3 ms·

The whole citizenship revocation sounds absurd. If an immigrant has given up their previous citizenship after gaining Australian citizenship revocation makes th

The whole citizenship revocation sounds absurd. If an immigrant has given up their previous citizenship after gaining Australian citizenship revocation makes them a person without citizenship which is a rather weird concept. If they didn't there still is no such concept which would make them more of a citizen of one country than another so revoking their citizenship doesn't make much more sense than that of one who has been born a citizen. It they are considered a criminal - fine them or put them in a prison, just like you would any other citizen.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
The high profile controversies of this nature all seem to be people who have gone off to join ISIS. In these cases, when were they made stateless, and by whom?. Was it when their previous country revoked their citizenship? When they were initially displaced from ISIS controlled territory? When ISIS suffered a territorial defeat? I know it's a complicated issue, but leaving your home nation to join an upstart state that's ostensibly waging a war against it (as unconventional of a war as it is/was) has to be one of the general cases where it's most acceptable.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Sure, but that's not the point is it? What you describe is already easily covered by a general law against treason, in that they joined a war effort against their country. The point here is the "confidential information" bit.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    The parent comment is about the concept of citizenship revocation in general.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Treason itself is a slippery, morally obsolete (probably coming from the feudal ages) concept which I wouldn't apply to people who have been born a citizen, never asked for that in their sane age, never volunteered to join the country military or civil services or signed up for access to secret documents.

3 ms·

The whole citizenship revocation sounds absurd. If an immigrant has given up their previous citizenship after gaining Australian citizenship revocation makes th

by qwerty456127 5y ago

AmericanChopper 5y ago
The high profile controversies of this nature all seem to be people who have gone off to join ISIS. In these cases, when were they made stateless, and by whom?. Was it when their previous country revoked their citizenship? When they were initially displaced from ISIS controlled territory? When ISIS suffered a territorial defeat? I know it's a complicated issue, but leaving your home nation to join an upstart state that's ostensibly waging a war against it (as unconventional of a war as it is/was) has to be one of the general cases where it's most acceptable.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Sure, but that's not the point is it? What you describe is already easily covered by a general law against treason, in that they joined a war effort against their country. The point here is the "confidential information" bit.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    The parent comment is about the concept of citizenship revocation in general.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Treason itself is a slippery, morally obsolete (probably coming from the feudal ages) concept which I wouldn't apply to people who have been born a citizen, never asked for that in their sane age, never volunteered to join the country military or civil services or signed up for access to secret documents.