FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: dpareja on July 18, 2017, 12:08:36 pm
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australian-senator-resigns-after-learning-she-s-also-canadian-1.4209902
Two Australian Senators, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, formerly co-deputy leaders of the Greens, have resigned after learning they held citizenships from other countries, New Zealand and Canada respectively.
I had no idea Australia had formal second-class citizens.
-
It's not that they are second class citizens. It's just that people with dual-citizenship can't hold some government positions. Lots of countries have similar laws.
-
It's not that they are second class citizens. It's just that people with dual-citizenship can't hold some government positions. Lots of countries have similar laws.
...which, in my view, makes them second-class citizens, in that they do not have the same privileges as other citizens.
But then I'll admit my bias, because Canada's Constitution explicitly protects various rights regardless of citizenships held:
Charter, s. 3:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Note: nothing about not holding other citizenships.
Charter, s. 6(1):
Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Nothing about not holding other citizenships.
Charter, s. 15(1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
National origin (which often implies multiple citizenships) is explicitly protected.
For that matter, two of our last three Governors General (Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean) were foreign-born, in Hong Kong (under British rule) and Haiti, respectively.
So that's why I say that Australia has second-class citizens (if you hold another citizenship, you can't serve in Parliament). It's why I say that the US has second-class citizens (if you're not natural-born, you can't be President or Vice President).
And, for that matter, the Conservatives tried to create second-class citizens, by passing a law that allowed the government to strip Canadian citizenship from people holding multiple citizenships who were convicted of certain terrorism-related offences, but the Liberals have put a moratorium on doing so (it's at ministerial discretion, not automatic), the only person stripped of his citizenship in this way has had it restored by the courts (I believe, or it's in the process of going through the system), and at this point it's almost certain that either it'll be repealed legislatively or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
So I find the notion that not all citizens are equal in their citizenship repugnant.
-
It's a shame, I'll always remember her as the senator who tried to save the Great Barrier Reef.
-
Did you know you can't become a senator in Canada unless you are at least 30 years old? Shameful.
-
Did you know you can't become a senator in Canada unless you are at least 30 years old? Shameful.
Did you know you can't become a senator in Argentina unless you are at least 30 years old? Shameful.
In all seriousness, I understand why the requirement was there initially, but I don't think it really needs to be there any more. I'd rather see something like requiring a graduate degree (or similar professional certification), with either that degree or an undergraduate degree from a Canadian university (but then I'm biased).
EDIT: And an age requirement is something that, barring unfortunate events, everybody will eventually attain; being natural-born (President of Argentina) is not; holding no other citizenships (Australian Parliament) is something that some people can't help (it's very hard to get rid of some countries' citizenships--I'm looking at you, USA).
EDIT #2: There are also property and net worth requirements for the Senate, but (excepting a technicality relating to Quebec) Parliament can do away with those by a simple majority vote should it wish to.
-
Having duel citizens in a position that involves dealing with foreign governments can create conflicts of interest. For example, were parliament to propose something that effects Canada in a negative way, then the Canadian government could use its control over the MP's Canadian citizenship and the privileges it grants in order to sway their vote. Basically, it's about making sure foreign governments don't have any undue leverage over our own.
Personally, I think it's quite reasonable. Far more so than an arbitrary age limit, for whatever that's worth.
-
Having duel citizens in a position that involves dealing with foreign governments can create conflicts of interest. For example, were parliament to propose something that effects Canada in a negative way, then the Canadian government could use its control over the MP's Canadian citizenship and the privileges it grants in order to sway their vote. Basically, it's about making sure foreign governments don't have any undue leverage over our own.
Personally, I think it's quite reasonable. Far more so than a arbitrary age limit, for whatever that's worth.
Hey, I for one have no problem with voting for dual-citizens. That is why I support the Russian-American Vladimir "Joe" Americanman for president in 2020
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2d/22/99/2d2299287e66ef34525c6dba9e33a866.jpg)
#FeelTheTurn
-
Having duel citizens in a position that involves dealing with foreign governments can create conflicts of interest. For example, were parliament to propose something that effects Canada in a negative way, then the Canadian government could use its control over the MP's Canadian citizenship and the privileges it grants in order to sway their vote. Basically, it's about making sure foreign governments don't have any undue leverage over our own.
Personally, I think it's quite reasonable. Far more so than an arbitrary age limit, for whatever that's worth.
So, as I mentioned, it's very hard to give up US citizenship. (Largely because the US taxes all its citizens, no matter where they live, and they have to make sure that people aren't giving up their citizenship to avoid the estate tax or something.)
So if someone happens to be born as a dual Australia-US citizen (born on US soil to Australian parents, say), they have two citizenships through no fault or choice of their own, the non-Australian citizenship being very hard to be rid of, but who was raised in Australia and has no memories of being in the US (say the mother went into unexpected labour while on vacation), you're fine with that person being ineligible to serve in Parliament?
Because to me, if a member of Parliament appears to be unduly influenced by having another citizenship, then that's an issue to be taken up with that member by his or her constituents, and, if it is not resolved to their satisfaction, that member can be voted out of office in the next election. (For that matter, I want to see recall legislation at all levels of government, so it would happen even sooner.) And if Parliament thinks it's an issue, they can vote to expel the member.
As for age limits, I think they're there as a "life experience" thing, but given modern society, I think it would be more valuable to have people with sound academic or professional credentials in those offices, regardless of age.
-
So if someone happens to be born as a dual Australia-US citizen (born on US soil to Australian parents, say), they have two citizenships through no fault or choice of their own, the non-Australian citizenship being very hard to be rid of, but who was raised in Australia and has no memories of being in the US (say the mother went into unexpected labour while on vacation), you're fine with that person being ineligible to serve in Parliament?
Well, yes, actually. For starters, while it would be great if we had an accurate and reliable system for vetting the eligibility of any would-be candidates based on their individual experiences, that's not even remotely feasible. So yes, while some dual nationals who are genuinely indifferent to their second citizenship may get unfairly barred from running for office, keeping out those who in any way aren't and can therefore be influenced by their second country's government is a touch more important. Again, I know it sucks for some people, but I really don't see any way to have it both ways.
-
So if someone happens to be born as a dual Australia-US citizen (born on US soil to Australian parents, say), they have two citizenships through no fault or choice of their own, the non-Australian citizenship being very hard to be rid of, but who was raised in Australia and has no memories of being in the US (say the mother went into unexpected labour while on vacation), you're fine with that person being ineligible to serve in Parliament?
Well, yes, actually. For starters, while it would be great if we had an accurate and reliable system for vetting the eligibility of any would-be candidates based on their individual experiences, that's not even remotely feasible. So yes, while some dual nationals who are genuinely indifferent to their second citizenship may get unfairly barred from running for office, keeping out those who in any way aren't and can therefore be influenced by their second country's government is a touch more important. Again, I know it sucks for some people, but I really don't see any way to have it both ways.
And, to me, that's a matter for voters to determine. I'd have no issues with candidates having to be up-front about their other citizenships if they have them, but if their voters decide that they're OK with their representative having another citizenship, then that's their choice to make.
-
And, to me, that's a matter for voters to determine. I'd have no issues with candidates having to be up-front about their other citizenships if they have them, but if their voters decide that they're OK with their representative having another citizenship, then that's their choice to make.
Yet you want candidates to require a graduate degree, rather than letting the voters decide for themselves just how educated their representatives should be.
In any case, I feel like this discussion has veered a little too far into subjective opinions territory to be all that meaningful.
-
I'll also point out the irony of the graduate degree requirement: in America's 2016 presidential election, limiting this to my recollection and those who got at least on delegate, only Hillary Clinton (juris doctorate), Ted Cruz (juris doctorate), Marco Rubio (juris doctorate) Ben Carson (medical doctorate), and Joan Stern (medical doctorate) had graduate degrees.
-
Also while age limits can only be waited out you can always give up your dual citizenship at a moments notice if you decide to run for a political position.
-
And, to me, that's a matter for voters to determine. I'd have no issues with candidates having to be up-front about their other citizenships if they have them, but if their voters decide that they're OK with their representative having another citizenship, then that's their choice to make.
Yet you want candidates to require a graduate degree, rather than letting the voters decide for themselves just how educated their representatives should be.
In any case, I feel like this discussion has veered a little too far into subjective opinions territory to be all that meaningful.
That's for the Canadian Senate, which is an appointed body of "sober second thought," and I want the people giving said second thought to federal legislation to have high qualifications. For the elected House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, I firmly back the Charter right of any Canadian citizen to be qualified for membership therein.
Also while age limits can only be waited out you can always give up your dual citizenship at a moments notice if you decide to run for a political position.
Look into the process of ditching US citizenship--I did because it affects someone I know. It ain't easy, and definitely not something you can do "at a moments [sic] notice".
And as for the US presidency... elected position, let the voters (i.e. the 538 electors) decide how qualified they want the President to be.
-
Honestly, the only difference between de facto requirements and de jur requirements is that the latter get more thoroughly discussed.
-
Did you know you can't become a senator in Canada unless you are at least 30 years old? Shameful.
Did you know you can't become a senator in Argentina unless you are at least 30 years old? Shameful.
In all seriousness, I understand why the requirement was there initially, but I don't think it really needs to be there any more. I'd rather see something like requiring a graduate degree (or similar professional certification), with either that degree or an undergraduate degree from a Canadian university (but then I'm biased).
EDIT: And an age requirement is something that, barring unfortunate events, everybody will eventually attain; being natural-born (President of Argentina) is not; holding no other citizenships (Australian Parliament) is something that some people can't help (it's very hard to get rid of some countries' citizenships--I'm looking at you, USA).
EDIT #2: There are also property and net worth requirements for the Senate, but (excepting a technicality relating to Quebec) Parliament can do away with those by a simple majority vote should it wish to.
Many things about the argentinian political system are shameful, this is not in dispute.
I just think it's silly to claim any requirement to hold elected office, which ~every country has including yours, means someone is a second-class citizen.
-
Did you know you can't become a senator in Canada unless you are at least 30 years old? Shameful.
Did you know you can't become a senator in Argentina unless you are at least 30 years old? Shameful.
In all seriousness, I understand why the requirement was there initially, but I don't think it really needs to be there any more. I'd rather see something like requiring a graduate degree (or similar professional certification), with either that degree or an undergraduate degree from a Canadian university (but then I'm biased).
EDIT: And an age requirement is something that, barring unfortunate events, everybody will eventually attain; being natural-born (President of Argentina) is not; holding no other citizenships (Australian Parliament) is something that some people can't help (it's very hard to get rid of some countries' citizenships--I'm looking at you, USA).
EDIT #2: There are also property and net worth requirements for the Senate, but (excepting a technicality relating to Quebec) Parliament can do away with those by a simple majority vote should it wish to.
Many things about the argentinian political system are shameful, this is not in dispute.
I just think it's silly to claim any requirement to hold elected office, which ~every country has including yours, means someone is a second-class citizen.
Senators are not elected; they are appointed.
And when some citizens have rights or privileges other citizens cannot attain (or not without great difficulty), or some are subject to certain duties or responsibilities others are not, then I do consider there to be multiple classes of citizenship.
-
You mean senators aren't even voted on in your country?!? Oh my god, no wonder we're having this discussion, your banana republic, poutine-exporting country simply does not understand how democracy works.
Australians are hereby declared date-worthy, and my love embargo is hereby place on Canada. Sorry Bobby Roode, congratulations Chris Hemsworth.
-
......I was about to change my avatar to the Glorious One and now I've gotta go with Thor?
Ironbite-fuck you woman.
-
You mean senators aren't even voted on in your country?!?
I have long been convinced that the more apparent democracy a country has, the less actual democracy it has.
There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent House, having free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch and preventing any hasty or ill considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.
-
Senators are not elected; they are appointed.
My mistake, sorry.
And when some citizens have rights or privileges other citizens cannot attain (or not without great difficulty), or some are subject to certain duties or responsibilities others are not, then I do consider there to be multiple classes of citizenship.
I think this is broad enough to dilute 'multiple classes of citizenship' to uselessness. E.g. the entire existence of legislators means some people get to make laws, a rather important privilege, while others do not. And there is indeed great difficulty in becoming a legislator.
-
And when some citizens have rights or privileges other citizens cannot attain (or not without great difficulty), or some are subject to certain duties or responsibilities others are not, then I do consider there to be multiple classes of citizenship.
I think this is broad enough to dilute 'multiple classes of citizenship' to uselessness. E.g. the entire existence of legislators means some people get to make laws, a rather important privilege, while others do not. And there is indeed great difficulty in becoming a legislator.
I should clarify, then; what I mean is that these things are true through no fault of their own. Someone can't help if they're born with multiple citizenships (and even if they try to get rid of them, the country in question might refuse the application), for instance, or that they're not a natural-born citizen. But if you run for office and fail to be elected, then some of the blame does fall on you.
-
Fair enough.
-
......I was about to change my avatar to the Glorious One [...]
...Art?
-
......I was about to change my avatar to the Glorious One [...]
...Art?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7oMBq1vkCM
This guy, that is his wrestling entrance. But alas, he's Canadian.
-
So, neither Art nor my penis? Such a shame.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australia-dual-citizenship-1.4374578
And the issue's rearing its ugly head again.
Australia's High Court on Friday disqualified the deputy prime minister and four senators from sitting in Parliament in a ruling that could cost the government its slender majority in Parliament.
The decision to disqualify deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce over a 116-year-old constitutional ban on dual citizens sitting in Parliament means a byelection will be held for his rural electoral district in December.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's conservative coalition has a single-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives where parties form governments.
Joyce will be able to stand for re-election, having renounced the New Zealand citizenship he unknowingly inherited from his father. With the government trailing the opposition Labor Party in opinion polls, voters could use the byelection to toss both Joyce and his government out of office.
(emphasis mine)
The government had argued that only Ludlam and Malcolm Roberts, a senator in the minor One Nation party, should be expelled because they had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that they only held Australian citizenship.
Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue had told the High Court judges that the other five should not be disqualified from Parliament for breaching the constitution because they did not voluntarily acquire or retain citizenship of another country.
A clause in the constitution says "a subject or citizen of a foreign power" is not eligible to be elected to Parliament.
Donaghue, however, argued that the clause "cannot be read literally."
"If a person is not aware either that they are a dual citizen or of a significant prospect that they are, in our submission by definition that person cannot have a split allegiance," he told the court.
Bret Walker, a lawyer for Joyce and Nash, told the court that neither knew until recently that they were dual citizens of New Zealand and Britain, respectively.
As soon as they found out, they took all reasonable steps required to sever their foreign ties, Walker said.
"There's no split allegiance where you're not aware of one," Walker told the court. "You cannot heed a call you cannot hear."
EDIT:
The constitution bans dual nationals from Parliament, a prohibition that critics have condemned as outdated in a country where almost half the people are immigrants or have an overseas-born parent.
-
Hey if you're not a pureblooded highwayman, cold blooded killer, pickpocket, or bank teller, Australia doesn't want you making decisions for the country.
Ironbite-and that's the way it should be.
-
Hey, the government fucking about with the citizenship ruling caused the courts to take a hard line on it and now they've lost their majority in the upper house. Well done kids!