Are our immigration laws fair?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

A couple of members of the Ziu seem to be not best pleased about the fact that MCs representing 1/3 of the Cosa exercised their right, under El Lexhátx E.8., to require that the application for restoration of citizenship of R. Ben Madison, the former King Robert I, be decided on by the Ziu rather than granted "automatically".

Note that that is precisely what we did. Not a blackball, not a veto. Just a requirement that the Ziu decide on a new citizen. Which was the status quo in most of KR1's era, fact fans. (In fact, when I applied, you first needed to buy one or more of Ben's books, pass a civics test on them, and be approved by the Uppermost Cort before you even got a vote in the Ziu.)

It's disappointing, but not surprising given his record of dishonesty, that RBM acted like he'd been "vetoed", and ambiguously seems to have "flounced", with a swipe at the Government on the way out (while he was trying to play nice with me while he still thought I might be persuadable). What's really disappointing is the reactions of certain MZs who have accepted this spin - either sincerely outraged, or cynically using it as a stick to bash the Government.

So I put it to these MZs, who believe that requiring that the Ziu be the final authority of whether RBM should get his citizenship back is "a sham and a shame", who look forward to an era when blocks like these will no longer be possible:

- are any of you prepared to put up a bill to the Ziu granting citizenship to R. Ben Madison, as is your right?
- are any of you prepared to put up a bill amending El Lexhátx E.8, and thus removing the right of the King, the UC, Senators and MCs to require the Ziu to grant citizenship?

If not, you're clearly being somewhat... and here's that word again, disingenuous.

[Lüc da Schir]

Reporting some stuff that I already said in private to various people:

1) Was it right that the Cosa blocked Ben's right to a petition? Yes, it seems painfully obvious that this is no ordinary immigrant. He has hurt people and, mind-boggingly, he is rather unrepentant about it.

2) Was it right that it was done without debate as a mono-partisan move of the FreeDem caucus? You know I disagree with you on this point, as it seems too much of a Government block and didn't give the rest of the Cosa the opportunity to debate. I guess a petition is not a motion and doesn't need debate, but it still feels *wrong*. Oh well, what is done is done.

3) Would I propose (or vote for) a bill granting Ben citizenship? No, not before most of those who reported discomfort on his thread are satisfacted that he has made full amends. Now I don't know if he will (and I echo your concerns at his conduct on the way out), but the fair thing to do on our part is to leave the door open to him.

4) Is Lex.E.8 fair? Meh - there should definitely be a way to get Talossa to think twice before granting an automatic petition. However, I'm not impressed that a minority of a body can issue binding decisions. This was a good instance: a majority of seats in both houses (let alone 1/3rd), plus at least a Justice, would have petitioned to block. There are also bad instances where such a low threshold is harmful, such as the Senate block of ESB in 2014, where I felt the situation was much more political rather than a matter of conscience.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 15, 2019 22:01:52 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

- are any of you prepared to put up a bill to the Ziu granting citizenship to R. Ben Madison, as is your right?

Yes. If Mr Madison still desires citizenship, I am fully prepared to write that Bill.

- are any of you prepared to put up a bill amending El Lexhátx E.8, and thus removing the right of the King, the UC, Senators and MCs to require the Ziu to grant citizenship?

I'm giving it thought. My thoughts on it are not to remove E.8 entirely, but to attach conditions on when it is acceptable for the clause to used. Ignoring what has happened in the Madison case, I don't think it is right that an E.8 petition can be used without proper justification. I'm sure you will argue the E.8 petition against RBM is wholly justified, but, that justification is subjective and based, in large part, on emotions.

I agree that E.8 should exist in some form to protect us from automatically accepting someone who definitely shouldn't gain citizenship. For instance, there is an ex-Talossan serving a jail sentence right now for an egregious crime. If he ever appeared in the immigration queue, I think it would be justifiable to block that application on the basis of his past crimes. In that instance the E.8 petition would be presented with supporting evidence, that is, of those crimes.

The law, at present, doesn't demand supporting evidence. It allows an application to be blocked for any reason, at any time. I don't think this is right.

Now, Mr Madison has been E-eighted without anyone showing any proper evidence why. He has no convictions, that I know of, but if he does, those haven't been offered in support of the E.8 petition. His past misconduct is widely known. Indeed, he admits it and agrees he was wrong. But, I'm not sure it should be legal to block an application because someone is or used to be an ass hole. From my reading of things, it looks like his E8 was triggered because some of you got triggered by something he said. Everyone seemed okay, albeit with caution, but okay to let his application stand until he said that he believes he didn't tell lies. You have took that to mean that he hasn't learned his lessons and believe it to be proof that he is still an ass hole. Whatever.

It's not a good enough reason, legally, to block an application in my opinion. I don't care if he has changed. I don't care if he still thinks he was right all those years ago. I don't even care if he comes here and causes headaches today. AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.

By acting the way you have all acted these past few days says to me that you guys haven't put it to bed. That it's you that's not ready for him, not that it's him not ready to come back.

This affair has me questioning whether I even want to be a part of this community anymore. Are we any better than what we are claiming to fight against? Are we not just doing to him, what he would have done to others in the past? We have written a bunch of rules and are using them to control another person, then claiming that we are in the right because the written rules, that we wrote, say so. It has me wondering if we are all just a bunch of controlling type people who get off on saying who gets to play on the swings.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 16, 2019 3:08:38 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Reporting some stuff that I already said in private to various people:

1) Was it right that the Cosa blocked Ben's right to a petition? Yes, it seems painfully obvious that this is no ordinary immigrant. He has hurt people and, mind-boggingly, he is rather unrepentant about it.

Disagree. I don't think the E.8 petition is right in this case. Apart from the legal basis of E8 itself, there is no legal argument to be made as to why the E8 has been triggered. An E8, in my opinion, needs to have supporting evidence. We can't just block his application because we don't like him or we think his behaviour won't match an unwritten standard or because we have judged that he is unrepentant. It boggles my mind that in a nation of self-proclaimed lawyers that this is how we are acting today; on feelings and emotions.

4) Is Lex.E.8 fair? Meh - there should definitely be a way to get Talossa to think twice before granting an automatic petition. However, I'm not impressed that a minority of a body can issue binding decisions. This was a good instance: a majority of seats in both houses (let alone 1/3rd), plus at least a Justice, would have petitioned to block. There are also bad instances where such a low threshold is harmful, such as the Senate block of ESB in 2014, where I felt the situation was much more political rather than a matter of conscience.

I don't have an issue with a low threshold. 1 person, 2 people, whatever. The petition should be backed up with rational and justifiable supporting evidence though.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 15, 2019 22:01:52 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

A couple of members of the Ziu seem to be not best pleased about the fact that MCs representing 1/3 of the Cosa exercised their right, under El Lexhátx E.8., to require that the application for restoration of citizenship of R. Ben Madison, the former King Robert I, be decided on by the Ziu rather than granted "automatically".

Note that that is precisely what we did. Not a blackball, not a veto. Just a requirement that the Ziu decide on a new citizen. Which was the status quo in most of KR1's era, fact fans. (In fact, when I applied, you first needed to buy one or more of Ben's books, pass a civics test on them, and be approved by the Uppermost Cort before you even got a vote in the Ziu.)

It's disappointing, but not surprising given his record of dishonesty, that RBM acted like he'd been "vetoed", and ambiguously seems to have "flounced", with a swipe at the Government on the way out (while he was trying to play nice with me while he still thought I might be persuadable). What's really disappointing is the reactions of certain MZs who have accepted this spin - either sincerely outraged, or cynically using it as a stick to bash the Government.

So I put it to these MZs, who believe that requiring that the Ziu be the final authority of whether RBM should get his citizenship back is "a sham and a shame", who look forward to an era when blocks like these will no longer be possible:

- are any of you prepared to put up a bill to the Ziu granting citizenship to R. Ben Madison, as is your right?
- are any of you prepared to put up a bill amending El Lexhátx E.8, and thus removing the right of the King, the UC, Senators and MCs to require the Ziu to grant citizenship?

If not, you're clearly being somewhat... and here's that word again, disingenuous.

The lead party of the government, led by the head of the government, blocked that prospective citizen's petition. Reading the thread, it does not seem likely that they would permit a bill sponsoring his citizenship to pass. The conversation was pretty aggressive and demanded an unrealistic level of contrition. I understand the grudges and they make sense, as I said at the time.

I feel like you guys are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You blocked the petition but now you say you're open to anyone bringing a bill up for debate for that petition. But the government represents a majority of both houses, so I don't know what the point is. It feels like you're probably just trolling now, as you said you were doing the other day in that immigration thread.

Tired of this. Just so tired of it.

[Iac Marscheir]

TANDI QE non améu el exregeu, es

TANDI QE säp, qe v'opiniun non impoarta,

Restéu credent, q'el Ziu non tent el drept à zecidarh qet'st respentattä. El Ziu fost zonarh aceasta zeciziun àls corts. Schi non ja iensa raziun concreçada à zismintarh 'n candidatür, non ja iensa raziun à remandarh 'n prospectatíu.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 16, 2019 7:54:55 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The lead party of the government, led by the head of the government, blocked that prospective citizen's petition. Reading the thread, it does not seem likely that they would permit a bill sponsoring his citizenship to pass. 

I only got that impression from a few individual Free Democrats, not the entire party.

But the government represents a majority of both houses, so I don't know what the point is. 

No it doesn't. The FreeDems only have 89 seats in the Cosa and, even if you count an Independent Senator in the Cabinet, three seats in the Senate.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 16, 2019 11:06:20 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 16, 2019 7:54:55 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The lead party of the government, led by the head of the government, blocked that prospective citizen's petition. Reading the thread, it does not seem likely that they would permit a bill sponsoring his citizenship to pass. 

I only got that impression from a few individual Free Democrats, not the entire party.

But the government represents a majority of both houses, so I don't know what the point is. 

No it doesn't. The FreeDems only have 89 seats in the Cosa and, even if you count an Independent Senator in the Cabinet, three seats in the Senate.

That has not been my impression... I have seen very little evidence that anyone in their party is going to buck their leaders. And almost by definition, with rare exceptions, every government represents at least a majority of their Cosa. Maybe I miscounted the Senate?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Well, we happen to have a minority government at the moment. Just because other parties are providing confidence and supply does not mean they are part of the Government.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feels a bit like splitting hairs in terms of the real power dynamics, but your point is taken. I was wrong.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Hoo-boy. Where to start.

Firstly: The Free Democrats are accused of making a unilateral, partisan block of this application. But if we had reached out to MZs from other parties to join that block before announcing it, then we would have had a majority in at least one House of the Ziu, and Davinescù's accusations that any Ziu bill would be doomed from the start would actually have a point. That's one hell of a catch, that Catch-22.

Second: it may interest the Ziu to realise that the block was formed very quickly after RBM making his reappearance, but was not announced precisely to give RBM a chance to convince his victims of sincere remorse. He lost that chance when he claimed "never to have been dishonest".

Thirdly: I give credit to MC Grischün for saying clearly that he doesn't believe Lexh. E8, which allows a block for no reason, is fair, and I look forward to his bill to change it. I give him no credit for making an argument that for victims of abuse to want to be convinced of the contrition of an abuser before we allow him back in our space is somehow unfair, or makes us abusers as well. I hear that argument so, so many time in places other than Talossa, I consider it a disgusting argument of the kind which allows abuse to flourish. No-one is entitled to Talossan citizenship. No-one.

Fourthly: the post in Talossan from a former citizen who shouldn't actually be posting in the Ziu actually makes a good point that a final decision should be made by the Cort, rather than a political decision. Which is why, when I thought RBM might be in good faith, I would have proposed a bill granting him citizenship after a 6 month probationary period, which could only be challenged by a Cort injunction deciding that such readmission would be hazardous to peace and good government in Talossa. You guys didn't even give me a chance.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

BTW, I am looking forward to the RUMP party running in the next election on a "No blocks on prospective citizens without evidence, let RBM back in the country" platform. That should at least get some veterans of the pre-2005 period back into action.

[Iac Marscheir]

*furta el calatsch quand qe zesparta*

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

In the next few days, I will re-publish 'A Nation Sundered', which should give you the evidence you need to make an informed judgement.

I am working right now on getting LibreOffice to do the multiple find-replace, which will give everyone mentioned proper online privacy.

Hopefully, MPF will be able to get Witt X back up, but of course, one will have to ask him about that.

And you inadvertently bring up a very salient point. When we in spring 2004 had our bout of righteous fury (and believe me, it was furious), our greatest mistake was lumping anyone who was not frothing at the mouth into the group of 'enemies' or at least the 'neutrals'. What many of these good people were missing was context and years of dealing with Ben face-to-face, literally and online continuously. Thank you for calling me out on that.

I have also been working the last 48 hours in between music-gigs getting the primary-source documents I used for 'A Nation Sundered' more online-suitable regarding Talossan-language names than before. When all is done, you will have in the next week my crude archive of Wittenberg X as well as several issues of Oraclâ I quote.

A bork-ton of stuff to get done, and I was planning on not getting to this until later this year. Aside from appearing at music-gigs, everything else this week for me is on-hold until I can get ANS with all its primary-source docs put out.

Please have patience, everyone! :-)

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

As for Lex 8, as far as I know, it has been invoked only twice. I think that law was designed for such a time as this.

And please remember, everyone, this is *not* a blocking of Ben's readmission into Talossa. What this is is punting the question to a vote of the Ziu, which could quite easily pass it.

Even if the two chamber pass Ben's application, the Monarch and Ben have bad blood, too. When the time is right, John will make his views known, and this is one situation in which a Royal veto, imho, would be entirely appropriate.

That being said, I've changed my mind about not being happy about Ben wanting to come back. If things work out (and I am not the one to do this), it may be legal to sue in Cort a prospective for a past 'crime', and I would expect our Uppermost Cort to leave no stone unturned in getting at the truth.

In 2004, I do not believe we had an objective Uppermost Cort that would not necessarily see things our way, but rather get at the truth of what went on and the question Ben's falsely accusing KG of domestic violence asks: what is the line of behavior in Talossa between that which can be forgiven and that which should *not* be forgiven.

Today, we have an Uppermost Cort that was not around during 2004 and can see things from an objective standpoint We Who Wanted Ben's Head never could. I would expect them to be judicious in their answering whatever legal question is put to them as well be to be thorough. Most of all, I hope the Cort would be able to bring to light new truths and ways of seeing things that would bring enlightenment to all concerned.

Back in 2004, I felt Ben should have been expelled from Talossa. I feel today, and with much regret, he should be forever barred from returning to Talossa. The real-life means of getting KG out of Talossa crossed that line, and we must send a message to future generations.

And as we do that, we must leave no stone unturned. I wish I could get 'A Nation Sundered' out tonight, but that will not happen. I am fighting to get that thing to all of you by the end of the day (Central Time) on Friday.