So, who's a dual citizen?

I understand that this provision was written into the constitution when the world was different and I understand that the role of the high court is to interpret the law, not look for a sensible solution.

However there seem to be some assumptions made about this provision that just don't seem realistic.

Renouncing citizenship of some foreign country usually seems to involve sending a request and maybe filling in some form.

So it seems that we are expected to believe that a dual citizen might make a decision in the best interests of some foreign country the day before he does the paperwork, but he won't do that the next day when the paperwork has been completed. So it is necessary to do it before election, not the day after.

In theory, it sounds like a necessary provision to ensure that politicians make their decisions in Australia's best interests, but in practice I can't see how a bit of paperwork makes a difference to the allegiance the politician actually feels.

It becomes even sillier when the politician is unaware of his dual citizenship. It suggests that he might make a decision benefiting some country that he doesn't know he has some connection with before the paperwork is complete and that he won't do so afterwards.

There may well be good reasons to include the provision in the constitution, but in so many instances, it becomes a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

[...]
So it seems that we are expected to believe that a dual citizen might make a decision in the best interests of some foreign country the day before he does the paperwork, but he won't do that the next day when the paperwork has been completed. So it is necessary to do it before election, not the day after.

---

You are right that someone who is diabolical enough to be secretly making decisions that benefit his other allegiances, isn't necessarily going to change after doing the paperwork. People and specially bad people, after all, do tell lies and act diabolically.

But one aspect of renouncing another country's citizenship means also invalidating the passport issued by that country. This at least gives our border control a chance at restricting travel should the bad guy be caught out acting diabolically. (Jason Bourne/James Bond, false passports and foreign spy super powers notwithstanding)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

In theory, it sounds like a necessary provision to ensure that politicians make their decisions in Australia's best interests, but in practice I can't see how a bit of paperwork makes a difference to the allegiance the politician actually feels.

---

Renouncing foreign citizenship is, in effect, an outward show by a good person that they are not having an each way bet. Its all in, boots and all. Thats not such a bad thing, deem warm fuzzies included. (Of course diabolical people can fake it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

It becomes even sillier when the politician is unaware of his dual citizenship. It suggests that he might make a decision benefiting some country that he doesn't know he has some connection with before the paperwork is complete and that he won't do so afterwards.
[...]

---

As above. If unawares of foreign citizenship, immediately renouncing same at least demonstrates in good faith an "all in committment" to Oz. (Assuming the person is in good faith, a good person. The diabolical will fake it or cheat.)


All in all its not unlike the western marriage ceremony, yes? Many marriage vows reference "...forsaking all others" and keeping self only unto the marriage partner. Some thereafter do cheat more or less. Some do not. Yet we still see some worth in standing up in public and declaring an exclusive relationship.

It's an interesting historical anomaly that state politicians are not required to renounce dual citizenships, only federal ones, because of their different constitutions, I assume, since the states existed before the Commonwealth.
So does that really mean that state politicians don't have potential conflicts of interest, but only federal ones?
I read that British and American politicians don't have to renounce dual citizenships.

I might be a quad citizen. One of my grandfathers was swedish and jumped ship in Adelaide,in the 1880's , the other although a man of the cloth , was English with a very dubious background.
I'm only 2nd generation so I'm not sure what it makes me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

I might be a quad citizen. One of my grandfathers was swedish and jumped ship in Adelaide,in the 1880's , the other although a man of the cloth , was English with a very dubious background.
I'm only 2nd generation so I'm not sure what it makes me.

---

A Pommie with a weird Swedish accent?

So you'd be a tri-citizen. Don't think it works with grandfathers though, has to be a parent I think.
Ironic that an Aborigine like Jackie Lambie also is Scottish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I read that British and American politicians don't have to renounce dual citizenships.

---

But a dual citizen can't be President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

But a dual citizen can't be President.

---

Have to be born in the US to be president, dunno about the UK though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

It's an interesting historical anomaly

---

Did you take that from "The Gods must be Crazy", Mick.

They Even had a few Landrovers in that film... I'll never forget the scene when winching across the river... Damn that thing had a good winch, ROFL...
Or the scene when the bushman only found reverse....:rulez:

I didn't, but I remember seeing it, a long time ago.