Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157 
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Dec 31, 2011 16:10:10 GMT -6
WHEREAS events are upon us that indicate that a sudden influx of citizens may be imminent, and
WHEREAS the Immigration Ministry could be overwhelmed by such an influx, and
WHEREAS it makes sense to let the Seneschal quickly do what it would take following normal procedure, in order to accomodate the said influx without undue delay,
and
WHEREAS and this is a good idea not just cause of this influx, but it should be this way forever
Therefore the Ziu does hereby enact, that 35RZ22-The Umpteenth Immigration Reform Act, shall be amended to read:
Clause 10: The Seneschal may only in exceptional circumstances petition the Secretary of State to exempt a named immigrant from the requirements and/or provisions (including but not limited to, the introduction by the Immigration Minister and the examination period) of this Act or any other Act, save the requirement to take a Oath of Citizenship and to immediately issue a Royal Grant of Citizenship to the named immigrant, upon receipt of such a Oath. Such a petition may instruct the Secretary of State to assign this named immigrant to a specific province or shall leave it to the Secretary of State to determine the provincial assignment of the prospective immigrant according to any applicable law.
Uréu q’estadra sa:
HM Government, represented by:
Litz Cjantscheir, Seneschal, MC, RUMP
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jan 2, 2012 17:25:18 GMT -6
Let me say I agree with the bill's intentions but it does not approach the issue in a safe way. I don't want to give the Saneschal or anyone else absolute power over immigration procedures. I suggest instead using the PD as a way to achieve the same aim in a timely manner.
P.S.: I am not disagreeing with the ability to assign the immigrant to his or her desired province. If that part stood alone, I'd support it wholeheartedly
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2012 19:23:56 GMT -6
I like it.
However, it infringes upon provisions of 34RZ9 (People to Provinces Act) with regard to the right of the Seneschal to assign a new citizen to a province.
I think we may need to amend 34RZ9 as well in order to avoid a legal conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Istefan Lorentzescu on Jan 3, 2012 19:45:05 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that changes that need to be made for the "re unison" Should be something separate & special something that celebrates the importance and historical perspective.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jan 8, 2012 17:06:44 GMT -6
I am interested to know how important this act is for the "reunision". Suppose we would vote against it, what influence whould that have on the process?
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jan 9, 2012 12:46:41 GMT -6
The government wishes to point out that clause 8 of TUIRA (the normal "hey, no" stuff) is left intact, and can be used to block any action that the Seneschal may make under clause 10. This, we believe, is sufficient protection against abuse of the power given to the Seneschal by the proposed clause 10, which, as stated, is only to be used in exceptional circumstances. To elaborate, please note that the power granted in the proposed clause 10 is only the power to petition. Any and all petitions may of course be (a) blocked by persons acting under clause 8 of TUIRA or (b) rejected by the Secretary of State or, after submitting it to the Crown for final approval, by the King himself. It is the case that the proposed new clause 10 provides exceptions to clauses (specifically clauses 3 and 13c) of 34RZ9. However, these are statutory exceptions, introduced subsequent to 34RZ9, and thus would be incorporated into the law. I point out that 35RZ23 provides legislative exceptions to clause 13c of 34RZ9, without specifically saying so (listing only, in its own clause 6, its exception to clauses 3 and 5), and the interpretation has always been (and should be) that more recent legislation provides exception to clauses of prior legislation. That said, if need be, subsequent legislation can be introduced specifically amending 34RZ9 to call out that this clause 10 of TUIRA ("and any future legislation that countermands these provisions", say) provide exceptions to those clauses. I am interested to know how important this act is for the "reunision". Suppose we would vote against it, what influence whould that have on the process? Although I cannot pretend to speak for anyone but myself, I do not think that the failure of this particular legislation would jeopardise "reunision"; it would simply mean that a rewording of it (since I believe that it is obvious that everyone is in favour of it in principle) would perhaps need to be considered by the Ziu in a later Clark. Whether this would introduce any delay into a timetable is something I don't think any of us know right now. The government would be willing to discuss, sponsor, and support further legislation to obviate any concerns with this bill as it stands, but does ask for the support of the Ziu for the bill as drafted in the January Clark. It also pledges not to use the powers granted by clause 10 in any way until "reunision", considering this to be the sole current definition of "exceptional circumstances." For the Prime Ministry, Hool |
|
