Abbott wants the Govt to be able to strip citizenship status

[MaddAdam]

Those decisions should be made by courts, not by a cabbage like Dutton.

A man who spent his career prosecuting the highly successful war on drugs now fighting the war on terror.

 

[Gough]

Ex Queensland rozzer with five investment properties...

 

[Power Raid]

They are unconstitutional

what section?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

what section?

well a good place to start would be sections 7 and 24.

both make it clear that "the people of the state" and "the people of the commonwealth" must not may but MUST choose their elected representative.
and as you must be a citizen to vote there is a challenge as to whether removing citizenship prevents a person of the state or of the commonwealth from participating in their democratic right which is protected by the constitution.

in 2005 the high court found that such definitions are indeed separate to that of citizenship. it found that its is unconstitutional to remove the citizenship of "the people of the commonwealth" for this very reason, this is clear cut and not open for debate.

in order to satisfy the constitution the government would need to convince the high court that duel nationals are citizens but not "people of the commonwealth"

Now considering the australian citizenship act contains the following:

RECOGNISING THAT:—

Australian citizenship represents formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia; and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity; and

Persons granted Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations

by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people, and

by sharing their democratic beliefs, and

by respecting their rights and liberties, and

by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia:

clearly there's an argument that the community of the commonwealth is comprised of "the people of the commonwealth" then it stands to reason that by becoming an australian citizen you become a "person of the commonwealth" and thus have constitutional protection via your right to vote.

 

[Power Raid]

well a good place to start would be sections 7 and 24.

both make it clear that "the people of the state" and "the people of the commonwealth" must not may but MUST choose their elected representative.
and as you must be a citizen to vote there is a challenge as to whether removing citizenship prevents a person of the state or of the commonwealth from participating in their democratic right which is protected by the constitution.

in 2005 the high court found that such definitions are indeed separate to that of citizenship. it found that its is unconstitutional to remove the citizenship of "the people of the commonwealth" for this very reason, this is clear cut and not open for debate.

in order to satisfy the constitution the government would need to convince the high court that duel nationals are citizens but not "people of the commonwealth"

Now considering the australian citizenship act contains the following:

RECOGNISING THAT:—



clearly there's an argument that the community of the commonwealth is comprised of "the people of the commonwealth" then it stands to reason that by becoming an australian citizen you become a "person of the commonwealth" and thus have constitutional protection via your right to vote.

Good argument put forward but long bow.

I will have a read of Canada's constitution to see if they have any similar sections.

 

[Pie eyed]

LOL.

Border Force?

Who names these publicity stunts?

 

[Power Raid]

LOL.

Border Force?

Who names these publicity stunts?

It probably resonates with the low IQ in some govt departments

 

[Pie eyed]

Hockey, Bishop, Pyne, Brandis and Morrison.

damn Force Five.

 

[Power Raid]

The racial discrimination act doesn't say it's illegal just because it's offensive...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...5202/s18c.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=colour

 

[CM86]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...5202/s18c.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=colour

Wow... interesting bump...
Looks like you're going through my posting history to try and find something to use against me.
I think I'll return the favour!

Also, in answer to your quote...
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html

 

[medusala]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...5202/s18c.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=colour

CM (clueless buppet?) has no idea on this. On another thread implied that 18d was irrelevant without realising it was a defence and now posts a link to it. Hopelessly confused.

in 2005 the high court found that such definitions are indeed separate to that of citizenship. it found that its is unconstitutional to remove the citizenship of "the people of the commonwealth" for this very reason, this is clear cut and not open for debate.

in order to satisfy the constitution the government would need to convince the high court that duel nationals are citizens but not "people of the commonwealth"

So there is another issue at hand and not just one of rendering someone stateless? Can this be addressed by legislation?

 

[Power Raid]

CM (clueless buppet?) has no idea on this. On another thread implied that 18d was irrelevant without realising it was a defence and now posts a link to it. Hopelessly confused.



So there is another issue at hand and not just one of rendering someone stateless? Can this be addressed by legislation?

I don't mind CM but I don't think he understands 18c or 18d if he feels "the truth" is a defence

all that needs to happen to make 18c reasonable and inline with other discrimination related acts is remove the word "offensive". but most haven't read the RDA or 18c let alone bench-marked them to other pieces of legislation. Instead they get caught up with the "vibe" and the emotion.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So there is another issue at hand and not just one of rendering someone stateless? Can this be addressed by legislation?

I'm not sure i understand your question. the legislative body does not have the authority to supersede the constitution.
You need the high court to making a ruling as to whether dual nationals are people of the commonwealth.
If they vote in favour of dual nationals being citizens of the commonwealth then the proposal is illegal.
If they rule against we start a slippery slope and may mean it becomes illegal for dual citizens to vote in federal elections.

you also have issues of whether a person of the state is dependant on being a person of the commonwealth or vice versa if its the later you need each state to ratify an agreement ceding power to the federal government over who is and isn't a person of the state.
this will never happen because it questions the authority of the states and opens them up to countless lawsuits by every dickhead with parking ticket.

this is why *******s shouldn't be allowed to govern they do not think nor care about the wider ramifications of any knee jerk reactionary policy that they vomit up.

all of this before we reach the moral issues about revoking someone's citizenship.

 

[medusala]

More bullshit, Meds!

As per Power Raid, it's very simple. You have no idea on the topic and keep referring to truth as a defence.

All your bullshit and bluster doesn't change that.

this is why *******s shouldn't be allowed to govern they do not think nor care about the wider ramifications of any knee jerk reactionary policy that they vomit up.

Surely someone in the AG's office would have had a look at this first? Or is that too much to expect?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

As per Power Raid, it's very simple. You have no idea on the topic and keep referring to truth as a defence.

All your bullshit and bluster doesn't change that.



Surely someone in the AG's office would have had a look at this first? Or is that too much to expect?

the liberals already got bitchslapped by the high court over school funding which was never going to be allowed even by the most conservative justices in the country, It's pretty clear the AG's office is either being run by a yes man or the lib's just do not give a * about it.

I mean the budgets pretty much THE most important piece of legislation a sitting government is going to pass and no one bothered checking that it was all legal?

with abbott gone this measure will be dumped it's a cluster* waiting to happen.
oh and then there's this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tralian-over-22-year-old-clerical-bungle.html

unlike talkback radio callers the high court takes the constitution seriously. This is one of the times the blind ideology of the liberal party needs to accept that there position on this cannot be legally enforced. if they have any brains they will concede that the right of citizens will not be trampled upon for emotive arguments.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm not sure i understand your question. the legislative body does not have the authority to supersede the constitution.
You need the high court to making a ruling as to whether dual nationals are people of the commonwealth.
If they vote in favour of dual nationals being citizens of the commonwealth then the proposal is illegal.
If they rule against we start a slippery slope and may mean it becomes illegal for dual citizens to vote in federal elections.

you also have issues of whether a person of the state is dependant on being a person of the commonwealth or vice versa if its the later you need each state to ratify an agreement ceding power to the federal government over who is and isn't a person of the state.
this will never happen because it questions the authority of the states and opens them up to countless lawsuits by every dickhead with parking ticket.

this is why *******s shouldn't be allowed to govern they do not think nor care about the wider ramifications of any knee jerk reactionary policy that they vomit up.

all of this before we reach the moral issues about revoking someone's citizenship.

my punt is it is constitutional provided, and strictly provided, they are dual nationals. As section 51(xix) of the Constitution provides this power, we have been deporting people for over a century and we have revoked citizenship in the past.

I remember an explanation on BF in the past (yours?) which was a long bow but certainly an interesting angle.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

my punt is it is constitutional provided, and strictly provided, they are dual nationals. As section 51(xix) of the Constitution provides this power, we have been deporting people for over a century and we have revoked citizenship in the past.

I remember an explanation on BF in the past (yours?) which was a long bow but certainly an interesting angle.

loss of a citizenship is a different legal course then revoking someone's citizenship.
the primary way a citizens have lost citizenship in the past is via taking up citizenship of another country this hasn't been legal since 2002, probably so campaigners could get ancestry visas and piss off back to the UK whilst still receiving the dole.

currently there are only 3 ways to revoke someone's citizenship and you have to be a naturalised duel citizen for this to occur:
1 is to some way lie or fail to reveal details on your application which renders your citizenship or migration application invalid
2 a prison sentence of 12 months or more for an offence committed before the person's application for Australian citizenship was approved again making the very application invalid.
3 fighting for an enemy country during wartime.

Now not only does the person need to have another valid citizenship this does not guarantee deportation of person they can still claim asylum and if a judge deems it unsafe for them to return home then they don't get deported, furthermore if they are here under asylum and it was granted you again you can't deport them.

these conditions are clearly stated when you apply for your australian citizenship they are legal because the person consents to it being legal during the application process. furthermore despite what the government likes to shout, the ability to exercise the power to revoke the citizenship of an australian has never rested solely with the minister of immigration, the courts have always had the final say, the courts have always and will always rule the same way:

an Australian citizen by birth or a person who has been granted citizenship after disclosing their full personal history to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) cannot have their citizenship revoked under any circumstance other than renouncing a person's citizenship.

the government's proposed changes go well beyond the boundaries what's legal first its seek retroactive powers second tries to bypass the courts entirely by simply allowing the minister to declare the person has and i quote: "committed acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia" where by any act the government deems to be 'Inconsistent with a person's allegiance to australia' regardless of whether the person has actually been convicted of a crime (because as we should all know the legislative body cannot declare someone guilty of a crime.) grounds to declare the person has and again i quote renounced their citizenship.

again it's important you understand the language the government is attempting to say whatever vague nonsense they declare as being inconsistent with being an aussie to be the exact same thing as legally putting pen to paper saying you're no longer an australian citizen. Thus removing your right to appeal the government's ruling, because now the government is no longer deciding you're not a citizen. they are simply recognising you acknowledgement that you're no longer an australian based on the act unaustralian acts they have decided you took part in, even if you haven't been convicted of any crime.

none of this is legal, it violates due process and it violates the constitution.

actually have a sit down and have a look at what this legislation suggests. it goes far beyond extending section 35 of 2007 act to cover terrorist organisations.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation/bills/r5507_first-reps/0001;query=Id:"legislation/bills/r5507_first-reps/0000";rec=0

 

[Power Raid]

loss of a citizenship is a different legal course then revoking someone's citizenship.
the primary way a citizens have lost citizenship in the past is via taking up citizenship of another country this hasn't been legal since 2002, probably so campaigners could get ancestry visas and piss off back to the UK whilst still receiving the dole.

currently there are only 3 ways to revoke someone's citizenship and you have to be a naturalised duel citizen for this to occur:
1 is to some way lie or fail to reveal details on your application which renders your citizenship or migration application invalid
2 a prison sentence of 12 months or more for an offence committed before the person's application for Australian citizenship was approved again making the very application invalid.
3 fighting for an enemy country during wartime.

Now not only does the person need to have another valid citizenship this does not guarantee deportation of person they can still claim asylum and if a judge deems it unsafe for them to return home then they don't get deported, furthermore if they are here under asylum and it was granted you again you can't deport them.

these conditions are clearly stated when you apply for your australian citizenship they are legal because the person consents to it being legal during the application process. furthermore despite what the government likes to shout, the ability to exercise the power to revoke the citizenship of an australian has never rested solely with the minister of immigration, the courts have always had the final say, the courts have always and will always rule the same way:

an Australian citizen by birth or a person who has been granted citizenship after disclosing their full personal history to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) cannot have their citizenship revoked under any circumstance other than renouncing a person's citizenship.

the government's proposed changes go well beyond the boundaries what's legal first its seek retroactive powers second tries to bypass the courts entirely by simply allowing the minister to declare the person has and i quote: "committed acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia" where by any act the government deems to be 'Inconsistent with a person's allegiance to australia' regardless of whether the person has actually been convicted of a crime (because as we should all know the legislative body cannot declare someone guilty of a crime.) grounds to declare the person has and again i quote renounced their citizenship.

again it's important you understand the language the government is attempting to say whatever vague nonsense they declare as being inconsistent with being an aussie to be the exact same thing as legally putting pen to paper saying you're no longer an australian citizen. Thus removing your right to appeal the government's ruling, because now the government is no longer deciding you're not a citizen. they are simply recognising you acknowledgement that you're no longer an australian based on the act unaustralian acts they have decided you took part in, even if you haven't been convicted of any crime.

none of this is legal, it violates due process and it violates the constitution.

actually have a sit down and have a look at what this legislation suggests. it goes far beyond extending section 35 of 2007 act to cover terrorist organisations.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation/bills/r5507_first-reps/0001;query=Id:"legislation/bills/r5507_first-reps/0000";rec=0

Yep

But your question was whether it was constitutional and clearly, as per the examples you gave, it is constitutional as it already happens under different circumstances. The reason why it is currently limited is not due to the constitution but for the s35 of the citizenship act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca2007254/s35.html).

Other legislation will need to be introduced as it HAS been done in Canada.

 

[Lebbo73]

You know that I get angry when dealing with idiots, and you're clearly trying to provoke a reaction from me, to get me banned again.

How do you deal with yourself then?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Yep

But your question was whether it was constitutional and clearly, as per the examples you gave, it is constitutional as it already happens under different circumstances. The reason why it is currently limited is not due to the constitution but for the s35 of the citizenship act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca2007254/s35.html).

Other legislation will need to be introduced as it HAS been done in Canada.

you're ignoring where it legislation tries to give the government the power to remove citizenship without proving through the courts that person has committed any offence which warrants the removal. the executive branch does not have such power.

it's violation of the separation of powers. the legislation is unconstitutional.
then there's the less clear path of a constitutional challenge i mentioned earlier.
and there's also a challenge regarding due process it clearly breaks due process, but technically we don't really have a right to due process. which again means it comes down to the high court's interpretation of the deliberately murky wording of executive.

Canada is just as irrelevant to us as to what gets passed in the english courts.

 

[Power Raid]

you're ignoring where it legislation tries to give the government the power to remove citizenship without proving through the courts that person has committed any offence which warrants the removal. the executive branch does not have such power.

it's violation of the separation of powers. the legislation is unconstitutional.
then there's the less clear path of a constitutional challenge i mentioned earlier.
and there's also a challenge regarding due process it clearly breaks due process, but technically we don't really have a right to due process. which again means it comes down to the high court's interpretation of the deliberately murky wording of executive.

Canada is just as irrelevant to us as to what gets passed in the english courts.

there is not a breach of the separation of powers as the individual gets notified and has an opportunity to redress the grievance. if they challenge it becomes an issue for the judicial arm, if the don't it remains with the executive.This is no different the current processes regarding citizenship.

What happens in the Canadian legislative and court system is about as relevant as the English. We no longer automatically follow the English.

 

[apparentlydead]

Is this guy brown enough to have his citizenship revoked?

He's certainly not brown enough to be considered a terrorist it seems.


http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...ited-patriots-front/ar-CC40ld?ocid=spartandhp

A central figure in the anti-Islam street movement the United Patriots Front is a self-described "biblical crusader" with a long history of posting videos to social media in which he poses with semi-automatic weapons and threatens to take up arms against the Government and Muslims.

Chris Shortis, from Victoria, is one of three spokespeople in the United Patriots Front's leadership team, and has spoken at recent rallies in Bendigo, Richmond, and CBD.

Oh, that's right, he's also brandishing a Bible, so all is ok.

 

[Power Raid]

Is this guy brown enough to have his citizenship revoked?

He's certainly not brown enough to be considered a terrorist it seems.


http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...ited-patriots-front/ar-CC40ld?ocid=spartandhp



Oh, that's right, he's also brandishing a Bible, so all is ok.

speechless. what is wrong with this world?

he probably applied for the ADF or police force and failed to get in. as a result he has formed his own militia and his own cause to make up for his own short comings. he's clearly got small small dick syndrome.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Is this guy brown enough to have his citizenship revoked?

He's certainly not brown enough to be considered a terrorist it seems.


http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...ited-patriots-front/ar-CC40ld?ocid=spartandhp



Oh, that's right, he's also brandishing a Bible, so all is ok.

first and foremost he's not a fit and proper person to own a firearm, get the vic police over to confiscate his weapons. FFS, i posted my .22 savage on facebook when it had just arrived, with a sarcastic line saying "Me and Mrs. Jones, we got a thing going on" and got an inspection within a week. this campaigner threatens to go on a jihad for 2 years and nothing.

 

[apparentlydead]

first and foremost he's not a fit and proper person to own a firearm, get the vic police over to confiscate his weapons. FFS, i posted my .22 savage on facebook when it had just arrived, with a sarcastic line saying "Me and Mrs. Jones, we got a thing going on" and got an inspection within a week. this campaigner threatens to go on a jihad for 2 years and nothing.

Yeah, but you're a blackfella, so you must be dangerous and have a criminal intent.

I am gobsmacked that this guy has been let go so far, but I'll bet good money that a publicised arrest/raid will take place very shortly.

If we are so determined to be frightened of radicalised Muslims, then we MUST share that same fear of radicalised far-right Christian whack jobs.