4 ms·
Clickbait title: AFAIK this applies only to revoking recently granted (first generation) citizenships. Australia already has provisions to do this for cases li
by dustintrex 5y ago
Clickbait title: AFAIK this applies only to revoking recently granted (first generation) citizenships. Australia already has provisions to do this for cases like falsified applications, as does virtually everywhere else.
It's still a slippery slope though, and there was justified outcry earlier about plans to revoke citizenship for awfully loosely defined "terrorism" and similar offences.
- NamTaf 5y agoI don't particularly care. It's still absolutely grotesque that a government can revoke citizenship of any citizen whatsoever due to information they do not have any obligation to share with said citizen. The right to defend oneself against alledged infractions is the cornerstone to the rule of law, and that requires knowing what those infractions are. This is the product of a power-tripping authoritarian government unchecked by a disgustingly apathetic citizenry who, so long as they have the ability to fire up a BBQ and crack a beer over the footy aftter spending the day fishing, will not give one shit about what rights the government strips away. It's hard to describe how apathetic the average Aussie voter is. The political discourse here is squalid. It's the same reason why digital rights are under such an onslaught. Disclaimer: am Aussie.
- smnrchrds 5y agoStephen Harper, the previous prime minister of Canada, passed a similar law, which was fortunately overturned when his party lost power in the next election. People (IMHO rightly) criticized that it created different classes of citizenship, making citizens of immigrant background having less rights than born Canadians.