|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 16, 2019 19:28:20 GMT -6
To your point, Eðo, on a cursory reading before I get back to work on my Talossan stuff, we should look at E8 for sure. Perhaps this sort of thing is something the UCort should in future have a say in.
And yes, my cursory reading of this law agrees with your sentiment on same. Again, when I get my magnum opus out to everyone, things should be clearer in terms of the evidence you so rightly need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jun 16, 2019 19:51:54 GMT -6
To your point, Eðo, on a cursory reading before I get back to work on my Talossan stuff, we should look at E8 for sure. Perhaps this sort of thing is something the UCort should in future have a say in. And yes, my cursory reading of this law agrees with your sentiment on same. Again, when I get my magnum opus out to everyone, things should be clearer in terms of the evidence you so rightly need. I'm certain that I've read A Nation Sundered at some point years ago. I'm sure you had it hosted on jeffrags dot something. |
|
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 Jun 16, 2019 19:51:57 GMT -6
One old-time Talossan (not currently a citizen) suggested - maybe facetiously - that we should welcome Ben back, and then put him on trial for his Talossan life. I pointed out that the problem was that RBM's behaviour which makes him stink in our nostrils did not break any Talossan laws, then or now. There is no law against dishonesty. There is no law against bullying. There is no law against the King creating such an unpleasant environment that he drives out all opposition. And I don't think there should be any such laws, so what would we try him for? The only potential actual crime he committed under macronational law, I believe, was harassing phone calls to oppositionists and ex-citizens; and who wants to drag up "evidence" from so long ago.
No, all we are left with is the common law principle that if you're not born with citizenship, only the Legislature can grant it to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jun 16, 2019 20:10:17 GMT -6
One old-time Talossan (not currently a citizen) suggested - maybe facetiously - that we should welcome Ben back, and then put him on trial for his Talossan life. I pointed out that the problem was that RBM's behaviour which makes him stink in our nostrils did not break any Talossan laws, then or now. There is no law against dishonesty. There is no law against bullying. There is no law against the King creating such an unpleasant environment that he drives out all opposition. And I don't think there should be any such laws, so what would we try him for? The only potential actual crime he committed under macronational law, I believe, was harassing phone calls to oppositionists and ex-citizens; and who wants to drag up "evidence" from so long ago. No, all we are left with is the common law principle that if you're not born with citizenship, only the Legislature can grant it to you. I hear you, but that's not really the principle Talossa has ran with for all these years, and personally, as a civic nationalist in the macro-world, I reject that principle anyway. |
|
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 Jun 16, 2019 20:12:20 GMT -6
No, all we are left with is the common law principle that if you're not born with citizenship, only the Legislature can grant it to you. I hear you, but that's not really the principle Talossa has ran with for all these years, Well, yes it is. The Legislature simply changed from approving all new citizenships individually, in 2004, to the modern system of "immigration by petition EXCEPT if X people want it dealt with the old way". |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jun 16, 2019 20:22:37 GMT -6
I hear you, but that's not really the principle Talossa has ran with for all these years, Well, yes it is. The Legislature simply changed from approving all new citizenships individually, in 2004, to the modern system of "immigration by petition EXCEPT if X people want it dealt with the old way". Blonde pigeons. (Fair doos). |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 16, 2019 21:25:51 GMT -6
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. I wholeheartedly agree! 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. Respectfully, you may be unaware as to the impression generated when the leader of a country, backed by several other members of the largest elected party, makes passionately negative speeches about someone and then puts a stop to their immigration. Reading the thread again, it does not appear to me that any reasonable person would want to put in for six months -- or a year or two years -- of such consideration. Again, not passing judgment on whether it was warranted by how you were treated, you guys pretty much just said, "No." I am well aware of the legal reality that technically a bill may be proposed and passed by the Ziu to grant affirmative citizenship anyway. But something like four lengthy and angry speeches by people with considerable power were levied at the guy, then the leader of the country declared that the immigration process was over for now... to all appearances, that would be it for most people. Do I think that Talossan citizenship is worth a lot of abuse? Clearly I do, since I'm still a Talossan; I think it's worth suffering a truly enormous amount of abuse. So I wish Madison had stuck around and tried to apologize and make amends. But be real... he was being offered the chance to get yelled at a lot for half a year or more by people who would have a lot of power over him and who were very angry with him. Who would possibly want to do that? I think about quitting Talossa all of the time these days, under much less onerous circumstances. 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. I think it was probably not very smart to act so hastily, but what's done is done. 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. For now, I think that ship has sailed. |
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Jun 17, 2019 5:03:48 GMT -6
Just out of curiosity, why does everyone keep referring to E.8 as a "block?" It is a call for additional scrutiny, not an outright stoppage on an application.
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jun 17, 2019 9:35:02 GMT -6
Just out of curiosity, why does everyone keep referring to E.8 as a "block?" It is a call for additional scrutiny, not an outright stoppage on an application. I've been wondering this as well. I assume it's because those who use it see the additional scrutiny as a block on the usual process? |
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Jun 17, 2019 13:23:59 GMT -6
If it were a full-bore block, it would require 50+% of at least one house. Pure and simple. But in this case, even a minority could place the call. Continuing to call it a block is disingenuous at best.
We can argue about the optics of the fact that this particular E.8 came from the current governing party, especially since it is a useful political stick to try and bludgeon the government with. But if Mr. Madison had been willing to stick things out, I was more than interested in what he had to say. Especially given that people can change, and it's been 15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 17, 2019 13:30:20 GMT -6
To your point, Eðo, on a cursory reading before I get back to work on my Talossan stuff, we should look at E8 for sure. Perhaps this sort of thing is something the UCort should in future have a say in. And yes, my cursory reading of this law agrees with your sentiment on same. Again, when I get my magnum opus out to everyone, things should be clearer in terms of the evidence you so rightly need. I'm certain that I've read A Nation Sundered at some point years ago. I'm sure you had it hosted on jeffrags dot something. I did, but I am in the process of re-working it to the use of Talossan-language equivalents for everyone mentioned to protect online privacy. Getting a multiple-find-replace solution for MacOS is proving problematic. I could not make Terminal work, but I expect it's something on my end. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 18, 2019 18:02:23 GMT -6
such as the Senate block of ESB in 2014, where I felt the situation was much more political rather than a matter of conscience. Reading back the discussion I think it is quite clear that while such decisions are inherently political the opinions of the senators who chose to invoke E8 back then were heartfelt and they acted out of conscience and genuine concern as much as those who are invoking E8 now. It would be a mistake to suggest otherwise, even if we both disagreed with that decision. |
|
