The Big National Debate on Citizenship

[markymark]

You raise an interesting point about me Ben!

I like some of the ideas mentioned by Dan. However, I think that we need to have some requirements for citizenship besides just an essay. The process needs to be made easier, but should we make it too easy? I do not have a problem with the Civics Test, or some other method to evaluate a prospectives knowledge of Talossa. As for Dan's views regarding the votes in the Ziu, I think he has raised a very interesting and innovative possibility.

[kri]

Azul,

There is an additional possibility, one which I raised many years ago but which got little attention at the time so I soon dropped it.

Since Talossa is a monarchy, that implies an aristocracy. I'm just throwing this out for debate purposes, but how about instead of 'draconian' citizenship laws, we have draconian 'nobility' laws?

By which I mean: It would be easy (Dan-style) to get citizenship, but if you wanted a title of nobility, you'd have to go through the "traditional" citizenship process. And some jobs would be restricted to "nobility." (Example: Cort Justice, Senator, PM, that sort of thing.)

This way, citizenship rolls could expand quickly, but the actual levers of power would still be in the hands of the people who had put in the hard work. And doing the civics test and so forth would be seen as a way to work your way up the ladder, so to speak, rather than as a barrier to citizenship.

I have no idea if this is a good way to go or not, what do y'all think?

Ben

[markymark]

I am not sure how this whole system would work, but you could count on me supporting the establishment of a Talossan aristocracy!

[kri]

I'm not at all convinced an 'aristocracy' programme would be a good idea, it's just a possible alternative.

Ben

[Danihel Laurieir]

A revised proposal:

After a prospective citizen provides contact and ID to the IM, they write a brief essay and complete a brief civic test and become eligible to request citizenship as early as a month after they do the ID-essay-test stuff. (We could give prospectives up to a year time-frame in which to make a citizenship request...after that they'd have to apply again.)

Once a prospective requests citizenship, there is a 5-day waiting period during which Talossans who oppose the citizenship application may petition the Cosa to consider the issue. If 5 Talossans indicate support for the petition, the citizenship application goes before the Cosa. If there is no petition, the citizenship request is automatically granted at the end of the 5-day waiting period.

Note on civics test: The test should consist of say 5 short essay/multiple questions--fairly open ended questions--about how Talossa works--how to vote, what the Cosa does, what the general structure of the government is...Not trivia or history questions. The test is not graded or evaluated, but simply made public.

Key elements: citizenship is granted quickly unless there's a serious objection and prospectives get more control over the timing of their application...some may want to linger and lurk longer than others before they make the plunge, and there's no reason why we shouldn't respect this.


Aristocracy proposal: I think in the Talossan context, aristrocrats are Talossans who been around a while, demonstrated a long-term loyalty to Talossa and have made contributions to Talossa's public and cultural life. To give titles of nobility for successfully completing a bureaucratic process is a debasement of the concept of nobility. Nobility is something you are, not something you can apply for. Ben, this is a bad, bad, bad, idea.

[Danihel Laurieir]

Actually, because anybody who takes the time to provide ID, write an essay and take a test probably already has been lurking around Talossa for at least a little while, I would revise my revised proposal to say that prospective citizens could request citizenship upon completion of the formalities (ID-essay-test).

In many cases, it might not be avisable for a prospective to jump in so quickly without giving other Talossans a chance to check him or her out...but in other cases, the prospective may already be well-known to many Talossans and so shouldn't have to wait.

[markymark]

Although I love the idea of establishing an aristocracy in Talossa; I do not think this should tied to the citizenship process. If such positions were to be created they should be distributed to Talossans for service to King and country.

I am not sure if an aristocracy would serve any real purpose in Talossa with such a small population. Mind you, Lord Hamilton has a nice ring to it!

[markymark]

Dan,

I really think you are on to something with your proposals for immigration reform. If we were to adopt your suggestions or a similar process the naturalization procedure would be made much smoother and quicker.

[kri]

> After a prospective citizen provides contact and ID to the IM, they write a brief essay and complete a brief civic test and become eligible to request citizenship as early as a month after they do the ID-essay-test stuff. (We could give prospectives up to a year time-frame in which to make a citizenship request...after that they'd have to apply again.)

Hmmm... this doesn't seem all that different from what we have now. I was thinking more along the lines of: You apply, get your contact information and proof of ID to the Immigration Minister, and write a brief "What Talossa Means to Me" essay on Wittenberg (or by mail, or whatever) and the Immigration Minister grants you citizenship then and there. You then have a year (?) to complete your Civics Test and any other requirements, unless there is some objection by a significant number of people (or a number of significant people, like Cort Justices and the like).

> Once a prospective requests citizenship, there is a 5-day waiting period during which Talossans who oppose the citizenship application may petition the Cosa to consider the issue. If 5 Talossans indicate support for the petition, the citizenship application goes before the Cosa.

Two technicalities: 5 days seems really quick, as one's true level of commitment to Talossa doesn't become obvious for a long time (years, in some cases). Also, objection by 5 people should be objection by a certain percentage of the total population, as when we get back into the 70's and 80's and higher in terms of citizens, it's going to be awfully easy to find 5 people to obstruct a citizen's entry.

> Note on civics test: The test should consist of say 5 short essay/multiple questions--fairly open ended questions--about how Talossa works--how to vote, what the Cosa does, what the general structure of the government is...Not trivia or history questions. The test is not graded or evaluated, but simply made public.

I have to confess I like the current civics test, at least the concept behind it--Talossa, unlike "micronations," does have a history, and that history is not "trivia." It's part of what makes Talossa a unique community.

> Aristocracy proposal: I think in the Talossan context, aristrocrats are Talossans who been around a while, demonstrated a long-term loyalty to Talossa and have made contributions to Talossa's public and cultural life. To give titles of nobility for successfully completing a bureaucratic process is a debasement of the concept of nobility. Nobility is something you are, not something you can apply for. Ben, this is a bad, bad, bad, idea.

Talk to the House of Lords about that! ;-)

Ben

[Danihel Laurieir]

Mark and Ben--

Just so y'all know: I really don't have much of an ideological ax to gring in the citizenship debate...I do think think Ben's hypothesis that making it easier and faster to become a citizen might help to better attract people who are less-doggedly-crankish-but-still-strange-and-creative-enough to want to participate in Talossa is worth testing. And I am knee-jerkedly averse to establishing too much more of a Talossan caste system. I am uncomfortable with establishing different kinds of "citizenship" (except for probationary periods). That said, (I add this so that the charges of hyprocrisy in other debates won't sting as much) I do think active "long-timers" might be given some extra responsibilities and powers (to be exercised sparingly and wisely)...such as my idea for the Senats as a kind of Talossan aristocratic vetorium.

My contributions to this debate are hamstringed by my ignorance: I really don't know what the current citizenship procedure is. But that won't stop me from sketching yet another proposal:

--Getting in the door (it's fast, it's easy)

Prospectives provide ID info to IM and submit an essay. That done, they instantly become--in Ben's lingo--"landed residents" which means they can serve as ministers, be on committees and serve any other function they are not constitutionally prohibited from...except voting. In other words, they can start participating in Talossa and show the rest of us their colors.

--Getting invited to dinner (the easy hard part)

Landed residents are eligible to take the civics exam any time they want to, and any time after that is completed and made public, they may request citizenship. The request is automatically granted after a 10 day (?) waiting period unless 20% (or whatever) of Talossa's citizenship (or--and this is just an off the cuff suggestion--if the King, the PM and all three Cort Justices) support a petition opposing the prospective's elevation to citizenship. If there is such a petition, the Cosa must act on the prospective's application as soon as possible. If a majority of the Cosa approves the application, the prospective gets a seat at the citizenship table.

[markymark]

It seems like there is a general agreement that the initial stage of citizenship should be relatively easy; while becoming a full-fledged citizen so to speak should require a bit more effort.

I would have no problem with granting a person citizenship after receiving the MC-95A Form, ID and a What Talossa Means to Me Essay. With the approval of the Immigration Minister, this person would then become a Talossan citizen. Voting rights in elections should be withheld for one year. Give the new citizens one year to fulfill the additional requirements; Civics Test and whatever other procedures we may or may not add.

I agree that the vote in the Ziu should only be required when a certain percentage of the citizens sign a petition to the Immigration Ministry? I am, like Dan, uncertain as to what this percentage should be. It should be a substantial percentage in my opinion; of at least twenty percent, if not more.

As for the Cort interview, I believe it has been pretty much agreed to scrap it entirely.

By the way I still like the idea of an oath...but I am not going to push too hard on this. An optional oath of allegiance could be designed for those new citizens who would like to take one (I know this would be appealing to some).

[kri]

It appears that some sort of consensus is building here online--it will be interesting to see what direction the debate goes in at TalossaFest (where citizenship reform is sure to be a big topic of discussion). Then the debate will go back online.

I'm happy to report that we will have a prospective citizen joining us at TalossaFest! Charles Shonat is an old acquaintance of mine--in fact, I met him in 1986 when a bunch of us from UWM went on a two-week trip to Russia. Not only that, but (believe it or not) he is now Gary Cone's brother-in-law!

Anyhow, we ran into each other the other day on the East Side and I pitched Talossa to him and he seems thrilled, and will be there at TalossaFest. It will be good to get an outsider's perspective on these issues, as the rest of us are all grizzed insiders. ;-)

As for the specifics: I don't like the idea of a waiting period before one's full civil rights (voting) are granted; I think people want to jump right in. Where I think a waiting period of sorts would be helpful, is there should (perhaps, I'm not sure) be a period where one's citizenship is more tentative than permanent. That is, somebody can get in right away but if they prove to be a troublemaker they can be booted out just as quickly.

I'm not sold on this, however (even if it is my own idea!) because the time it takes to reveal 'troublemaker' status can be awfully, awfully long. So forget I even said it. ;-)

I guess my proposal is this: You get in right away after submitting your contact info and writing an essay. Then you have a year to complete the Civics Test, or else your citizenship lapses.

What do you think?

Ben

[inksplash]

It's all sounding reasonable so far.

Yes, get the Cort out of Immigration business.

Yes, admit (on some level) as soon as essay is done.

Yes, keep open-book civics test.

Lose the Ziu and/or Gruppengloppen vote. It sets the bar too high for having to UNDO a citizenship, i.e. eject an undesirable. We really need to establish grounds for (and grounds NOT for) such an action, as well as a FAIR proceedure to accomplish same.

Maybe the Cort should be the ones empowered to void citizenships - although there should be some means (if there aren't already) to remove a Justice if the Justice *is* the problem. Put that in for Cort reform as well.

[seahobbit]

KRI said:

I have no constitutional problem with a citizenship oath, though I can understand why some people would object to oaths on moral grounds (a strict reading of the New Testament circumscribes oaths). But wouldn't such an oath of loyalty to the King be perceived as undemocratic?

For those that have a problem with oaths we can have a solemn affirmation. Regarding your second point, in Canada we swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen of Canada, her heirs and successor according to law. The Queen is the symbol of authority, all authorities in Canada currently derives from the Queen. As such we swear loyalty to the lawful authorities. The oath also mention the heirs and successors of this authority (although I hope not, in some case could be an elected president). The oath however is very clear that the loyalty is towards the lawful authority and as such would exclude supporting groups like the "Republic of Talossa".

Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State

[seahobbit]

From reading the many posts on this discussion, there seem to be only one constant:

No more Cort review...

Everything else, still seems to have many different opinions. The debate will last quite a long time which is not nescessarily bad. I think we must take the time to get it right.

Can we have a bill for the September that simply remove to Cort review and leaving everything else as is for the time being... or at least until we reach a consensus.

My views on the subject are simple. The current delays in admitting citizens are ridiculous. We must ensure that prospectives know a little bit about us (keep open book civics test) and us about them (probationary period). We must ensure they are real and not Marc trying to get in again as Paul (ID check).

As to whether we should leave immigration to the bureaucracy or the polical side, I tend to like the Ziu vote, first the OrgLaw states that immigration is an organic matter which means that removing the Ziu vote would require an amendment, second, in Talossa we have a history of leaving things to bureaucrat that have abuse their power. I would not like an immigration minister deciding whether or not someone should get in.

Marc Moisan, C.D.
Acting Secretary of State