The Southern Cross Group [SCG] is an advocacy group for the Australian Diaspora. The Citizen Bill affects diasporans very closely, exposed as they are to the coal-face of nation-state visas, residency and citizenship demands. The Southern Cross Group recently sent out an email with information on the Citizen Bill and urging diasporans to make submissions to the Senate Inquiry.

The Southern Cross Group [SCG] is volunteer non-profit organisation for the purpose of advocacy and support of the Australian Diaspora. Since the Australian Diaspora is over 1 million people at any one time and increasing in number and wealth, it would be expected that the diaspora advocacy groups would be growing in political influence. This doesn't seem to be the case. Made more surprising by the turgid nature of the diaspora which constantly has Australians leaving and returning.

I am on the Southern Cross Group's unobtrusive and low volume mailing list. Recently there was an email sent out with information on the citizen bill, and the reminder that public submissions for the Senate Inquiry ended on January 16th, 2006.

The Southern Cross Group writes on the bill;

Along with the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005, the Citizenship Bill will replace the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. It contains many of the citizenship reforms lobbied for by the SCG over several years on behalf of the Australian diaspora.

Key and very positive changes for those in the Australian community overseas include a simplified route to the resumption of citizenship lost on the acquisition of another citizenship before 4 April 2002 under the old Section 17. In addition, those who formally renounced under Section 18 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 in order to keep another citizenship in adulthood will be able to apply to resume their citizenship for the first time. The fundamental requirement for resumption will be that the person is of good character.

Further, certain people born overseas to Australian citizen parents who do not presently qualify to be Australian citizens by descent will be given access to Australian citizenship.

The first paragraph is interesting. It appears the SCG has had an influence on the bill. Despite their optimism, the Southern Cross Group identifies one area which they see remain an issue to diasporans;

Of greatest concern is the fact that children born overseas to Australian-born individuals after their formal renunciation of Australian citizenship under the current Section 18 are not being provided with access to Australian citizenship. In particular, this affects approximately 3000 children (average age of 10½) of some 2000 Australian-born people in Malta. If these children had had an Australian-citizen parent at the time of their birth, they would have been Australian citizens by descent.

More information on the Southern Cross Group's reaction and description of the Citizen bill is on their website .

Peter Costello makes a bid to claim the diaspora is still Australian ;

This song is something of an anthem for those Australians now recognized in Hollywood or on Broadway or Wall Street and other centres of the arts or business around the world. There are many Australians who live overseas because their talent or ability or drive has taken them on to the world stage. ... This does not mean they have turned their back on their country. For many of them the love of country grows stronger through this process. Apart from anything else, living overseas gives them a comparison to measure all the benefits that Australia brings.

OK Peter, you obviously think us diasporans are the ducks guts, so do us a favour; don't kick us off the electoral rolls because we are living outside of Australia, and don't make it hard for us to get back on them when we do get kicked off.

To keep us engaged with Australia also make it super-easy for our foreign spouses/partners/dependents to get work visas and permanent residency in Australia. Since so many of us diasporans are overseas, supposedly up to one million, give us direct representation in the Senate. At least the equal of the territories - who we outnumber.

It has been too much of a one way process for too long with the government. It maintains a nationalist siege mentality, where citizenship is myopically defined. The world has moved toward volatile capital, goods and labor flows. Where labor mobility was once limited to immigration, it is now far more transient. Citizenship laws, immigration laws, and numerous other aspects of national government are way behind, and are maintaining artificial barriers for people to move where their labor is most valued.

The federal government needs to smarten up if it wants to keep diasporans engaged.

It is hard to view the speech for the second reading of the Citizenship Bill by Ian Campbell and not see it is as legislation which elevates the state above the individual.

From the tabled speech;

Becoming an Australian citizen is a significant commitment. It involves undertaking to fulfil the responsibilities of Australian citizenship as well as being able to take advantage of the opportunities that come with citizenship. It requires the pledging of loyalty to Australia and its people, a shared belief in the democratic process, respect for the rights and liberties of others, and a willingness to uphold and obey the law.

Importantly, the bill retains the principle that Australian citizenship is a privilege and not a right.

A right is a just exclusion from discrimination that the individual has from the state. Rights become a liberty, exclusive to the individual, that are derived from the fundamental relationship between individual and government.

In this respect no individual should be denied the full rights of citizenship as the relationship between individual and government is defined by being an individual being under the jurisdiction of the government - not by accidents of birth, swearing to the tribe, or other forms of political inequity.

Anyone who has undergone the citizenship ceremony can ask themselves how they were different on the day before, the day they took the oath, and the day after. They are the same individual. The only difference is the amount the state is willing to discriminate against them on the matter of political equity.

Citizenship is a right. The fact that citizens allow the state to exist is a privilege.

The speech continues;

As recommended by the Committee, the Preamble has been amended to recognise that Australian citizenship represents "full and" formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is indeed that - full membership of the Australian community, involving reciprocal rights and obligations.

The language of obligation is another elevation of the state above the individual. An individual seeks to be the most moral and ethical person they can be. Their obligation is not to the state.

It should not be forgotten that nationalism is a recent technology. It only matured in the 19thC and was largely a result of the need for taxation and bureaucratic organisation to ensure sufficient military force for defence and expansion.

It was by definition a form of collective-decision making that was militarised with the relative new technology of diplomacy in the stead of marrying a heir to an opposing monarch. Arguably nationalism is a form of organisation developed for an era of industrialised warfare and violence.

cam

The Australian Citizenship Act was changed in 2002 so that Australia did not punish those who took citizenship in other countries by taking away their Australian citizenship.

That is good policy sense in a world of globalisation with increasing labor and capital flows. It also formalises the convention that was started by Rupert Murdoch in the late 80s/90s when, as the tale goes, he got Hawke to waive that part of the legislation and managed to keep his Australian citizenship as well as take American citizenship. An important precedent considering most nations have parochial and protected media laws.

It is important to note that this Citizenship Amendment occurred under the Howard Government who often takes nationalistic and conservative stands on political issues. Is it just posturing?

I think it is. Same with campaigning on values. How vacuous can you get. It is small target politics at its finest as you don't have to put forward any policy that can come under empirical scrutiny.

Andrew Bartlett in a speech points to a political response to citizenship being hopelessly one way - ie dominated by the state.

From the speech:

I also want to emphasise that the act and the bills specifically talk about the reciprocal relationship of rights and obligations. Towards the end of last year, we had a very brief and fairly farcical consultation process around a government discussion paper on the concept of a citizenship test. The Democrats genuinely engaged with that process and put forward a considered submission in what I thought at the time was probably a vain hope. Nonetheless, it was done in the hope that there was going to be genuine debate, that we were going to consider some of these issues as part of a genuine community engagement. It was a vain hope. The process was a political stunt. It was a deliberate, cheap, pathetic wedge. The consultation process was simply a farce to cover the predetermined position of the government to try to bring in a citizenship test, without in any way indicating how there were any current problems, as a way of trying to score some political points to abuse and misuse citizenship.

The interesting thing about that government discussion paper--which I thought was quite poorly written, perhaps reflecting the fact that it was just a short-term political stunt--was that there was a lot of focus on the obligations of citizens and very little on the rights of citizens. I agree that there are mutual obligations, rights and responsibilities, but there is no point trying to emphasise the obligations of people who are becoming citizens to do A, B, C, D and E whilst completely dismissing the rights that attach to citizenship and the obligations of government to ensure that those rights are upheld.

Unfortunately, what we are actually seeing from this government is them ignoring the rights of citizens and, in some cases, actually seeking to take them away. That to me is an indication that if there is any problem with the compact of citizenship it is not with people who are potentially considering becoming Australian citizens; it is with this government and the way they are treating some citizens, the way they are willing to sacrifice people for political advantage and the way they are willing to use citizenship itself as a political football.

In my opinion, the only way for citizenship to become meaningful is to strip it of the 'political' and come at it from a universal viewpoint . Liberty pretty much demands that approach otherwise the state will be able to discriminate at whim.

From the Government Citizenship website .

The UK and New Zealand are the two largest groups, though the large size of other suggests there are small numbers of people from all over the world.

Even the broadest definition of democracy cites some form of accountability of power to the citizenry as a whole. But how can there be accountability in the face of widespread apathy? How can a state be democratic if its citizens do not exercise democracy?

In responce I propose five steps for every citizen who wants their "democracy" to be democratic.

1. Actively Gather Information
   In order to exercise power effectively, a citizen must be informed. However information is not provided without bias. Politicians have an overt agenda, and this defines what information they provide. News organizations filter information according to their view of what's important, how much you need to know, and even what opinion you should hold. In order to get around these filters and biases, citizens must seek out a variety of different sources of information, and were possible seek out primary sources.
   
   
2. Discuss Issues, Actions and Policies
   Understanding is born of discussion. It is by discussing information with our peers that we are able to process it for ourselves, rather than just passively accepting the interpretation provided to us.
   
   
3. Vote for the best candidate, not the lesser of two evils.
   If voters are voting for the lesser of two evils, or in other words choosing between the two most viable electoral alternatives, accountability is subverted by the security those two alternatives enjoy. There is no compulsion to be truly accountable when secure in the knowledge that you will one day be re-elected.
   
   
4. Communicate to Power
   Democracy does not end on polling day. Whoever gets elected must be made aware of what is expected of them, what is acceptable, what is unacceptable, what forms of conduct will be endorsed, and what forms of conduct will be resisted. Communication occurs directly to power, through letters, or appointments with a local members, or a telephone call. And it occurs indirectly, by influencing our peers, by writing to newspapers, and by public acts that make the strength of your opinion known.
   
   
5. Hold Power to Account All of this will mean nothing unless the process of accountability is ongoing. Vote against the corrupt, protest injustice, and obstruct the abuse of power. When necissary, protest, boycott, or stand in front of a tank. Only when the abuse of power is actively resisted will it be curbed.
   
   

This five step plan does not apply only to parliament, it applies to all sources of power within society. We do not live in a democracy if only one powerful institution in our democracy makes a pretense at responding to the wishes of the citizenry.

These are not extraordinary measures, but instead the every day duty of every citizen in a democracy, who wishes to continue living in a democracy.

Use it or lose it.

Postscript: yeah, I was feeling naive. Demos kratos... as if!

Cross posted at the Dead Roo , where I spend a lot of time bemoaning the state of current affairs.

In his military campaigns into Gaul, Julius Caesar used Roman citizenship through service in the Legion as a means to introduce Roman property law; and more importantly displace Celtic tribal law. Citizenship became a mechanism for establishing Roman legal control in conquered Gaul.

The interface between the English and Eoran in 1788 wasn't racial, it was legal. Conflict was essentially over two different legal systems and the northern Eoran, according to Keneally, attempted to integrate the English into their legal system through the ritualised spearing of Arthur Phillip by Willemering. I think Keneally's argument has a great deal of merit.

The Aboriginal peoples had property laws, and their legal system, despite being non-secular, had very violent ramifications for those that broke the law . Violence is in the eye of the beholder, while the English were shocked at how indirect the Eoran blood-debt system could be, the English were just as violent and showed no qualms about hanging or lashing an individual over a property crime.

Roman property laws followed the principle of pater-familias. The highest ranking male in the family has absolute power, including life and death, over all individuals and property that the family owns. This includes the property of married sons, etc. The absolute power didn't end when a child became an adult as it does in a modern legal system.

There were exceptions in later Rome, for instance soldiers were excepted from pater-familias by Augustus, and could dispose of their pay and booty as they deemed fit. The Roman Twelve Tablets, which was the first attempt to place customary law into writing, also absolved a son from patra-potestus if he was sold by the pater-familias more than three times.

By Caesar granting Roman citizenship to Gaelic soldiers in the legions, any property they owned fell under Roman law, and as the leading male in their family, courtesy of their citizenship, that land passed from under Gaelic law into Roman law - dissipating the control of the Celtic kings, oligarchs and nobles.

From Colin Wells' The Roman Empire:

It is clear from Caesar's own account that he profited from and exploited divisions between pro and anti-Roman factions in most [Gallic] tribes.

The main benefit of citizenship in Gaul will have been to bring the new citizen under the Roman law of property, which probably meant that they could now be held wholly and in perpetuity land which probably under Celtic tribal law belonged to the tribe, although in some way assigned to the chief or one of the other tribal nobility.

Centuries later, the coming of English law, first to Wales, and later to the Scottish highlands, produced a similar effect.

It has been common on agrarian systems for the nobility, or those with access to legislative power, have exploited so-called public land, for personal benefit. The Roman Senators in later centuries exploited land held by Rome and would not give it up, a more recent and local example, is the squattocracy in NSW of the early and middle 19thC.

Caesar's granting of citizenship to Gaellic legionaries and nobles who supported his cause, appears to be a policy of dissipating the economic, and hence political power, of the Gaellic nobility.

x-posted to eurotrib

One of the issues nation-states are going to have to face is an increasing number of the active global labor market who are disenfranchised. The nation-state view of citizenship is pretty myopic and Australia just had another round of legislation where more were prohibited from democratic involvement such that the AEC is better at purging the rolls than adding voters. But what to do about diasporans of all nations that full economic actors including taxpayers in the countries they work in but have no democratic expression there or at home?

Firstly, I am one of those who are completely disenfranchised. I cannot vote in Australia or America. I have no democratic expression whatsoever at the ballot box. I am a peculiar and very modern form of statelessness.

I am a citizen of Australia and travel on an Australian passport. I am not an American citizen despite having a greencard for many years. In most cases for permanent residents in Australia and American the only value of citizenship is the ability to vote.

I am not politically active in Australian politics, Vosper's motto rings in my ears, besides no 'side' matches my politics. However I am quite knowledgeable on Australian politics and make sure I stay abreast of what is going on politically in the media and parliament. It is the same with American politics, I know what is going on nationally and locally. If I did vote in either country my vote would be an informed one.

Australia is a leader in globalisation and the freeing up of the movement of labor. The Australian diaspora is approximately one million people. This is about 5% of the nation and 10% of the current Australian workforce. Australia is also an immigrant nation and approximately 26% of the current Australian workforce is foreign born.

The Australian electoral act requires Australians overseas to reaffirm their presence on the electoral roll each year. So forgetting one year, a bureaucratic mistake, or a personal decision not to vote means disenfranchisement.

But is it fair for Australians overseas to vote in Australian elections? Diasporans have no direct representative and vote in their previous electorate. By being diasporans their views and interests are probably much different than if they are in the electorate of Bennelong or Stirling for instance.

Diasporans also have an interest in having a representative to represent their views in parliament as the diaspora is very turgid and people are coming and leaving constantly. So a diaspora would be an advocate in areas of self-interest such as getting a foreign spouse a work visa or citizenship for a child born overseas and other complexities that are required to navigate the byzantine laws of the nation-state.

The obvious location for such a representative is in the Senate. I have argued for this in the past. The Imagining Australia folks have also argued for direct representation for the diaspora in the Senate as well.

Another solution, and a more obvious one, is to allow the diasporan to vote locally where they pay taxes, own property and have a dog in there being good governance. In my case that would mean enfranchising me in the US. For those working in Australia that are not Australian citizens it would mean placing them on the Australian electoral roll and allowing them to vote in the local electorates.

A pure republican approach would be for an individual above the age of reason regardless of nationality or citizenship to be able to vote. But that is probably too much for most people, let alone nativists and nationalists. A compromise approach can be that any individual on a work visa or with permanent residency can vote. This enfranchisement can be extended to their spouse and children above the age of reason too.

This would make politics local and solve the problem of disenfranchisement that a nation-state's restrictive citizenship laws create.

Update - Oz writes on direct representation for the Australian Diaspora: "It's more feasible that Senate representation could be created for this specific purpose, having two Senators to represent external citizens." However Oz notes that there may be constitutional issues involved with this policy.

As someone who is considering naturalising as a US citizen stories like these make me dubious. It is seemingly arbitrary bureaucratism. I am often nervous crossing borders for the same reason, such as the Mexican border recently. I don't have the entitlement of nationalism any longer, I exist in a slightly post-national and trans-national legal form.

I really enjoy it in the United States and would hate to be thrown out, or made some curious form of statelessness because of a bureaucratic oddity.

The US has become my home.