WITH a key focus of the Abbott government’s proposed counterterrorism measures on preventing Australians from fighting in overseas conflicts, such as those in Iraq and Syria, the abandonment of hard-fought dual citizenship laws is threatened in the rush.
In March, Australia’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor linked the problem with the existence of dual citizenship in Australia.
The INSLM considered dual citizenship to be “deeply problematic”, raising issues of “divided loyalties”. It recommended that the concept of dual citizenship be abandoned in Australia. It’s a misguided approach, undermining the essence of the fabric of citizenship built up since 1949 and fails to understand just why dual citizenship is a significant aspect of membership in Australia.
Remember, dual citizenship is a longstanding part of the global legal landscape. As a matter of international law, foreign-born citizens have always been able to retain their existing citizenships in Australia if their former country allows it. Indeed, the Australian psyche is conditioned to dual citizenship as Australians were for many years both British subjects and Australian citizens.
Since 2002, in addition to foreign-born citizens being able to have dual citizenship, Australia has recognised that our citizens can take up another citizenship without losing their own. This addressed both the former arbitrary discrimination based on the order in which citizenship was acquired and the growing diaspora, of more than a million, who were still a significant part of Australia’s community, even if living and working outside its physical borders.
Lawmakers recognised that dual citizenship has been increasingly accepted in a world of international mobility and that it is possible for Australians to retain a strong and meaningful connection with Australia even when they acquire another citizenship. By allowing dual citizenship we moved towards a more unifying and inclusive notion of citizenship, one that affirms our multicultural heritage.
The INSLM, by focusing on dual citizenship in the context of the national security debate, risks undermining the loyalty and commitment that most of the estimated four million Australians who hold dual citizenship have to the community. The problem of Australian citizens being involved in violent conflicts on foreign soil must undoubtedly be addressed. Our citizenship law already provides that a person’s citizenship automatically ceases if they serve in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. This provision applies only to dual citizens, so as not to render an Australian citizen stateless. In the 66 years of Australian citizenship this provision has never been used to strip an Australian of citizenship.
The present legal framework also allows revocation of citizenship on the basis of conviction for a serious offence that was committed before citizenship was conferred. Once a person is an Australian citizen, the consequences of committing a criminal offence are a matter for the criminal law. And that is where they should stay. Australia has a suite of laws that criminalise acts committed on foreign soil, including the existing offence of treachery.
Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser suggests that this could form the basis of dealing with Australians fighting to overthrow existing foreign governments. It would require only a proclamation of parliament to specify the countries concerned; it would be a criminal law measure with criminal law consequences.
The preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 states that Australian citizenship unites “all Australians, while respecting their diversity”. To politicise citizenship, and to use it as a tool of exclusion and as the basis of a threat, undermines its purpose and ignores the contribution that our dual citizens make.
The INSLM’s recommendation that “the 2002 legislated policy in favour of dual citizenship should be reconsidered” is problematic because it threatens to destroy a common bond. It would render citizenship another point of division and another force of marginalisation. Amid concerns about rising extremism, this is the last thing we should be doing.
Kim Rubenstein is director of the Centre for International and Public Law at the Australian National University. Jacqui Field is working with her on the second edition of Rubenstein’s Australian Citizenship Law in Context (LBC).
Norway doesn't allow dual citizenship, so any Norwegians who take Citizenship in any other country lose their Norwegian passports. If you wish to take up Norwegian citizenship (which is difficult to get) you must renounce your original.
Malcolm Fraser just will not go away which is most unfortunate really. As to facing the the criminal law system, we already see how convicted people are treated with kid gloves so any person convicted of this type of activity can look forward to the taxpayer paying their legal bills with a comessurate soft sentence because they were traumatised during their upbringing or some other equally ridiculous bleeding heart story, not to mention the likes of SHY, Milne etc providing support.
There should be no place in Australia for individuals who have been involved in the support of terror and those who wish to provide "humanatiarian" support (unless such support is authorised by our Government) and anyone who becomes involved holding dual passports should immediately be stripped of Australian citizenship.
To equate war with criminal activity is a nonsense. Any Australian who goes overseas to fight should lose their Australian citizenship. Regardless whether or not they hold another.
If that makes them stateless so be it.
Lets be clear if Australia forced people with EU passports or US passports to choose, Australia would likely lose many of its best and brightest. To suggest holding a British, German, US, Greek, or Chinese passport is a threat to the nation is both ignorant of history and ignorant of what drives threats to this nation.
This imagined fork in the road between choosing between Australian loyalty and loyalty to some other nation suggests we are at war or that calls to arms against another nation is the about to happen. The global economic benefits of dual citizenship outweigh these benefits should such conflicts arise.
As a note, we managed to live through WW1 and WW2 with a large community of Germans in South Australia.
@Jamie Jamie, I don't think many would see holders of the passports you refer to as being, on a prima face basis, a threat. It is however an insult to the country to effectively say that it isn't worth of ones exclusive loyalty.
@jamie, during WW2 if the Germans didn't become Australian citizens they were packed off to Torrens Island.
Duel citizenship is a betrayal of one or the other - unless you have a mind that condones polygamy, a person can't be loyal to 2 countries - especially if one becomes immersed in conflict with another. Why should Australian taxpayers assist those who choose to live in their "homeland" on a pension or dole? If a person chooses to leave Australia to fight for their "homeland", they should not be allowed back into Australia. If "homegrown" radicals decide that the Australian ideal is not for them - cancel their passport so they can't return to a country they obviously despise. If asked to make the choice - Australia or your country of birth, I wonder how many immigrants would actually decide to return "home" ? Human rights should also honour the people at risk of being harmed by the action of radicals and fundamentalists - you can't be half Australian.
I support the abolition of dual citizenship.
Until then, people with dual citizenship should not be able to train or fight in any overseas army. If they wish to do that, they can give up their Australian citizenship.
Australia should not have to put up with the post combat stress issues or divided loyalties by Australians "of convenience".
You are taking the wrong approach. People living in Australia desirous of becoming jihadis should be encouraged to return to their countries of origin. I would be happy to contribute extra taxes to pay for their airfares on the proviso they never have the opportunity to return to Australia again. The fact they are Australian born means nothing, if their heart is with the mother country go back and stay.
If dual citizenship is to be done away with on national security grounds, then let it be shown that it is a national security problem. Simply asking everyone who is a dual citizen to choose in the hope that this will make national security problems go away is just simplistic nonsense. The most damaging practitioners of espionage in the west - those who spied for the Soviet Union or have attempted to free-lance by selling their knowledge or have joined the ranks of organisations like Wikileaks - have always been the holders of a single nationality, vetted to the umpteenth degree to ensure their "loyalty".
Reporting suggests that most of the jihadis from Australia are Australian-born, single-nationality individuals. If that is the case I would like to know how banning dual citizenship would affect them. If it is not the case I wish someone would tell us what the true situation is.
Having said all that, I made the decision years ago that if dual citizenship were abolished I would relinquish my British citizenship without hesitation. I call myself an Australian, I have only ever (apart from my first flight here) travelled on an Australian passport and retain my dual status merely as a way of keeping my options open for work and living opportunities. Sole Australian citizenship would do me no great harm.
Having dual citizenship is WRONG. You can only be loyal to one nation - you can't have an aussie passport and a US passport - maybe the exception is NZ. But suggesting that Israel or Lebanese citizens also qualify as Aussies does not wash. Make a choice, and if Oz is not your choice - POQ. Also there should be a minimum 10 years residency without criminality of any form to qualify.
The basic tenet that you can only remain faithful to one master holds true today and forever. You share in this country's good fortune, you owe your loyalties to this country. There is a problem with the writers statement that says: "Dual citizenship has been a longstanding part of the global landscape." It's difficult to gauge what the writers mean by longstanding, but when I had the privilege of being awarded citizenship to this wonderful country I, and everyone else in the same position at the time did not have the choice. I walked past a stack of passports and threw mine on top of it knowing and accepting that it would be destroyed with the rest. Fact not fiction.
I find laughable the notion that many so called expatriate Australians can spend three quarters of their lives in another country and still call Australia home. As for diversity and multiculturalism, it is the ultimate copout perpetrated upon us by the lefties.
This country's culture is what makes it attractive to millions around the world. Coming to this country and maintaining your loyalties to the place you left because it was such a basket case, makes no sense at all.
Dual citizenship is an invitation for people to abuse Australian citizenship.It is time people who migrated to Australia had to decide if they are willing to give up their previous citizenship to live here as a citizen.If they are not they should not receive Australian citizenship.This should apply to everyone English,American,Israeli,Lebanese, etc
@robert poor robert, he doesn't have the benefit of dual nationality so neither should anyone else, pathetic, isn't it.
@Right! said Fred @Phillip @robert At least my comment said something and offered the real reason for so many opposed to dual nationality. Do you really think stopping dual nationality is going to prevent a very few from acting unscrupulously ? ,"snide and unhelpful", oh so deep and meaningful!
@Phillip @Right! said Fred @robert Phillip, my first reaction to your response is unprintable so I'll just confine my response to this - being nasty does not assist your cause. PS, I qualify for dual citizenship but choose to honour the country I live in with total exclusivity.
@robert Spot on Robert, one has to seriously question the need and motives for dual citizenship.
No, dual citizenship is a recipe for trouble as it breeds conflicts of interest. At the superficial and trivial level we see it in divided levels of support for sports, eg Kiwis living here in Australia and cheering for the All Blacks. On a more important level Citizenship implies loyalty to the entity your a citizen of which means exclusivity, something that is at odds with any notion of duality.
@Pat. @Right! said Fred Pat, everyone has the right to an opinion and many times you and I are in lockstep on issues, this is one though that I believe tears our community apart.
Acts of treason against Australia threatening life or limb should be punished by deprivation of liberty for life whether dual citizen or not.
I am proud to be Australian, I am proud to be British. I love both equally, I would never want to give up my citizenship of one or the other. Dual Citizenship is a reality for so many of us, I would hate to see changes to the law that would put people like me in an impossible position of having to choose.
@Raymond I hope you don't try taking that line with your wife. "Honey, I love you and that other women equally. Can't I just have you both as it'd just be impossible for me to choose?!"
Although I hold dual citizenship myself, I would be happy to renounce the other governement if required to do so. Indeed, I am suspicious of the motives of anyone who has lived in Australia long term and, if faced with this choice, would choose otherwise than to retain Australian citizenship and dump the other one.
@Swee Dual citizenship is a post modernist construct that trivialises the importance/value of citizenship and has been linked to the phenomenon of migrant communities failing to integrate into the societies they have come to live in. Does any of this sound the least bit familiar with recent news in Australia?
Duel citizenship should certainly stay. But all welfare and government grants should be shared 50% / 50% -half paid by the Australian taxpayer and half paid by their other national government, complete through the whole suite of benefits from HECS Loans to Aged Pensions.
After all - it is unfair Australian taxpayers to pay for the lot when the person is only half Australian.
"By allowing dual citizenship we moved towards a more unifying and inclusive notion of citizenship, one that affirms our multicultural heritage." and that is where you lost me. How is it ;possible for dual citizenship to lead to a more unifying notion of that same citizenship? As for multiculturalism, it is a idea that emphasises differences, not ideas of inclusiveness. It is only to be expected that such an article could only come from academics totally alienated from reality.
@Ian The authors make glib claim without offering any substantiation - for an article written by scholars, it is a poor effort.
"By allowing dual citizenship we moved towards a more unifying and inclusive notion of citizenship, one that affirms our multicultural heritage." What a feeble attempt to defend the indefensible! Dual citizenship can only dilute, not strengthen, the value of Australian citizenship. An individual who has dual citizenship always has the option to abandon one nation and move permanently to the second nation. If Australia were ever to suffer a severe economic depression or civil unrest, how many of our dual citizens will stay in Australia to help us through the crisis, as opposed to following their own self-interest, packing their bags, and leaving for their second home? In contrast, an Australian citizen with no other citizenship is almost irrevocably committed to this country. He does not have the easy option to leave Australia when the going gets tough (at least, not without the enormous effort and expense of applying to another country for permanent residency). Far more than a dual-citizen, the single-citizen can be counted on to stand side-by-side with his fellow Australians in a time of crisis. Ultimately, dual citizenship divides a nation into two groups: a privileged group who have the option to walk out on Australia at any time, and a less privileged group who have no other home to go to. It is an utter fantasy to pretend that both groups have equal commitment to Australia.
quote- Indeed, the Australian psyche is conditioned to dual citizenship as Australians were for many years both British subjects and Australian citizens.--and--Remember, dual citizenship is a longstanding part of the global legal landscape-. well lets also remember that it was Gough Whitlam's idea to change British citizenship for people who had come to Australia after the ww2, it meant that if one left Australia for more than 3mths, they would have to immigrate to get back to what was their home-Australia, I was one of them, so in effect it was not a global legal landscape, it was a purely Australian Labor concept, never was I considered British, I ALWAYS CONSIDERED MYSELF AN AUSTRALAIN, and I was so embarrassed to be -considered to become an Australian - at the citizenship ceremony-, I was always an Australian, the pandering that goes on in this country to outside interests is disgusting, if people come here to live , THEY SHOULD BECOME JUST AUSTRALIAN,
rod qld
How can dual citizenship not lead to divided loyalties?
As long as people retain citizenship of another country, full integration and a sense of belonging is not possible. Feeling alienated from mainstream society is facilitated by being a citizen of another country, especially if that country has a culture more aligned to that of the disengaged person.
Making people choose which country they feel they truly belong to would cull those who rightly, or wrongly, believe their loyalties lay elsewhere, and perhaps lead to a reduction in those disengaged citizens who seem to hate this country.
@patricia - and how can diss-allowance of dual citizenship ensure undivided loyalties? The source of divided loyalties is not a piece of paper or some external recognition of dual citizenship. It is an intrinsic state of mind of individuals. Dual citizenship is but a convenience for many Australians and nothing more. It does not determine or alter loyalty. People with only Australian citizenship, and even people born in Australia who only ever had their Australian citizenship, can still exhibit divided loyalty - or no loyalty - on ideological or economic grounds for instance. Indeed, ideology is more often than not the source of divided loyalty. So are we going to also prohibit people from holding certain ideologies and restrict freedom of thought? (as if we could...)
It is best to simply deal with criminality, when it is expressed, using our laws and not imagine that dual citizenship is the problem because it is not. Divided loyalty is a far more complex issue then citizenship status.
@Momo @patricia I agree that divided loyalty is a far more complex issue than citizenship. Regardless, the authors of this article have not advanced any persuasive argument of the advantages of dual citizenship, other than it is in our present legal system. Loyalty is a emotive trait, not a legal one.
@patricia When I became a citizen of this country I took an oath to abide by the laws of this country. Circumstances could well arise for citizens of two countries where they will have to chose which oath they are to abide by. It is common sense. You cant have allegiance to conflicting oaths. David's comment is spot on. This is nonsensical gibberish.
@patricia I would beg to differ Patricia for taking away dual nationality will not deter a terrorist in the least just as Mr Howard's gun laws didn't stop criminals obtaining and using guns, and the old law of saying that robbing a bank is illegal hasn't prevented the odd bank from being robbed. My wife is a proud Australian, even to wearing something green and gold when she eaves to visit her family in her county of birth. Having dual nationality allows her instant entry into that country whereas if she tried to get a visa on her Australian passport it could take up to a month, and time counts when you have an elderly mother in the last months of her life.
Look, this is bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. The bottom line is, we don't want these people currently (or thinking of) fighting for IS living among us. We don't want it, we don't deserve it and we shouldn't have to. End of story.
