The Declan Galbraith Act

[Eðo Grischun]

The Declan Galbraith Act

WHEREAS Declan Galbraith is an English singer best known for his 2002 single titled 'Tell Me Why', which features lyrics of "Tell me, why does it have to be like this? Tell me why, is there something I have missed? Tell me why, cos I don't understand."; and

WHEREAS El Lexhatx E.8 provides a mechanism to refer any citizenship application to the Ziu for confirmation; and

WHEREAS such a referral is triggered by a petition being made to the Chancery be the Sovereign, or by members representing one-third of the Cosa, or by members representing one-third of the Senate, or by any single Justice of the Uppermost Cort; and

WHEREAS such a petition can be made for any reason and at any time without the petitioners being required to give a reason or being required to provide any form of evidence or testimony as to why the petition is being made; so

THEREFORE be it resolved by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa that:

El Lexhatx Title E (immigration), section 8, which currently reads as:

8. At any time before a Grant of Citizenship is conferred, the Sovereign, or members representing at least one-third of the Cosâ by seats, or members representing at least one-third of the Senäts, or any single Justice of the Uppermost Cort may petition the Chancery that the said Grant of Citizenship shall not be issued until such issuance shall be ordered by an act of the Ziu. The Secretary of State shall be required to grant all such petitions, and shall withhold any issuance of a Royal Grant of Citizenship to the prospective immigrant who is the subject of such a petition until such time as an act of the Ziu directing the issuance of such a grant becomes law.

is hereby amended to read as:


8. At any time before a Grant of Citizenship is conferred, the Sovereign, or members representing at least one-third of the Cosâ by seats, or members representing at least one-third of the Senäts, or any single Justice of the Uppermost Cort may petition the Chancery that the said Grant of Citizenship shall not be issued until such issuance shall be ordered by an act of the Ziu.

8.1 The Secretary of State shall be required to grant all such petitions, and shall withhold any issuance of a Royal Grant of Citizenship to the prospective immigrant who is the subject of such a petition until such time as an act of the Ziu directing the issuance of such a grant becomes law.

8.2 Such petitions must be submitted with an appended affidavit written by at least one of the petitioners where the affiant(s) shall provide testimony to the rationale for making such a petition and also provide further supporting evidence if any is available.

I pray that it be so,
Uréu q'estadra sa,

Éovart Grischun - Member of the Cosa (RUMP)

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Not that I'm saying I support this, but do you intend this to have teeth?

In theory, I could write an affidavit that John Doe prefers Chicago "pizza" over New York pizza, and if I have enough Senate support, that's sufficient. I guess what I'm asking is--what does this actually accomplish? If it's meant to just create a record, that's fine.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 27, 2019 21:19:25 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Not that I'm saying I support this, but do you intend this to have teeth?

In theory, I could write an affidavit that John Doe prefers Chicago "pizza" over New York pizza, and if I have enough Senate support, that's sufficient. I guess what I'm asking is--what does this actually accomplish? If it's meant to just create a record, that's fine.

Yeah, you're pretty much on it. You could write up an affidavit saying whatever you like. The Chancery still needs to grant the petition no matter what you put on the affidavit. Much like the staus quo, any reason is sufficient. This bill simply creates the need for at least one of the petitioners to state that reason. Yes, you are correct, it mainly creates a record.

As a legal expert you will probably also recognize that the unwritten effects of this bill would be the effects that already exist in any situation where an affidavit is involved. That being that a malicious or libelous petition/affidavit couldn't be made without possible legal repercussions.



nb: this wouldn't have had any bearing on the petition made recently re: Madison. Plenty of evidence exists to support that particular petition. My argument simply being that that evidence should have been put forward with the petition. I don't think it's an unreasonable bar to set.

[King John]

I think this is a bad idea. For one thing, we're trying to fix a problem that only exists in imagination — the law, as is, has never been misused.

The fact that, under the current law, you don't HAVE to say why you're leery about a prospect, well, that's a good thing. Suppose someone you trust tells you in confidence that the prospective citizen is a creep, or a closet racist, or beats his girlfriend. You don't actually KNOW that any of those things are true, and you certainly can't write an affidavit affirming them, but the suspicion is enough to make you want Talossa to go slow-and-careful about admitting him as a citizen.

And if we're worried (unnecessarily I think) that some nefarious party-of-the-future might use the current law to block, say, blacks, this law doesn't fix that problem at all. It just means they can't SAY that's their reason; but of course they wouldn't anyway, so nothing is gained.

— John R

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

What if, and admittedly this is an entirely hypothetical subject: a citizen comes to the King/Ziu/CpI and says (in confidence) that they were subject to assault by a prospective citizen, and thus asks them to evoke LexhE8 on them. The time to talk their private business would have to come up in the Ziu, which would at least be able to go into "closed session". But I don't think requiring "TELL ME WHY" for every situation where someone wants the Ziu to vote on an immigration application is appropriate, necessary or just.

Again, this whole debate is due to rhetorical inflation, whereby a citizen asking that a prospective's application be discussed by the Assembly of the People is conflated with a "blackballing" of their situation altogether. It is simply wrong, and assumes that any potential criminal who rocks up to Talossa should be given the benefit of the doubt and given voting rights (not simply the right to hang around and participate in Talossan culture) unless proved to be of bad character. This is an example of the Geek Social Fallacy #1 written large.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Ah, I note that the King has anticipated many of my points.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 28, 2019 15:55:15 GMT -6 King John said:

I think this is a bad idea. For one thing, we're trying to fix a problem that only exists in imagination — the law, as is, has never been misused.

Quite a large number of bills seek to make changes like that. Laws can be proactive as well as reactive.

The fact that, under the current law, you don't HAVE to say why you're leery about a prospect, well, that's a good thing. Suppose someone you trust tells you in confidence that the prospective citizen is a creep, or a closet racist, or beats his girlfriend. You don't actually KNOW that any of those things are true, and you certainly can't write an affidavit affirming them, but the suspicion is enough to make you want Talossa to go slow-and-careful about admitting him as a citizen.

Actually, no. Those things are not enough to make me want to do that. See, this just points out the contradictions about what Talossa actually is. You would, personally, vehemently argue that Talossa is a real country, yet you defend a law in a manner that leans us more towards the 'internet club' realm. As far as I am aware, there aren't any modern and democratized countries in the world that would reject or grant citizenship on the basis of someone being a creep or not. They certainly wouldn't reject or grant citizenship on the basis of feelings of leer or on hearsay either. Rumours, gossip and suspicion should not be the benchmark here. Is it a private members club or a country?

Obtaining citizenship in a country that "isn't your own" is difficult, as it should be. The process involves lots of hoop jumps, stringent rules and sometimes exams. However, when someone meets all the affirmative criteria, it usually takes something serious to knock things back, like actual convictions for actual crimes and things of a similar level of gravity. The change this bill seeks to make doesn't even go as far as demanding that level of seriousness. It simply asks for something, anything, to back up the rationale for a petition being raised.

And if we're worried (unnecessarily I think) that some nefarious party-of-the-future might use the current law to block, say, blacks, this law doesn't fix that problem at all. It just means they can't SAY that's their reason; but of course they wouldn't anyway, so nothing is gained.

This bill isn't making that argument.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jun 28, 2019 15:57:16 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

What if, and admittedly this is an entirely hypothetical subject: a citizen comes to the King/Ziu/CpI and says (in confidence) that they were subject to assault by a prospective citizen, and thus asks them to evoke LexhE8 on them. The time to talk their private business would have to come up in the Ziu, which would at least be able to go into "closed session". But I don't think requiring "TELL ME WHY" for every situation where someone wants the Ziu to vote on an immigration application is appropriate, necessary or just.

This hypothetical actually raises a very good point. Would having the option to send a LEX.E.8 to the SoS directly and not publicly solve that?

Again, this whole debate is due to rhetorical inflation, whereby a citizen asking that a prospective's application be discussed by the Assembly of the People is conflated with a "blackballing" of their situation altogether. It is simply wrong, and assumes that any potential criminal who rocks up to Talossa should be given the benefit of the doubt and given voting rights (not simply the right to hang around and participate in Talossan culture) unless proved to be of bad character. This is an example of the Geek Social Fallacy #1 written large.

Are you arguing that people with prior convictions shouldn't be able to vote? I thought you were less right wing that that.