Jump to content

citizenship debacle


hihosland

Recommended Posts

It would seem that if some Kiwi clerk elects to delay the paperwork for Barnaby's renunciation of NZ citizenship he will remain ineligible to sit in parliament.

 

Or if Yemen decides to grant Pauline citizenship then she too will join the ranks of the banned.

 

How weird that we don't have a system whereby an Australian citizen by taking an oath can renounce any entitlement to foreign citizenship.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hihosland, you are not wrong. To become a naturalized Australian, you are required to make this pledge:

 

From this time forward, under God,*

 

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

 

whose democratic beliefs I share,

 

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

 

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

 

* These two words can be omitted depending on a person's spiritual belief.

 

 

 

History:

 

 

Pledge of Commitment for citizenship

 

The wording of the Oath of Allegiance taken by newly naturalising Australian citizens has changed over time. In 1973, the oath's wording was:

 

I, A. B., renouncing all other allegiance,

 

swear by Almighty God that:

 

I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia,

 

Her heirs and successors according to law,

 

and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia

 

and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen.

 

 

However, Australia never required new citizens to formally renounce their former citizenship under the law of that country. An equivalent wording was available in the form of a non-religious affirmation for those who preferred. In 1986, the Hawke Government changed the wording to:

 

I swear by Almighty God that

 

I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia,

 

Her heirs and successors according to law,

 

and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia

 

and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen.

 

 

In 1994, the Keating Government replaced the oath with a Pledge of Commitment to Australia:[7]

 

From this time forward, [under God,]

 

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

 

whose democratic beliefs I share,

 

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

 

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

 

 

 

Oath can mean either a formal promise or an offensive word. Assuming you are interested in the first definition, we will focus on that. Oath is more commonly used when the person speaking the promise calls upon God to witness to the event [also allows for a non-religious affirmation]. An oath is portrayed as the most 'serious' of the two words.

 

 

 

Pledge is much less formal. Many organizations state their moral and ethic affirmations through a pledge. Likewise, the Pledge of Commitment is a promise of loyalty to one's country.

 

 

 

OME

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it strange that in this instance parliamentarians are not so much being asked to pledge loyalty to Australia as to demonstrate that another country as renounced its claim,if any, on that person's allegiance.

The oath and the constitution don't mean much when so many of our politicians have demonstrated more loyalty to foreign-owned corporations than to Australia.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...