How should we determine citizenship?
Traditionally, we are citizens of the country in which we are born.
But this idea doesn’t cover all situations.
If you were born ‘overseas’ whilst your parents were travelling for example.
You returned to ‘their’ country whilst still a tiny infant, lived your whole life in that place.
Surely, in this case, you are a citizen of the country in which you grew up?
Also, there could be circumstances where you live most of your early life in a variety of places.
You don’t ‘belong’ to any particular place, even the place you were born.
In this case you should take the nationality of your mother?
Far easier to establish than that of a father, although his can be relevant too.
The above is not based on any legal determination.
Just my own ideas of what might be reasonable, expressed to encourage thought.
Citizenship can be changed, or established by legal process over and above these ideas.
There are many ceremonies conducted to achieve this.
In the recent high court case concerning Mr Love and Mr Thoms, I think the court got it right for the wrong reasons.
These men are really our citizens.
WE must deal with them if they are/were anti-social.
Not find some excuse to trundle them off overseas: foist them on another society.
But the report of court members allowing their personal principles to influence their finding is worrying.
They should have stayed firmly withing legal boundaries and constraints.
That is why we have laws.
Laws are, ideally, a consensus reached after exhaustive discussion.
Laws should approximate a fair and practical way of assessing the rights and wrongs of any situation.
In the court hearing, the Commonwealth told the court any person who was not a citizen was an alien under the law.
That Mr Love and Mr Thom owed their allegiance to the countries in which they were born.
I find this latter a compelling statement, at variance with the controversy surrounding Mr Frydenberg.