WHEREAS the immigration process should be open to all, without regard for the religious or political views of the Minister of Immigration, and
Whereas this should be true whether we have a politically conservative Minister, who must not be allowed to block progressives, or a politically progressive Minister, who must not be allowed to block conservatives, or an atheist interested in excluding the religious, or a deeply religious Minister who wants to bar atheists, or any other flavor of official else,THEREFORE the fifth section of Title E of el Lexhatx, which currently reads
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.
shall be amended to read
Quote5. If 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. This decision may only be made after the application has been processed and posted, and the public must be informed of the minister's decision and the justification for the decision.
5.2. 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.
5.3. Alternatively, the applicant or prospective may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general election.
Uréu q'estadra så
Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-PROG)
I have not mentioned the recent controversy here, since I'd like to try to fix this particular point of law to remove any possible ambiguity. I'm open to suggestions about phrasing or improvements to the process otherwise.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 08:46:34 AMI have not mentioned the recent controversy here, since I'd like to try to fix this particular point of law to remove any possible ambiguity. I'm open to suggestions about phrasing or improvements to the process otherwise.
You are saying this is clarifying and fixing an ambiguity in law. Which you have not portent to exist but are using it to reign in powers given by law to the Minister of Immigration that you disagree with. What I would argue you do before bringing this bill forward is to pose a legal question to the Corts to see what their judgement of the law as it stands is if you find the minister to have acted questionably in regards to these powers.
Then if the Corts believe the powers exist or not you can make sounder judgements then. But this seems like a reactionary bill designed to cap ministerial power, claiming it to be a clarification/ambiguity that hasn't been said to have been so by the Corts as it hasn't been challenged in the Corts, so this is you pushing your own political ideology into Talossa in a false guise of "clarification"
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on August 12, 2025, 11:16:25 AMYou are saying this is clarifying and fixing an ambiguity in law. Which you have not portent to exist but are using it to reign in powers given by law to the Minister of Immigration that you disagree with. What I would argue you do before bringing this bill forward is to pose a legal question to the Corts to see what their judgement of the law as it stands is if you find the minister to have acted questionably in regards to these powers.
Then if the Corts believe the powers exist or not you can make sounder judgements then. But this seems like a reactionary bill designed to cap ministerial power, claiming it to be a clarification/ambiguity that hasn't been said to have been so by the Corts as it hasn't been challenged in the Corts, so this is you pushing your own political ideology into Talossa in a false guise of "clarification"
There is an ambiguity in the law. E.1 says that the minister may not discriminate based on an applicants beliefs, but must act on all applications, while E.5 says that the minister may halt at any time. I believe that E.1 and the Second Covenant govern, while you guys say that E.5 governs.
Regardless, you're right that this bill would impose a clear cap on this aspect of Government power, and it is indeed my political ideology to say that the deliberation on potential immigrants should be a public process and not the private decision of the minister, barring public safety concerns that should then be publicly disclosed.
If the URL has a different political ideology, you guys will defeat this bill. And then voters will decide which view best represents Talossa. That's how it works.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 11:31:55 AMThere is an ambiguity in the law. E.1 says that the minister may not discriminate based on an applicants beliefs, but must act on all applications, while E.5 says that the minister may halt at any time. I believe that E.1 and the Second Covenant govern, while you guys say that E.5 governs.
Regardless, you're right that this bill would impose a clear cap on this aspect of Government power, and it is indeed my political ideology to say that the deliberation on potential immigrants should be a public process and not the private decision of the minister, barring public safety concerns that should then be publicly disclosed.
If the URL has a different political ideology, you guys will defeat this bill. And then voters will decide which view best represents Talossa. That's how it works.
Erm no, it is only your opinion that there is an ambiguity in law, if you believe there is one, test it in the Corts. If they then prove their to be one then yes you can call this fixing that, but until then, this is. And will only be you putting your own political spin on an argument, trying to frame what is clear cut in law into "ambiguity" and using this to force a change in law under the guise of an "ambiguity" which is a dirty political trick.
No. I'm allowed my own opinion, thank you. I believe this bill is necessary, both to eliminate an ambiguity and to limit government power.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 02:32:06 PMNo. I'm allowed my own opinion, thank you. I believe this bill is necessary, both to eliminate an ambiguity and to limit government power.
So you are basically saying your opinion matters more than what a legal ruling may say. It's like you already know what the law is, and your framing this as an ambiguity to muddy the issue and make it seem like something it isn't. This is a pure attempt to cap ministerial power. If you presented the bill as such, I would have disagreed with it. But not enough to comment, but wouldn't have voted for it. But with the framing and the premise of the bill of fixing an ambiguity, as it would be a law, you would need to have proof beyond doubt that it is an ambiguity. Which you have not proven. So the premise of the bill is in itself flawed. This is not fixing an ambiguity, just you attempting to get a bill through that alligns with your opinion. Which is perfectly reasonable without the framing of the bill, and the legal text which would make the Ziu call it an ambiguity, despite no evidence being provided for it, which is not a good look.
I know we disagree on the premise of the bill and the power you plan to constrain. But that is being debated elsewhere. But yeah I really don't think this bill should go further and if it does I definitely won't vote for it it it is flawed from the start
I'm not entitled to just ask the courts for an opinion on this matter. But also, I don't need to. I can read the few provisions of the law at issue here and reach my own conclusion. You yourself have frequently voted for other bills aimed at resolving an ambiguity in the law, even when there hasn't been a court opinion about it.
You can disagree, and I suspect that the rest of the URL will, too. I will be very happy to debate the issue in the upcoming election, if this bill fails. Under the current circumstances, I think this change is badly needed.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 02:54:50 PMI'm not entitled to just ask the courts for an opinion on this matter. But also, I don't need to. I can read the few provisions of the law at issue here and reach my own conclusion. You yourself have frequently voted for other bills aimed at resolving an ambiguity in the law, even when there hasn't been a court opinion about it.
You can disagree, and I suspect that the rest of the URL will, too. I will be very happy to debate the issue in the upcoming election, if this bill fails. Under the current circumstances, I think this change is badly needed.
My issue is that the bill itself says this is to clarify the law, I'd disagree with the legislation for other reasons besides that, but that one line i just don't accept, and I don't want think any of the laws I've voted for have explicitly said that (though I may be wrong and if I am, then I apologise for that, but still dislike the principle of using that language in legislation, as that is a matter of opinion that the law needs to be clarified, and not an objective fact, which is something that is dangerous to include in a legal text, it's one thing to say "this needs clarifying" outside of legal text and have it written into a bill. And muddies the waters) without that line, although I'd disagree with the bill, it would be more acceptable in my view but you do you
Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on August 12, 2025, 03:08:36 PMMy issue is that the bill itself says this is to clarify the law, I'd disagree with the legislation for other reasons besides that, but that one line i just don't accept, and I don't want think any of the laws I've voted for have explicitly said that (though I may be wrong and if I am, then I apologise for that, but still dislike the principle of using that language in legislation, as that is a matter of opinion that the law needs to be clarified, and not an objective fact, which is something that is dangerous to include in a legal text, it's one thing to say "this needs clarifying" outside of legal text and have it written into a bill. And muddies the waters) without that line, although I'd disagree with the bill, it would be more acceptable in my view but you do you
Those clauses have no legal effect, so I don't really understand your objection. And again, you have voted for many many past bills with similar sorts of language, and you have not a single time demanded an official court opinion first.
But precisely because they have no effect, I also don't care that much. I'll change them now.
There, changed.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on August 12, 2025, 02:54:50 PMI'm not entitled to just ask the courts for an opinion on this matter.
Well, why don't you *wait* for me to actually use E.5 - which I
haven't, which I sought public comment on whether to use in an egregious case, and got enough pushback that I decided not to - and you can get sue-happy.
Now - this may surprise all listening, but I do think that E.5 probably is a bit wider in scope than appropriate. And the Government would be willing to discuss softening it -
if we weren't having these discussions with an individual whose whole political "shtick" right now is angry condemnation that the Government isn't jumping and hollering and doing political theatre around immigration. This is why we were
supposed to have the Royal Commission - to take the political heat out of things. But both the main opposition leaders - of the Scolding Party and the Sex-Pest Party - decided to bash the Government for
not letting the Commission do its job. You start with bad faith, you can't expect cooperation.
Cool your jets, wait for the Royal Commission report, stop calling the Government names for wanting evidence-based policy rather than frantic "DO SOMETHING" signalling, if you actually want cooperation.
I look forward to the upcoming election. I think that these issues will certainly be a central focus.
I do not think that the voters will be outraged that the opposition party has fervently demanded that the government address a worsening crisis.
And I do not think that the voters favor a political commissar to decide which are acceptable possible applicants.