freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 9:37pm:


It is an issue for the country they come from and so it is not for Australia to draft policies for other countries about how they should treat their nationals or ex-nationals.

The citizenship oath is a matter between the individual and Australia and is not determined in any way by how other countries treat their citizens. The country they come from has no relevance. If they don't let them in then it's their issue.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:09pm:



As long as they are not Australian airports, I'm happy.

You can depart, noone cares whether you have a visa for your destination. Once there, haggle with them. These people would have fooled Australia, they can have a go with their own or third county.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:34pm:


Now it's planes full of perjurers? well, if we have planeloads of the buggers then its a long overdue policy.

What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath?

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:40pm:


But changing your mind about being faithful to your new country is ok? What does our justice system say about breaking your citizenship oath?

You know, as much as I bitch about America, looking at you guys makes me glad I get to take for granteed little things.

Like being able to have an opinion, even a hostile opinion.
Or being able to vote cause I want too, not cause I have too.

America's got alot to learn, mostly alot to re-learn. But it's good to know that my country isn't the only one that seems to be afraid of freedom.

Especially around airports. My fricking God, one terrorist attack and suddenly airports are the most policed poo on the planet. And you know why? Because they can. Airports are a monopoly.

They may not be a monopoly in the strict sense of the word, but they are a monopoly morally because we can't get from X to Y in a car, on a bus, or on a boat. Planes are a practical way to travel long distances, and as such, they abuse their power.

This is why terrorism needs to happen more. The little pompus bitch at the front desk needs to learn to just shut the hell up, punch her little buttons, and get me aboard my coach level plane where I'll have to sit next to a sweaty crackhead and a four hundred pound guy because I'm too poor to avoid upper class seats.

I don't think anyone quite gets that. That we suffer enough, like we need some asshole telling us to shush when we're pissed off? Hell no! You're lucky I don't cut your throat for looking at me wrong!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I hate to bring up Godwin's theory, but Adolf Hitler himself, who everyone pisses and moans was so evil, was just a guy. He was a guy, with a hardknock life, and the only person that loved his ugly ass killed themself.

Well you immagining being in poverty, tyranny, and the only person that you fealt comfortable with smacking died. You'd lose your mind and think "I want commit genocide too!"

All of us are just one bad day away from becoming Hitler.

People would do well not to make that bad day come sooner. That's all I'm saying lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GpWWUIK8bw

I had to post this youtube cause it's not very often you can make yourself laugh thinking about you and Hitler singing gangsta' rap.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:40pm:


In the US yes, but, apparently not here according to the High Court.
You could easily pass legislation stripping persons of their citizenship if they refused to take the loyalty oath.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:27am:

Is it possible to attain citizenship and not take the loyalty oath? Surely you only need to take the oath of loyaly once?

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

So if naturalisation requires that you take the oath of loyalty (and it need only be made once) without which you cannot attain citizenship, why would we need more legislation to ensure loyalty to the state?