Terrorist citizens.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2015, 06:41 PM
Terrorist citizens.
The Australian government is looking to legislate the cancellation of citizenship for those who have engaged in wars supporting ISSIS.
This would mean no legal appeal to such.
Some civil rights advocates see this as too harsh and contrary to the separation of
powers.
Do the risks of terrorist attacks and planned theocracies justify such?
Or would such be a step to more draconian social measures?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
23-06-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
I'm no Aussie, but as an American, I'm fine with stripping Americans of their citizenship based on enlistment with a terrorist organization.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
I think the bill is being considered today.
Some want a right of appeal as they see this empowering the government too much.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2015, 07:11 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
This is a horrible idea. This is a real slippery slope, if they can declare citizenship invalid for this how long before other crimes get this treatment?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2015, 07:20 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
It's a pointless measure in my opinion. Losing a citizenship is not a big concern to a person who decided to expatriate herself in a country at war to fight on a side or another. It would simply create a cast of stateless persons should they be arrested at some point. It doesn't help fight ISIS and it doesn't help fight the radicalisation of a marginalised youth. It seems to be a bad idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
23-06-2015, 07:21 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2015 07:25 PM by Chas.)
RE: Terrorist citizens.
If a U.S. citizen joins an army engaged in hostilities against the United States, that’s considered an act of treason and is punishable by death.
But not loss of citizenship. Drinking Beverage

Best to read 8 U.S. Code § 1481. I don't have any idea what current Australian law on this is.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
23-06-2015, 08:41 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(23-06-2015 07:11 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is a horrible idea. This is a real slippery slope, if they can declare citizenship invalid for this how long before other crimes get this treatment?

I don't see it that way.
There's a difference between being a terrorist/traitor and aiding a states enemies and say murdering another citizen.

Besides, kicking people out of Australia for being criminals? That's just plain un-Australian!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like earmuffs's post
23-06-2015, 10:57 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(23-06-2015 06:41 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  The Australian government is looking to legislate the cancellation of citizenship for those who have engaged in wars supporting ISSIS.
This would mean no legal appeal to such.
Some civil rights advocates see this as too harsh and contrary to the separation of
powers.
Do the risks of terrorist attacks and planned theocracies justify such?
Or would such be a step to more draconian social measures?

As a part of context which Woofs failed to provide:

The proposed legislation would give the Minister for Immigration the right to revoke the Australian citizenship of any duel-national which is suspected of having fought for ISIS.

This legislation has been proposed on the basis of the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948, Section 19, which states:
Quote:19 Loss of citizenship by reason of service in armed forces of an enemy country
An Australian citizen who, under the law of a foreign country, is a national or citizen of that country and serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia shall, upon commencing so to serve, cease to be an Australian citizen.

The government wishes to expand this definition to include non-state entities such as ISIS. Doing so would legalise the government, under the (guise of the) Immigration Minister to effectively de-citizen anybody that was suspected of having joined a terrorist organisation.

I disagree with the law. For one, it oversteps the Legislature's bound and incorporates one of the rolls of the Judiciary, an act made made more grievous as the government would not be held to a trial, they could just do it.

My second sticking-point is that it perverts the nature of the original legislation: I'm a rather literally-minded person as many know so I'm sure my agitation is obvious on this score: You can't be a duel-national to a non-state entity, so their using the 1948 Act as their justification is a flagrant corruption of the clear meaning of the law.
On a similar issue; removing the Australian half of a duel-citizenship doesn't make much sense regardless; I'm guessing there aren't many duel-citizens going off to join ISIS anyway and if they do, they can just claim the right to go back to their other citizen-nation so it doesn't make much difference; it also would prevent the government laying charges of terrorism against the accused perpetrators should they come back since they are no longer citizens and haven't committed any crime on Australian soil aside from coming back without a valid passport.

It's not particularly my concern, but I've seen it raised: Australia is signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, of which Article 15 states:
Quote:(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
There have been some concerns on the net that the legislation may be used to violate the above article. It's possible, given that it would not be a far leap to amend the proposed legislation to include anybody, not just duel-citizens, but I'm not concerned about that.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Free Thought's post
23-06-2015, 11:09 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
So they'll be forever stuck in a Tom Hanks movie?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
23-06-2015, 11:17 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(23-06-2015 11:09 PM)Banjo Wrote:  So they'll be forever stuck in a Tom Hanks movie?

... I don't follow...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: