Category Archives: Dual citizenship
Letter to the Editor
In 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed a remarkable law, beginning with a few simple words that defined Israel’s central purpose: “Every Jew has the right to immigrate to this country…”
With the inception of the State of Israel, two thousand years of wandering were officially over. Since then, Jews have been entitled to simply show up and request to be Israeli citizens, assuming they posed no imminent danger to public health, state security, or the Jewish people as a whole. Essentially, all Jews everywhere are Israeli citizens by right.
In 1955, the law was amended slightly to specify that dangerous criminals could also be denied that right.
In 1970, Israel took another historic step by granting automatic citizenship not only to Jews, but also to their non-Jewish children, grandchildren, and spouses, and to the non-Jewish spouses of their children and grandchildren. This addition not only ensured that families would not be broken apart, but also promised a safe haven in Israel for non-Jews subject to persecution because of their Jewish roots.
.Federal MP’s alleged to be Jewish
…………….“While Israelis may hold dual citizenship, a Basic Law passed in 1958 states that Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance as parliamentarians unless their foreign citizenship has been revoked under the laws of that country,” the article states.
Another Israeli politician, who was elected at the same time as Svetlova is Rachel Azaria, who was also forced to renounce her foreign citizenship–in the US! Again from the Times of Israel:
Azaria, a 38-year-old Jerusalem deputy mayor, renounced her American citizenship, which she had held by virtue of her mother having been born in the US.
It is astounding, is it not? Israel gets billions of dollars per year courtesy of US taxpayers–but anyone holding US citizenship is barred from serving in the Knesset! But we are not allowed to have a similar law here in the US banning Israeli citizens from serving in Congress!
And not only do we not have a similar in the US, but apparently Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at finding out which Congress members do in fact hold dual citizenship–are denied. The following is a 2015 article that was published at Counterpunch.
Read on –
Editor: This potential bombshell could be why the JSCEM (Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters) wants to abolish s44 and 45 of the Constitution
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has today released its report into matters related to Section 44 of The Australian Constitution.
Committee Chairman Senator Linda Reynolds said the report found that s. 44 was becoming increasingly undemocratic and that future referrals to the High Court would be inevitable.
“Problems with s. 44 are neither new, nor unforeseen,” Senator Reynolds said.
“20 years of Parliamentary Committee reports and a Constitutional Convention have all predicted that without constitutional reform to parts or all of s. 44, challenges would occur to otherwise qualified and validly elected Members of Parliament.
“Problems with the operation of s. 44 have come to public attention over the past year as a result of the high number of s. 44(i) citizenship matters referred to by the High Court. While public discussion has been on these citizenship cases, two other sub sections of s. 44 were also the subject of High Court consideration.”
Senator Reynolds said in addition to the previously identified problems with s. 44, recent High Court decisions have created new uncertainties and future opportunities to manipulate election results, which are likely to end by being referred to the High Court.
“Recent High Court decisions on the interpretation on s. 44 are clear–to nominate as a candidate, all reasonable steps must be taken prior to nomination to ensure all candidates are not disqualified to be on the ballot paper,” Senator Reynolds said.
“The Committee makes no judgement on the dual citizenship issue itself,” Senator Reynolds said.
“The question of whether or not the application of these rules meets contemporary Australian expectations is a different matter altogether and is one for Australians to ultimately determine.”
“We believe that issue is one for Australians to consider as part of a wider debate on qualities we want in our candidates when they stand for election and for those who are elected to Parliament.”
Based on the significant and persuasive evidence to the Inquiry, the Committee has recommended that the Australian Government prepare a referendum question to either repeal sections 44 and 45 or insert the words ‘Until Parliament so provides…’ into both sections.
Senator Reynolds said while the Committee had recommended a referendum to permanently fix the problems with s. 44, the Committee acknowledged the preconditions for a successful referendum do not yet exist and may take time to achieve.
Until such time a referendum is successful in providing Australians or their elected representatives the ability to change disqualifications, the committee has recommended the Federal Government consider implementing a range of mitigation strategies. The first measures should be in place before the conduct of the upcoming by-elections to minimise the chance of those elections being challenged in the high court.
- Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prepare a proposed referendum question to either:
- repeal sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution; or
- insert into sections 44 and 45 the words: ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides…’
- Recommendation 2
If the referendum passes, the Committee further recommends that the Australian Government further engages with the Australian community to determine contemporary expectations of standards in order to address all matters of qualification and disqualification for Parliament through legislation under section 34 of the Constitution.
- Recommendation 3
In the event that a referendum does not proceed or does not pass, that the Australian Government consider strategies to mitigate the impact of section 44 as outlined in this report.
- Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Government consider the implications of this report in the context of the upcoming be-elections, in particular the options outlined in chapter 4.
Further information will be available on the Committee’s website www.aph.gov.au/em.
by Leonard William
Exposing the lies of GEORGE HENRY BRANDIS, JOSHUA ANTHONY FRYDENBERG and MALCOLM BLIGH TURNBULL.
It makes me quite angry to see the shenanigans being carried out by the liars that infest OUR parliaments, namely the fe’ral parliament in Canberra.
GEORGE HENRY BRANDIS is a German citizen or at least is ENTITLED to the rights and privileges of a German citizen. The point being missed by all and sundry is that Section 44 of OUR constitution is THE paramount law of OUR land and is not there for anybody to breach and that it does not just mean being under acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power, but being otherwise ENTITLED to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power. Ergo, being entitled to a passport of a foreign power prohibits any person sitting in OUR fe’ral parliament.
BRANDIS IS A LIAR AND NOT ELIGIBLE TO SIT IN OUR PARLIAMENT.
The bedwetting snowflakes and job protectionists who whinge and whine saying that we should forget the problem and get on with more important things, and this includes many radio talk-back hosts do not understand there are no more important things than getting the liars, manipulators and connivers out of OUR parliament now. It is not a difficult thing to ascertain who is and who is not eligible.
It is the job of the Governor-General and the Australian Federal Police to sort out the mess, not the parliament.
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty‑five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth. Editor: Please note the Governor General according to the Constitution is still paid in pounds, shillings and pence.
Letter to the editor
The Canberra Times
Now that the High Court has shown it will almost strictly interpret OUR constitution, will we now see those who are “entitled” to the rights and privileges of citizens of foreign powers willingly or otherwise be removed from OUR parliament?
There are many who are in the proverbial cleft stick as they have parents who are citizens of Great Britain, Greece and others. If you have, for instance, renounced your British citizenship, you may still recover it by way of application and the Home Secretary will approve it unless you have a criminal record or an unstable mind. Apparently you will only have it returned once, but to reapply for it to rid yourself of it demonstrates a disloyalty to Australia.
Those born of German parents automatically gain German citizenship, as with George Henry Brandis.
How many other of those sitting in OUR federal parliament are ineligible according to Section 44?