ぼやかせていただいております。

豪州議員 国籍離脱したと勘違い、重国籍で議員辞職

2017年07月14日 21時11分01秒 | Weblog





Mr Ludlam was three years old when he left New Zealand with his family.
He said he assumed he had relinquished New Zealand citizenship when he was naturalised as an Australian in his teens.
Mr Ludlam was alerted to his status last week by a member of the public who had "done the digging for whatever reason".

The 47-year-old senator said he had been informed of a looming challenge to his eligibility in Australia's High Court.
"I could have dug my heels in, but it creates a messy and protracted dispute. That section of the constitution is crystal clear," he said.
Mr Ludlam could have surrendered his New Zealand citizenship - had he known about it - to stand for office within the rules.


3歳のときにニュージランドから豪州に移住。10代で豪州に帰化した時、ニュージーランド国籍は放棄したものと勘違いしていたが、実際には、外れておらず、






The reason for Ludlam’s resignation lies in section 44(i) of the constitution, which sets out several conditions of eligibility for public office. The constitution makes it plain that election is barred for:


Any person who is under any acknowledgement of allegiance obedience or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.



The key question – and one that split the high court bench five to two – was whether either had taken “reasonable steps” to renounce their second citizenship.

Was it enough that the pair renounced any foreign allegiances during their Australian naturalisation ceremonies? Or did they need to take all possible steps to extinguish any formal links to the second nation?


The majority found Delacretaz and Kardamitsis had not done enough to renounce their past citizenship, and both were ruled ineligible for election


Much has changed since 1992. New Australian citizens are no longer required to renounce foreign allegiances during citizenship ceremonies, instead simply declaring their “loyalty” to Australia.


憲法上、外国籍保持者は選挙資格がない。

重国籍の場合、第2の国籍離脱努力をしたかが、問題になる、と。

蓮舫と非常に似たケースだが、

15:45~


日本の法律では、議員が外国籍を持っていることは欠格事由にならない。

禁止されていないからこそ、維新がかつて、国会議員や国家公務員の二重国籍を禁止する法案を提案したわけである。

日本の場合、選挙委員が戸籍謄本をチェックしてそれでおしまい。





ということで、蓮舫の場合と豪州の場合では決定的に異なる。

さらに、八幡氏は、重国籍であることを通じて、蓮舫のルーツを問題にしていたのであり、彼の場合は手続き上の問題というより、民族差別的色合いが濃い評論であった。













ジャンル:
ウェブログ
コメント   この記事についてブログを書く
この記事をはてなブックマークに追加
«  Voltaire:The Japanese wer... | トップ | Four pro-democracy lawmaker... »
最近の画像もっと見る

コメントを投稿

Weblog」カテゴリの最新記事