|
Post by Nicholas Hayes on Mar 29, 2016 13:15:42 GMT -6
I agree with the thrust of what has been said above. Perhaps a law forcing the Minister responsible for immigration to actually do background checks (e.g. a google search or whatever other free search tool is available) for every applicant to verify details in his or her application rather than just relying on the applicant's word.
|
|
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 29, 2016 14:38:04 GMT -6
This whole debate is inoperative. I totally agree with the people in this thread who are saying that the Immigration/Ínterior Minister should do some basic background checks, and otherwise our immigration process should be strengthened against fraud. But what does this have to do with protecting citizens from predators and criminals?!?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 11, 2016 10:22:50 GMT -6
I'm unhappy that people seem to dislike the idea of asking for parental approval, since I don't think our community is quite comparable to a social network, but very well. I want a solution that we can get behind. But then how do we deal with crimes from another jurisdiction -- a Iusti situation?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 11, 2016 10:25:47 GMT -6
Bill updated.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 27, 2016 5:06:12 GMT -6
Any new thoughts or solutions?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 18, 2016 12:14:37 GMT -6
I'd still like to find a way to solve this issue while protecting civil liberties, if anyone else is willing.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 18, 2016 12:27:12 GMT -6
The bill as it stands now: This is a thread for a bill intended to address some recent obvious issues. 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 shall be legally bound to halt the immigration proceedings if the Minister learns that the prospective has been convicted of a crime that is reckoned a felony under Talossan law.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 are aged fourteen or older 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, except as otherwise provided under law.Part 3Some sort of enforcement mechanism, TBD.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Sept 18, 2016 12:36:27 GMT -6
I don't like the changes to Lex.E.1, which don't have any basis. Someone who is one day away from turning 14 would be allowed to begin their process a day early under current law, and there isn't a reason to differentiate between someone who is at least 13.5 vs someone who is 14, even given recent history. Not to mention that it wouldn't change anything if the prerogative of the Minister of Interior, who could choose to process applications from anyone no matter what their age, as that is governed by OrgLaw not statutory law...the statute just allows the Minister to discriminate against those younger than 13.5 if they so choose.
Furthermore, requiring the applicant to disclose their prior convictions is both unenforceable and a potential encroachment into someone's private affairs. Not to mention that a Minister halting an application for no apparent reason would make it pretty obvious to others that the reason for the application being halted is because of some prior conviction. Additionally, there is little recourse for the applicant other than for the applicant to be granted citizenship by the Ziu, who would not be aware of the applicant's prior convictions at all because it is forbidden for the Minister to disclose the exact information.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 18, 2016 13:53:05 GMT -6
The idea behind the age limit is that it's the age at which someone can choose to be Talossan with cognizance of what that decision means. The changes to E.1 would prevent someone who is not at that age from making that decision. It seems to me only to be ideologically consistent and a current loophole.
I disagree with your second point about the OrgLaw... The Minister may be statutorily barred from considering a prospective by Org.XVIII.1 and Org.XVIII.3. We may wish, though, per Dama Litz, to remove any discretion here and simply impose a criteria based on served jail time.
The disclosure provision is certainly an encroachment into someone's affairs, but such is the whole application! It's also universally accepted in international law that it is reasonable to ask a potential citizen about prior criminal convictions.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Sept 18, 2016 14:42:10 GMT -6
We've had Org.XVIII.1 and Org.XVIII.3 for a while, and we've also had situations where people who were under 14 applied, and gained, citizenship because the Minister was unable to prevent anything from happening. We instituted the statute to allow for some age discrimination as far as whether the Minister had to process the application, but there is nothing in statutory law or Organic law that prevents the Minister from processing an application that s/he receives. As the law reads, the Minister shall act upon every such request received by the office, but there isn't a law that says s/he shall not act on application received by those under 14.
And for the record, the US' COPPA requires websites to require parental consent when minors under age 13 visit them, and we would still be in compliance with the principles of that law if we kept our current law on the books.
I would also say that it's not a loophole. These potential citizens should have the right to participate in the political process prior to reaching the age in which they are legally allowed to vote. Otherwise, if these citizens just join up during the middle of the election, they are not going to be very well informed, assuming that our political parties continue to refrain from broosking.
The disclosure provision works fine for other countries who have the financial resources to dig deep into a potential citizen's past. In fact, I would say that a big reason for the question is to see if the person lies on the application, since other countries can fairly easily verify the information provided. We can't, and we also
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 18, 2016 20:08:48 GMT -6
We've had Org.XVIII.1 and Org.XVIII.3 for a while, and we've also had situations where people who were under 14 applied, and gained, citizenship because the Minister was unable to prevent anything from happening. We instituted the statute to allow for some age discrimination as far as whether the Minister had to process the application, but there is nothing in statutory law or Organic law that prevents the Minister from processing an application that s/he receives. As the law reads, the Minister shall act upon every such request received by the office, but there isn't a law that says s/he shall not act on application received by those under 14. The OrgLaw is really clear: the process of naturalization is determined by law. The MinImm's only organic duty is to "supervise the immigration," which certainly accords no power to overturn or ignore any part of the immigration law. If we chose to require all prospectives to give their blood type, we could do so. The MinImm could not ignore such a requirement. Similarly, if we require that people actually be 14 before deciding to become citizens, then the MinImm can't ignore that. Altering the proposal to make it a firm requirement with no discretion would certainly be Organic. And really, since I guess "age discrimination" would be a bad thing, I think the change should be made. You and Dama Litz are right. I'll amend the bill accordingly to make it a firm requirement with no power of discretion. I would also say that it's not a loophole. These potential citizens should have the right to participate in the political process prior to reaching the age in which they are legally allowed to vote. Otherwise, if these citizens just join up during the middle of the election, they are not going to be very well informed, assuming that our political parties continue to refrain from broosking. The principle behind the voting age is that this is the age at which we judge people ready to make mature political decisions, in general. It might be too old or it might be too young, but that's the idea. It's why we have such a requirement in the first place, and why eight-year-old Dandelions (or my newborn daughter) can't vote. That age is 14, in part out of traditional deference to the founding of the nation. Yet the current law allows 13-year-olds to immigrate. That doesn't make any sense to me. Certainly if you're not mature enough to vote, you're not mature enough to immigrate! Yes, it's possible that someone might immigrate and then immediately be presented with the opportunity to vote without understanding their options. But that could easily happen under current law, too! This change wouldn't add or detract from that possibility -- it's an irrelevant point, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Sept 18, 2016 21:06:33 GMT -6
I would also say that it's not a loophole. These potential citizens should have the right to participate in the political process prior to reaching the age in which they are legally allowed to vote. Otherwise, if these citizens just join up during the middle of the election, they are not going to be very well informed, assuming that our political parties continue to refrain from broosking. The principle behind the voting age is that this is the age at which we judge people ready to make mature political decisions, in general. It might be too old or it might be too young, but that's the idea. It's why we have such a requirement in the first place, and why eight-year-old Dandelions (or my newborn daughter) can't vote. That age is 14, in part out of traditional deference to the founding of the nation. Yet the current law allows 13-year-olds to immigrate. That doesn't make any sense to me. Certainly if you're not mature enough to vote, you're not mature enough to immigrate! Yes, it's possible that someone might immigrate and then immediately be presented with the opportunity to vote without understanding their options. But that could easily happen under current law, too! This change wouldn't add or detract from that possibility -- it's an irrelevant point, I'm afraid. Current law doesn't change the age of majority as set by Talossan law, nor does it change the fact that only adult citizens of age 14 and above are able and allowed to vote. The current law only allows those who are 13, but will turn 14 before or on the day voting starts, to immigrate. If you will be mature enough to vote in less than six months, then there isn't any reason why you shouldn't be old enough to immigrate now. Drawing an imaginary line separating 14 from 13.5+ isn't drawing a line between mature and immature. There is a huge difference between an 8 year old and a 14 year old, I agree, but there is no difference between someone who is 13.5 and someone who is 14, other than an arbitrary number. While it is possible someone could immigrate under current law, and then a day later vote without understanding their options, it isn't an irrelevant point. If we raise the age back to 14, we reopen the possibility of those who might want to join up but have to wait until the day they turn 14, risking becoming a citizen right in the middle of an election which they would be required to vote in. On the other hand, under current law, those who might want to join up at age 13 would still have to wait until after an election, but then they could immigrate, be a part of culture, come to an understanding of Talossan politics, and then make an informed decision when they turn 14. Although I can see why some would see a need to solidify an age requirement and eliminating deference, I fail to see how changing the current law (which was passed overwhelmingly) would make any practical difference. We're talking about six months or less of an age difference. I understand that something which came to light about a certain citizen may want some people to change how we address the citizenship of minors in our country. But we also should recognize that the incidents which occurred by those in our past were never related to Talossa, so changes to Talossan law are unwarranted. Even the requirement for prospectives to disclose prior convictions is unnecessary, because it wouldn't have prevented the citizens of past from joining.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2016 16:48:38 GMT -6
Your argument is a slippery slope. Just as there isn't a big difference in maturity between 13.5 and 14, there's similarly not a big difference between 13 and 13.5 And so on, all the way down to about four years old or so. We have to draw a clear line somewhere, and ideologicaly, we've decided that the age of majority and mature decisions is 14. And so we should be consistent. If someone isn't mature enough to vote, they're not mature enough to immigrate.
Yes, the practical effects would be limited. But this is just part of an overall package of laws we're working on to address a number of associated issues.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Sept 20, 2016 17:32:00 GMT -6
Your argument is a slippery slope. Just as there isn't a big difference in maturity between 13.5 and 14, there's similarly not a big difference between 13 and 13.5 And so on, all the way down to about four years old or so. We have to draw a clear line somewhere, and ideologically, we've decided that the age of majority and mature decisions is 14. And so we should be consistent. If someone isn't mature enough to vote, they're not mature enough to immigrate. Yes, the practical effects would be limited. But this is just part of an overall package of laws we're working on to address a number of associated issues. It isn't a slippery slope, because current law does not allow anyone who will not turn 14 when the next General Election begins to join, period. The only people who can immigrate are those who would be 14 for the first time they cast a ballot. Is there any good reason for making them wait for six months (at the most) or less? And why weren't any of these arguments raised back when this law was passed, at least a year ago?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 21, 2016 13:48:56 GMT -6
Your reply was that there is no difference between 13.5 and 14 in terms of maturity, and yet it seems to me that applies exactly as well to people who are 13 and 13.5. Is there any good reason for making a thirteen-year-old wait six months until they can apply to immigrate? Is a big difference in maturity between people who are thirteen and people who are thirteen-and-six-months? Of course not. And since we must draw a hard bright line somewhere, it should be clearly and consistently at 14.
|
|