Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 25, 2016 17:30:16 GMT -6
It will be difficult to stop forgeries, I guess. The best way might be to directly mail permission forms to underage immigrants? Maybe? That's just off the top of my head. That sounds expensive and time consuming
Could we make a change to the immigration form requiring a parental email address if the prospective is under 18, and then send a permission form to that email address? It wouldn't completely stop forgeries (I don't think anything done over the internet could), and it would add more bureaucracy. However, would it be worth it in order to improve protection? I guess I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Mar 25, 2016 17:36:10 GMT -6
It will be difficult to stop forgeries, I guess. The best way might be to directly mail permission forms to underage immigrants? Maybe? That's just off the top of my head. That sounds expensive and time consuming
Could we make a change to the immigration form requiring a parental email address if the prospective is under 18, and then send a permission form to that email address? It wouldn't completely stop forgeries (I don't think anything done over the internet could), and it would add more bureaucracy. However, would it be worth it in order to improve protection? I guess I don't know.
I don't necessarily support this, but I agree that adding a parental email might be the only option if it were to be done, and it wouldn't take too much extra effort on the behalf of the Interior Ministry.
|
|
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 Mar 25, 2016 18:56:18 GMT -6
I profoundly disagree. Even minor children of citizens, born when his or her parent(s) was (were) already (a) citizen(s), are not regarded citizens of the Kingdom under the Organic Law, until they are fourteen years old, and submit an essay to the Ministry of Interior, titled What Talossa Means To Me, upon which action the Interior Minister asks the SoS to register the Dandelion as a citizen, who thereby gains full voting rights. And yes, you can enter into a contract as a minor, but since it is unenforceable, the contract could also be non-existent, and it would still have the same effect legally: namely none at all. Minors are minors, and legally minors lack capacity to contract (this is an almost-universal rule, with a few minuscule exceptions) — and so, it would be detrimental to the interest of our Kingdom to allow people under the age of consent to apply for citizenship, because it is presumed that they don't know what they are doing, legally. Other than the legal implications (or non-implications, really), it would be highly immoral to deem an application of such a person valid. I, for one, would actually sue Government and Chancery, if I stumbled upon an application submitted by minors (i.e. <14), which was being processed by authorities. A. The law allows for applications to be submitted by minors under 14. B. The law ONLY allows for applications to be submitted by minors who are going to turn 14 in six months. C. Minors can enter into contracts. Contracts are unenforceable. That doesn't mean contracts are non-existent. Minors who sign a contract to get a magazine subscription, and fail to pay, cannot be held liable for failing to pay. On the other hand, the company would be required to fulfill their end of the bargain, because it is still enforceable against the company. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. D. It is not highly immoral to grant an application of someone who might be turning 14 in a couple months, prior to the next General Election. Frankly, I think it is kind of naive to have such a high and mighty position when you would have absolutely no moral concerns over that same minor applying when they turn 14. E. Are you really implying that a 14 year old is more mature than a 13 year old? I don't see much of a difference, legally or honestly. F. The United States allows 13 year olds to use and join websites without parental consent. Obviously they aren't taking a profound moral high ground. G. You seem to keep forgetting that we have had minors under 13 become citizens, albeit under false pretenses, when we discovered that OrgLaw does NOT prohibit those under 14 from becoming citizens, and statutory law didn't prohibit those under 14 from applying. My law patched the statutory hole, which YOU VOTED FOR and were involved in discussion on in the Hopper. And most importantly, H., by the time the Cort got around to deciding your case, the prospective would turn 14 anyway. Also, we're kind of hijacking AD's bill thread with this somewhat off-topic discussion, so this will be my last post on the matter. A minor can disaffirm a contract made in most cases (e.g a contract for necessaries cannot be voided (such as a minor buying groceries in a shop). However, if s/he does so the entire contract must be disaffirmed. Therefore, in practice this is no different from a adult citizen renouncing his/her citizenship and wishing to leave the Kingdom. A minor can only avoid a contract during his minority status and only for a reasonable time after he reaches the age of majority (so s/he has had ample opportunity to consider the nature of the contractual obligations s/he entered into as a minor). After this reasonable period of time, the contract is deemed to be ratified and cannot be avoided. More importantly, the laws of Talossa aren't some contractual terms, if a person lawfully obtains citizenship, s/he is bound by the laws in the same way that 12 year olds in any nation are. When I obtained citizenship by birth in the UK, I didn't form a contract with the UK Government or Her Britannic Majesty and it would be naive to suggest obtaining Talossan citizenship would be any different.
|
|
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 Mar 25, 2016 19:01:55 GMT -6
That sounds expensive and time consuming
Could we make a change to the immigration form requiring a parental email address if the prospective is under 18, and then send a permission form to that email address? It wouldn't completely stop forgeries (I don't think anything done over the internet could), and it would add more bureaucracy. However, would it be worth it in order to improve protection? I guess I don't know.
I don't necessarily support this, but I agree that adding a parental email might be the only option if it were to be done, and it wouldn't take too much extra effort on the behalf of the Interior Ministry. Parental email addresses can be faked, give me 5 mins and I can have a fake email address set up for both Mr & Mrs Cjantscheir with no real means of verification. I believe the parental consent will not work, for numerous reasons, including an genuinely interested prospective not getting parental consent because his/her parents don't get the whole "micronation" or "Talossa" thing. Therefore, its unworkable, easily manipulated and may put off our younger generations from applying, so its not something I would support.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Mar 25, 2016 19:16:24 GMT -6
I don't necessarily support this, but I agree that adding a parental email might be the only option if it were to be done, and it wouldn't take too much extra effort on the behalf of the Interior Ministry. Parental email addresses can be faked, give me 5 mins and I can have a fake email address set up for both Mr & Mrs Cjantscheir with no real means of verification. I believe the parental consent will not work, for numerous reasons, including an genuinely interested prospective not getting parental consent because his/her parents don't get the whole "micronation" or "Talossa" thing. Therefore, its unworkable, easily manipulated and may put off our younger generations from applying, so its not something I would support. Email addresses can be faked, and permission forms can be forged. I was suggesting that email addresses would be an easier, more practical way of seeking parental consent than would permission forms from a bureaucratic standpoint, but I wasn't saying that I support either method.
|
|
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 Mar 25, 2016 19:32:47 GMT -6
Parental email addresses can be faked, give me 5 mins and I can have a fake email address set up for both Mr & Mrs Cjantscheir with no real means of verification. I believe the parental consent will not work, for numerous reasons, including an genuinely interested prospective not getting parental consent because his/her parents don't get the whole "micronation" or "Talossa" thing. Therefore, its unworkable, easily manipulated and may put off our younger generations from applying, so its not something I would support. Email addresses can be faked, and permission forms can be forged. I was suggesting that email addresses would be an easier, more practical way of seeking parental consent than would permission forms from a bureaucratic standpoint, but I wasn't saying that I support either method. Yes, I agree both methods are open to forgeries and fraud but my point is if there is no workable verification system in place then having the option for a parental email is by and large pointless.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Mar 25, 2016 20:18:58 GMT -6
I don't necessarily support this, but I agree that adding a parental email might be the only option if it were to be done, and it wouldn't take too much extra effort on the behalf of the Interior Ministry. Parental email addresses can be faked, give me 5 mins and I can have a fake email address set up for both Mr & Mrs Cjantscheir with no real means of verification. I believe the parental consent will not work, for numerous reasons, including an genuinely interested prospective not getting parental consent because his/her parents don't get the whole "micronation" or "Talossa" thing. Therefore, its unworkable, easily manipulated and may put off our younger generations from applying, so its not something I would support. Yes, the ease of setting up a new email account, and the lack of verification capabilities, did strike me as one of the major drawbacks of my idea, even before I posted it. Now that I think about it more, I'm not sure parental consent is workable or desired, mostly for the reasons laid out in your post.
Perhaps we could have applicants check a box acknowledging that they are aware of the risks inherent in using the internet? It's kind of stupid, but it wouldn't be very hard to implement.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 25, 2016 20:21:59 GMT -6
*sigh*
Can someone tell me exactly why we are debating making it more difficult for 14-18 year olds to be involved in Talossa when it was certainly not a 14-18 year old who committed crimes and caused a scandal?
We are throwing children out of the playground because we can't trust certain grownups. I see this as misdirected at best.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 25, 2016 21:41:11 GMT -6
All options are on the table, as far as I'm concerned, even including those that take steps to make sure that a minor's parents are at least alerted to the fact that their child is joining a community of adults that interact primarily over the Internet.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Mar 26, 2016 3:53:29 GMT -6
In regards to Miestra's proposal of a new law of 'Bringing Talossa into disrepute', We kind of already have it.
Organic Law Article XVIII, Section 5:
If the Uppermost Cort shall at any subsequent time find any fraud or dishonesty in a Citizen's original application for citizenship, including his statements to the Cort or to Cosâ members; or if the Uppermost Cort shall convict the Citizen for anti-Talossan activities, it may impose the penalty of expulsion from Talossa. The King may commute such a sentence.
So, we already have an Organic provision allowing the UC to revoke citizenship when the Court finds that a citizen has engaged in "anti-Talossan" activity. I don't think anti-Talossan activity has ever been defined. Maybe, defining anti-Talossan activity is a good starting point.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Mar 26, 2016 4:23:30 GMT -6
... Principle A: Should Talossa rely on other court systems? There have been some objections raised on the edges of this point. For example, people have pointed out that some justice systems in the world are famously unreliable or corrupt, and others have pointed out that there are different standards of "moral turpitude" (as covered in the next point). But there's also the question of the scope of our justice system and our confidence in its competence. It's patently absurd to think we can investigate and prosecute certain kinds of crimes, and indeed it would be a miscarriage of justice to try. But the issue is if, in choosing not to assert any sort of sovereignty over murder investigations, if we're ceding our moral right to then punish those crimes? In many judicial systems, it would be considered wrong to give out punishment based on findings from another court.... (This particular post is not on the main subject of this thread, and all be reposted elsewhere for wider discussion).Relying upon other court systems means relying upon the laws of another country. This is not always right, and it is not always wrong. As an example, let us consider a 19 year old Talossan who is also of French citizenship. This Talossan goes to the island of Cézembre (L'Île Interdite), which is undoubtedly Talossan territory, taking with him a bottle of wine. This unaccompanied 19 year old Talossan in Talossan territory proceeds to drink some of that wine, despite this Talossan's (absent) parents having expressed concerns, and having - in earlier days, when our Talossan was just 17 - specifically forbidden the drinking of alcohol. None of this is illegal under French law. It is, however, illegal under the laws of Wisconsin, some of which laws are stated to be part of the laws of Talossa. So should this 19 year old Talossan be prosecuted in Talossa for having (perhaps) broken Talossa/Wisconsin law? Clearly not, under considerations of justice - if we allow other courts (and therefore other laws) to be parts of our law, then in this case we are OK. French law is liberal and well thought out, and most of us would be happy with this case. This is an easy case to decide.Let us now consider this same 19 year old Talossan entering into a homosexual relationship with another adult in France - and for the most of Europe the age of 18 is the age of become fully, legally adult. This, too, is permitted by French law (explicitly), and also by Talossan law (explicitly). However, if this Talossan citizen and lover were to travel to, say, Saudi Arabia then their relationship would be illegal - and punishable - under that regime. So do we apply Saudi laws here in Talossa? Well, no - we already have Talossan law that covers this case. Saudi law, in this regard, is not liberal and here it conflicts with Talossan law, which is more liberal. This too is an easy case to decide.Again this same 19 year old Talossan (having escaped from Saudi) returns to France, becomes employed, and earns money. However, by some quirk in French law this Talossan can get away with paying no taxes. This quirk (and, believe me, there are many such strange quirks in Europe!) would not work in Wisconsin. So our widely-travelled, possibly drunk, homosexual and rather wealthy Talossan has committed no offence in France, no explicit offence in Talossa, but an offence is Wisconsin which many of us might frown upon. So do we prosecute this Talossan, here in Talossa for having broken Wisconsin, but not French, law? We have already agreed (in principal) that French laws are liberal and well thought out, and that we are perfectly happy (in the particular case with the wine, described earlier) to allow those laws to be used despite the contradictory laws of Wisconsin - so we allow Talossa to use the French law in that case. We have also agreed that Saudi laws, in the case presented earlier, are no liberal and not (explicitly) to be used in Talossa - so we are not happy to use Saudi law in that case. But it is less clear for the tax offence: some of us might thing "Good for them! Keep as much money as you can - and st*ff the authorities!", some of us might think "Disgraceful! This Talossan has committed an offence in Wisconsin, and despite it's being legal in France, we shall not tolerate it here! To the Corts...", and others might think "meh, so what? The irregular conjugation of Talossan verbs is of far more relevance to us than some obscure rules of pushing money around.". This is not an easy case to decide.Now our widely-travelled, possibly drunk, homosexual and rather wealthy 19 year old Talosan becomes even more widely travelled, and visits first Uruguay and then Denmark. Alas, this is for the consumption of drugs, starting with cannabis, and then really nasty heroin. In Denmark, under supervision, the use of heroin is controlled but not treated as illegal. The unregistered possession of, and trading in, drugs is still illegal. But our Talossan citizen has committed no offence in Uruguay, and then no offence in Denmark.So do we prosecute this Talossan, here in Talossa, for having - clearly - broken Wisconsin, but not Danish, law? Danish law, like French law, is liberal and well thought out. However, more of us within Talossa would be disapproving of this behaviour of our 19 year old Talossan citizen than for the previous cases, and most of us would, I suspect, think "This really is upsetting and disgraceful! Something has to be done about this!" Just what should be done, though, is a matter for debate. This is not an easy case to decide - to the Corts, or to counselling? To disgrace, or to caring help? What is firstly the law, secondly the opinion, and thirdly the justice here? Whose laws apply - Wisconsin? France? Saudi? Uruguay? Denmark? or only Talossa? We come to different decisions, and different actions, in all of these cases.
Relying upon other court systems means relying upon the laws of another country. This is not always right, and it is not always wrong.
|
|
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 Mar 26, 2016 9:58:00 GMT -6
This is a thread for a bill intended to address some recent obvious issues. Specifically, I want to create a bill that will (a) ensure that Talossa does not become associated with or a safe haven for some of the worst sorts of people, and (b) allow for the country to put some sort of distance between Talossa and those sorts of people (once they're found out). This is not a final draft, and this is intended as a jumping-off point to work out a final bill. I am currently not an MZ, so any actual bill will receive its own new thread at the start of the next Cosa. The main issue with Part 1 is the privacy thing, I think, and that might need some hard consideration about how to handle it. And I know that Part 2 might get a lot of argument, and that's okay. I want to be clear that this wouldn't strip any current citizens of citizenship (not that this would be possible from this sort of statute, anyway). Again, it's a jumping-off point. Thoughts and comments and contributions are very welcome, particularly on the third part, which is undone until I figure out a legal mechanism for procedural "inactivity" Part 1Lex.E.2, which currently states 2. The Minister of Interior shall ascertain to his own satisfaction, through correspondence or conversation, that the prospective immigrant is a real human being with genuine interest in becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. The Minister shall be free to inquire of the applicant on any and every subject, and shall be required to collect the name, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address(es) of the candidate, which information the Minister shall communicate to the Secretary of State. Additionally, the Interior Minister shall be required to collect an essay, written by the applicant, entitled "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan."shall be amended to read 2. The Minister of Interior shall ascertain to his own satisfaction, through correspondence or conversation, that the prospective immigrant is a real human being with genuine interest in becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. 2.1. The Minister shall be free to inquire of the applicant on any and every subject, and shall be required to collect the name, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address(es) of the candidate, which information the Minister shall communicate to the Secretary of State. 2.2. The Minister shall be required to collect an essay, written by the applicant, entitled "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan." 2.3. The Minister shall be required to ask the prospective immigrant to disclose any history of serious crime to the Minister, including but not limited to murder, violent assault, sexual assault, or other felonious conduct. The Minister shall not disclose this information to the public under penalty of five years of civil disability from all offices, but may choose to halt the immigration process at this time based on the prospective immigrant's responses and the Minister's best judgment about whether the prospective immigrant would present a serious risk to any citizens or to the reputation of the nation.Part 2Lex.E.1, which currently states 1. Prospective immigrants who will be age fourteen or older by the next regularly scheduled Balloting Day shall be directed to the Minister of Interior. The Minister of Interior shall act on every such request received by that office, without discriminating on the basis of age, political preference, religion, or other personal information.shall be amended to read 1. Prospective immigrants who will be age eighteen or older by the next regularly scheduled Balloting Day shall be directed to the Minister of Interior. The Minister of Interior shall act on every such request received by that office, without discriminating on the basis of age, political preference, religion, or other personal information.Part 3A new section 11 shall be added to Title G of el Lexhatx, to read as follows: 11. some sort of procedural thing hereRegarding Part 1: Whilst I have no objection to having a question on the Immigration Application form asking, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense (excluding spent convictions)?", if the applicant is honest and states s/he has criminal convictions this is all well and good and their application can be decided upon in a case by case basis. However, if the applicant is dishonest, does the MinImm have the resources, time and access to criminal records to verify if the applicant is telling the truth? I doubt the MinImm has and would again we're relying on honesty. nonetheless, I would be in favour of putting the question on the application form, however I would remove the Minister's discretion and put in a automatic bar to citizenship if they served more than say 18 months in prison, any spent conviction shall not be disclosed nor bar entry and any >18 month conviction, not spent shall be considered on a case by case basis. Failure to disclose any conviction will result, upon discovery, the immediate termination to the citizen's citizenship with leave to appeal to the CpI. Regarding Part 2: Questionably Inorganic as it doesn't sit well with the Second Covenant. Therefore, it should be removed.
|
|
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 Mar 26, 2016 10:16:26 GMT -6
All options are on the table, as far as I'm concerned, even including those that take steps to make sure that a minor's parents are at least alerted to the fact that their child is joining a community of adults that interact primarily over the Internet. I have a 12 years old cousin who's on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, numerous gaming forums and various other sites. Its a fact that if you're on the internet, you're in the mist of both adults and minors at all times. Merely opening one's browser (on one's laptop, desktop, tablet, phone etc...) and running a google search will expose a minor to all sorts of communities and adults (some with evil intentions). This is where parental responsibility comes in and for my aunt and uncle, they have educated my cousin of the dangers of the web and to inform them of any incidents of cyber-bullying, a randomer asking to meet up with them etc... He has rules and if he break these, he loses his internet privileges. Therefore, if a child is on the internet, one can assume s/he has his/her parental consent to be on the internet and I assume with younger children this will be monitored. If a parent does not like their child being on this site, then s/he would take actions to rectify this, as for the older minors, Talossa would be the least of their parents concern if they were to look at their internet history. Thus, I would be opposed to this nanny state mentality of placing barriers in front of our younger immigrants. Leave parenting to the parents and let's face the real issues.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Mar 29, 2016 10:13:33 GMT -6
All options are on the table, as far as I'm concerned, even including those that take steps to make sure that a minor's parents are at least alerted to the fact that their child is joining a community of adults that interact primarily over the Internet. Perhaps we should alert those over at Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. that there are minors "joining a community of adults that interact primarily over the internet."
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Mar 29, 2016 10:15:57 GMT -6
All options are on the table, as far as I'm concerned, even including those that take steps to make sure that a minor's parents are at least alerted to the fact that their child is joining a community of adults that interact primarily over the Internet. I have a 12 years old cousin who's on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, numerous gaming forums and various other sites. Its a fact that if you're on the internet, you're in the mist of both adults and minors at all times. Merely opening one's browser (on one's laptop, desktop, tablet, phone etc...) and running a google search will expose a minor to all sorts of communities and adults (some with evil intentions). This is where parental responsibility comes in and for my aunt and uncle, they have educated my cousin of the dangers of the web and to inform them of any incidents of cyber-bullying, a randomer asking to meet up with them etc... He has rules and if he break these, he loses his internet privileges. Therefore, if a child is on the internet, one can assume s/he has his/her parental consent to be on the internet and I assume with younger children this will be monitored. If a parent does not like their child being on this site, then s/he would take actions to rectify this, as for the older minors, Talossa would be the least of their parents concern if they were to look at their internet history. Thus, I would be opposed to this nanny state mentality of placing barriers in front of our younger immigrants. Leave parenting to the parents and let's face the real issues. Yes, let us face the real issue. We aren't faced with scary, pubescent teens creating scandal and committing macro national crimes. We need to find a way to quickly address macro national crime when we discover it.
|
|