The Birds of a Feather Flock Together Act

[Ian Plätschisch]

WHEREAS Talossa is more fun, real, and active when Talossans can interact offline, and

WHEREAS This is especially true for provinces, since not much happens on provincial Witt boards, and

WHEREAS This is generally why it is a good idea to have geographically contiguous catchment areas, and

WHEREAS Putting people in the same province physically closer together is not the only way to make them more likely to have offline interactions, and

WHEREAS This is because some people have personal connections that predate their Talossanity, and

WHEREAS It then makes sense to put those people in the same province


THEREFORE Lex.E.7.2.1, which currently reads:

7.1.2. Citizens living outside the boundaries of Talossa shall be assigned to a province corresponding to a geographic zone. The entire globe shall be divided into eight geographic zones so that anyone living anywhere outside Talossa is automatically assigned to the corresponding Talossan province.

shall be amended to read:

7.1.2. Citizens living outside the boundaries of Talossa shall be assigned to a province corresponding to a geographic zone. The entire globe shall be divided into eight geographic zones so that anyone living anywhere outside Talossa is automatically assigned to the corresponding Talossan province, subject to E.7.1.2.1

7.1.2.1 At any time before a Grant of Citizenship is issued to an applicant, a current Talossan citizen who is an acquaintance of the applicant may petition the Secretary of State to assign the applicant to his province when the Grant is issued. If the Secretary of State determines to his satisfaction that the applicant and the petitioner are acquaintances, he shall accept the petition. If the Secretary of State denies the petition, he must issue a statement explaining his reasoning, and this decision may be challenged in Cort by the petitioner.

7.1.2.1.1 In the case that multiple petitions are issued by petitioners from different provinces, the Secretary of State may only accept the petition of the applicant's choosing.

7.1.2.1.2 The Secretary of State shall not accept any such petition unless and until he has confirmed that the applicant would like to be assigned to the petitioner's province. An applicant's desire to be assigned to a province based on catchment area overrides any and all such petitions.

Noi urent q’estadra så:
Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)
Lüc da Schir (Sen-BE)

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu]

How about an additional one that allows transfer to another province if so desired

Davinescu

[Lüc da Schir]

I'd like to wholeheartedly cosponsor this bill.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 14, 2018 20:57:50 GMT -6 Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu said:

How about an additional one that allows transfer to another province if so desired

Davinescu

I don't think this would be necessary, other than in cases where two current Talossan citizens are also non-Talossan acquaintances and are assigned to different provinces. Otherwise, this law is aimed at assigning new immigrants to the same province as someone they already know. Since someone in a pair of acquaintances would always become a citizen first, they could issue a petition without a change to this bill.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Just a few terms ago, via 49RZ21, The Provincial Assignment Simplifications Act, we explicitly repealed the terms of 35RZ23, The People to Provinces Improvement Act, and 45PD2, The Keeping Your Loved Ones Close Dictate, which permitted anomalous provincial assignments for certain close relatives of current citizens. Now this bill would create an exception to geographical assignment that is far broader and looser than the one eliminated by 49RZ21 (especially considering that the bill doesn't define the term "acquaintance," which means it could basically become the "bring all your Facebook friends, wherever they live, into your province act"). Why the huge reversal?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 31, 2018 3:51:40 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Just a few terms ago, via 49RZ21, The Provincial Assignment Simplifications Act, we explicitly repealed the terms of 35RZ23, The People to Provinces Improvement Act, and 45PD2, The Keeping Your Loved Ones Close Dictate, which permitted anomalous provincial assignments for certain close relatives of current citizens. Now this bill would create an exception to geographical assignment that is far broader and looser than the one eliminated by 49RZ21 (especially considering that the bill doesn't define the term "acquaintance," which means it could basically become the "bring all your Facebook friends, wherever they live, into your province act"). Why the huge reversal?

I purposefully did not define what an "acquaintance" is, out of a feeling that no definition I could come up with would be adequate, and in most cases it would be better to be more lenient than less, so it would be better to just leave it up to the SoS and the Cort if necessary.

I don't regret that I wrote 49RZ21 the way I did, as the repealed acts were very long-winded compared to the small exceptions they provided. However, one might say I have "evolved" on the issue as discussions about increasing provincial activity have come to the fore.

I highly doubt we would ever face the issue of someone inviting 50 facebook friends into their province. I have had a few fairly close friends lose interest in Talossan citizenship, so if someone only knows a Talossan via Facebook, I doubt they would go through the trouble to immigrate. Besides, this is why the law gives discretion to the SoS, and even in the extreme case that your scenario happened, would it really be a big deal? In fact, if someone did succeed in bringing all their Facebook friends to Talossa, that would seem like a welcome boost to Talossa's population, and a victory for this bill even.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I don't think the Ziu should pass the buck to unelected officials to define essential terms like this, especially when it create the risk of undermining the whole policy of geographically-based provincial assignment. I have good friends or relatives in multiple other US states. Why should they be assigned to the same province as me just because I know them, any more than they are citizens of the same state as me just because I know them?

I would consider a more limited exception allowing people who actually live with (or possibly near) a citizen who currently has an anomalous provincial citizenship to take that current citizen's provincial citizenship if they choose. (Under current law my newest dandelion actually has a different provincial citizenship from me, even though she lives in the same house.) That would actually further the underlying policy embodied in the 49th Cosa reforms of making it more likely that people who live near each other are in the same province. But I think this bill is far too open-ended.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 31, 2018 8:15:05 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

I don't think the Ziu should pass the buck to unelected officials to define essential terms like this, especially when it create the risk of undermining the whole policy of geographically-based provincial assignment. 

"Undermining" is a strong word. This bill is designed for a fairly small group of immigrants. The vast majority of immigrants will still be assigned based on catchment area, so I don't think a minor exception will cause the entire system to come crashing down.

Yes, the term "acquaintance" is left open-ended, but I am unsure of how to come up with a consistent definition of what constitutes an acquaintance. On the other hand, I think people have a fairly good sense of what an acquaintance is (the Potter Stewart approach), and the Secretary of State, who is non-political, would be a good judge of this.

I have good friends or relatives in multiple other US states. Why should they be assigned to the same province as me just because I know them, any more than they are citizens of the same state as me just because I know them?

Because the US actually owns those states, while the world outside of Talossa is only divided into catchment areas. Anyone who actually lives inside Talossa must live in the correct province, just as anyone who lives in the US must live in the state they are in.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

What if I a Maricopan bring in a bunch of my friends from my country, and have them assigned to Maricopa instead of Ataturk where they would otherwise be sent to, as on date?

I can easily control the provincial politics and the Senate Seat (after Cresti demits office). Maybe I should find a sock puppeteer to visit different cyber cafes and open different accounts (so that the same IP is not recorded) in the names of my friends from the FB list. Thereafter, use them as my pocket votes only during election times.

[Ian Plätschisch]

That kind of tomfoolery is already possible. If the IP was different every time, your sock puppeteer could pretend to be from anywhere he wanted, including anywhere in Maricopa’s catchment area. The only benefit you would get under this bill is that it might be somewhat less obvious what your plan was if the sock puppets were from different catchments, but if suddenly all of your Facebook friends were joining Talossa and you were issuing petitions for all of them, people would notice.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Aug 1, 2018 14:27:59 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

What if I a Maricopan bring in a bunch of my friends from my country, and have them assigned to Maricopa instead of Ataturk where they would otherwise be sent to, as on date?

I can easily control the provincial politics and the Senate Seat (after Cresti demits office). Maybe I should find a sock puppeteer to visit different cyber cafes and open different accounts (so that the same IP is not recorded) in the names of my friends from the FB list. Thereafter, use them as my pocket votes only during election times.

But if you could do this just as easily to Ataturk, if you were a citizen of that province.  This bill doesn't really create a problem like that, insofar as said problem already exists.