That is certainly the question now in Australia as four Senators have been forced to declare dual citizenship and thus ineligibility

Each circumstance is bizzairre such as arrival as infants, being nominated for citizenship by your parent as an adult or the latest revelation that he revoked his citizenship but it wasn't acknowledged until after the election

Senator Malcolm Roberts dual citizenship in question

The government has passed some radical changes with the help of these now deposed senators and the whole structure of the next legislative session hangs in the balance, but the more interesting is that these erstwhile citizens are members of minor parties, no one in the major parties has owned up yet

Ah, Constitutions, they are hard to get around but apparently not as hard as some think
A change to qualifications can be decided by the parliament, not by plebicite as some think, and does this mean a citizen of the UK or NZ is eligible, a somewhat vague clause, but the matter has since been resolved by many changes to citizenship, meaning no citizen of another country can hold a seat in federal parliament unless they have made all reasonable efforts to renounce citizenship of another country.

How do you renounce a citizenship you didn't know you had, a true dilema

guess your nation does not want Manchurian candidates .

Oh we have some chinese politicians, some english politicians, some kiwi politicians, some italian politicians, etc, australians all, we even have some politicians who are in the pocket of the chinese, our laws are designed in the days of terrorists to keep such allegiences to a minimum

Manchurian Candidate


NOUN

• A person who is (or is believed to be) brainwashed into becoming a subversive agent, especially an assassin.
  
  

Origin

1970s; earliest use found in The National Review. Popularized by the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate, adapted from the 1959 novel of the same name by Richard Condon.

yes I wasn't speaking specifically of the nationality of the politician. Here the Constitution guards against a President with possible conflicts due to dual national loyalties .


yes I wasn't speaking specifically of the nationality of the politician. Here the Constitution guards against a President with possible conflicts due to dual national loyalties .

Nor was I necessarily however recent events lead both ways
Labor reeling after Senate candidates China links find $120k for the party

Destyari and Robb are particular cases in point and might fit smoothy's definition. Our Constitution is also explicit at the federal level although there are some vagarities regarding the point at which dual nationality has been disgarded

This an annus horribilis, will no one rid me of these meddlesome Kiwi, in the latest of this citizenship, non-citizenship saga, Barnaby Joyce, leader of the Country Party, and deputy Prime Minister has been outed as a dual citizen because his father was born in New Zealand. This absolutely ridiculous, that means I have British citizenship automatically because my father was born in Britain, not withstanding that I am a sixth generation Australian. How come no one explained that to me when I was resident in Britain. The Constitution must be changed immediately to remove this disqualification from office of Australian citizens

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-1...ust-14/8802990

[COLOR=#333333]Here we go again, not only is the leader of the Country Party having citizenship problems but his deputy, Fiona Nash has been outed for being a scot. If this goes on the country will become ungovernable and we will have a constitutional crisis

This is a nation of migrants so the possibilities of dual citizenship are endless, but our founding fathers had some rediculous idea our linage had to be pure, an attempt long ago to stop this rot by including the words "or naturalised citizen" wasn't allowed, not that it would have solved the problem of parentage[/COLOR]

it may be an outmoded concept . I always thought the reason the American framers put in the provision for 'naturalized citizen ' was because of their hatred of Alexander Hamilton. He among all the framers deserved the chance to become President . But he was excluded because he was born in the Caribbean to a mixed race mom. I understand they were concerned about a'Manchurian Candidate' in the young republic . But in the 21st century ,that could be a provision to revisit .

It seems our Constitution might be outmoded in other ways too, but this is a real problem, legislation was recently lost on a 31-31 vote in the Senate, some Senators having being removed because of dual citizenship, now we are going to have a non binding plebisite, the actions of the government are being taken to the High Court for lack of clear legislation and the balance in the House hangs on the vote of these dual citizens so no legislation which doesn't have bi-partisan support can be introduced

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-1...-again/8816488

Unbelievable, another Senator, Nick Xenophon, leader of a minor party, is caught up in this debacle of citizenship through parenthood. Xenophon may be a british citizen because his father was born in Cyprus and may have had british citizenship. What I don't get about this nonsense is that at the time of writing the constitution we were all British subjects, but suddenly we are british citizens even though Britain severed its ties. How can the rights of an Australian born person be abrogated by the actions of another country?

you had your chance to go from a constitutional monarchy to a Federal Republic .


you had your chance to go from a constitutional monarchy to a Federal Republic .

The sins of the your founding fathers have come home to roost Clete. Don't you learned people have a way to fix your glitch?

Oh yes Tal, it is called a constitutional referendum, but the problem is who will frame the question and the terms in a parliament where the "majority" is in the hands of those who have been outed in this crisis. In a recent vote the Senate was divided 31-31 but now two of those votes are in doubt, and the one seat majority in the House rests with another whose vote is in doubt. We are then forced into bi-partisanism, an oft touted but rarely seen display of anything other than self interest

and it will come again, but will it rest on a rewrite of this archaic document written with ideas borrowed from the United States or will our republic have a president appointed by the politicians, some eminent person. If the people decide we can have a republic, the last time the question was put they voted against it and we did not have a revolt. Very soon we will have an opportunity to gage the atmosphere for change when the question of same sex marriage is put to the people, I suspect our conservative values will be on show

I guess your governing system is imperfect, and needs maintenance, and tweaking every now and then huh? I feel YA!

Yes, what was thought to be good two centuries, or, even one century ago, fails to embrace the realities of today. From my observation all governing systems are imperfect, but some work better than others. Making the leaders answerable to the parliament as ours does serves the purpose of moderation and ensuring decisions are common sense for the most part. Leaders cannot get away with fiat and whim without it being brought to debate very quickly, but attitudes have changed a great deal, and I think two world wars and the continuing threat of a third requires more that lip service to a founding document. It requires the over arching principles to be reinforced and if necessary, changed.

We must get away from this trial by media approach and get back to allowing those who govern to do so without corruption

Thankfully our forefathers had the vision to include mechanisms to amend the Constitution. Only one of them has been utilized . It's time to consider the other .

Yes us too, but amending our founding document has proven to be very difficult in the past, we have been debating forever on how to include recognition of indigenous persons without opening the floodgates for compensation claims and some sort of star chamber where they direct policy

Give them a seat at the table. Naw, you could NEVER do that because you would have to listen to their concerns. Only a racist could think that a seat or two according to population would lead to a minority directing policy. I guess you will have to keep suppressing them until you find that solution, that will keep suppressing them.

You can stop wasting your time "debating" because the present system works just fine doesn't it? The problem really is how to get MORE for you and less for them. Be easy if they would just bend a knee to your dominance and do as they were told. That would solve your problem wouldn't it?

We are alike in our racists democracies.