Political Crossfire Forums

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Blinky wrote: 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.

This is becoming redundant, but don't you see that by raising those questions that I was pointing to the fact that punishing those with dual citizenship one way and punishing those with only the Australian citizenship in another way undermines the equality and fairness.

Anyhow, in the interest of the actual discussion, I'm going to accept the blame for this.

Blinky wrote: 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.

How about denying every single benefit from housing to welfare to anything else forever to these people? That would make it fair. It would be like deportation. So in effect, these people will be ostracized from the Australian society forever. You commit a crime, no more benefits for you. What do you think?

Blinky wrote: Firstly, capital punishment is illegal, and for good reason. Its wrong.

This is another topic all together.

Blinky wrote: 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.

Agreed.

Blinky wrote: 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.

A crime occurs in a context. The context of crimes in the Australian society is Australia even though the perperator might be coming from a foreign country. Factors that led to the crime are most likely Australian in origin because the crime happened in Australia.

Besides, that argument has loopholes. For instance, do you count the crime commited by a person who has immigrated to Australia when he/she was 2 years old as something Australian or something foreign? How about a person who immigrated when he/she was 10? 15? 20? 30? 40? 50? Is there a cut off date?

And lastly, what do you mean by "our own people"? Again, even though you deny it, in your logic, an immigrant seems unable to become Australian and be counted as "our own people".

Blinky wrote: 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?"

That's a fair question and one that I indirectly answered. If the Australian society is going to deport those who have dual citizenship, it should also ostracize and deny benefits to those criminals who only have Australian citizenship. After all, "why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?"

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

I like playing games ... may I recommend a good game to you. Elder Scrolls IV: the Oblivion is a good game if you are into computer games. :tu: I recommend playing it.

http://www.elderscrolls.com/home/home.htm

Blinky wrote: 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".

Despite your claim here, your language continually suggests that you think otherwise. ;)

Blinky wrote: Is that clear enough for you?

Maybe.

Blinky wrote: Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Blinky :)

Same here. :)

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

Quote: Blinky wrote: 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.

How about denying every single benefit from housing to welfare to anything else forever to these people? That would make it fair. It would be like deportation. So in effect, these people will be ostracized from the Australian society forever. You commit a crime, no more benefits for you. What do you think?

It would never work. If someone is released from prison and has no means of income (welfare), what do you think they're going to do? Wait patiently in the gutter till an opportunity comes their way, or turn to crime to get cash fast? Probably the second one. Whereas if you offer someone assistance there is a greater chance that they will be able to get their life back on track and stay on track. Don't you think?

As far as your option being "fair" on the basis that immigrants have more to lose because they can be deported: It is not fair to deny an Australian any of the benefits afforded to all Australians. That's what being a citizen of the country entitles you to. Whereas if you are a citizen of somewhere else, you have more options than the person who is just an Australian citizen, simply by virtue of the fact that if you don't like whats happening here you can go and live somewhere else.

Quote:
Blinky wrote: Firstly, capital punishment is illegal, and for good reason. Its wrong.

This is another topic all together.

True. But I mentioned it because capital punishment is illegal and that is why it is not an option. I only added the opinion about its illegality as a side comment.

Quote: Blinky wrote: 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.

Agreed.

So why did you say it?

Quote: Blinky wrote: 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.

A crime occurs in a context. The context of crimes in the Australian society is Australia even though the perperator might be coming from a foreign country. Factors that led to the crime are most likely Australian in origin because the crime happened in Australia.

Guess what? If you come from somewhere where it is Ok to stone someone to death, and then you stone someone to death in Australia for doing the exact same thing, its your problem not ours. Australia is the context, I agree. Australian law is the one you are obliged to uphold.

Quote: Besides, that argument has loopholes. For instance, do you count the crime commited by a person who has immigrated to Australia when he/she was 2 years old as something Australian or something foreign? How about a person who immigrated when he/she was 10? 15? 20? 30? 40? 50? Is there a cut off date?

The age is irrelevant as this discussion applies only to people who choose to retain their dual citizenship.
To be honest, I'm sick of pointing this out. There is an easy way to avoid being deported for leading your life of crime. Give up your original citizenship. That way, you can serve your jail time in Australia and receive the benefits you are entitled to upon your release.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Australian citizenship is a priviledge, not a right.

Quote: Blinky wrote: 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?"

That's a fair question and one that I indirectly answered. If the Australian society is going to deport those who have dual citizenship, it should also ostracize and deny benefits to those criminals who only have Australian citizenship. After all, "why should Australia provide someone with these things if they can't even stay within the law?"

For the reason I mentioned above. There's a better chance they will go straight and stay straight. Plus they are either people who have demonstrated a certain loyalty to this country by relinquishing citizenship somewher else, OR they are Australian born and it is their birthright.

Quote: Blinky wrote: 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".

Despite your claim here, your language continually suggests that you think otherwise. ;)

You must be able to read some invisible text or something because I think I was more or less saying that my parents are immigrants who gave up original citizenships in favour of Australian ones because they wanted to be Australian and were actually grateful for the opportunity to become accpted citizens of such a wonderful place.
But if you insist that you know better about what I think of immigrants then I have no choice but to say: "Whatever, dude".

Quote: Blinky wrote: Is that clear enough for you?

Maybe.

"maybe"
Don't get me started on that... :)

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Before I go on, there is a question that I need to ask here. Up until now, I was thinking that we are talking about crimes such as murder where the person might be sitting in jail for close to 15-30 years. Is that the case? Or are you talking about deporting people for theft and other less serious crimes? So is it possible for you to make it clear which crimes you are talking about exactly?

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Before I go on, there is a question that I need to ask here. Up until now, I was thinking that we are talking about crimes such as murder where the person might be sitting in jail for close to 15-30 years. Is that the case? Or are you talking about deporting people for theft and other less serious crimes? So is it possible for you to make it clear which crimes you are talking about exactly?

Of course, deportation should be reserved only for serious crime. I think I said something to that effect in an earlier post.
Crimes I would list as serious include murder (or any serious violence), rape, fraud, large-scale drug importation or distribution, extortion...
I'm sure we don't need to debate what constitues serious crime too much.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Blinky wrote: Of course, deportation should be reserved only for serious crime. I think I said something to that effect in an earlier post.
Crimes I would list as serious include murder (or any serious violence), rape, fraud, large-scale drug importation or distribution, extortion...
I'm sure we don't need to debate what constitues serious crime too much.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Among those crimes, I have issues with fraud. Other than the rest look reasonable.

However, I think bringing back the capital punishment would solve the problem here and then you wouldn't have to worry about deporting people. Everyone is equal when they die!

Now, there is another issue. What do you for those who are wrongly convicted and deported? Financial compensation, official apology, and giving back their citizenship?

Blinky wrote: It would never work. If someone is released from prison and has no means of income (welfare), what do you think they're going to do? Wait patiently in the gutter till an opportunity comes their way, or turn to crime to get cash fast? Probably the second one. Whereas if you offer someone assistance there is a greater chance that they will be able to get their life back on track and stay on track. Don't you think?

A rapist, a large scale drug dealer getting back on track? I wonder what track you are talking about.
But seriously, if we are talking about serious crimes, these people do not deserve to be given benefits anymore. They have forfeited their privileges.

Blinky wrote: As far as your option being "fair" on the basis that immigrants have more to lose because they can be deported: It is not fair to deny an Australian any of the benefits afforded to all Australians. That's what being a citizen of the country entitles you to. Whereas if you are a citizen of somewhere else, you have more options than the person who is just an Australian citizen, simply by virtue of the fact that if you don't like whats happening here you can go and live somewhere else.
To solve this issue, I think it's fair to say that maybe the best solution is to require every single citizen to hold only one citizenship. So under that law, when someone immigrates to Australia, they will lose their other citizenships. Seems to me that will solve this problem forever.

Blinky wrote: So why did you say it?

Because it's going to solve the problem.

Blinky wrote: Guess what? If you come from somewhere where it is Ok to stone someone to death, and then you stone someone to death in Australia for doing the exact same thing, its your problem not ours. Australia is the context, I agree. Australian law is the one you are obliged to uphold.

I wasn't aware that there are frequent public stonings in Australia!

Anyhow, I think I am getting a clearer picture now. You don't want people committing crimes such as "honour killing", etc in Australia. Is that the case?

However, I was thinking more in terms of other crimes. For example, an immigrant youth who is brought up in a lower class immigrant family and then he goes into gangs, etc and commits murder. In that case, I do think your argument is problematic as the crime was a product of the Australian society.

Blinky wrote: The age is irrelevant as this discussion applies only to people who choose to retain their dual citizenship.
To be honest, I'm sick of pointing this out. There is an easy way to avoid being deported for leading your life of crime. Give up your original citizenship. That way, you can serve your jail time in Australia and receive the benefits you are entitled to upon your release.

As I stated earlier, it seems that it would be far easier to require everyone to only hold Australian citizenship than to complicate the process for a fairly incompetent justice system.

Blinky wrote: Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Australian citizenship is a priviledge, not a right.

If you immigrate to Australia, it becomes a right just as any other citizen and you become part of that society.

Blinky wrote: For the reason I mentioned above. There's a better chance they will go straight and stay straight. Plus they are either people who have demonstrated a certain loyalty to this country by relinquishing citizenship somewher else, OR they are Australian born and it is their birthright.

As I said earlier, executing them solves the problem. Push your politicians to bring back the capital punishment.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

Quote: Now, there is another issue. What do you for those who are wrongly convicted and deported? Financial compensation, official apology, and giving back their citizenship?

Simply: yes. As you would compensate someone falsely convicted and jailed. Note that your apparent leaning towards the death penalty would negate this option.

Quote: To solve this issue, I think it's fair to say that maybe the best solution is to require every single citizen to hold only one citizenship. So under that law, when someone immigrates to Australia, they will lose their other citizenships. Seems to me that will solve this problem forever.

Hallelujah! Thats what I've been advocating. No more bitching from dual citizens who get told they aren't welcome once they get caught for misbehaving. They all have a choice at the moment.
"Should I keep my original citizenship? Yeah, that way I can go there whenever I want and if things don't work out in Australia, I'll go home"
OR
"Will I keep my original citizenship. No, I am going to have a real go at fitting into Australian society. I left my home country for a reason and I want to be an Austrlian and enjoy everything Australians enjoy"

Quote: I wasn't aware that there are frequent public stonings in Australia!

Anyhow, I think I am getting a clearer picture now. You don't want people committing crimes such as "honour killing", etc in Australia. Is that the case?

There aren't frequent stonings in Australia, that I've heard of at least.
Of course I don't want honour killings. Who would..

Quote: As I stated earlier, it seems that it would be far easier to require everyone to only hold Australian citizenship than to complicate the process for a fairly incompetent justice system.

Again, Hallelujah!

Quote: If you immigrate to Australia, it becomes a right just as any other citizen and you become part of that society.

As long as you are Australian, and Australian only. You gotta give before you take.

Quote: As I said earlier, executing them solves the problem. Push your politicians to bring back the capital punishment.

So far I have assumed you were joking, now I'm not so sure... :!?: :!?:

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Blinky wrote: Note that your apparent leaning towards the death penalty would negate this option.

Mistakes happen you know. Unfortunately, these ones can't be brought back.

Blinky wrote: As long as you are Australian, and Australian only. You gotta give before you take.

You know I have problems with this whole notion of dictating how many citizenships a person can hold because I feel holding dual citizenship is a personal and private issue. As a tax paying citizen, I feel the state has no business telling me how many passports I can hold. It's really none of their business and even during the trial, I don't feel it's an issue that should dictate how the type of punishment I'm going to receive.

However, as this is an issue for the Australians, you can go about it the way you feel is necessary.

Blinky wrote: So far I have assumed you were joking, now I'm not so sure... :!?: :!?:

lol, ok, no executions.

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1854 Location: European Union

Blinky wrote: 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.
Sorry, going to pick holes in this again.
Europe does not have the born-in-Oz concept like in Australia. If your born in a European country does not entitle you to citizenship of that country.
Therefore an Oz baby to Oz parents born in Europe, can have only Oz citizenship, and no-where else.
I actually know someone who was in that situation.
Therefore, how do your rules apply there?
I can keep dreaming up different variations to this

Now...I am picking holes in your idea, not because I want to. I am picking holes because I can.
The general idea seems good. But you can see that you start trying to put it into practice it will get shot up with holes all over it.

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1854 Location: European Union

Blinky wrote: 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.

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.
I disagree with granting citizenship "with conditions".
You do, or you do not.
You can have trial period on temporary resident visa.
But once you grant citizenship, then its a done deal.

I compare it to betting, or share dealing.
You placed your bet (or trust) that these people are going to be good for the country.
Some will forward the country, others may be bad and end up in jail.
You accept the good and bad.
Take the glory for the ones that do well.
Lock-up those that cause riots.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

Quote: Sorry, going to pick holes in this again.
Europe does not have the born-in-Oz concept like in Australia. If your born in a European country does not entitle you to citizenship of that country. Therefore an Oz baby to Oz parents born in Europe, can have only Oz citizenship, and no-where else

It does if your parents are citizens of that Eurpean country. My argument was never about the children of Australians who had a child overseas while they were holidaying or something. I'm talking about people who were born overseas (OS) to parents who were originally Australian but were now citizens of somewhere else - where their child is born.

Quote: Now...I am picking holes in your idea, not because I want to. I am picking holes because I can.

Come on now, its ok to want to pick holes in an argument. Thats half the fun! :)

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

maxtsu wrote: Blinky wrote: 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.

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.
I disagree with granting citizenship "with conditions".
You do, or you do not.
You can have trial period on temporary resident visa.
But once you grant citizenship, then its a done deal.

I compare it to betting, or share dealing.
You placed your bet (or trust) that these people are going to be good for the country.
Some will forward the country, others may be bad and end up in jail.
You accept the good and bad.
Take the glory for the ones that do well.
Lock-up those that cause riots.

Mate, I'm sorry to tell you, but citizenship to anywhere in the world is always granted on conditions. The most common condition is that the applicant agrees to respect the country's laws. Try looking over a citizenship application to any country and see if it doesn't mention that little detail. Government's/Country's don't choose people at random to give citizenship to and then hope that they picked the good ones. There are certain criteria (like not having a criminal record) that applicants must satisfy. Then they have to swear to abide Austrlian law. If they get to that stage and they don't want to make that PROMISE, then they are free to back-out and go home. But once that promise is made, you don't think they should honour it?

Quote: But once you grant citizenship, then its a done deal

If, and only if, you have relinquished your foreing citizenship. I said earlier that Australian citizenship (for someone not born here) is a priveledge, not a right. It's a done deal if you choose to be only Australian because that proves you are here for better or for worse.
I like to think of citizenship like a marriage. You swear to not cheat on your partner, and to stick by them and honour them and love them and whatever else. Sometimes married people cheat on their partners or something and it ends in divorce. In the divorce settlement the person in the wrong gets taken to the cleaners, and rightly so.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Blinky wrote: I said earlier that Australian citizenship (for someone not born here) is a priveledge, not a right.

That's very disturbing. Using your line of reasoning: If citizenship is merely a privilege then everything associated with citizenship is a privilege too. As such, they have no rights, nothing! And they can be abused by the state since after all privileges can be taken away at the pleasure of the state.

I'm of the opinion, that when citizenship is granted, unless the data that were provided to the immigration office prior to gaining the citizenship were false, citizenship should not be taken away since once you are a citizen, you should be treated like everyone else, no ands or buts.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

Quote: That's very disturbing. Using your line of reasoning: If citizenship is merely a privilege then everything associated with citizenship is a privilege too. As such, they have no rights, nothing! And they can be abused by the state since after all privileges can be taken away at the pleasure of the state.

You've taken what I said in relation to this out of context. You havn't quoted what I said before or after that sentence.
What we are talking about is people who want to be Australian, but only as far as the benefits go, because they retain their original citizenship (back-up citizenship in case things don't work out?). As I said before about choice:

"Should I keep my original citizenship? Yeah, that way I can go there whenever I want and if things don't work out in Australia, I'll go home"
OR
"Will I keep my original citizenship? No, I am going to have a real go at fitting into Australian society. I left my home country for a reason and I want to be an Austrlian and enjoy everything Australians enjoy"

Besides, everything associated with citizenship is a privilege. I don't know about Ontario, but in Australia if you break the law, you go to jail and that means you are stripped of everything associated with citizenship.

Quote: I'm of the opinion, that when citizenship is granted, unless the data that were provided to the immigration office prior to gaining the citizenship were false, citizenship should not be taken away since once you are a citizen, you should be treated like everyone else, no ands or buts

But their not like everyone else - they have the option of living somewhere else.

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1854 Location: European Union

Blinky wrote: Quote: Sorry, going to pick holes in this again.
Europe does not have the born-in-Oz concept like in Australia. If your born in a European country does not entitle you to citizenship of that country. Therefore an Oz baby to Oz parents born in Europe, can have only Oz citizenship, and no-where else

It does if your parents are citizens of that European country. My argument was never about the children of Australians who had a child overseas while they were holidaying or something. I'm talking about people who were born overseas (OS) to parents who were originally Australian but were now citizens of somewhere else - where their child is born.

Quote: Now...I am picking holes in your idea, not because I want to. I am picking holes because I can.

Come on now, its ok to want to pick holes in an argument. Thats half the fun! :)
Got another one for you......
how about the people who emigrate and then give up their non-Oz citizenship.
You can't kick them out, because they are only Aussie citizens.
I know this happened to a Oz/Italian girl.
Her mum went to Oz from Italy. She then sponsored her sister to go to Oz.
Back then you can only sponsor if you hold only Oz citizenship.
Therefore she relinquished her Italian citizenship.
Hey-Presto..she is only an Oz now.

But the story doesn't end there. Her daughter, Diana. Now wants to move to Europe. But can not get an Italian passport because her mum gave it up. So she's on the prowl for any man with an EU passport :-)

Anyways...you get the gist. This can keep on coming.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

maxtsu wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: Sorry, going to pick holes in this again.
Europe does not have the born-in-Oz concept like in Australia. If your born in a European country does not entitle you to citizenship of that country. Therefore an Oz baby to Oz parents born in Europe, can have only Oz citizenship, and no-where else

It does if your parents are citizens of that European country. My argument was never about the children of Australians who had a child overseas while they were holidaying or something. I'm talking about people who were born overseas (OS) to parents who were originally Australian but were now citizens of somewhere else - where their child is born.

Quote: Now...I am picking holes in your idea, not because I want to. I am picking holes because I can.

Come on now, its ok to want to pick holes in an argument. Thats half the fun! :)
Got another one for you......
how about the people who emigrate and then give up their non-Oz citizenship.
You can't kick them out, because they are only Aussie citizens.
I know this happened to a Oz/Italian girl.
Her mum went to Oz from Italy. She then sponsored her sister to go to Oz.
Back then you can only sponsor if you hold only Oz citizenship.
Therefore she relinquished her Italian citizenship.
Hey-Presto..she is only an Oz now.

But the story doesn't end there. Her daughter, Diana. Now wants to move to Europe. But can not get an Italian passport because her mum gave it up. So she's on the prowl for any man with an EU passport :-)

Anyways...you get the gist. This can keep on coming.

You're going to have to do MUCH MUCH better than that...I've said numerous times throughout this thread that such a law should only apply to people who retain original citizenship. I think I even said it in the last post I wrote as well! Go back and have a read.
I'll list a few of the times I've said exactly that for you:

Quote: If, and only if, you have relinquished your foreing citizenship. I said earlier that Australian citizenship (for someone not born here) is a priveledge, not a right. It's a done deal if you choose to be only Australian because that proves you are here for better or for worse.

Quote: Hallelujah! Thats what I've been advocating. No more bitching from dual citizens who get told they aren't welcome once they get caught for misbehaving. They all have a choice at the moment.
"Should I keep my original citizenship? Yeah, that way I can go there whenever I want and if things don't work out in Australia, I'll go home"
OR
"Will I keep my original citizenship. No, I am going to have a real go at fitting into Australian society. I left my home country for a reason and I want to be an Austrlian and enjoy everything Australians enjoy"

Quote: As long as you are Australian, and Australian only. You gotta give before you take.

Quote: The age is irrelevant as this discussion applies only to people who choose to retain their dual citizenship. To be honest, I'm sick of pointing this out.

Quote: There is an easy way to avoid being deported for leading your life of crime. Give up your original citizenship. That way, you can serve your jail time in Australia and receive the benefits you are entitled to upon your release.

Quote: Plus they are either people who have demonstrated a certain loyalty to this country by relinquishing citizenship somewher else, OR they are Australian born and it is their birthright.

Quote: You must be able to read some invisible text or something because I think I was more or less saying that my parents are immigrants who gave up original citizenships in favour of Australian ones because they wanted to be Australian

Quote: Specifically, peole who immigrate to Australia and retain their original citizenship

These are all things I have said throughout the thread and the list goes on. Feel free to come up with any other hypothetical circumstances though.
:)

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 847

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
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?

we are a civilized country. we don't have capital punishment.

but apart from that, dual citizenship or no - deportation is not an option for an Australian citizen. Not according to the values we claim to believe we live by, regardless of what Costello says.

However, based on experience I would say perhaps there needs to be more attention paid to researching people's background before they are granted citizenship.

For what its worth, the cases I've come across have included an American, an Indian and an Englishman ... all who had convictions related to sexual abuse in their country of origin, were granted citizenship and subsequently committed similar offences in this country.

This has been an issue for a long time but it only surfaces now because of the 'lets kick Muslims' attitude that is currently rife in some circles.

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1854 Location: European Union

cassandrabandra wrote:
...
However, based on experience I would say perhaps there needs to be more attention paid to researching people's background before they are granted citizenship.
...

That is already in place in Australia.
And is, now (post-Iraq etc), and exteremly rigerous process in background checks security etc etc.
And even after the person is allowed to go to Oz. There is a grace period of a couple of years before they get full citizenship.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 847

maxtsu wrote: cassandrabandra wrote:
...
However, based on experience I would say perhaps there needs to be more attention paid to researching people's background before they are granted citizenship.
...

That is already in place in Australia.
And is, now (post-Iraq etc), and exteremly rigerous process in background checks security etc etc.
And even after the person is allowed to go to Oz. There is a grace period of a couple of years before they get full citizenship.

nevertheless, there are clearly some that slip through the net.

The 'grace period' you are talking about - when a person has permanent residence, is not so that background checks can be conducted.

I have had a lot to do with refugees, and I don't see any reason why they need more rigorous checks than people whose origins are different.

If the Australian government is happy to give a home, complete with new identities, to two young men who have served a sentence for torturing and murdering a two year old child when they were ten years old, why should they care about what people did in Iraq?

maxtsu · Joined: 03 Mar 2004 Posts: 1854 Location: European Union

cassandrabandra wrote: nevertheless, there are clearly some that slip through the net.

The 'grace period' you are talking about - when a person has permanent residence, is not so that background checks can be conducted.

I have had a lot to do with refugees, and I don't see any reason why they need more rigorous checks than people whose origins are different.

If the Australian government is happy to give a home, complete with new identities, to two young men who have served a sentence for torturing and murdering a two year old child when they were ten years old, why should they care about what people did in Iraq?
I have no disagreement there.

And I agree, there will always be some who slip thorugh the net. That applies everywhere in the world.

thundertaker · Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:57 am Post subject:

Quote:
If the Australian government is happy to give a home, complete with new identities, to two young men who have served a sentence for torturing and murdering a two year old child when they were ten years old, why should they care about what people did in Iraq?

Holy s**t! Is that where Jon Venables and Robert Thompson ended up??!?

I knew there was an agreement between Britain and the dominions to provide relocation for vulnerable witnesses, but I didn't know this extended to murderers who many in the general public would like to see strung up from the nearest lampost.......