Changes to pathway to Citizenship

[bwatt99]

1 hour ago, Ken said:

If you'd taken the trouble to read the link that was posted (and the link within that) you'd know this was about the change to employer sponsored visa rules from 1st July which were originally announced as also applying to visa applications lodged (but not approved) before 1st July. Now the visa applications lodged before 1st July will be processed under the old rules. This has absolutely nothing to do with your wife's situation and I have no idea why it's been posted on this "Changes to pathway to citizenship" thread.

 

PS: Just realised what the connection is. The change to the employer sponsored visa rules mean that certain applicants are now only eligible for a 2 year visa which can be extended for a further 2 years but gives no pathway to citizenship. These people who applied before 1st July do now have a pathway to citizenship available to them as they'll be eligible for a 4 year visa and be allowed to apply for permanent residency.

Ok thanks thats why i had asked i thought it was something else never seen that part you posted  about what it was all about.

[VERYSTORMY]

1 hour ago, bwatt99 said:

Ok thanks thats why i had asked i thought it was something else never seen that part you posted  about what it was all about.

Is your wife 457? In which case it has nothing to do with citizenship as she would need PR before citizenship 

[bwatt99]

1 minute ago, VERYSTORMY said:

Is your wife 457? In which case it has nothing to do with citizenship as she would need PR before citizenship 

I know now its nothing to do with citizenship yes she is already pr for 3 yrs now

[wombatinabox]

"Citizenship should be decided on the content of character, not English superiority"

Article by Herald Sun: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/theo-theophanous-english-tests-for-australian-citizenship-will-do-nothing-to-help-migrants/news-story/1aeead0db2ed14f1e5a49fafe344fb64

 

 

 

[Roberta2]

Dutton has just had a big win on the creation of the new department of homeland security, or whatever they are calling it.  His price for helping Turnbull fend off Abbott, and presumably will now hope to position himself as next Liberal leader if Turnbull loses the next election (which currently is very likely.)  All dressed up by Turnbull in London, talking to Amber Rudd and Teresa May on how the Home Office works and why we should emulate it.  Of course, it could be reversed by a future Labor government, and probably would be.  The idea of ASIO being taken away from Attorney General's is highly questionable.  

Not clear either if the Greens will be down a Senator when parliament resumes for the Spring session.  The issue of Ludlam's successor will be decided by the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.  I guess the High Court marches to its own drum.....

[wombatinabox]

3 hours ago, Roberta2 said:

Dutton has just had a big win on the creation of the new department of homeland security, or whatever they are calling it.  His price for helping Turnbull fend off Abbott, and presumably will now hope to position himself as next Liberal leader if Turnbull loses the next election (which currently is very likely.)  All dressed up by Turnbull in London, talking to Amber Rudd and Teresa May on how the Home Office works and why we should emulate it.  Of course, it could be reversed by a future Labor government, and probably would be.  The idea of ASIO being taken away from Attorney General's is highly questionable.  

Not clear either if the Greens will be down a Senator when parliament resumes for the Spring session.  The issue of Ludlam's successor will be decided by the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.  I guess the High Court marches to its own drum.....

Read about this yesterday, essentially making Dutton the most powerful politician in the country. Too much centralised power for one person. Brandis not happy obviously since he loses all his power. 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/peter-dutton-to-take-control-of-new-super-security-portfolio/news-story/d2478f80777633800924768e029ff357

The plan also includes outsourcing immigration to private entities (VFS global?)

[wombatinabox]

Hi Folks,

Not good news for the citizenship laws, we just lost 2 Greens in the senate. That means 2 less votes unless the issue is resolved and replacement happens before next session!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/larissa-waters-to-resign-from-senate-over-citizenship/8720066

Makes it even more important for everyone here to keep the pressure on Team Xenophon and other senators leaning towards rejecting the bill. You will find the full details in a previous post of mine on who to contact.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by wombatinabox

[Roberta2]

1 hour ago, wombatinabox said:

Read about this yesterday, essentially making Dutton the most powerful politician in the country. Too much centralised power for one person. Brandis not happy obviously since he loses all his power. 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/peter-dutton-to-take-control-of-new-super-security-portfolio/news-story/d2478f80777633800924768e029ff357

The plan also includes outsourcing immigration to private entities (VFS global?)

Brandis does not lose "all his power".  But no doubt he has been squared away.  Were he not to be compensated, he would be squawking.  There will be a cabinet reshuffle before Christmas.  High Commissioner to London, probably.  For all this, blame Tony Abbott.  ScoMo tried this one on when he had Dutton's job, but Bishop and others ensured he didn't get his way.  Now Turnbull is so weakened by Abbott he has had to give in to Dutton - who has been coming out against Abbott, even if not overtly.  Bishop is a big loser.  But at least she held onto ASIS....Dutton is certainly on a roll. 

[Roberta2]

38 minutes ago, wombatinabox said:

Hi Folks,

Not good news for the citizenship laws, we just lost 2 Greens in the senate. That means 2 less votes unless the issue is resolved and replacement happens before next session!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/larissa-waters-to-resign-from-senate-over-citizenship/8720066

Makes it even more important for everyone here to keep the pressure on Team Xenophon and other senators leaning towards rejecting the bill. You will find the full details in a previous post of mine on who to contact.

 

Good question about timing.  The Senate will refer these issues to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, but the Senate has to be in session before it can do this.  So the issue cannot be resolved and the Senators replaced before parliament sits again.  That's how I read it anyway.  Have asked Antony Green!

[jess6]

5 hours ago, wombatinabox said:

Hi Folks,

Not good news for the citizenship laws, we just lost 2 Greens in the senate. That means 2 less votes unless the issue is resolved and replacement happens before next session!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/larissa-waters-to-resign-from-senate-over-citizenship/8720066

Makes it even more important for everyone here to keep the pressure on Team Xenophon and other senators leaning towards rejecting the bill. You will find the full details in a previous post of mine on who to contact.

 

I am French and it literally blows my mind - not in a good way - I seriously do not understand Australia's positioning on this. This is a multicultural country.

How much sense does it make to exclude dual citizens from public fonctions??? That's certainly not representative of what the Australian population is made of.

[ericacaca2u]

Hello Everyone,

Below is an email sent from the office of Tony Burke Labor. He is opposed to the citizenship changes and at present asking for everyone opposed to the changes to send an email by 21st which will be presented to the senate and these comments will be publicly available unlike the previous opinions kept secret.

 

 

 

I would like to sincerely thank you for making a submission to the Senate Inquiry in opposition to the Government's unfair citizenship changes. Thousands of people from our community like you have already made a difference to this campaign. There are only 3 days left to make submissions. If you can help just five people make a submission we can dramatically increase the number of submissions. Be that you friends, family or members of your community. The email address to submit to is legcon.sen@aph.gov.au and they need to be sent by close of business this Friday 21st of July. The submission can be a long letter or a short few sentences. Make your voices heard. I'm convinced we can win this.   Kind regards, Tony Burke Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia PS. Peter Dutton and Malcolm Turnbull are trying to sweep this under the rug. Make your voices heard, encourage those around you to make a submission today!

 

 

[Roberta2]

31 minutes ago, jess6 said:

I am French and it literally blows my mind - not in a good way - I seriously do not understand Australia's positioning on this. This is a multicultural country.

How much sense does it make to exclude dual citizens from public fonctions??? That's certainly not representative of what the Australian population is made of.

It's nothing to do with multiculturalism.  Section 44(i) of the Constitution forbids dual citizenship because it would potentially lead to divided loyalties.  It's not controversial.  The Greens, among the greatest advocates in parliament for multiculturalism,  are not complaining about it.  

What does the current French constitution say about dual citizens being allowed to sit in your legislature?

[jess6]

28 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

It's nothing to do with multiculturalism.  Section 44(i) of the Constitution forbids dual citizenship because it would potentially lead to divided loyalties.  It's not controversial.  The Greens, among the greatest advocates in parliament for multiculturalism,  are not complaining about it.  

What does the current French constitution say about dual citizens being allowed to sit in your legislature?

The French constitution does not forbid it. The below article in English (sorry it's Vogue :)) features Naja Vallaud Belkacem, dual citizen and ex-minister in France.

http://www.vogue.com/article/najat-vallaud-belkacem-minister-of-education-france

In the US, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the 38th Governor of California from 2003 to 2011 - also a dual citizen.

I personally find it surprising that Australia - which is built on multi-culturalism - prevents dual citizens to sit in parliament. This is my personal opinion.

I guess I have this position because I am European and on my passport you can read European Union first and then French Republic. I believe in an open peaceful world with open perspectives that's probably why I am not shocked to see dual citizens in a goverment.

When someone choses to represent people, clearly they love the country because representing people is such a hard work. It really requires passion and commitment.

Thanks again for always giving context - I am learning so much at the moment! :-)

[Marcio]

If I hold a RSMS visa and that was granted 2 ago I can apply for citizen without waiting for 4 years?

[VERYSTORMY]

14 minutes ago, Marcio said:

If I hold a RSMS visa and that was granted 2 ago I can apply for citizen without waiting for 4 years?

No, you need to hold a permanent visa - your RSMS - for 4 years

[Roberta2]

1 hour ago, jess6 said:

The French constitution does not forbid it. The below article in English (sorry it's Vogue :)) features Naja Vallaud Belkacem, dual citizen and ex-minister in France.

http://www.vogue.com/article/najat-vallaud-belkacem-minister-of-education-france

In the US, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the 38th Governor of California from 2003 to 2011 - also a dual citizen.

I personally find it surprising that Australia - which is built on multi-culturalism - prevents dual citizens to sit in parliament. This is my personal opinion.

I guess I have this position because I am European and on my passport you can read European Union first and then French Republic. I believe in an open peaceful world with open perspectives that's probably why I am not shocked to see dual citizens in a goverment.

When someone choses to represent people, clearly they love the country because representing people is such a hard work. It really requires passion and commitment.

Thanks again for always giving context - I am learning so much at the moment! :-)

Australia was in fact built on monoculture.  The constitution was written in 1901, when Britannia ruled the waves, and Social Darwinism was widely believed - i.e. that there was a hierarchy of races, with the Anglo Saxons at the top.   (The Celts in Scotland were more or less OK because Protestant; the Catholic Celts in Ireland definitely not.)   The country was anything but multicultural.  In fact, the first act of the federal parliament was legislation to enact the White Australia Policy (although it was never officially called that.)  Many Chinese, Pacific Islanders etc were deported.  The drive to federation was partly to ensure uniform legislation throughout the country to exclude "inferior races" from the island continent. Even by the time of the Second World War, the population was more than 90% Anglo Celtic.  My father, when he enlisted in 1942, had to declare that he was of "pure European descent".   The remnants of the WAP were not abandoned until Whitlam came to office in 1972.   

The US Constitution, by the way, stipulates that the President must be a "native born" American.  Hence the drive by Trump and other so-called "birthers" to deny that Barak Obama had been born in Hawaii.  What they were really saying, of course, was that as a black man he was not fit to be president.  (A bit rich since his wife's ancestors had been brought to the US in chains....)

There are many aspects of the Australian Constitution that could do with updating.  It doesn't even mention the Prime Minister, Ministers, Cabinet government etc.  (All were assumed because it followed the British model.) But it is notoriously difficult to amend.  You have to get a majority of voters in a majority of states in a referendum to change it.  So most referenda have failed.  Forget the statistics - I think only 8 out of 54 have succeeded.

[jess6]

45 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

Australia was in fact built on monoculture.  The constitution was written in 1901, when Britannia ruled the waves, and Social Darwinism was widely believed - i.e. that there was a hierarchy of races, with the Anglo Saxons at the top.   (The Celts in Scotland were more or less OK because Protestant; the Catholic Celts in Ireland definitely not.)   The country was anything but multicultural.  In fact, the first act of the federal parliament was legislation to enact the White Australia Policy (although it was never officially called that.)  Many Chinese, Pacific Islanders etc were deported.  The drive to federation was partly to ensure uniform legislation throughout the country to exclude "inferior races" from the island continent. Even by the time of the Second World War, the population was more than 90% Anglo Celtic.  My father, when he enlisted in 1942, had to declare that he was of "pure European descent".   The remnants of the WAP were not abandoned until Whitlam came to office in 1972.   

The US Constitution, by the way, stipulates that the President must be a "native born" American.  Hence the drive by Trump and other so-called "birthers" to deny that Barak Obama had been born in Hawaii.  What they were really saying, of course, was that as a black man he was not fit to be president.  (A bit rich since his wife's ancestors had been brought to the US in chains....)

There are many aspects of the Australian Constitution that could do with updating.  It doesn't even mention the Prime Minister, Ministers, Cabinet government etc.  (All were assumed because it followed the British model.) But it is notoriously difficult to amend.  You have to get a majority of voters in a majority of states in a referendum to change it.  So most referenda have failed.  Forget the statistics - I think only 8 out of 54 have succeeded.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge - learning about different cultures is certainly what I love the most about being an expat.

[Ken]

2 hours ago, jess6 said:

In the US, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the 38th Governor of California from 2003 to 2011 - also a dual citizen.

Sorry, but that's not a good example. The Governor of California is local government. It would be a bit like a dual citizen being Premier of Victoria. That's allowed. It's only at the Federal level that dual citizens are excluded. That said (as many Australian Republicans have pointed out) it make no sense that dual citizens aren't allowed in the national parliament while the head of state has about 16 different citizenships.

[Roberta2]

I don't see any great push to change 44 (i).  The Greens are not challenging it.   There was a recent hoo-haa about Senator Gichuhi when there were (unsubtantiated) claims she was still a Kenyan citizen.  A dual citizen is always going to be suspected of having divided loyalties, even if that is not the case.  Would we want people in the parliament who were still citizens of China, Russia, Iran, etc?  Don't think so.  Aspiring politicians are just going to be much more careful in ensuring that if born overseas, they are sure that they are not still citizens of the country they were born in.  

As for the Queen as head of state, it's more or less a given that Australia will become a republic after the Queen dies.  While there is a lot of respect for the job she has done, Australia is a very different country now.  King Charles and Queen Camilla - don't think so....

[jess6]

On 18/07/2017 at 23:40, Ken said:

Sorry, but that's not a good example. The Governor of California is local government. It would be a bit like a dual citizen being Premier of Victoria. That's allowed. It's only at the Federal level that dual citizens are excluded. That said (as many Australian Republicans have pointed out) it make no sense that dual citizens aren't allowed in the national parliament while the head of state has about 16 different citizenships.

Good point - my bad - thanks for flagging

[jess6]

On 19/07/2017 at 09:43, Roberta2 said:

I don't see any great push to change 44 (i).  The Greens are not challenging it.   There was a recent hoo-haa about Senator Gichuhi when there were (unsubtantiated) claims she was still a Kenyan citizen.  A dual citizen is always going to be suspected of having divided loyalties, even if that is not the case.  Would we want people in the parliament who were still citizens of China, Russia, Iran, etc?  Don't think so.  Aspiring politicians are just going to be much more careful in ensuring that if born overseas, they are sure that they are not still citizens of the country they were born in.  

As for the Queen as head of state, it's more or less a given that Australia will become a republic after the Queen dies.  While there is a lot of respect for the job she has done, Australia is a very different country now.  King Charles and Queen Camilla - don't think so....

Fair enough - I guess it still feels weird to me that some dual citizen from Canada, America, New-Zealand, the UK or even EU to a certain extend - although I can understand Australia feels closer to the UK, New-Zealand or Canada than EU - can't keep they their dual citizenship and be national representative.

Regarding the Queen, this is an interesting point: do you think Australia will become a Republic after her passing?

Would it require some changes in the Constitution?

[Roberta2]

We had a referendum in 1999, with Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Republican movement, and Tony Abbott on the other side.  (One reason they have never been exactly mates.) Those in favour could not agree on how the Head of State would be chosen - by popular election, or by two thirds vote of the parliament.  So then PM John Howard was able to drive through the middle and it was defeated.

 I think there is widespread agreement that the Republican movement will have another go - after a decent interval following the Queen's passing.  And will probably succeed next time.  Among other things, we've had high levels of immigration since then from China and India, and most of those people probably think the current situation is odd.  (India became a republic upon independence in 1947) .  

By the way, Elizabeth II is a foreigner according to the Australian High Court ruling in 1999.  The case of Heather Hill, a One Nation Senator.  Precisely this issue of dual citizenship.

As for dual citizenship, you can't say the NZ or Canada is OK, but China is not.  Has to be one law for all. 

 

[Keith and Linda]

If they feel passionate enough about representing Australian people and passing laws for Australia, then they should be passionate about being an Australian and abide by Australian laws/rules/regulations.

[jolie2015]

8 minutes ago, Keith and Linda said:

If they feel passionate enough about representing Australian people and passing laws for Australia, then they should be passionate about being an Australian and abide by Australian laws/rules/regulations.

Not sure if you're talking about the Queen or aspiring politicians who are dual nationals...

[Roberta2]

I don't vote for the Greens but I do think the cases of the two Green Senators were genuine mistakes.    Everyone has 20: 20 hindsight.