One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts British citizen when elected

Remove this Banner Ad

Bomberboyokay

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Sep 27, 2014
34,227
28,859
AFL Club
Essendon
The Section 44 bodies are starting to pile up. I don't think the right wingers laughing at the Greens anymore.

Malcolm Roberts says he renounced British citizenship before nomination but confirmation came after election

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts said he renounced his British citizenship before he nominated for Parliament, but Britain only confirmed it in December — more than five months after the poll.

Senator Roberts has told Sky News he received a form from British authorities on December 5 last year saying he was not a citizen.

But he has not released the paperwork.

He insists he has only ever considered himself to be an Australian citizen, but took steps before nominating in case he had dual citizenship because his father was Welsh.

Senator Roberts said he sent three emails to British authorities on June 6 last year saying he did not believe he was a British citizen, but if he was he renounced it.

That was before nominations closed.

But he said it took months of badgering to get Britain to confirm his status and that did not happen till well after the election.

He argued he complied with the rules by taking all reasonable steps before he nominated.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-27/malcolm-roberts-says-he-renounced-british-citizenship/8750772

 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Section 44 bodies are starting to pile up. I don't think the right wingers laughing at the Greens anymore.

Malcolm Roberts says he renounced British citizenship before nomination but confirmation came after election





this example, I understand has already been tested in the courts. I remember reading something by the AEC where it was acknowledged that some countries take time to process or even won't accept or respond to the request/ application to renounce citizenship. Thus the date of renouncing was sufficient.

it just highlights not only how racist our laws and constitution is but also how poorly we drafted our racist laws in consideration to practicalities.
 
this example, I understand has already been tested in the courts. I remember reading something by the AEC where it was acknowledged that some countries take time to process or even won't accept or respond to the request/ application to renounce citizenship. Thus the date of renouncing was sufficient.

There is a protection against situations where there's no mechanism to renounce foreign citizenship, or people like Sam Dastiyari where the process is especially onerous.

It would be good for the court to set out whether of not Roberts, who even if we take him at his word did the barest of minimums, met that requirement.
 
this example, I understand has already been tested in the courts. I remember reading something by the AEC where it was acknowledged that some countries take time to process or even won't accept or respond to the request/ application to renounce citizenship. Thus the date of renouncing was sufficient.

it just highlights not only how racist our laws and constitution is but also how poorly we drafted our racist laws in consideration to practicalities.
The UK has a well documented and simple process to follow, he's got no excuse he simply did not take all reasonable steps. it actually seems like he showed a complete disregard for the process, did he even bother to talk to anyone at the British consulate?
 
There is a protection against situations where there's no mechanism to renounce foreign citizenship, or people like Sam Dastiyari where the process is especially onerous.

It would be good for the court to set out whether of not Roberts, who even if we take him at his word did the barest of minimums, met that requirement.

I don't know the situation but refer only to the word "before" in the title.

To me the greens, Libs, ON cases only serve to highlight how inappropriate s44 is. It doesn't reflect society and doesn't reflect our veneer values.

Sadly though, it will force to be politicians to renounce their dual citizenship and or prevent the best applicants for the job from running. Racism and insecurity will win this debate.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don't know the situation but refer only to the word "before" in the title.

To me the greens, Libs, ON cases only serve to highlight how inappropriate s44 is. It doesn't reflect society and doesn't reflect our veneer values.

Sadly though, it will force to be politicians to renounce their dual citizenship and or prevent the best applicants for the job from running. Racism and insecurity will win this debate.
Worked for years before now... and we've been just as multicultural for the last 30 years. I have no problem with the rule. It's good, it prevents corruption by someone who holds two citizenships (well not completely, but helps avoid it potentially).
 
Worked for years before now... and we've been just as multicultural for the last 30 years. I have no problem with the rule. It's good, it prevents corruption by someone who holds two citizenships (well not completely, but helps avoid it potentially).

Worked? Up until recently the operation of this rule, has been don't ask don't tell. As the racist issue and privacy issue has been respected. Working around a law is not working.

Corruption/ prevents corruption? I can't wait to here this.......please, go on and explain
 
Worked? Up until recently the operation of this rule, has been don't ask don't tell. As the racist issue and privacy issue has been respected. Working around a law is not working.

Corruption/ prevents corruption? I can't wait to here this.......please, go on and explain
How is it racist? Sure it prevents immigrants from Africa, but at the same time prevents immigrants from Britain. Hardly racist. Especially when the two people caught out are white and from NZ and Canada
 
So he released his birth certificate 3 years after he became President?

Thank you very much for proving my point.

I assume you werent born in 91 to understand my other reference?
Did you miss this part? Proved nothing but what you want to see.

As they had with the Certification of Live Birth made public by the Obama campaign in June 2008, birthers immediately claimed that the long form birth certificate was also a forgery.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top