Repeal of the Illegal Immigrant Act (Awaiting Presidential Signature/Veto)

[Smid]

I'll support DWTL's amendment but might I suggest to him that he also adds a section to keep section 1 of the act, we shouldn't deny them medical care at all, even if they are illegal immigrants.

Indeed, a doctor has an ethical obligation to provide medical care to them, even if by so doing they break the law. We shouldn't put doctors in the compromising position of having to choose between their Hippocratic oath and the immigration laws of Atlasia.

[Smid]

     I don't think they would have it revoked anyway as they became citizens of the Republic of Atlasia pursuant to Atlasian law. That those laws later changed would be immaterial.

Sorry, I believe you're quite correct. Citizenship granted cannot later be revoked. Residency can, but citzenship cannot. At least, that's how it is here.

[Smid]

     I don't think they would have it revoked anyway as they became citizens of the Republic of Atlasia pursuant to Atlasian law. That those laws later changed would be immaterial.

Sorry, I believe you're quite correct. Citizenship granted cannot later be revoked. Residency can, but citzenship cannot. At least, that's how it is here.

    Both my mother & Torie are fairly sure that this would not revoke the citizenship of any illegal immigrants who became citizens because of the Illegal Immigration Act. I don't think there's anything to worry about.

Just thought I should clarify further - in Australian immigration law, residency does not mean citizenship. There are four types of people in Australia: citizens, people on permanent residency visas, people on temporary residency visas, people in the country illegally. If someone is on a permanent residency visa, they can apply for citizenship after three years, their visa doesn't have an end date although I think it expires if they spend more than (and I don't remember the specifics, but I think...) five years outside of the country without re-entering. Temporary visas expire on a particular date stated on the visa (for example, the soon to be abolished 457 visa is a four year temporary visa for skilled workers, to allow them to work in the country for a specified employer who sponsored their residency application, then you have a working holiday visa which is one year long and various tourist visas which typically expire after three months but can be set at up to a year).

When I was saying that residency can be revoked, I was meaning that either a temporary or permanent residency visa could be revoked. Citizenship can't be revoked, and the rights of citizenship clearly include the right to enter and leave Australia (although obviously not the right to leave if there's a warrant for your arrest). When I said that residency can be revoked, I don't mean that a citizen can be denied the right to reside in the country.

In short, what I'm saying is that what you've said above is what I was trying to say.


Turning now to PurpleState's amendment, I have issue with s1(2) - the grandfathering clause. Specifically, my problem is that it refers to the means by which citizens came to be in Atlasia.

I would perhaps suggest re-wording it to be something more along the lines of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still think that sounds a little awkward and could probably be improved, but as the amendment currently stands, it refers to some citizens as being "illegal immigrants." I would suggest that someone can't be both a citizen and an illegal immigrant, that they cease to be an illegal immigrant from the moment they take the oath of citizenship, and therefore the wording must be changed. Even changing the wording to "Any person granted citizenship" would be better.

[Smid]

Hold on, wasn't Mexico annexed by Atlasia or something? I don't tend to read those military-style threads, but I was of that impression.

[Smid]

Turning now to PurpleState's DWTL's amendment, I have issue with s1(2) - the grandfathering clause. Specifically, my problem is that it refers to the means by which citizens came to be in Atlasia.

I would perhaps suggest re-wording it to be something more along the lines of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still think that sounds a little awkward and could probably be improved, but as the amendment currently stands, it refers to some citizens as being "illegal immigrants." I would suggest that someone can't be both a citizen and an illegal immigrant, that they cease to be an illegal immigrant from the moment they take the oath of citizenship, and therefore the wording must be changed. Even changing the wording to "Any person granted citizenship" would be better.

[Smid]

As I've mentioned a couple of times now. This Bill cannot refer to Atlasian citizens as being "illegal immigrants." At the instant they swear the oath of citizenship and are naturalised, they cease to be illegal immigrants and become citizens instead. They cannot be both and the Bill should not refer to them as being such.

[Smid]

Nay - Aye

I still have a problem with s1(2), but we can work through that with a future amendment.

[Smid]

As I've mentioned a couple of times now. This Bill cannot refer to Atlasian citizens as being "illegal immigrants." At the instant they swear the oath of citizenship and are naturalised, they cease to be illegal immigrants and become citizens instead. They cannot be both and the Bill should not refer to them as being such.

It doesn't refer to legal citizens as illegal immigrants. It states that illegal immigrants that became citizens because of the Illegal Immigrant Act will not have that citizenship revoked due to the repeal of the original legislation.

My specific problem is in this section of the wording - I'll bold it:

The Illegal Immigrant Act of 2009
Section 1: Replacement
1. F.L. 18-8 is hereby repealed
2. Any illegal immigrant granted citizenship under the Illegal Immigrant Act prior to passage of this bill shall continue to maintain citizen status.

Now, I realise you're not referring to citizens as currently being illegal immigrants, but I still am not comfortable referring to the process by which they were naturalised - to me it almost sounds like they're second-class citizens (sort of like, you have citizens, and then you have illegal immigrants who have become citizens). That's my problem with it, and I realise that you're not trying to say that and I recognise the intent of this section (and agree with the intent of the section and indeed the amendment) but I don't like the nuance in the wording because I think it can be misconstrued.

My main focus in the Senate has always been to try to improve legislation, rather than introduce new Bills. This is just something that I think could be improved by tweaking it slightly.

This is what I expressed earlier:

Turning now to PurpleState's amendment, I have issue with s1(2) - the grandfathering clause. Specifically, my problem is that it refers to the means by which citizens came to be in Atlasia.

I would perhaps suggest re-wording it to be something more along the lines of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still think that sounds a little awkward and could probably be improved, but as the amendment currently stands, it refers to some citizens as being having been "illegal immigrants." I would suggest that someone can't be both a citizen and an illegal immigrant, that they cease to be an illegal immigrant from the moment they take the oath of citizenship, and therefore the wording must be changed. Even changing the wording to "Any person granted citizenship" would be better.

I might actually change my vote to Aye, and then we can discuss a subsequent amendment to fix this problem, I'm fine with the Bill, it's just the language in that one section with which I have a problem.

[Smid]

I move that- 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
[/quote]

[Smid]

Not sure if moving the Amendment actually counts as an Aye vote...

Aye.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

I thought I'd voted, but in case I haven't, Aye.