OKAY YOU GUYS. In accordance with the Government's programmatic commitments and with public feedback, here is our immigration reform bill. The significant changes are as follows:
* the "What Talossa Means To Me" essay will be required to demonstrate an understanding of what Talossa is and what citizenship means (if it doesn't, the application doesn't get rejected but the ImmMin can require rewriting before publication);
* citizenship applications will include a checkbox section on "what parts of Talossa most appeal to you", and the ImmMin will give guidance on who to approach to help with that (this fills the New Citizen's Committee gap)
* citizenship can be granted on the petition of two citizens and on "certification from the Ministry of Immigration that the prospective citizen has sufficient understanding of Talossan life and culture for full participation" (which would, at least in the short term, meaning passing the Civics Test and consequently getting an ID card);
* provision that if the ImmMin misuses their new powers to deep-six applications without a good reason, the applicant can appeal to the SoS.
===
WHEREAS the Government of Talossa desires that frivolous applications for Talossan citizenship be discouraged, but serious applications get all the help that they need;
BE IT ENACTED by the King, Senäts and Cosă of Talossa in Ziu assembled as follows:
1. That El Lexhatx E.2 be amended by
addition of the bolded text as follows:
Quote2.1 The Minister of Immigration shall ascertain to his own satisfaction, through correspondence or conversation, that the prospective immigrant is a real human being with genuine interest in becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. The Minister shall be free to inquire of the applicant on any and every subject, and shall be required to collect the legal name or name used in daily life, postal address (optional if the applicant is under 18 years of age, except for information needed to assign the applicant to a province), telephone number, and e-mail address(es) of the candidate, which information the Minister shall communicate to the Secretary of State. The applicant shall affirm or swear, under penalty of perjury and under the provisions of Lexh.A.16.1., that this information is accurate, and shall provide documentary evidence of the same if the Minister thinks it appropriate.
2.2 Additionally, the Immigration Minister shall be required to collect an essay, written by the applicant, entitled "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan." If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay misunderstands the nature of Talossa or the rights and duties of Talossan citizenship, or gives insufficient information to enable citizens to ask meaningful questions of the prospective, they may require the applicant to submit a rewritten essay before proceeding to the next stage. When doing so, the Immigration Minister shall provide the applicant with sufficient information to do so successfully, or indicate where to find such information.
2.3 The Immigration Minister shall also allow every applicant to indicate, whether in the essay described elsewhere in this section or otherwise, what part or parts of Talossan life are the Special Interests of the applicant. These may include Politics, Language, Culture, Heraldry, or any other categories as the Minister may see fit or that may be suggested by the applicant.
2.4 The Immigration Minister shall make a monthly report to the Ziu reporting the number of immigration applications received in that month which did not proceed because failing to fulfil the requirements of this section. For each failed application the Minister shall note which part or part of the requirements of this section were lacking in the application.
2. That El Lexhatx E.3 be amended by
addition of the bolded text and
deletion of struck-through text as follows:
Quote3. The Minister of Immigration, working with the Seneschal, the Minister of Stuff, The Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Technology and/or the nation's Wittmeister shall cause the prospective immigrant to be granted an account on Wittenberg, allowing said prospective immigrant to converse with the subjects of the Kingdom gathered there. The Immigration Minister shall verify that the said account is fully-enabled, and that the candidate is able to communicate using this forum with the citizens of the Kingdom. The Immigration Minister shall then begin a single thread on Wittenberg introducing the prospective immigrant to the nation. The "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" essay shall be published by the Immigration Minister in this introduction. The Immigration Minister is further directed to remind his fellow citizens from time to time that the initiation of new citizens into Talossa is a serious matter and that questioning a prospective citizen is a patriotic obligation of all who love their King and Country.
3.1 The Ministry of Immigration shall note the prospective immigrant's future provincial assignment in the introducing thread.
3.2 The Ministry of Immigration shall also publish any Special Interests identified by the prospective citizen in the application, and put them in touch with Talossan citizens who are identified by the Ministry as being able and willing to help them pursue those interests. In doing so the Ministry shall not promote any particular political party to the exclusion of any other.
3. That El Lexhatx E.5 be amended by
addition of the bolded text as follows:
Quote5. If, at any point during the process, either before or after creation of the Wittenberg account, the Immigration Minister determines that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further, the prospective immigrant shall be informed of this decision, and shall be made aware that a Grant of Citizenship may yet be obtained by the disappointed applicant if an act of the Ziu be passed directing that such a grant be issued. Any account created for the applicant on Wittenberg shall then be terminated.
5.1 Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may in the first case appeal this decision by application to the Secretary of State, and be given the Chancery's contact details to enable them to do so. The Secretary of State may, if they believe the Ministry of Immigration has misused their discretion under Talossan law, report to the Ziu with their reasons for so deciding and recommend that the applicant or prospective citizen be given citizenship by act of the Ziu. Alternatively, the applicant or prospective may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general election.
4. That El Lexhatx E.7 be amended by
addition of the bolded text as follows:
Quote7. The Secretary of State shall, on a date of his choosing, but within a period of ten days after receiving a petition from at least two citizens to issue a Grant of Citizenship as described in clause 4, and upon certification from the Ministry of Immigration that the prospective citizen has sufficient understanding of Talossan life and culture for full participation, determine the provincial assignment of the prospective immigrant and issue a Royal Grant of Citizenship to the immigrant. This Grant shall be issued under the Royal Seal, either as applied by the Chancery, or, should the Majesty request, by the Sovereign under his or her own hand. If requested by the Government, the Grant may also bear the signatures of the Seneschal and/or Immigration Minister. The Royal Grant shall be promptly issued coincident with the candidate affirming his fealty to the Royal House and his allegiance to the Kingdom by taking any Oath of Talossan Citizenship specified by law. At the time this Royal Grant is issued, and from that point forward, the applicant shall be a full citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. The fact of the issuance of this Grant shall be posted on Wittenberg by the Secretary of State, that the new citizen may be welcomed by his compatriots. Any and all objections raised to the immigration made after this Royal Grant will be moot.
Considering some of the discussion in the other thread I am surprised to not see additional language concerning the explaining of what broosking is and why it is discouraged. I'd recommend putting it in there if it is not there already or strengthening the language. This could include who the prospective citizen should notify should they believe they've encountered broosking.
Would it be more appropriate for the appeal to go to the Corts rather than the SoS if the MinImm misuses their powers?
I still think that a civil servant is better suited to perform many of these new duties rather than the MinImm if we want to make the process less prone to politicization. Civil servant for administration, MinImm for policy direction.
Would it be better to move the requirement for "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" to after the prospective applicant has access to Witt, rather than deny them for insufficiency before they have the ability to interact on Witt? Or grant them prospective access contingent upon them writing an addendum to their original essay prior to citizenship?
Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on September 04, 2024, 02:23:05 PMWould it be better to move the requirement for "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" to after the prospective applicant has access to Witt, rather than deny them for insufficiency before they have the ability to interact on Witt? Or grant them prospective access contingent upon them writing an addendum to their original essay prior to citizenship?
The issue this is meant to address is that too many unserious applications are posted, which makes it hard to know which ones are worthwhile to interact with.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 04, 2024, 05:26:40 PMQuote from: Munditenens Tresplet on September 04, 2024, 02:23:05 PMWould it be better to move the requirement for "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" to after the prospective applicant has access to Witt, rather than deny them for insufficiency before they have the ability to interact on Witt? Or grant them prospective access contingent upon them writing an addendum to their original essay prior to citizenship?
The issue this is meant to address is that too many unserious applications are posted, which makes it hard to know which ones are worthwhile to interact with.
But then the concern becomes, should we allow a single individual to judge the qualities of an applicant in this manner? Such that it would deny the applicant the ability to participte on Witt and be judged by a larger body of Talossans who could make their own determinations as whether they are a serious applicant?
I understand a concern about unserious applicants, but we should let Talossans be the judge of whether an applicant is serious or not. More importantly though, it may difficult for an applicant to truly ascertain why they want to be Talossan without first interacting with and learning about Talossa first hand--and to deny an applicant prior to this stage could be preventing curious, but serious applicants from proceeding.
Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on September 05, 2024, 09:52:21 PMit may difficult for an applicant to truly ascertain why they want to be Talossan without first interacting with and learning about Talossa first hand--and to deny an applicant prior to this stage could be preventing curious, but serious applicants from proceeding.
Then why would such a person be applying for citizenship in the first place? As opposed to, say, reading the Wiki and the website and watching Witt?
The problem is that at the moment, there is an incentive for the Immigration Minister to conduct absolutely zero basic screening. The incentive is for every application to just be slapped up on the Immigration Board, to which 90% of them are replied only to by Zilect Wombat yelling "AZUL!" and maybe someone asking questions on the basis of the very weak information usually supplied.
Talossans can simply not judge new applicants unless those applicants offer an account of themselves and why they want to be Talossans
up front. It is also a waste of the Immigration Ministry's time to have to post applications from people who just want an ID card or think that Talossan citizenship will get them a passport they can use for international travel.
Two further points:
a) The bill offers a method by which prospectives who are not happy with the Immigration Minister's decisions can appeal them.
b) I have argued for
years for a board on Witt called "the Landing Pier" where non-citizens can freely engage without having to take out a citizenship application (but at the peril of being moderated with a blow-torch).
It's still really unclear to me why we'd want this bill. The only benefit seems to be that it will be slightly easier for the MinImm, since they can reject some petitions. But since they'll now be in charge of scrutinizing all of the essay portions and issuing directions as to their deficiency, it looks to me as though it would increase the workload. The MinImm job would expand from "process applications" to "be the first judge of applicant worth and then process their applications," which is surely more labour.
Also, as pointed out, this would be an astonishing amount of power for a Government official to have. The minister is evaluating the worth of an applicant in private, rejecting them based on their subjective assessment of the essay. Even though I'm sure that this is well-meant, such a power could be abused with great ease. Unless there's a very good reason, we shouldn't be giving anyone right of first refusal on new immigrants who successfully fulfill the process.
Thirdly, why would we require someone to mick a petition before approval? Why require getting an ID, a process that can take weeks or months (especially if the minister in charge has had a really shitty run of luck)? I guess it wouldn't hurt things any, but it seems like a weird additional hurdle. Is the idea to just generally make it harder for people to immigrate? Why would we want to do that? That's a bad thing for a country that continues to exist on the basis of regular new immigrants.
Maybe my macronational sympathies are bleeding through a little, but I think gatekeeping Talossa is probably not a good idea -- let's let everyone in who wants to join with any seriousness. We already regularly kick out people who lose interest afterwards. If we're going to start locking our door, we should also stop kicking people out the window.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 12, 2024, 06:09:19 PMIt's still really unclear to me why we'd want this bill. The only benefit seems to be that it will be slightly easier for the MinImm, since they can reject some petitions. But since they'll now be in charge of scrutinizing all of the essay portions and issuing directions as to their deficiency, it looks to me as though it would increase the workload. The MinImm job would expand from "process applications" to "be the first judge of applicant worth and then process their applications," which is surely more labour.
Also, as pointed out, this would be an astonishing amount of power for a Government official to have. The minister is evaluating the worth of an applicant in private, rejecting them based on their subjective assessment of the essay. Even though I'm sure that this is well-meant, such a power could be abused with great ease. Unless there's a very good reason, we shouldn't be giving anyone right of first refusal on new immigrants who successfully fulfill the process.
Thirdly, why would we require someone to mick a petition before approval? Why require getting an ID, a process that can take weeks or months (especially if the minister in charge has had a really shitty run of luck)? I guess it wouldn't hurt things any, but it seems like a weird additional hurdle. Is the idea to just generally make it harder for people to immigrate? Why would we want to do that? That's a bad thing for a country that continues to exist on the basis of regular new immigrants.
Maybe my macronational sympathies are bleeding through a little, but I think gatekeeping Talossa is probably not a good idea -- let's let everyone in who wants to join with any seriousness. We already regularly kick out people who lose interest afterwards. If we're going to start locking our door, we should also stop kicking people out the window.
@Miestră Schivă, UrN This is well-reasoned and I agree particularly with the second point reiterated by the Baron and first expressed by Dien. I would add that you should continue your search for a Immigration Permanent Secretary.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 12, 2024, 06:09:19 PMs the idea to just generally make it harder for people to immigrate? Why would we want to do that?
Because recent experience shows that just accepting everyone who fills out an online form and makes 1 post on Witt leads to:
(a) low-quality citizens who overwhelmingly don't contribute to Talossan life, apart from making a number on Infoteca look good for those who care about such things;
(b) unintentional broosking to the ImmMin's party. Honestly, this is a hangover from the pre-Reunision days, when the ruling party discovered that a completely open-door immigration policy led "somehow" to a semi-permanent political majority.
There is a phenomenon whereby people who don't want something offered to them for free will be interested if they have to pay a small fee. We call Talossan citizenship "The Best Thing That Money Can't Buy", and we literally go out and throw our "pearls before swine". I wouldn't be surprised if this policy actually
increased immigration numbers, but in any case, the wager is that it will increase active citizenship.
Honestly, I share the Baron's discomfort that this is very different from my macronational political stance, but that's something we all have to get used to. I don't believe there is such a thing as "high/low quality" citizenship in New Zealand. I do in Talossa.
It seems inarguable to me that the quality of discussion and effort on Wittenberg has been
dramatically better since the immigration rate ticked up. 2021 and 2022 were very quiet times here, which makes sense because no one was immigrating. The doldrums in activity/interest and immigration were deeply correlated. It's not the only factor, but I think it's hard to ignore that higher immigration seems to have corresponded to a healthier country.
This is mostly a numbers game. There's a "quality" factor, but that mostly has to do with how people hear about Talossa. Folks searching for "free passport" or "free ID card" might get the wrong idea, but that probably just means we should be thoughtful about how we present ourselves to applicants... like maybe the application needs big lettering at the top that says, "TALOSSAN DOCUMENTATION NOT VALID FOR BORDERS OR MIGRATION" if we're actually worried about this. Or think about how we spread the word -- where are we advertising or whatever?
Now, would it increase "quality" if we made it harder to get in? Probably! But the math doesn't math, if you think about it. To wit:
- A small percentage of immigrants are going to turn out to be active and interesting and pleasant. So that's a little piece of a big pie.
- If we make it harder to get in, the percentage of "quality" immigrants will be higher. We will not get so many disinterested people, but also we'll lose a few of the more interested ones. So it's a bigger piece of a smaller pie.
- But I think it has always turned out that the little piece of the big pie is still bigger than the big piece of the little pie.
I'm sorry... I just flat-out don't believe that making it harder to immigrate will result in a larger number of "quality" immigrants. It doesn't make any sense in principle, and that's not how it's turned out in the past when we ran this actual experiment.
Further, it's not going to help broosking if we give a political appointee a new role as private gatekeeper... isn't that what this bill would do? Won't that make the problem much, much worse?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 08:23:48 PMThere is a phenomenon whereby people who don't want something offered to them for free will be interested if they have to pay a small fee.
Is this true? I can only find studies and discussions of people valuing something more
after the fact if they paid for it, versus when it's free. This is a widely-known phenomenon that factors even into things like fraternity hazing ("It was hard to get in, so it's an awesome frat, bro!")
Studies I found on this matter also seem to say the exact opposite -- that people assign an inordinately higher value to free products: Duke study (https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersPI/Zero%20as%20a%20Special%20Price.pdf).
I'm very interested in the idea that more people will be interested in a product if it costs a small amount than if it's free, mostly for extraTalossan reasons. Do you happen to have any links on hand?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 12, 2024, 09:17:26 PMI can only find studies and discussions of people valuing something more after the fact if they paid for it, versus when it's free.
That's probably a more rigorous and better way of putting it. I encourage everyone to read the hilarious article this is from (https://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-you-learn-when-making-modern-video-game):
Quotewhen something has no cost, you're not motivated to get your money's worth. New games have learning processes, and if you invest zero dollars in one, you invest the same amount of time in figuring out how to play. I know how this sounds, but it's almost as if you have to tax the player in order to get them to learn how to play your game. Ugh. I type 15 jokes about Hitler a day, and that was the most awful sentence I've ever written.
So after a few months, we changed the price from zero to three dollars (then back to free again). And here's what's nuts: When it cost more money, more people downloaded it. And everyone who downloaded it played it more.
But that's what I was getting at. If a new citizen has to make an *effort* to get in, they're more likely to cherish their Talossan citizenship and contribute to the community. So thanks for helping me clarify. And also to clarify, the "effort" I'm suggesting is one of demonstrating understanding what Talossa is and how a new citizen can contribute. I'll never forget that one citizenship who immigrated, tried to play the two major political parties off against each other, choose one, and then vaporized.
I hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:32:38 PMI hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.
This appears to be one of those new tasks, Txec.
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB I assume this came up in discussions?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:32:38 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 12, 2024, 09:17:26 PMI can only find studies and discussions of people valuing something more after the fact if they paid for it, versus when it's free.
That's probably a more rigorous and better way of putting it.
Hmm... Well, like I said, I knew about that effect, but it's also not quite pertinent to what we're talking about. In fact, along the same lines, there's another existing phenomenon called the zero-price effect. It's very well-studied, and it suggests that people tend to value a free thing even higher than they should. I don't think it actually applies here, but I was curious to tease out that bit there.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:32:38 PMBut that's what I was getting at. If a new citizen has to make an *effort* to get in, they're more likely to cherish their Talossan citizenship and contribute to the community.
Oh, I definitely agree on that proposition!
But the problem is that the overall effect is still much lower participation, in my opinion, since in this case a small slice of a big pie outweighs the big slice of a small pie.
I don't think there's any reason to think that we'd benefit
on net from making it harder to immigrate, in other words.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:32:38 PMI hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.
I mean... come on, Dama Miestra!
Imagine Minister of Immigration Robert Ben Madison telling you, "Dama Miestra, I'm going to be the one to talk to every immigrant first. If I like their application, I'll approve it. This process will happen in secret. You don't have to worry that I will be extra harsh with people who don't think like me, I promise. But again, you do have to trust me because it'll be a secret process. And for oversight, these people can appeal to the Secretary of State if they get rejected. Assuming their rejection doesn't drive them away. And assuming they know how to do that. And assuming they can figure out how to do that."
Are you
really telling me that you'd be fine with that? Step away from the fact that it's your idea, and that you've loved this idea of "winnowing out the chaff" for many years: are you telling me you're trusting MinImm Madison with this?
With the greatest of respect:
1) I actually worked with Ben Madison as Immigration Minister. He decided to keep me out, but he didn't do that through unaccountable backroom shenanigans. He did so by briefing against me with the Uppermost Cort, who had the final say. He wrote a snotty note in his newspaper saying that I could be reconsidered if I learned to toe the line, and of course I was already forming a new micronation by then, lol.
2) I could *already* be throwing half of the immigration applications in the bin and you'd know nothing about it, because you can't see the immigration mailbox. If you really think that any quality control is going to turn into unaccountable gatekeeping, then I expect you to support an automated process where any immigration application gets autoposted to Wittenberg. Which I'd actually support if we decided to reject the idea of quality hurdles.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:57:53 PM1) I actually worked with Ben Madison as Immigration Minister. He decided to keep me out, but he didn't do that through unaccountable backroom shenanigans. He did so by briefing against me with the Uppermost Cort, who had the final say. He wrote a snotty note in his newspaper saying that I could be reconsidered if I learned to toe the line, and of course I was already forming a new micronation by then, lol.
lol okay... so substitute in someone else you don't trust to play it straight. The point is that you shouldn't put power like this in anyone's hands.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:57:53 PM2) I could *already* be throwing half of the immigration applications in the bin and you'd know nothing about it, because you can't see the immigration mailbox.
Except that
would be illegal. You're proposing to make it legal for the MinImm to scrutinize every immigrant and secretly reject some of them based on their subjective assessment.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 09:33:42 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:32:38 PMI hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.
This appears to be one of those new tasks, Txec. @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB I assume this came up in discussions?
I missed that, but my day job gets in the way sometimes. I'm really trying to stay out of political discussions, and probably shouldn't even have commented before.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on September 12, 2024, 10:03:20 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on September 12, 2024, 09:33:42 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 12, 2024, 09:32:38 PMI hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.
This appears to be one of those new tasks, Txec. @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB I assume this came up in discussions?
I missed that, but my day job gets in the way sometimes. I'm really trying to stay out of political discussions, and probably shouldn't even have commented before.
See, maybe now
@Miestră Schivă, UrN understands my "Single Transferable Obsession." With reasonable takes like this you will soon have multiple transferable obsessions, Txec.
It's late here and I have tired teacher brain
@Breneir Tzaracomprada so I'm having trouble figuring out if your mad at me for commenting or complimenting me lol.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on September 12, 2024, 10:09:57 PMIt's late here and I have tired teacher brain @Breneir Tzaracomprada so I'm having trouble figuring out if your mad at me for commenting or complimenting me lol.
Txec, that was a compliment by reference to what I think Miestra intended as an insult when responding to a terpelaziun. I hope you will get some rest.
Gotcha. I'm sure I'll sleep well. Thank you.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 12, 2024, 06:09:19 PMIt's still really unclear to me why we'd want this bill. The only benefit seems to be that it will be slightly easier for the MinImm, since they can reject some petitions. But since they'll now be in charge of scrutinizing all of the essay portions and issuing directions as to their deficiency, it looks to me as though it would increase the workload. The MinImm job would expand from "process applications" to "be the first judge of applicant worth and then process their applications," which is surely more labour.
Speaking out of my experience processing applications for a while, it takes longer than you would think just to copy the application from the email into Witt. Certainly it takes much longer than observing that someone has submitted a one-sentence essay and telling them to try harder. It can
feel like an eternity when the application is so low-effort or lacking understanding of Talossa that you're 99.99% certain the application is going nowhere and that the effort of posting it is completely in vain.
The other side of this, as I mentioned above, is making it easier for Talossans to engage with immigrants that are actually serious. I must admit that I commented on one to many threads of immigrants that could not even be bothered to post once, and I kind of stopped engaging on immigration threads altogether because of it. Shame on me, I know.
To me, this legislation is not about making it more difficult for serious applicants to get through. It's about recognizing that processing blatantly unserious applications makes everyone involved a lot less motivated, which probably isn't a good thing.
QuoteAlso, as pointed out, this would be an astonishing amount of power for a Government official to have. The minister is evaluating the worth of an applicant in private, rejecting them based on their subjective assessment of the essay. Even though I'm sure that this is well-meant, such a power could be abused with great ease. Unless there's a very good reason, we shouldn't be giving anyone right of first refusal on new immigrants who successfully fulfill the process.
I'm not going to argue that such an abuse would be impossible, but I don't think it would be nearly significant enough to outweigh the practical benefits. Would it make you more comfortable if we tried defining objective criteria for what constitutes a "blatantly unserious" application?
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 13, 2024, 08:35:15 PMSpeaking out of my experience processing applications for a while, it takes longer than you would think just to copy the application from the email into Witt. Certainly it takes much longer than observing that someone has submitted a one-sentence essay and telling them to try harder. It can feel like an eternity when the application is so low-effort or lacking understanding of Talossa that you're 99.99% certain the application is going nowhere and that the effort of posting it is completely in vain.
As mentioned, it will definitely be much more work to subjectively scrutinize each applicant, approve and post some, reject some others, and then explain the deficiencies to those who are rejected.
I have some sympathy for the idea that it could be an easier process in some ways, but isn't that more an argument for fixing the process? That would solve the problem that's been identified, without the risk of making a government minister the new Judge of All Essays.
I mean, right now the process is just a website form that generates emails. I think it would not be too hard to tweak it so that it spat out something that was ready-to-post, also. Then it's just CTRL+C, CTRL+V.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 13, 2024, 08:35:15 PMTo me, this legislation is not about making it more difficult for serious applicants to get through. It's about recognizing that processing blatantly unserious applications makes everyone involved a lot less motivated, which probably isn't a good thing.
This makes sense. Maybe if we're going to do this, it makes sense to just do it in the open? Create a new immigration program -- maybe call it a visa -- which takes notice of those prospectives who have put extra care into their essays?
The Ministry of Immigration has identified this prospective immigrant
as particularly energetic and interested in immigrating, and has added them to the
RF-1 Visa Program
|
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 13, 2024, 08:35:15 PMI'm not going to argue that such an abuse would be impossible, but I don't think it would be nearly significant enough to outweigh the practical benefits. Would it make you more comfortable if we tried defining objective criteria for what constitutes a "blatantly unserious" application?
The proposed law says that the standard right now isn't "blatantly unserious." Instead, it's the far scarier: "If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay shows an insufficient understanding of what Talossa is."
It would be better to discard this law, since it seems like a solution in search of a problem. The real motive here is just to make it harder to immigrate. If the problem of ministerial workload is so bad, then the solution can't be to add on more work. Fix the actual problems, instead.
But yes, if it's absolutely necessary to do this, then you guys should at least establish some more objective standards.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 15, 2024, 04:35:17 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 13, 2024, 08:35:15 PMSpeaking out of my experience processing applications for a while, it takes longer than you would think just to copy the application from the email into Witt. Certainly it takes much longer than observing that someone has submitted a one-sentence essay and telling them to try harder. It can feel like an eternity when the application is so low-effort or lacking understanding of Talossa that you're 99.99% certain the application is going nowhere and that the effort of posting it is completely in vain.
As mentioned, it will definitely be much more work to subjectively scrutinize each applicant, approve and post some, reject some others, and then explain the deficiencies to those who are rejected.
I have some sympathy for the idea that it could be an easier process in some ways, but isn't that more an argument for fixing the process? That would solve the problem that's been identified, without the risk of making a government minister the new Judge of All Essays.
I mean, right now the process is just a website form that generates emails. I think it would not be too hard to tweak it so that it spat out something that was ready-to-post, also. Then it's just CTRL+C, CTRL+V.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 13, 2024, 08:35:15 PMTo me, this legislation is not about making it more difficult for serious applicants to get through. It's about recognizing that processing blatantly unserious applications makes everyone involved a lot less motivated, which probably isn't a good thing.
This makes sense. Maybe if we're going to do this, it makes sense to just do it in the open? Create a new immigration program -- maybe call it a visa -- which takes notice of those prospectives who have put extra care into their essays?
The Ministry of Immigration has identified this prospective immigrant
as particularly energetic and interested in immigrating, and has added them to the
RF-1 Visa Program
|
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 13, 2024, 08:35:15 PMI'm not going to argue that such an abuse would be impossible, but I don't think it would be nearly significant enough to outweigh the practical benefits. Would it make you more comfortable if we tried defining objective criteria for what constitutes a "blatantly unserious" application?
The proposed law says that the standard right now isn't "blatantly unserious." Instead, it's the far scarier: "If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay shows an insufficient understanding of what Talossa is."
It would be better to discard this law, since it seems like a solution in search of a problem. The real motive here is just to make it harder to immigrate. If the problem of ministerial workload is so bad, then the solution can't be to add on more work. Fix the actual problems, instead.
But yes, if it's absolutely necessary to do this, then you guys should at least establish some more objective standards.
Things have quieted down but my two bence. The Baron's idea is a really good one here.
Thanks for everyone's comments.
Upon discussion within the Cabinet, we have decided to change the wording slightly as so:
QuoteIf the Immigration Minister considers that this essay shows an insufficient understanding of what Talossa is or interest in Talossa and what Talossan citizenship entails, they may require the applicant to submit a rewritten essay that shows such understanding or interest before proceeding to the next stage.
I understand citizens' worries that Immigration staff with a chip on their shoulder could simply "flush" applications that they don't like the looks of.
But this is the case already. El Lexh E.2. as written says that Immigration are entitled to reject applications if they don't consider the prospective to have furnished sufficient proof of identity. As we have seen with that clown who called himself a Lord and tried to immigrate a second time after being rejected a first time, this is somewhat toothless unless Immigration has the confidence to look more closely, and not the presumption that we "let everyone in and let the people decide".
The text of this amendment not only gives Immigration more confidence to actually enforce Immigration law as currently written, it gives precise instructions as to
how Immigration are supposed to counsel prospectives to find out more about Talossa and to write an essay which not only demonstrates they know what Talossa is, but gives citizens vital information in order to ask intelligent questions of them in the immigration process.
Thus, I call upon the CRL being
@Ian Plätschisch ,
@Glüc da Dhi S.H. and
@þerxh Sant-Enogat , to take up this bill (text as in the first post in this thread) with a view to getting it on the next Clark.
I think the changes improve the bill, marginally, but it yet remains a problem that it wouldn't accomplish its own stated goals and it would make it much harder to immigrate without clear benefit.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2024, 05:08:38 PMI understand citizens' worries that Immigration staff with a chip on their shoulder could simply "flush" applications that they don't like the looks of. But this is the case already. El Lexh E.2. as written says that Immigration are entitled to reject applications if they don't consider the prospective to have furnished sufficient proof of identity.
Your proposal would change the current standard for the minister to process an application from an administrative one to an ideological one. There's a yawning gulf between "they didn't prove their identity" and "they don't understand enough about the country to meet my standards."
I think you're probably going to go ahead with this no matter what, but you guys should be aware that this
appears horribly corrupt. I'm sure intentions are good and current personnel won't abuse this power, but it's crazy to say that one person gets to secretly decide which citizens meet their subjective standards of knowledge and writing.
This is especially true when there's no reasonable defense of the proposal.
- It takes too long to process applications? Okay, well, this would make it take longer.
- We need a way to keep track of which applications deserve more scrutiny? Why not point them out in public, rather than gatekeep in secret?
- We need more serious immigrants? Well, rejecting some serious applicants who might not write well in English due to their educational background, their location, or a disability like dyslexia is not going to help!
Making the minister into the Secret Judge will take more time, it's wide-open for corruption, and it will discriminate against some types of immigrants. If the Free Democrats shove this through, ignoring the red flags, then they will deserve it when voters are upset about it.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2024, 07:37:27 PMI think you're probably going to go ahead with this no matter what, but you guys should be aware that this appears horribly corrupt. I'm sure intentions are good and current personnel won't abuse this power, but it's crazy to say that one person gets to secretly decide which citizens meet their subjective standards of knowledge and writing
...
Making the minister into the Secret Judge will take more time, it's wide-open for corruption, and it will discriminate against some types of immigrants. If the Free Democrats shove this through, ignoring the red flags, then they will deserve it when voters are upset about it.
The claims of corruption and discrimination only make sense if you assume the absolute worst motives of the official, which, while I agree doing so would be appropriate if we were determining policy for another country, just doesn't seem necessary in today's Talossa. Again, I'm not saying such a thing is inconceivable, but seriously. I'm not here to design laws that pretend we have a much greater need for anti-corruption measures than we actually do. The possibility of this comment itself being used as evidence of corruption is not lost on me, but I stand by it.
Also, in the imagined "worst case scenario" of immigration Minister, there would be nothing stopping them from secretly throwing out applications under current law. This bill wouldn't give them any legal cover since, if they reject an application, they are required to provide advice on making it better. However, I don't believe this will add any more net workload because most applications will likely either:
- Be accepted as they are now on the first try, or
- Be rejected without any follow-up attempt, saving the Minister the time of posting the application and saving everyone else the time of evaluating it.
The bill only appears horribly corrupt to those that have a vested interest in it appearing so. Hey, I guess the opposition needs
something to run on next time and it may as well be this.
I mean, it may well be that "the Government changed Immigration laws so it could exclude perfectly good citizens for reasons of corruption" might motivate a big voting bloc at the next election. Alternatively, we could be about to see a golden age where every new citizen is an informed and active one, and the voters would love that.
But all this is entirely hypothetical because right now there hasn't been an immigration application in almost two months, which is unfortunate but not something this bill is meant to deal with. Other government action will deal with that, schi Allà en volt.
So what you are saying is that only prospective citizens who are intelligent enough to write an essay are capable of becoming useful active citizens?
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on September 22, 2024, 08:54:15 PMSo what you are saying is that only prospective citizens who are intelligent enough to write an essay are capable of becoming useful active citizens?
No
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 22, 2024, 08:01:20 PMThe claims of corruption and discrimination only make sense if you assume the absolute worst motives of the official, which, while I agree doing so would be appropriate if we were determining policy for another country, just doesn't seem necessary in today's Talossa.
No --
exactly the opposite is true. In Talossa, there is very little chance that anyone will ever have the time and interest to scrutinize the records of dozens or hundreds of minor decisions about immigration. We didn't even keep records on immigration numbers until a year ago! There's virtually no journalism, there's only about seven or eight warm bodies who might even care, and the stakes are quite low in terms of anyone's real life.
And we're not even talking about open corruption, although that's the obvious objection to a secret immigration tribunal.
We're talking about the very human tendency to let the right-thinking essay slide a little more than the wrong-thinking essay. If I get two essays from two applicants in poor English, but one of them vibes with me more? Well, I will very obviously tend to judge that one as better. That's not villainous, mustache-twirling corruption. But it is corrupt, since it will tend to favor the person who thinks like the secret immigration judge.
I mean... yes, it's possible someone will tie a victim to the railroad tracks and then start trashing essays that speak fondly of capitalism or whatever, but that seems much less likely than the secret immigration gatekeeper just carelessly favouring those who strike them as the "right" sort of person.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 22, 2024, 08:01:20 PMAlso, in the imagined "worst case scenario" of immigration Minister, there would be nothing stopping them from secretly throwing out applications under current law.
It's illegal to run people over with your car, but that's not an argument for painting over the crosswalks.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2024, 08:38:05 PMI mean, it may well be that "the Government changed Immigration laws so it could exclude perfectly good citizens for reasons of corruption" might motivate a big voting bloc at the next election. Alternatively, we could be about to see a golden age where every new citizen is an informed and active one, and the voters would love that.
But all this is entirely hypothetical because right now there hasn't been an immigration application in almost two months, which is unfortunate but not something this bill is meant to deal with. Other government action will deal with that, schi Allà en volt.
In the Republic of Talossa, it was much harder to immigrate. Indeed, this bill replicates a whole lot of those strictures. And you yourself said that this substantially lowered the immigration rate, noting that "trade-offs must be made."
I think that probably it's a little early to worry, but if we're concerned immigration rate is dropping again, then is it the time to start trading it off for having a higher percentage of citizens who can write decent essays?
Referring to a very basic screening as a "secret tribunal" is one of those things that, while not conclusively false or dishonest (depending on definitions), is not, as the kids say, keeping it 💯.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 22, 2024, 09:47:40 PMReferring to a very basic screening as a "secret tribunal" is one of those things that, while not conclusively false or dishonest (depending on definitions), is not, as the kids say, keeping it 💯.
The lesson has been learned in Talossan politics that rhetorical hyperinflation, and picking a catchphrase and running with it (Christopher Rufo-style) is a good way to win arguments, i.e. to get your opposition to give up with a sore head. Let's compare this to the similar rhetorical move applied to 54RZ4 (https://wiki.talossa.com/Law:54RZ4_The_Pete_Townshend_(WHO_ARE_YOU)_Bill):
QuoteWe're talking about the very human tendency to let a friendly applicant provide less proof of their identity than a grouchy applicant. If I get two social media accounts from two applicants, but I like the photos on one of them more? Well, I will very obviously tend to judge that one more credible. That's not villainous, mustache-twirling corruption. But it is corrupt, since it will tend to favor the person who thinks like the secret identity-confirmation tribunal.
The only way to go from this decision is to remove all Immigration Minister discretion at all, and allow prospectives to simply post their applications themselves, which would at least be consistent.
I remember when someone was saying that a particular decision of the CpI now meant that all cases would now be determined by lobbying the Judge in private. Didn't happen, but it was an exciting scenario to discuss.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 22, 2024, 09:47:40 PMReferring to a very basic screening as a "secret tribunal" is one of those things that, while not conclusively false or dishonest (depending on definitions), is not, as the kids say, keeping it 💯.
I don't know what a "very basic screening" might be, since the bill says that the secret judgment happens on the basis of whether the applicant has "insufficient understanding of or interest in Talossa" for the first check, and "sufficient understanding of Talossan life and culture for full participation" for the second check.
You might be under the impression that these are objective, clear-cut criteria. But they are not.
I know you guys are going to pass this bill either way, but at the very minimum I can do my best to alert you to the fact that this is (a) not going to achieve the claimed goals, (b) probably bad on net for the country, and (c) a huge political liability because it looks
really bad when the Government decides to institute secret gatekeeping on all applications.
I would
much prefer you snatch away this campaign platform, crushing it to slivers before my very eyes, and foiling my dastardly attempt to sucker you into passing this bill. Draft some clear and objective criteria for the secret immigration judge, and take the wind out of my sails! Decide on an open process instead, and INSERT METAPHOR HERE!
Yes, it will be very easy to attack this Government for creating a new secret process where a Government official decides if a prospective immigrant "understands" the country enough. I am telling you right now, before the bill is passed, that this is an obvious criticism since the plan sounds really bad. Please defeat my sinister campaigning plan by not doing the obviously bad-sounding thing!
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 22, 2024, 10:05:26 PMLet's compare this to the similar rhetorical move applied to 54RZ4 (https://wiki.talossa.com/Law:54RZ4_The_Pete_Townshend_(WHO_ARE_YOU)_Bill):
QuoteWe're talking about the very human tendency to let a friendly applicant provide less proof of their identity than a grouchy applicant. If I get two social media accounts from two applicants, but I like the photos on one of them more? Well, I will very obviously tend to judge that one more credible. That's not villainous, mustache-twirling corruption. But it is corrupt, since it will tend to favor the person who thinks like the secret identity-confirmation tribunal.
The only way to go from this decision is to remove all Immigration Minister discretion at all, and allow prospectives to simply post their applications themselves, which would at least be consistent.
I'm not sure it's equally hard to stay objective about proof of someone's physical reality and the contents of an essay they wrote. I mean, do you not
understand how I could be concerned here? Not just disagree, but you earnestly don't see what I'm talking about, and think these two judgment calls are equivalent? If so, that might be an error of communication... maybe I have failed to write clearly about my concerns here.
But yes, there are a lot of other choices that could be taken to address the stated concerns here. I already presented one: if we want the MinImm to judge who is a "quality" applicant to make them stand out, then why not just do that publicly and openly?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 22, 2024, 10:28:18 PMI'm not sure it's equally hard to stay objective about proof of someone's physical reality
Yeah, the thing is, unless you've got the investigative resources of a macronational police force, it is
impossible to be 100% sure that Joe Schmoe from Bupkis, Alaska in the immigrant queue is who they say they are. I mean, they can provide social media accounts, etc., but it would be trivially easy for a determined crook falsify these (as I say, Lord Whatsisface fooled my predecessor). The Immigration Minister must
use their discretion to decide, on the balance of probabilities, that the credentials offered are bona fide.
Not every use of discretion - for example, one to say "I don't think you understand what Talossa really is, here's some info, please rewrite your application accordingly" - is corrupt. That line of thought ends up with, for public officials, "
anything not compulsory is forbidden" and hand the whole thing over to AI. Or, it ends at an arbitrary space, chosen for political advantage.
Your point makes sense when you say that it's not purely objective, and that there is a judgment call. Ultimately, there are a ton of small judgment calls like that when processing applications, including the speed with which you act and (most particularly) who gets treated with enthusiasm after posting.
But surely it is much less subjective than reading an essay and deciding if it's up to snuff, and it is much less harmful if that judgment happens in the open?
I'm not even saying it's a bad idea to sort the wheat from the chaff when introducing immigrants, but there's a way to do it that has much less risk of corruption -- accidental or purposeful -- and which will be more useful to citizens. Give high-enthusiasm applicants a public stamp of approval in some way. It will be less work than rejecting some applicants and explaining to them why they were rejected, and it will have the same positive results.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 22, 2024, 09:10:13 PMQuote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on September 22, 2024, 08:54:15 PMSo what you are saying is that only prospective citizens who are intelligent enough to write an essay are capable of becoming useful active citizens?
No
That is exactly what I see in this proposal. You MUST write an essay basically to show how intelligent you are to be considered for citizenship. I for one could not write an essay that would be accepted by the academic elites and intelligence police on this website to save my life. If it were to be instituted retroactively I would immediately lose my citizenship. Not everyone is capable of hashing out an intelligent sounding essay in english, or even in their own home language. I like to think I have been somewhat active and involved, I know I am not intelligent enough to hold any office higher than that which I hold now (senator). I turned down the opportunity to hold cabinet level positions because I knew I couldn't do the job. That does not mean I am not capable of being involved. A nation (even a micronation) needs citizens, not all of them need to be highly intelligent members of the government or judges in the cort. I feel that this proposal will lead to a MASSIVE drop off in applications for citizenship and likely lead to a majority of applications being rejected.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on September 23, 2024, 08:10:08 AMIf it were to be instituted retroactively I would immediately lose my citizenship. [...] I know I am not intelligent enough to hold any office higher than that which I hold now (senator).
This law cannot be applied retroactively; Org.VII.14 explicitly prohibits
ex post facto laws.
Also, Tric'hard, you need to stop selling yourself short, ok?
Agreed 100%... Mic'haglh is right, there's no need for you to worry.
I will also note that while I am worried that this will hurt the immigration rate, I don't think anyone but people with quite significant disabilities or who speak English as a second language are likely to be put off by this... I think even with this new restriction, you'd have been welcomed to Talossa.
As an educator of 20+ years, nothing makes me more sad than seeing someone sell him or herself short. Trichard, I find you to be adept and fully capable. Please always remember that! You are so much more than you give yourself credit for.
"Recently", I had the opportunity to serve as Minister of Immigration for a few days, and my memories of those processes were filled with the following emotions:
- Excitement!
We have a new person who wants to become a citizen of our kingdom. - Disappointment:
They didn't provide any social media profile or the one they did is private. - Perplexity:
The person filled out the form in a language that is not English (Will they be able to communicate in Wittenberg?)
In the "About me" section (which is clearly stated as the most important), they either left it blank or, worse, it's obvious that they want to join the kingdom with the sole intention of getting a) real immigration to the United States or b) a free ID card from a small country full of people eager to gain more citizens.
I believe raising the bar for immigrating to the Kingdom is not only a good thing but also in line with derivatist values. If we compare the rules for immigrating to a macronation, asking for just one paragraph is no problem at all.
Now, this brings me to a topic that perhaps hasn't been discussed enough: What constitutes an essay?
I recall my own immigration application, where I wrote in a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters, and it probably looked like the words of an absolute madman. If someone had told me at the time that I needed to write 2 to 3 paragraphs explaining why I wanted to join the Kingdom, what I could or wanted to contribute, etc., something as simple as "I want to contribute my grain of sand and see what's up, I find it fun in theory and I'd like to see it for myself" would likely have been enough?
I'm up for giving the MinImm or PermSec or w/e the ability to discard aplications that look like they're going nowhere. Trying to become a Talossan is really simple, yet 30 people found it too troublesome or easy to forget bcause none of the southamerican immigrants actually logged in to Witt more than 1 time, yet the time invested to post and see if they answer and having to terminate their applications is very time consuming and energy draining. I think this is a real problem for the current state of affairs, it's simple "too cheap" to try and become a talossan so over 95% of prospective citizens don't even care enough to finish their process. If I wrote a couple of paragraphs a few days ago to be admitted into a cool secret society calling themselves a micronation, I'd definitely would like to see if I was admitted, instead of just vaguely remembering I did a form.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 23, 2024, 09:46:29 AMAgreed 100%... Mic'haglh is right, there's no need for you to worry.
I will also note that while I am worried that this will hurt the immigration rate, I don't think anyone but people with quite significant disabilities or who speak English as a second language are likely to be put off by this... I think even with this new restriction, you'd have been welcomed to Talossa.
I think you are wrong. I would not even know where to begin in writing an essay.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on September 23, 2024, 09:20:27 PMI think you are wrong. I would not even know where to begin in writing an essay.
You did write an essay! The current law requires you to write an essay. This is the essay you wrote:
QuoteI find the concept intriguing. I chose Talossa after reading about several micronations and found the details most interesting. I like the inclusivity and the freedom. Let's face it I also find the concept a bit humorous 😂
I don't see any reason why that essay would be rejected under the new law either. Finding the concept humorous certainly indicates an understanding of what Talossa is.
Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on September 23, 2024, 03:21:46 PMI believe raising the bar for immigrating to the Kingdom is not only a good thing but also in line with derivatist values. If we compare the rules for immigrating to a macronation, asking for just one paragraph is no problem at all.
To me, derivatism means acting in accordance with the way a self-interested nation-state in our situation would act, not just mimicking bigger countries. But I know that opinions differ, and that's beside the point.
If you're immigrating to a macronation, that typically means you're going to be physically moving and living in that nation (or you're paying a huge sum of money in lieu of that, anyway). You'll be consuming their resources and contributing to their economy -- driving on the roads, visiting the hospital, buying gas, etc. Your family is probably coming with you, and you will gain the ability to pass on citizenship to your offspring. You will obey the laws or possibly commit crimes. It is a huge change in your life, probably forever, and it's typically done at great risk or great cost.
Accordingly, the immigration process can be quite strenuous -- in some countries, it's nearly impossible -- and people are willing to do a
lot to immigrate. Every single day, there are people who spend every penny they have, walk miles through the desert, or drown on a makeshift raft... seeking a better life for themselves or their children.
But Talossan citizenship is a burden so light that it can literally be forgotten. Even our territorial claims are 100% administered by our large neighbor, the United States. It's an incredible and valuable thing, but it's also completely voluntary.
The barriers to immigration should be realistic, then. They should be minimal, emphasize volume, and highlight those individuals who stand out from the crowd.
Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on September 23, 2024, 03:21:46 PMI recall my own immigration application, where I wrote in a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters, and it probably looked like the words of an absolute madman.
We shouldn't institute new laws that might block future Bråneu Excelsios from the country, just because they didn't read the fine print on the application instructions. You were friendly, interested, and eager... we would definitely have been poorer if you'd been rejected because of your essay!
Note that this is a really good argument
against the bill! The essay instructions already say "This essay is perhaps the most critical element of your immigration application and will be published on your profile as part of your introduction to other citizens. Please write a bit about why you wish to become Talossan."
Some people don't really understand that, don't pay close enough attention to it, or just don't read instructions at all... but they might be great citizens like you, Bråneu! Let's keep the doors wide open, so they can get a fair chance, too!
Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on September 23, 2024, 03:21:46 PMit's simple "too cheap" to try and become a talossan so over 95% of prospective citizens don't even care enough to finish their process. If I wrote a couple of paragraphs a few days ago to be admitted into a cool secret society calling themselves a micronation, I'd definitely would like to see if I was admitted, instead of just vaguely remembering I did a form.
This experiment was conducted in real time over a period of years. The Republic of Talossa had stricter immigration requirements, and so they usually only got serious applicants willing to jump the hurdles. Unfortunately, their immigration rate ended up
much lower, too -- Dama Miestra described this as a trade-off that they made. I think this is not a mistake we should repeat.
I'd be happy with an amendment saying that the Immigration Minister has to make a monthly report to the Ziu of all applications for citizenship which didn't get posted and why they didn't get posted, if that would make any difference (probably won't)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 24, 2024, 04:24:23 PMI'd be happy with an amendment saying that the Immigration Minister has to make a monthly report to the Ziu of all applications for citizenship which didn't get posted and why they didn't get posted, if that would make any difference (probably won't)
That's a reasonable improvement, and I very much appreciate the change. Thank you.
Out of interest, I went and found my essay from when I immigrated (12 years ago on Monday, actually). Here is what I wrote:
QuoteI am fascinated by the concept of a micro nation. I read a lot about Talossa before I requested to immigrate. I am tired of the large "macro" nations and their petty bickering and refusal to honor even the most basic human rights without requiring something in return. I believe Talossa and it's philosophy fits more into my world view. Plus, I am a big fan of all things royal so having a king as my ruler is an added benefit!
Who knew how prescient that last sentence would turn out to be!
Within a few years you were a republican :D
And look at you now :D
BUILD THE WALL!!! That is basically what I see in this bill. We want immigration but only smart people who have lots of time on their hands.
Approved
Quotebe amended by addition of the bolded text and deletion of struck-through text as follows:
Structuring the bill like this makes the meaning of the text dependent on the formatting. It might be preferable to structure it as "Lex x, which currently reads: [...] be amended to read [...]"
QuoteIf the Immigration Minister considers that this essay shows an insufficient understanding of or interest in Talossa and what Talossan citizenship entails
.
"Insufficient" here is undefined and very open to interpretation. Insufficient for what? What bar needs to be cleared here? I would recommend somehow making this a bit more specific or at least define for what purpose the understanding needs to be sufficient.
QuoteThe Ministry of Immigration shall [...]put them in touch with Talossan citizens who are identified by the Ministry as being able and willing to help them pursue those interests.
One of the interests listed (and which will be selected quite frequently I suspect) is politics. To help a prospective citizen pursue a political career seems dangerously close to broosking and this clause to me reads like an open invitation to do so.
My recommendation would be to address these points before passing the bill.
Approved, Glüc's last remarks point out real risks which I don't know how to adress in such a bill
Thanks for these comments.
The format will remain as is, as this formatting is used in the Clark both on the Database and in the PDF version.
As to the first comment, the wording will be changed to
"If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay misunderstands the nature of Talossa or the rights and duties of Talossan citizenship, or gives insufficient information to enable citizens to ask meaningful questions of the prospective,"
That's a pretty good definition of "insuffient".
As to the second comment, "broosking" is defined as recruitment to *a particular political party*. Thus: "In doing so the Ministry shall not promote any particular political party to the exclusion of any other." (In practice, I assume this means either giving intros to all registered parties or none).
These seem like both straightforward fixes.