiting for that convincing argument as to why such a system is wrong...
Maybe you don't have one. Maybe you're just gonna stick to your idealistic highground...

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Blinky wrote: It doesn't. Neither of my parents were born in Australia but they would both receive the same punishment that an Australian born person would for any crime. They are both immigrants, who renounced their previous citizenships in favour of Australian citizenships. Again, this is not about whether you were born in Australia, Germany, Pakistan or on Mars - unless you have chosen to retain citizenship in your country of origin. And besides, we're not talking about deporting people for littering or parking offences.
I'm still waiting for that convincing argument as to why such a system is wrong...
Maybe you don't have one. Maybe you're just gonna stick to your idealistic highground...

I feel I have made a compelling argument on the basis of equality.

Why should a person who has dual citizenship be stripped of their Australian citizenship for a committing a similar crime to an Australian person who only has the Australian citizenship who can retain his/her citizenship.

Stripping people of their citizenship is serious and what you are essentially proposing is a dual justice system where immigrants with dual citizenship are treated in one manner and the people who have a single citizenship will be treated in another manner.

So this system is discriminatory in essence.

Besides, your argument is hollow as you claim that "as a citizen of Australia you are entitled to all sorts of welfare (free medical, unemployment benefits, government funded housing, child support etc etc etc)." and then you question "Why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?" But then, you turn around and let the criminals who only have the Australian citizenship to continue enjoying such benefits while a criminal with dual citizenship will be thrown out of the country for committing a similar crime? Why not treat every Australian equally?

Besides, in your way of thinking, it seems an immigrant is incapable of being an Australian since you refer to them in terms that is could be used for a guest who doesn't really belong to the place they occupy in the first place. Indeed, you say a "host country should be able to take back your citizenship". In other words, in this type of system, an immigrant can never be fully an Australian.

Thus, your logic is based on inequality where one group of people will be treated one way and then another group of people will be treated in another way while both have committed similar crimes.

[Blinky]

Quote: I feel I have made a compelling argument on the basis of equality.

You havn't made an argument. You've asked questions. And refused to answer mine.

Quote: Why should a person who has dual citizenship be stripped of their Australian citizenship for a committing a similar crime to an Australian person who only has the Australian citizenship who can retain his/her citizenship.

1) Because they have abused the terms of their citizenship (you actually have to promise to abide by Australian law when you apply for citizenship). It is a two-way street. Being granted citizenship is not being granted a licence to break the law.

2) Are you serious? Where are you going to send someone who is a citizen of Australia only? The Atlantic ocean? Pluto?


[quote] Quote: Besides, your argument is hollow as you claim that "as a citizen of Australia you are entitled to all sorts of welfare (free medical, unemployment benefits, government funded housing, child support etc etc etc)." and then you question "Why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?"

You didn't answer this question by the way...

Quote: But then, you turn around and let the criminals who only have the Australian citizenship to continue enjoying such benefits while a criminal with dual citizenship will be thrown out of the country for committing a similar crime?


Not true. A criminal who only has Australian citizenship goes to jail. You must be aware that people in jail don't receive housing or unemployemnt benefits.


Quote: Besides, in your way of thinking, it seems an immigrant is incapable of being an Australian since you refer to them in terms that is could be used for a guest who doesn't really belong to the place they occupy in the first place. Indeed, you say a "host country should be able to take back your citizenship". In other words, in this type of system, an immigrant can never be fully an Australian.

You are making assumptions based on your own interpretation of the words I chose. I thought that this might happen and so I noted in my post (to which you replied) that both my parents are immigrants to Australia. Yes immigrants. Of course they are considered Australian. But this is not a thread on what makes one "Australian". There is a seperate thread for that and I'll be happy to debate this topic there if you like.

[Ch33kY]

Blinky wrote: Ch33kY wrote: kotzabasis wrote: migrants with dual citizenship who do not abide with the laws of Australia and who are not loyal to its values

I always understood ethnic, cultural and religious tolerance to be an Australian value.

They are. How does that have any relevance to the comments made by Costello?
Is tolerance towards criminal activity an Australian value?

I'm refering to hishard-line comments about Muslims, not the comments in kotzabasis's argument.

I agree to those who do not abide by Australian laws being punished by the state in a fair manner.

[Blinky]

Ch33kY wrote: Blinky wrote: Ch33kY wrote: kotzabasis wrote: migrants with dual citizenship who do not abide with the laws of Australia and who are not loyal to its values

I always understood ethnic, cultural and religious tolerance to be an Australian value.

They are. How does that have any relevance to the comments made by Costello?
Is tolerance towards criminal activity an Australian value?

I'm refering to hishard-line comments about Muslims, not the comments in kotzabasis's argument.

I agree to those who do not abide by Australian laws being punished by the state in a fair manner.

What were those hard-line comments?

[kotzabasis]

"I feel I have made a compelling argument".

Satanist, if you think you have made "a compelling argument", it's only because you have the arrogance of the "Satan", without, however, having His intelligence.

The issue is not only of breaking the laws of Australia, but also accepting its values and not being disloyal to them. It's completely hypocritical to accept the benefits of Australia and at the same time reject its values from which these benefits issue from, as these recalcitrant Muslims do.

[Blinky]

kotzabasis wrote: "I feel I have made a compelling argument".

Satanist, if you think you have made "a compelling argument", it's only because you have the arrogance of the "Satan", without, however, having His intelligence.

The issue is not only of breaking the laws of Australia, but also accepting its values and not being disloyal to them. It's completely hypocritical to accept the benefits of Australia and at the same time reject its values from which these benefits issue from, as these recalcitrant Muslims do.

Don't make this about muslims. It applies to any dual-national regardless of their religion.

[maxtsu]

Interesting.
I wonder how it would effect Paulin tight-jeans Hanson and her UK citizenship?

[Blinky]

maxtsu wrote: Interesting.
I wonder how it would effect Paulin tight-jeans Hanson and her UK citizenship?

Is she a British citizen? I didn't know that.
But if she was born here and then acquired British citizenship she couldn't be deported because this is her country of birth. I was born in Australia but hold dual citizenship with another country as well.
What we're discussing applies to those born outside Australia who choose to immigrate to Australia for whatever reason (economic opportunities, as a refugee etc).
The logic behind this is this: if you already had citizenship in a particular country, you chose to come to Australia. You make trouble here, you pack your bags and go home because we don't want any extra trouble. Simple as that.
If i decided to immigrate to the country in which I have my dual citizenship, and then decided to kill a few people, deal drugs to schoolkids, or whatever, I think it would be fair for them to tell me I wasn't really the sort of person they wanted living there and that I was no longer welcome.
Your thoughts on the matter?

[maxtsu]

Blinky wrote: maxtsu wrote: Interesting.
I wonder how it would effect Paulin tight-jeans Hanson and her UK citizenship?

Is she a British citizen? I didn't know that.
But if she was born here and then acquired British citizenship she couldn't be deported because this is her country of birth. I was born in Australia but hold dual citizenship with another country as well.
What we're discussing applies to those born outside Australia who choose to immigrate to Australia for whatever reason (economic opportunities, as a refugee etc).
The logic behind this is this: if you already had citizenship in a particular country, you chose to come to Australia. You make trouble here, you pack your bags and go home because we don't want any extra trouble. Simple as that.
If i decided to immigrate to the country in which I have my dual citizenship, and then decided to kill a few people, deal drugs to schoolkids, or whatever, I think it would be fair for them to tell me I wasn't really the sort of person they wanted living there and that I was no longer welcome.
Your thoughts on the matter?
Hanson...yup she had UK passport/citzenship by descent.
There was a little bit of a fuss because she possibly have made Federal Parliament. Oz rules are member of Federal Parliament can only have Australian citizenship. she would have to give up her British passport.
But it never came to that. Her statement was "It's none of your bloody business".
Well..if she wants to go about being true blue Aussie and telling asians to be more australian, she ought to clarify he british side.

OK...so lets be specific.
This only applies to people who immigrate here.
How about...
partner immigration - marriage
descendant immigration - Australian by parents
How about a australian citizen, no other nationality, but born outside of Australia.

You can see where I am going with this. Sounds good as a newspaper headline, but you have to sit down and think about all the consequences.

Anyways, if someone emigrates to Oz. They are always on a temporary resident visa for some years. After that time period it converts to permanent visa, as long as the person has remained a good character.
In other words if you mess up in the grace period you won't get permanent. Which is what I understand is your idea.

In principle I do not agree with the idea.
Reason:-
A country has citizens, and can accept citizens (immigration).
The citizens are the countries responsibility, existing or new. good or bad.
You accept somebody, you also take responsibility for them.
Therefore if they commit a crime it is your responsibility to punish them (jail etc). Deportation is a bit of shrugging off your responsibility.

[Blinky]

[
Quote: OK...so lets be specific.
This only applies to people who immigrate here.
How about...
partner immigration - marriage
descendant immigration - Australian by parents
How about a australian citizen, no other nationality, but born outside of Australia.

Specifically, peole who immigrate to Australia and retain their original citizenship.
Partner imigration - If you marry John Gotti and he keeps his American citizenship and then continues his mafia activities here...then yes, he would not be welcome. Marrying an Australian citizen does void your responsibilty to the Australian public to remain within the law.

Descendant Immigration - (not sure what you mean but I assume it's if you were born OS but youre parents were originally from Asutralia? Like a descendant citizenship entitlement?) - In that case, you would still not be welcome because you would have a foreign citizenship first (because you weren't born here). You would have lived somewhere else first, and you are their problem. Exactly like myself. I was born in Australia. I have an Australian citizenship. When I turned 18 I appled for a citizenship to a Europen country on the grounds of ancestry because I was travelling there and wanted to work and not have to get a visa. If i decided to stay there and then started breaking the law, they should send me packing back to Australia.

Quote: Anyways, if someone emigrates to Oz. They are always on a temporary resident visa for some years. After that time period it converts to permanent visa, as long as the person has remained a good character.
In other words if you mess up in the grace period you won't get permanent. Which is what I understand is your idea.

In principle I do not agree with the idea.
Reason:-
A country has citizens, and can accept citizens (immigration).
The citizens are the countries responsibility, existing or new. good or bad.
You accept somebody, you also take responsibility for them.
Therefore if they commit a crime it is your responsibility to punish them (jail etc). Deportation is a bit of shrugging off your responsibility. [/quote]

This is a self-imploding argument in a way because the other side of the coin is equally as valid.
You apply for citizenship, you accept your responsibility to remain within the law. Its an agreement. "You are hereby granted citizenship on the following condition: You be good". That's too much to ask of some people, apparently. They break the trems of the agreement. They are told to leave.

[thundertaker]

Quote: I was born in Australia. I have an Australian citizenship. When I turned 18 I appled for a citizenship to a Europen country on the grounds of ancestry because I was travelling there and wanted to work and not have to get a visa. If i decided to stay there and then started breaking the law, they should send me packing back to Australia.

Let me guess, Britain, right? There's over a 50% chance I'm right....

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Blinky wrote: You havn't made an argument. You've asked questions. And refused to answer mine.

er ... maybe you should re-read what I've typed. There are a few questions in there, but as a whole, you have clearly missed the whole point.

Blinky wrote: 1) Because they have abused the terms of their citizenship (you actually have to promise to abide by Australian law when you apply for citizenship). It is a two-way street. Being granted citizenship is not being granted a licence to break the law.

No, but the problem is here: there is a double standard at work. The person who was born inside Australia is only punished by jail while the person who wasn't born inside Australia is punished by jail as well as deportation. So in effect, there is a justice system for those Australians who were born in Australia and then there is a justice system for those who weren't.

Blinky wrote: 2) Are you serious? Where are you going to send someone who is a citizen of Australia only? The Atlantic ocean? Pluto?

Execute them. Those criminals who have dual citizenship will be deported at the end of their sentence and those who only have the Australian citizenship must be executed at the end of their sentence. After all, why should the Australian society pay for these people?

Blinky wrote: You didn't answer this question by the way...

And which question is that?

Blinky wrote: Not true. A criminal who only has Australian citizenship goes to jail. You must be aware that people in jail don't receive housing or unemployemnt benefits.

What happens after they are released? Do they receive housing or unemployemnt benefits? If yes, then this should be either stopped and they should be ostracized completely or they should be sent to concentration camps or they should be executed. Take your pick. Why should these criminals who only have Australian citizenship be part of the Australian society? They broke the law that they knew they shouldn't break.

Blinky wrote: You are making assumptions based on your own interpretation of the words I chose. I thought that this might happen and so I noted in my post (to which you replied) that both my parents are immigrants to Australia. Yes immigrants. Of course they are considered Australian. But this is not a thread on what makes one "Australian". There is a seperate thread for that and I'll be happy to debate this topic there if you like. [/quote]

Your parents' origin is irrelevant.
It's like a black person saying because he is black, he can't be a racist.

[Blinky]

Quote: Blinky wrote: You havn't made an argument. You've asked questions. And refused to answer mine.

er ... maybe you should re-read what I've typed. There are a few questions in there, but as a whole, you have clearly missed the whole point.

Maybe YOU should read what you wrote up until I made that statement. Here it is, unedited and in full:

Post 1) What a shameful comment. So basically, the Australians who do not have dual citizenship can get away with murder with one punishment while the Australians who have dual citizenship will be punished more because of their dual citizenship? Have you heard of a concept called equality?
Post 2) So there is one type of law for immigrants and then there is another type of law for the people who were born in Australia? I didn't know Australian justice system worked on that discriminatory basis and punished those who were not born in Australia more than those who were born in Australia.
Post 3) I feel I have made a compelling argument on the basis of equality.... blah blah blah


As you can see, up until your third post in which you defended yourself as having made a "compelling argument" you wrote 5 sentences. 3 of them are questions and the other two summarise the context of the two questions. Yeah mate, real "compelling argument"...
You didn't present an argument. You made a tongue in cheak comment.




Quote: Blinky wrote: 1) Because they have abused the terms of their citizenship (you actually have to promise to abide by Australian law when you apply for citizenship). It is a two-way street. Being granted citizenship is not being granted a licence to break the law.

No, but the problem is here: there is a double standard at work. The person who was born inside Australia is only punished by jail while the person who wasn't born inside Australia is punished by jail as well as deportation. So in effect, there is a justice system for those Australians who were born in Australia and then there is a justice system for those who weren't.

Ok, I'm big enough to admit you have a point here. Yes you are technically correct: there is a double standard. But you have missed the point. You cannot deport a person born in Australia back to their country of origin. It's impossible because they are already in that country. This is one of the most basic principles to understand. The only available punishment is incarceration within Australia. There is no other option.


Quote: Blinky wrote: 2) Are you serious? Where are you going to send someone who is a citizen of Australia only? The Atlantic ocean? Pluto?

Execute them. Those criminals who have dual citizenship will be deported at the end of their sentence and those who only have the Australian citizenship must be executed at the end of their sentence. After all, why should the Australian society pay for these people?

Firstly, capital punishment is illegal, and for good reason. Its wrong.
Secondly, execution is hardly a comparable punishment to the "unspeakable torture" of having to live in whatever country you came from. The difference is: you still get to live.
Thirdly, Australian society must pay for our homegrown criminals because they are products of our own society and therefore our responsibility. Who else is going to pay for them? We are enlightened enough to know that it is in our best interests to not let our own people fall through the cracks.



Quote: Blinky wrote: You didn't answer this question by the way...

And which question is that?

You can find the answer to this in the quote above where I typed it. But I'll make it easy for you.
YOU said (quoting me): Besides, your argument is hollow as you claim that "as a citizen of Australia you are entitled to all sorts of welfare (free medical, unemployment benefits, government funded housing, child support etc etc etc)." and then you question "Why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?"

You must know what question I was talking about, surely. Are you going to answer it now, or play games and skirt around it?




Quote: Blinky wrote: You are making assumptions based on your own interpretation of the words I chose. I thought that this might happen and so I noted in my post (to which you replied) that both my parents are immigrants to Australia. Yes immigrants. Of course they are considered Australian. But this is not a thread on what makes one "Australian". There is a seperate thread for that and I'll be happy to debate this topic there if you like.
Your parents' origin is irrelevant.
It's like a black person saying because he is black, he can't be a racist

:shock:

No, what you have said is irrelevant. What I said about my parents was in relation to YOUR claim that I thought immigrants could never be thought of as Australian ("Besides, in your way of thinking, it seems an immigrant is incapable of being an Australian since you refer to them in terms that is could be used for a guest who doesn't really belong to the place they occupy in the first place. Indeed, you say a "host country should be able to take back your citizenship". In other words, in this type of system, an immigrant can never be fully an Australian").
So I refuted the claim (shot your argument right down would be another way of saying it) by saying: "You are making assumptions based on your own interpretation of the words I chose. I thought that this might happen and so I noted in my post (to which you replied) that both my parents are immigrants to Australia. Yes immigrants. Of course they are considered Australian".

Is that clear enough for you?

Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Blinky :)