Discussion:
dual citizen
(too old to reply)
Max
2018-07-31 11:30:54 UTC
Permalink
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092

WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.

Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
de chucka
2018-07-31 11:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
No it isn't
news18
2018-07-31 13:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.

When it was written Federally, being a British citzen wasn't seen as a
conflict of interest. first they wantyed to exclude the non-british, then
they estabnlished the country of australia and finally they finally acted
to make sure they were committed to stay here and not decamp like the
usual action of scumscammers/etc.
Pelican
2018-07-31 20:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation was
established in the Australian Constitution. You mean the colonies, not
the States.

The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament. At
that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today, and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
Post by Max
When it was written Federally, being a British citzen wasn't seen as a
conflict of interest. first they wantyed to exclude the non-british, then
they estabnlished the country of australia and finally they finally acted
to make sure they were committed to stay here and not decamp like the
usual action of scumscammers/etc.
de chucka
2018-07-31 21:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation was
established in the Australian Constitution.  You mean the colonies, not
the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated. Yes
the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was not
changed when they became States which is why you can have dual citizens
in most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.  At
that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?

and there was no
Post by Pelican
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
Pelican
2018-07-31 21:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation
was established in the Australian Constitution.  You mean the
colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated. Yes
the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was not
changed when they became States which is why you can have dual citizens
in most/all State Parliaments
No. The reason why the State Constitutions don't refer to dual
citizenship is that it wasn't an issue at that time.
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
History, cherub.
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
 and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
Do you?
de chucka
2018-07-31 21:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation
was established in the Australian Constitution.  You mean the
colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
No.  The reason why the State Constitutions don't refer to dual
citizenship is that it wasn't an issue at that time.
If it wasn't an issue why is it in the Federal Constitution and not the
State ones? Remembering the date of Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
History, cherub.
What a profound statement
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
  and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
Do you?
Yes as Sect 44 was in our Constitution
Pelican
2018-07-31 22:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation
was established in the Australian Constitution.  You mean the
colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
No.  The reason why the State Constitutions don't refer to dual
citizenship is that it wasn't an issue at that time.
If it wasn't an issue why is it in the Federal Constitution and not the
State ones? Remembering the date of Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).
Do your own historical research. Not that you will, because you can't.
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
History, cherub.
What a profound statement
Naturally.
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
  and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
Do you?
Yes  as Sect 44 was in our Constitution
Not that you have any understanding of why that provision is in the
Constitution.
de chucka
2018-07-31 22:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the
federation was established in the Australian Constitution.  You
mean the colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
No.  The reason why the State Constitutions don't refer to dual
citizenship is that it wasn't an issue at that time.
If it wasn't an issue why is it in the Federal Constitution and not
the State ones? Remembering the date of Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).
Do your own historical research.
So you've got no fucking idea what you are spouting about

Not that you will, because you can't.
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial
Parliament. At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
History, cherub.
What a profound statement
Naturally.
Deep in BS
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
  and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a
"X" citizen and sit
Do you?
Yes  as Sect 44 was in our Constitution
Not that you have any understanding of why that provision is in the
Constitution.
OK smart arse why is Sect 1 there and not mirrored in the NSW State
constitution?
Pelican
2018-07-31 22:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the
federation was established in the Australian Constitution.  You
mean the colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
No.  The reason why the State Constitutions don't refer to dual
citizenship is that it wasn't an issue at that time.
If it wasn't an issue why is it in the Federal Constitution and not
the State ones? Remembering the date of Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).
Do your own historical research.
So you've got no fucking idea what you are spouting about
 Not that you will, because you can't.
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial
Parliament. At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
History, cherub.
What a profound statement
Naturally.
Deep in BS
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
  and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a
"X" citizen and sit
Do you?
Yes  as Sect 44 was in our Constitution
Not that you have any understanding of why that provision is in the
Constitution.
OK smart arse why is Sect 1 there and not mirrored in the NSW State
constitution?
Read the thread - it's quite clear.
de chucka
2018-07-31 22:33:00 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
OK smart arse why is Sect 1 there and not mirrored in the NSW State
constitution?
Read the thread - it's quite clear.
Cool you've got no fucking idea about the subject. Shit even RS knows
more then you
Pelican
2018-07-31 22:43:27 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
OK smart arse why is Sect 1 there and not mirrored in the NSW State
constitution?
Read the thread - it's quite clear.
Cool I've got no fucking idea about the subject. Shit even RS knows
more then me
Beyond doubt.
de chucka
2018-08-01 02:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
OK smart arse why is Sect 1 there and not mirrored in the NSW State
constitution?
Read the thread - it's quite clear.
Cool I've got no fucking idea about the subject. Shit even RS knows
more then me
Beyond doubt.
juvo
Rod Speed
2018-07-31 21:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation was
established in the Australian Constitution. You mean the colonies, not
the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated. Yes
the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was not
changed when they became States which is why you can have dual citizens in
most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament. At
that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
de chucka
2018-07-31 22:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation
was established in the Australian Constitution.  You mean the
colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference? Things wouldn't even have been that
different 1855 to 1901 surely. Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was
only adopted in 1902 but didn't have the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
 and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament? Didn't realise that. I know
there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as your
only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
Pelican
2018-07-31 22:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation
was established in the Australian Constitution.  You mean the
colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference? Things wouldn't even have been that
different 1855 to 1901 surely. Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was
only adopted in 1902 but didn't have the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
 and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament? Didn't realise that. I know
there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as your
only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
It does now.
de chucka
2018-07-31 22:34:00 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament? Didn't realise that. I
know there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as
your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
It does now.
Really WOW, have you just figured that out?
Pelican
2018-07-31 22:44:23 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament? Didn't realise that. I
know there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as
your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
It does now.
Really WOW, I have just figured that out
NFW
de chucka
2018-07-31 23:19:30 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament? Didn't realise that. I
know there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long
as your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
It does now.
Really WOW, I have just figured that out
NFW
Wow you're a BS artist and a juvenile post changer.

You do realise everybody can see what I actually posted don't you?
Rod Speed
2018-07-31 22:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation
was established in the Australian Constitution. You mean the colonies,
not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated. Yes
the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was not
changed when they became States which is why you can have dual citizens
in most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference?
Yep, because with federation came the need to rethink what
was in our constitution and we decided that, not the poms
who were the ones that did the colonial constitutions.
Post by de chucka
Things wouldn't even have been that different 1855 to 1901 surely.
Different people doing the constitution. And don’t call me shirley, rhonda.
Post by de chucka
Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was only adopted in 1902 but didn't have
the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Because they had other ideas on what should be in it.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
In the case of atleast one, yep. This
latest utter fiasco is a very recent thing.
Post by de chucka
Didn't realise that. I know there was a Canadian but he was a British
subject and as long as your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't
matter.
King O'Malley was a yank.
de chucka
2018-07-31 23:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the
federation was established in the Australian Constitution.  You
mean the colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial
Parliament. At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference?
Yep, because with federation came the need to rethink what
was in our constitution and we decided that, not the poms
who were the ones that did the colonial constitutions.
That seems to make sense as the Federal Constitution was an Australian
matter via the conventions The question remains why wasn't this included
in the new States Constitutions?
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Things wouldn't even have been that different 1855 to 1901 surely.
Different people doing the constitution. And don’t call me shirley, rhonda.
Post by de chucka
Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was only adopted in 1902 but didn't
have the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Because they had other ideas on what should be in it.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
 and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a
"X" citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
In the case of atleast one, yep. This
latest utter fiasco is a very recent thing.
Post by de chucka
Didn't realise that. I know there was a Canadian but he was a British
subject and as long as your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't
matter.
King O'Malley was a yank.
Claimed to be a Canadian ( BS BS ) thus a British citizen. Harder to
check in those days esp. as he didn't know his DoB. Supposedly admitted
in later life to being a yank
Rod Speed
2018-08-01 00:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation
was established in the Australian Constitution. You mean the
colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly stated.
Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this provision was
not changed when they became States which is why you can have dual
citizens in most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference?
Yep, because with federation came the need to rethink what
was in our constitution and we decided that, not the poms
who were the ones that did the colonial constitutions.
That seems to make sense as the Federal Constitution was an Australian
matter via the conventions The question remains why wasn't this included
in the new States Constitutions?
No one who mattered considered it was important enough to include in those.

Its far from clear that it was even considered to be important
in the federal constitution. More likely it was just another fairly
trivial thing included by someone with a bee in his bonnet
about that and no one else who mattered thought it was
important enough to kill it. So it lurked for well over a
hundred years and finally bit quite a few on the arse.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Things wouldn't even have been that different 1855 to 1901 surely.
Different people doing the constitution. And don’t call me shirley, rhonda.
Post by de chucka
Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was only adopted in 1902 but didn't
have the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Because they had other ideas on what should be in it.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
In the case of atleast one, yep. This
latest utter fiasco is a very recent thing.
Post by de chucka
Didn't realise that. I know there was a Canadian but he was a British
subject and as long as your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't
matter.
King O'Malley was a yank.
Claimed to be a Canadian ( BS BS )
But he wasn’t. At most born in canada and even that is a lie.
Post by de chucka
thus a British citizen. Harder to check in those days esp. as he didn't
know his DoB.
Only not sure by a day tho.
Post by de chucka
Supposedly admitted in later life to being a yank
He was always a yank.
de chucka
2018-08-01 02:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by Max
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-
embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
Post by Max
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the
federation was established in the Australian Constitution.  You
mean the colonies, not the States.
Perfectly clear to anybody apart from you what is correctly
stated. Yes the colonies had their own constitutions and this
provision was not changed when they became States which is why you
can have dual citizens in most/all State Parliaments
Post by Pelican
The colonies were all established from 1788, and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial
Parliament. At that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today,
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference?
Yep, because with federation came the need to rethink what
was in our constitution and we decided that, not the poms
who were the ones that did the colonial constitutions.
That seems to make sense as the Federal Constitution was an Australian
matter via the conventions The question remains why wasn't this
included in the new States Constitutions?
No one who mattered considered it was important enough to include in those.
Its far from clear that it was even considered to be important
in the federal constitution. More likely it was just another fairly
trivial thing included by someone with a bee in his bonnet
about that and no one else who mattered thought it was
important enough to kill it. So it lurked for well over a
hundred years and finally bit quite a few on the arse.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Things wouldn't even have been that different 1855 to 1901 surely.
Different people doing the constitution. And don’t call me shirley, rhonda.
Post by de chucka
Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was only adopted in 1902 but
didn't have the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Because they had other ideas on what should be in it.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
 and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a
"X" citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
 As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
In the case of atleast one, yep. This
latest utter fiasco is a very recent thing.
Post by de chucka
Didn't realise that. I know there was a Canadian but he was a
British subject and as long as your only allegiance was to the crown
it didn't matter.
King O'Malley was a yank.
Claimed to be a Canadian ( BS BS )
But he wasn’t. At most born in canada and even that is a lie.
Post by de chucka
thus a British citizen. Harder to check in those days esp. as he
didn't know his DoB.
Only not sure by a day tho.
Post by de chucka
Supposedly admitted in later life to being a yank
He was always a yank.
and therefore he wasn't eligible to sit in the Federal Parliament
news18
2018-08-01 03:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
That seems to make sense as the Federal Constitution was an Australian
matter via the conventions The question remains why wasn't this included
in the new States Constitutions?
Prior establishment and being "British", was about your ancestors and
thus made you Australian if you were here. Queue in decades of
cringeworth brown nosing bothe the UK, then the USA and things might,
finally change and be 'corrected'.
..................................
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Didn't realise that. I know there was a Canadian but he was a British
subject and as long as your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't
matter.
King O'Malley was a yank.
Claimed to be a Canadian ( BS BS ) thus a British citizen. Harder to
check in those days esp. as he didn't know his DoB. Supposedly admitted
in later life to being a yank
He is the known odd one, but you have to remember that the Empire had its
fingers in a lot of places and if you were descended from British
ancestors, then that made you British when you moved elsewhere, including
Australia.
de chucka
2018-08-01 04:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by de chucka
That seems to make sense as the Federal Constitution was an Australian
matter via the conventions The question remains why wasn't this included
in the new States Constitutions?
Prior establishment and being "British", was about your ancestors and
thus made you Australian if you were here. Queue in decades of
cringeworth brown nosing bothe the UK, then the USA and things might,
finally change and be 'corrected'.
..................................
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Didn't realise that. I know there was a Canadian but he was a British
subject and as long as your only allegiance was to the crown it didn't
matter.
King O'Malley was a yank.
Claimed to be a Canadian ( BS BS ) thus a British citizen. Harder to
check in those days esp. as he didn't know his DoB. Supposedly admitted
in later life to being a yank
He is the known odd one, but you have to remember that the Empire had its
fingers in a lot of places and if you were descended from British
ancestors, then that made you British when you moved elsewhere, including
Australia.
Exactly, as stated before
news18
2018-08-01 02:51:19 UTC
Permalink
...................................................
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference? Things wouldn't even have been that
different 1855 to 1901 surely.
Lots of difference. You need to look at the expnsion of known areas of
the various places. They all started at the coast, then moved inland,
largely land grabbers/squatters seeking fiefdoms, then the influence of
the "born here' grew and they wanted a smaller piece for themselves. You
need to remember that being sent out as a convict was around trip; you
got a free return trip when your time was up(7 or 14 years usually), but
people just decided that they'd prefer to stay, which the "authority" saw
as a bonus for keeping the French out.
Post by de chucka
Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was
only adopted in 1902 but didn't have the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Measure of the changing awareness and relative power of the old-empire
followers & the new Australians. There are a lot of events that helped
move what became "Australia" from the Empire first, then "UK" later.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
 and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after
 WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament? Didn't realise that. I know
there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as your
only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
In the past, yes. The question comes moot as "republicanism" grows
stronger. The problem is the the fiddling of the Empire/UK continues to
this day
Rod Speed
2018-08-01 04:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by news18
...................................................
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Why wasn't it in those days compared to 1891?
Essentially because far more were immigrants and not born here, then.
10 years made the difference? Things wouldn't even have been that
different 1855 to 1901 surely.
Lots of difference. You need to look at the expnsion of known areas of
the various places. They all started at the coast, then moved inland,
largely land grabbers/squatters seeking fiefdoms, then the influence of
the "born here' grew and they wanted a smaller piece for themselves.
You need to remember that being sent out as a convict was around trip;
you got a free return trip when your time was up(7 or 14 years usually),
Like hell you did.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~perthdps/convicts/res-11.html

In fact, not only didn’t you get a free return trip, you weren't allowed to
return at all.
Post by news18
but people just decided that they'd prefer to stay, which
the "authority" saw as a bonus for keeping the French out.
Post by de chucka
Anyhow the NSW State Constitution was only adopted in
1902 but didn't have the Sect 44 provision of the Feds.
Measure of the changing awareness and relative power of the old-empire
followers & the new Australians. There are a lot of events that helped
move what became "Australia" from the Empire first, then "UK" later.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
and there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until after
WW2.
I assume in those days you couldn't be dual British citizen and a "X"
citizen and sit
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament? Didn't realise that. I know
there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as your
only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
In the past, yes. The question comes moot as "republicanism" grows
stronger. The problem is the the fiddling of the Empire/UK continues to
this day
Fran
2018-08-01 04:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.

Didn't realise that. I know
Post by de chucka
there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as your
only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
de chucka
2018-08-01 04:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
Post by Fran
Didn't realise that. I know
Post by de chucka
there was a Canadian but he was a British subject and as long as your
only allegiance was to the crown it didn't matter.
Fran
2018-08-01 10:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
What he claimed is not what was. He lied. But I suspect it wasn't much
of an issue anyway back then. And even this time round, if they hadn't
all been so stupid about trying to score points against the other side,
they should have just come to am agreement where all members who stuffed
up and could fix it just said 'yep, mea culpa, have fixed the problem by
doing "x" nothing to see here, this is my country and this is where I
swear allegiance'.
de chucka
2018-08-01 21:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
What he claimed is not what was.  He lied.
Yep but under the Constitution he was ineligible

  But I suspect it wasn't much
of an issue anyway back then.
As you say I'm not sure it is a great issue now

And even this time round, if they hadn't
all been so stupid about trying to score points against the other side,
they should have just come to am agreement where all members who stuffed
up and could fix it just said 'yep, mea culpa, have fixed the problem by
doing "x" nothing to see here, this is my country and this is where I
swear allegiance'.
news18
2018-08-01 23:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
What he claimed is not what was.  He lied.
Yep but under the Constitution he was ineligible
  But I suspect it wasn't much
of an issue anyway back then.
As you say I'm not sure it is a great issue now
After decades of scum fleeing OS and being untouchable because they were
a citizen of another country. It is a very good reason for making sure
the peeps that want the power of representing us are committed to this
country.

We've finally gotten over foreigners as our GG, time to make sure that
ALL members of government at all levels are committed to this country and
not just here for what they can rip off.
Rod Speed
2018-08-02 03:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
What he claimed is not what was. He lied.
Yep but under the Constitution he was ineligible
But I suspect it wasn't much
Post by Fran
of an issue anyway back then.
As you say I'm not sure it is a great issue now
After decades of scum fleeing OS and being untouchable because they were
a citizen of another country. It is a very good reason for making sure the
peeps that want the power of representing us are committed to this
country.
Trouble is that making them renounce their citizenship of
another country doesn’t help with that given that they can
apply for that citizenship again and will get it granted again.

And who cares if they stay out of this country, that’s what we want anyway.
Post by news18
We've finally gotten over foreigners as our GG, time
to make sure that ALL members of government at
all levels are committed to this country
No way to do that. Most are committed to themselves and always have been.
Post by news18
and not just here for what they can rip off.
That’s all most members of govt are in govt for.
Pelican
2018-08-02 05:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by news18
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
What he claimed is not what was.  He lied.
Yep but under the Constitution he was ineligible
   But I suspect it wasn't much
of an issue anyway back then.
As you say I'm not sure it is a great issue now
After decades of scum fleeing OS and being untouchable because they were
a citizen of another country. It is a very good reason for making sure the
peeps that want the power of representing us are committed to this
country.
Trouble is that making them renounce their citizenship of
another country doesn’t help with that given that they can
apply for that citizenship again and will get it granted again.
And who cares if they stay out of this country, that’s what we want anyway.
Post by news18
We've finally gotten over foreigners as our GG, time
to make sure that ALL members of government at
all levels are committed  to this country
No way to do that. Most are committed to themselves and always have been.
Post by news18
and not just here for what they can rip off.
That’s all most members of govt are in govt for.
That is simply not true.
Petzl
2018-08-02 06:01:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 15:11:35 +1000, Pelican
Post by Pelican
Post by Rod Speed
Post by news18
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the Fed govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
What he claimed is not what was.  He lied.
Yep but under the Constitution he was ineligible
   But I suspect it wasn't much
of an issue anyway back then.
As you say I'm not sure it is a great issue now
After decades of scum fleeing OS and being untouchable because they were
a citizen of another country. It is a very good reason for making sure the
peeps that want the power of representing us are committed to this
country.
Trouble is that making them renounce their citizenship of
another country doesn’t help with that given that they can
apply for that citizenship again and will get it granted again.
And who cares if they stay out of this country, that’s what we want anyway.
Post by news18
We've finally gotten over foreigners as our GG, time
to make sure that ALL members of government at
all levels are committed  to this country
No way to do that. Most are committed to themselves and always have been.
Post by news18
and not just here for what they can rip off.
That’s all most members of govt are in govt for.
That is simply not true.
Only Labor ones?
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/mp-emma-husar-denies-performing-basic-instinct-move-in-mp-jason-clares-office/news-story/bab1c45c524a51b7be571064651c264d
https://is.gd/lHMQBv
--
Petzl
Mark Latham has seen the light
Voting Coalition, Labor or "Greens" because you hate One Nation is like eating shit because you hate spinach

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
Rod Speed
2018-08-02 06:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Post by Rod Speed
Post by news18
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In fact there were a number of yanks who sat.
As dual citizens in our Federal Parliament?
King O'Malley is probably the best known example of a yank in the
Fed
govt.
As I said he claimed to be Canadian which is why he was 'eligible'.
What he claimed is not what was. He lied.
Yep but under the Constitution he was ineligible
But I suspect it wasn't much
Post by Fran
of an issue anyway back then.
As you say I'm not sure it is a great issue now
After decades of scum fleeing OS and being untouchable because they were
a citizen of another country. It is a very good reason for making sure the
peeps that want the power of representing us are committed to this
country.
Trouble is that making them renounce their citizenship of
another country doesn’t help with that given that they can
apply for that citizenship again and will get it granted again.
And who cares if they stay out of this country, that’s what we want anyway.
Post by news18
We've finally gotten over foreigners as our GG, time
to make sure that ALL members of government at
all levels are committed to this country
No way to do that. Most are committed to themselves and always have been.
Post by news18
and not just here for what they can rip off.
That’s all most members of govt are in govt for.
That is simply not true.
Corse it is. There are fuck all that managed anything
viable before they ended up in govt. Most of them are
in fact professional politicians and never had a real job.

A few like Turdbull did and he clearly isnt in it for
the money or the other 'benefits' but there are fuck
all like him now. And none in Labor at all anymore.
And the few that had a real job before getting into
govt with Labor get paid much more than they did
before they got into govt.

Just as true of little Johnny Coward and that stupid cow Bishop.

news18
2018-08-01 02:25:45 UTC
Permalink
........................
Post by Pelican
Post by news18
Post by Max
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Historical. when the states were established, basically the powers that
be were citizens of the old country and the native/locally born didn't
have the numbers to force such a requirement.
The States were established at the same instance that the federation was
established in the Australian Constitution. You mean the colonies, not
the States.
The colonies were all established from 1788,
"After" would have been a better word.
Post by Pelican
and were given their
separate Constitutions under legislation by the Imperial Parliament.
Basically it was Sydney and all the known east coast, then the offshoot
of Tasmania for the penal colony came under its own management but
subservient to Sydney. I think Batman went from Tasmania to start
Melbourne as a private colony but the empire took over. Somewhere along
the way, there was WA then SA and Qld carved off NSW.

The whole thing, after a place to keep prisoners serving time and keep
the place from the French, was largely who thought they could benefit
from grabbing a piece of this newly discovered 'continent(?)'.

Who, what and when really related to the discovery/coastal exploration/
ship routes over time. E.G what became Tasmania was known first because
ships went west to east and keep bumping into it and surviving to report
it. Somehow, the Portugese managed to keep bumping of bits of what became
WA, but didn't twig that the it was the expected Great South Land.
Post by Pelican
that time, nationality wasn't the issue it is today, and there was no
such thing as Australian citizenship until after WW2.
Post by news18
When it was written Federally, being a British citzen wasn't seen as a
conflict of interest. first they wantyed to exclude the non-british,
then they estabnlished the country of australia and finally they
finally acted to make sure they were committed to stay here and not
decamp like the usual action of scumscammers/etc.
Rod Speed
2018-07-31 18:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Not strange at all given that the constitution that is the reason
that federal politician can not be dual citizens doesn’t apply to
the states which have their own constitutions, stupid.
Fran
2018-08-01 04:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/mike-nahan-is-dual-us-citizen-embroiled-in-tax-dispute-with-irs/10057092
WA opposition leader is dual citizen yet not required to resign.
Seems a bit strange that state politicians are not subject to the same
requirements as federal politicians.
Allegiance to a foreign power is more likely to be an issue with
legislation before the Federal government than a State one.
Loading...