|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Sept 21, 2016 14:05:21 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. The reason for the law in the first place was because people under 14 had applied and immigrated, and although we found out they were under 14, their citizenships weren't in question. There is a clear and consistent line at 14 when it comes to being considered an adult citizen, just like in most US states it is a clear and consistent line at 18. In all US states, 18 year olds have the right to vote. But what about those who turn 18 before election day, but after a primary? Wouldn't it be better if they played a role in choosing who would run on behalf of their party in the general election in which they would be allowed to vote? Absolutely, that's why many US states allow people who turn 18 prior to the date of the next general election to vote in primaries for that election. (Despite there likely being no difference in maturity between someone who is 17 and 18.) Why shouldn't the same by true in Talossa? Especially with the introduction of the ridiculous mandatory Cosa lists, shouldn't someone who would be allowed to vote for the individuals on such a list have a right to help choose (or even run for) a position on the list? There is no slippery slope here, because I'm not arguing for suffrage for kids, I'm simply defending the right of those who will be Talossan adults to have a role in the election process prior to entering the voting booth.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Sept 21, 2016 15:15:13 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. The hard bright line we draw is that the prospective citizen must be 14 by the next General Election, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 22, 2016 16:01:34 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. The reason for the law in the first place was because people under 14 had applied and immigrated, and although we found out they were under 14, their citizenships weren't in question. There is a clear and consistent line at 14 when it comes to being considered an adult citizen, just like in most US states it is a clear and consistent line at 18. In all US states, 18 year olds have the right to vote. But what about those who turn 18 before election day, but after a primary? Wouldn't it be better if they played a role in choosing who would run on behalf of their party in the general election in which they would be allowed to vote? Absolutely, that's why many US states allow people who turn 18 prior to the date of the next general election to vote in primaries for that election. (Despite there likely being no difference in maturity between someone who is 17 and 18.) Why shouldn't the same by true in Talossa? Especially with the introduction of the ridiculous mandatory Cosa lists, shouldn't someone who would be allowed to vote for the individuals on such a list have a right to help choose (or even run for) a position on the list? There is no slippery slope here, because I'm not arguing for suffrage for kids, I'm simply defending the right of those who will be Talossan adults to have a role in the election process prior to entering the voting booth. If, by your own admission, we have "a clear and consistent line at 14 when it comes to being considered an adult citizen," why are we allowing people who have not yet reached that line to make a decision of arguably rather greater importance: whether or not they want to immigrate? And surely a comparison to other countries could be apples and apples: no country allows someone to apply to be a citizen unless they have actually reached the required age! 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. The hard bright line we draw is that the prospective citizen must be 14 by the next General Election, surely? That, to me, doesn't make a lot of sense. The rationale for an age limit at all is that we require a certain level of maturity to vote. But surely it must require at least as much maturity to decide to immigrate, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Sept 22, 2016 17:35:33 GMT -6
The reason for the law in the first place was because people under 14 had applied and immigrated, and although we found out they were under 14, their citizenships weren't in question. There is a clear and consistent line at 14 when it comes to being considered an adult citizen, just like in most US states it is a clear and consistent line at 18. In all US states, 18 year olds have the right to vote. But what about those who turn 18 before election day, but after a primary? Wouldn't it be better if they played a role in choosing who would run on behalf of their party in the general election in which they would be allowed to vote? Absolutely, that's why many US states allow people who turn 18 prior to the date of the next general election to vote in primaries for that election. (Despite there likely being no difference in maturity between someone who is 17 and 18.) Why shouldn't the same by true in Talossa? Especially with the introduction of the ridiculous mandatory Cosa lists, shouldn't someone who would be allowed to vote for the individuals on such a list have a right to help choose (or even run for) a position on the list? There is no slippery slope here, because I'm not arguing for suffrage for kids, I'm simply defending the right of those who will be Talossan adults to have a role in the election process prior to entering the voting booth. If, by your own admission, we have "a clear and consistent line at 14 when it comes to being considered an adult citizen," why are we allowing people who have not yet reached that line to make a decision of arguably rather greater importance: whether or not they want to immigrate? And surely a comparison to other countries could be apples and apples: no country allows someone to apply to be a citizen unless they have actually reached the required age! Clear and consistent lines can be drawn wherever we want, and there is nothing that prohibits us from letting kids apply if we want to. However, this is not the case here. Our current law draws a clear line, where only those who would be 14 or older by the start of the next General Election, because only people who are 14 years or older are of voting age. What is so terrible about allowing those who are a couple months away from turning 14, and who would be 14 before the next election, from immigrating? What if someone was only a fortnight away from 14, why should they have to wait before putting in their application just so they can wait another two weeks until they can receive their grant? I think the law, as written, is as clear as can be. If you will be of voting age on or before the next general election, then you are welcome to apply for citizenship. I don't think any more debate is needed here, because we're not going to change one another's mind and we're beginning to cycle through the same arguments again. I respectfully disagree with your position.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 23, 2016 16:14:20 GMT -6
It's not "so terrible" or anything. It's just inconsistent and doesn't make much sense. You're not mature enough to vote, but you're mature enough to immigrate?
If someone is a fortnight away from turning 14, the reason they should have to wait before putting in their application is that they're not yet 14, which we consider the age at which someone is reasonably mature. And again, note how this argument could be used in any instance... if someone were two weeks too young to immigrate under our current system, since they would turn 14 two weeks after the general election, what is "so terrible" about letting them in, too?
You have to draw a line somewhere. Our line is currently at 14 for voting and 13-and-some-months for immigration. I'm saying it should be consistently 14 in both cases.
No matter which way the bill goes, I respect your disagreement and thank you for the discussion, and hope you will help with the rest of the bill.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Sept 23, 2016 17:26:50 GMT -6
No matter which way the bill goes, I respect your disagreement and thank you for the discussion, and hope you will help with the rest of the bill. Would it be possible to split the bill into two different parts, so that maybe we can work out some problems I see with the felony disclosure portion of the bill, and perhaps reach a version that we can both agree on?
|
|