Citizenship and the Rule of Law

The hideous 30 Years War in the 17th century ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648; a treaty that, despite some lack of  clarity, established the notion of ‘nation’ as an entity with complete ‘sovereignty’ or control within its borders, and composed of ‘citizens’ owing allegiance to that entity.

The jihadist movement and terrorism are now forcing the federal government to wrestle with questions of citizenship, the rule of law, and the meaning of national sovereignty in a world becoming ever more tightly integrated through technology, trade, immigration (both legal and illegal), and the claims to authority of the United Nations and international law.

That’s the background. The immediate – and pressing – issue is the integrity of Australian citizenship and its protection by domestic law.

There is little doubt that past immigration arrangements have been careless about the value and integrity of Australian citizenship; an issue raised many years ago by our most distinguished historian, Geoffrey Blainey, and savagely dismissed by the bien pensants. We have made citizens of some who hate us and who now kill wantonly here and overseas as Australians. This shames us all and it is clear that we must take more care in the future.

As for the present, there is no serious argument against the view that such people should be stripped of the citizenship they have mocked, despoiled and betrayed. But how should this be done?

It seems the government wants to manipulate a distinction between those who have sole Australian citizenship and those who have dual citizenship. But that is a secondary issue. Surely nothing could be done until either sole or dual citizens have been shown to have betrayed their citizenship by the conduct at issue? If the rule of law is to be upheld, guilt has first to be established for both types of citizen before any form of punishment or dismissal can be effected.

Although proving guilt may be difficult, that difficulty should not be finessed away by abandoning the rule of lawand leaving judgment of guilt in the hands of a federal minister.