- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, February 20, 2006


From the Sunday Star-Times:
"Toia, 27 who has lived in Australia since she was one... has been jailed more than 30 times... did not pass the character test to keep her Australian visa... immigration authorities had to consider whether a person might qualify for an 'absorbed person visa' if they failed the character test."

"Absorbed" into the Australian borg. Freaky. Interesting that a disreputable character may still be absorbed - what does that say about them? Consistency?

What is absorbtion? Linguistic, cultural, social, economic?

Who decides character? I think it is Switzerland where the locals decide who their local citizens can be and it is only local citizens who can be national citizens. Not a bad idea that the locals in that area where they have lived some time get to decide on the character and worthiness to enter the community. They will presumably know them after a few years. And if they don't then the reclusives better be nonetheless likeable or inoffensive. I'm not sure what the veto should be or how many citizens have to vouch for them. Filling out paperwork, writing out cheques and recieving something in the mail seems a very unsatisfactory method of transmitting, verifying and authorising our nation's citizenship. Expect nothing at all to ever be done about this as the government has direct control of it at present and can manipulate the system from freeze to floodgates and clipping their ticket at every stage.


At 21/2/06 7:50 am, Blogger sagenz said...

and a labour supporter who does not like you being seditious would have a vote on whether you become a citizen. i prefer an independent judiciary myself.

At 21/2/06 9:11 am, Blogger t selwyn said...

1. I hope they don't end up on the jury.
2. I'm suggesting local citizens decide on who should be admitted to citizenship - not giving them the power to remove it.
3. The judiciary does not determine our citizenship as far as I know, bureaucrats do.


Post a Comment

<< Home