Citizenship is final

On July 27, 2016, in Commentary, by natalt

A occasionally mentioned solutions to immigrants who have become repeat criminal offenders is to deport these people back to their country of origin. This solution seem simple and effective, and there is little doubt that it would stop this person re-offending in Australia, though they will now become another countries problem. Many Nationalists would support such a policy because it would involve repatriation of troublesome new and older arrivals who would have, if our immigration policy was sensible and based on whats good for the country, never had been given the opportunity to offend here in the first place. Such a sentiment might seem to be a strong Nationalist one, but in actuality comes from a weak Nationalists worldview. It is the product of our denationalised, civic oriented society, and one Nationalists should eschew.

There is no issue with deporting problematic people who are here on a visa, are permanent residents or just tourists, however if they are citizens, this kind of action poses a dilemma. What is the value of a citizenship, if it can be revoked? Would someone born in Australia, who is granted citizenship by birth also have to face deportation for run on the mill crimes? Most would argue that deportation would be for those who have come here, but if these people are now citizens, it implies that there are two citizens classes. A permanent citizen class and a conditional citizen class, who may have it revoked if they become a hassle for the nation. This means that there are two classes of Australians, two levels of citizenship, and that one class can never truly be completely Australian. This would lead to these people believing that they are not truly Australian, and acting as such, and in doing so, perpetuate the kind of division which many Nationalists are against in the first place. It isn’t just those who push this “deport the troublemakers” idea which perpetuate this multi-tiered level of belonging, its multiculturalists themselves, who constantly speak of ‘immigrant communities’ and ‘diversity’, who imply that someone who has immigrated here, even if 40 years ago, even if they were born here, but had parents who immigrated here, again, aren’t really Australian, but part of a sub-community, another level. In some ways, the Conservatives who decry the left for pushing division through multiculturalism but support deporting citizens, are actually perpetuating the worldview that they decry.

Immigration has to be taken as a very serious, and very complete process. The modern Western world views immigration as being the equivalent of taking another boarder into a share house, where it really should be viewed as adopting another person into the family. The former view is a purely economic one, where the house itself is the center and the people are just those who share that resource, the latter a Nationalists view, where the family itself is the center, and the house is what provides them a place to live. One may expel a boarder if they are late with their share of rent, but one doesn’t eject someone as a member of the family for the same reason. Likewise, if a nation is to take in an immigrant, it isn’t a act of allowing them to use a resource we happen to have access to, it is, figuratively speaking, bringing someone into the family. Once they area citizen, they are a citizen. We have invited them because we believe it is of benefit to us, and they are now one of us. Absolutely and completely.

This view requires something else, a restrictive and well thought out immigration policy. If an immigrant whom we will grant citizenship to will become one of us in every way, they have to be able to become one of us. They have to be someone whom we are willing to accept completely, allow them to marry our daughters, live next door. As it is now, people are happy to accept masses of immigrants from the Indian Subcontinent or Africa, but far less eager about having these people move next door, marry their daughters and so forth. Employers will call for labour from all regions of the world, but those very same employers will look at those people in disdain, and only be comfortable with the money they can make them, and not with the potential they may actually have to live near them. Only those we are willing to accept completely and utterly should be granted citizenship, which means only those who are assimilable, ethnically and culturally should be invited. Anything else cheapens citizenship and is fraud.

Membership into the Australian nation has to be taken seriously, has to mean something, which simultaneously means we treat all citizens, those born and those naturalised, as equal members of the nation, and only extend the offer of citizenship and naturalisation to those we are confident would act as natural additions to our nation.

Tagged with:
 

One Response to Citizenship is final

  1. Chips says:

    “A permanent citizen class and a conditional citizen class, who may have it revoked if they become a hassle for the nation. This means that there are two classes of Australians, two levels of citizenship, and that one class can never truly be completely Australian”. Yes this is exactly how I feel about post war immigrants. They decided to makes themselves Croats Greeks etc. I never felt them to be Australians since when I went to school in the 70s. I still don’t think of them as Australians. To me an Australian is someone who has a historical genetic link with the pre 1948 population. I also think our citizenship has been given away. In some countries you are on a probation for 15 years and can get kicked out at any time. It is a privilege and I believe there should be 2 levels of citizenship. These people can leave anytime there is trouble. Australians mostly those in the regions and with all ancestors pre 1948 do not have the option of another country

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *