|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 17, 2016 14:02:21 GMT -6
Senators, please use this thread to post your votes and discuss the current Clark, if you wish. The threads are merged this Clark because of how few bills we have to vote on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 19, 2016 19:25:35 GMT -6
I actually do not like giving the Attorney General explicit power to look into sensitive immigration information. It puts prospectives under general scrutiny, without requiring any probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. If the Attorney General needs to look at immigration papers, he can obtain a subpoena, or ask the court for an injunction until such time that he (or she) can gather enough information to support a request for a subpoena.
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 19, 2016 20:48:48 GMT -6
I actually do not like giving the Attorney General explicit power to look into sensitive immigration information. It puts prospectives under general scrutiny, without requiring any probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. If the Attorney General needs to look at immigration papers, he can obtain a subpoena, or ask the court for an injunction until such time that he (or she) can gather enough information to support a request for a subpoena. The law says "as needed". If the Interior Minister believes that a prospective is violating law, then how can he alert the A-G to bring any kind of prosecution without sharing the information? The A-G can't just request a subpoena without probable cause, but there are situations where the Interior Minister can't even release enough information for there to be probable cause to obtain a subpoena under the current law. Just having the Interior Minister say "I think John Quincy is a fake." isn't enough information to get a subpoena, but while it is enough to prompt an investigation, Talossa's investigatory body falls under the A-G's portfolio--the A-G would need access. Under current law, information is shared with the Secretary of State, the King, and the Cort as needed. But the King and members of the judiciary don't get a notification with every prospective's address every time an application is put in; in practice, the information is only shared with the SoS for the purpose of adding the prospective to the citizenship rolls. Likewise, I don't foresee the A-G "needing" every single prospective's contact information every time a new application is put in. But along the same vein, I question how the Cort would ever "need" access to prospective's information without something first being brought to their attention, and the only way something could be brought to their attention is by the A-G. |
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 19, 2016 21:06:10 GMT -6
On 49RZ17, with the sponsor having made the appropriate changes to this bill, I vote Për.
On 49RZ18, I vote Për, noting the limited discussion above (which will likely continue below).
On 49RZ19, I vote Për, and congratulate the new Commissioner on his appointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 21, 2016 6:21:35 GMT -6
Well... I have voted against it, not because I do not think your idea has merit, but because I think that the law is too broad. I have a feeling that it will pass nonetheless, but I mean... if the data is already not shared with all the parties with whom they ought to be shared, what makes you believe that including the Attorney-General in the shared-but-not-shared section will make it any better? There must be other ways to handle this, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 21, 2016 18:48:55 GMT -6
Well... I have voted against it, not because I do not think your idea has merit, but because I think that the law is too broad. I have a feeling that it will pass nonetheless, but I mean... if the data is already not shared with all the parties with whom they ought to be shared, what makes you believe that including the Attorney-General in the shared-but-not-shared section will make it any better? There must be other ways to handle this, in my opinion. I understand your concern, and given that you have reservations I understand why you voted against it. It's not that the data isn't shared with the other parties, it's just that the information is only shared on a need-to-know basis. The King nor the Cort needs the typical prospective's information, so it isn't shared with them. They are entitled to view the information, but only "as needed"; the Secretary of State does need the information of each prospective for the citizenship roll. Likewise, the A-G won't be shared each prospective's info, but they will be entitled to view the info if they need to. Otherwise the A-G is just like any other citizen and isn't allowed access to the confidential information (unless the prospective agrees to share it). I hope that clarifies things a bit better. |
|
