Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Dec 15, 2019 6:17:42 GMT -6
Quick question, the repeated references to the MinInt actually mean "MinInt, delegated to SecImm"?
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 15, 2019 13:01:14 GMT -6
Quick question, the repeated references to the MinInt actually mean "MinInt, delegated to SecImm"? OR perhaps MinInt "or their designee"?
|
|
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 Dec 15, 2019 13:39:38 GMT -6
Quick question, the repeated references to the MinInt actually mean "MinInt, delegated to SecImm"? There is no SecImm at the moment, MinInt is handling immigration directly. If MinInt decides to appoint a SecImm later, then whatever MinInt's functions under law are which are mentioned in the job description get "automatically" delegated.
|
|
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 Dec 15, 2019 14:54:53 GMT -6
Two little suggestions: Can we add a provision that the option of choosing a Talossan-language name is still open for a prospective citizen, notwithstanding their choice of names in the application process? Some line that will make clear that it should not be an either-or situation, but rather an option of [Real name] + [Public Name] + [Talossan Name]? Second, can we include a minimum word- or page count + font for the essay, or at least maybe a guideline as to what it should ideally be, but the minister can admit shorter documents, as well? I don't think either of those are necessary, especially the second one.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 15, 2019 15:51:27 GMT -6
Quick question, the repeated references to the MinInt actually mean "MinInt, delegated to SecImm"? I'd rather have the duties written here as Ministerial, so that they can be delegated via the relevant Civil Service parts of El Lex. The role of SecImm *may* change at some point. There's been suggestions that immigration be handled by multiple persons, so writing this slight reform as a duty of the Ministry allows some flexibility in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 15, 2019 15:55:41 GMT -6
Two little suggestions: Can we add a provision that the option of choosing a Talossan-language name is still open for a prospective citizen, notwithstanding their choice of names in the application process? Some line that will make clear that it should not be an either-or situation, but rather an option of [Real name] + [Public Name] + [Talossan Name]? Second, can we include a minimum word- or page count + font for the essay, or at least maybe a guideline as to what it should ideally be, but the minister can admit shorter documents, as well? The first suggestion is already in there, no? "The name used in daily life and the name they wish to go by (if different)". The second suggestion...I don't like the idea of putting that in law. Seems like something that could just be set as policy, with every government taking the decision to have mandatory minimums or not.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Dec 16, 2019 12:13:18 GMT -6
(Emphasis added by me.) Why is the Minister merely "authorised" to perform checks and not required? The purpose or goal of this bill, if it became a statute, is to prevent fraud during the immigration process. What if a Minister were 'satisfied' by the evidence at the time of immigration, but only because (s)he failed to perform due diligence in investigation? Again, all we should need is a partially-blurred or otherwise -obscured photo of their "true" identity documents, like a license or passport. Further, could we clarify what we mean by "the name used in daily life"? Perhaps someone's 'real' name is Joseph Richard Fetters, but they go by 'Dick Fetters': in that case, their daily name wouldn't be very useful in identification. (For my non-Anglophone colleagues, 'Dick' is a common nickname for 'Richard' and sometimes people use their middle names instead of their first.) I propose that we amend the language thusly: - Change to "...the Minister shall perform identity checks...".
- Remove "social media account checks", or at least make them optional, because not everyone has social media.
- Change to "the full, real and actual name used in daily life".
- Change to "If the Minister is unable to verify beyond any reasonable doubt the validity of an applicant's true and real identity, he shall reject the application and not allow it to progress".
I am not ignorant that some find these suggestions extreme, but I am going to reiterate the unanswered question: If someone cannot comply with this request and trust us with nothing more than their name (it's not like we're asking for bank routing numbers or photos of their family), then how or why should we trust their intent or offer them naturalization? There are communities of Reddit, like AMA's or even RoastMe for lord's sake, which perform a more thorough identity check than we do, and that is not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 16, 2019 18:03:42 GMT -6
Slight irony demanding incoming prospectives to trust us, when a policy as extreme as you suggest clearly shows a lack of distrust on the part of incoming prospectives.
How would you feel if the reform is passed as written yesterday, but we added a stricter layer thereafter...
Either an ID requirement for holding office, or for voter roll registration?
This government will be putting forward legislation to implement a voters roll separate from the citizens roll. The voters registration process could be as strict as you suggest.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 16, 2019 22:23:37 GMT -6
This government will be putting forward legislation to implement a voters roll separate from the citizens roll. The voters registration process could be as strict as you suggest. The amount of time it would take a new citizen to trust Talossans with their real ID is probably longer than the amount of time they'd like to wait to vote.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Dec 16, 2019 22:51:40 GMT -6
I’m not a fan of bifurcating the country, in spite of its merits. It seems like an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Sincerely, if a person cannot find the willpower to vote, especially when we make it so easy, and especially when they may choose merely to be “present” and otherwise abstain or be apolitical... how is it not easier to let them move on?
I greatly encourage that folks find involvement outside politics, but I don’t understand or just have not been persuaded as to why we should establish a separate roll for voters.
As for trust... I don’t see the irony. Again, we’re not asking for the routing numbers to their bank accounts or their mother’s maiden name. “Please send a photo of your real identification but obfuscate anything which could be used for identity theft” seems like an entirely reasonable request. I expected nothing less when I myself immigrated and was shocked at how lax the process was.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Dec 16, 2019 23:02:31 GMT -6
I’m not being snarky with this question. Please actually explain why an immigrant, as well as current citizens for that matter, should not disclose bona fide good-faith verification of their identity to the Secretary of State?
Is it because immigration would drop? Is it because Witt is hosted on the internet? Is it because Talossa does not deserve respect?
I note that the largest opponents to this notion are peculiarists. Am I mistaken? Is it a coincidence?
I for one would prefer quality over quantity. If even the Schengen Area requires ID checks upon entry and exit, then so should we.
Edit: I reiterate also that certain subreddits perform more thorough identity checks. Surely that is a sign that we can do more or better than the status quo?
|
|
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 Dec 16, 2019 23:19:10 GMT -6
I’m not being snarky with this question. Please actually explain why an immigrant, as well as current citizens for that matter, should not disclose bona fide good-faith verification of their identity to the Secretary of State? Although I am sympathetic to your position, one good response has been that people do not trust that Talossa has the resources/capacity to keep their personal data private; that, for example, if you send in a photocopy of your drivers' licence, clever hackers might attack Talossa's national webspace and acquire those details for nefarious purposes.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Dec 16, 2019 23:25:06 GMT -6
Aye, but couldn’t we make a point to hide the important bits? We really need nothing else than the photo, name and maybe address. In the case of a passport, we certainly could block out the actual document number, city of birth, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 17, 2019 7:57:43 GMT -6
Another question. Where in the Immigration process does this check take place? Does access to Witt come first? Is it something they'll have to upload with the application at the beginning?
|
|
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 Dec 29, 2019 18:08:13 GMT -6
The current law has no chronological order in which the "steps" of citizenship have to be taken; but E.2 (ascertaining a prospective's bona fides) precedes E.3 (giving Witt access), and that's been the traditional order. This would not change with the revised E.2.
|
|