Wittenberg

The Government currently claims that they have the legal right to secretly interfere in the immigration process, blocking anyone they wish from trying to immigrate.  This power could be used to block people who have different political beliefs, who come from specific areas of the world, or who the people in power just don't like.  Someone in the Government could legally just delete their application, pretend it never existed, and never tell the public.

The Government also claims that they have never used this power.  There is no evidence to the contrary, and we believe them.

But the Government party is also fighting to keep the power to secretly block people they don't like.  They are voting against the Public Process Act (http://"https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/61RZ27"), a short bill that would just require that "the public must be informed of the minister's decision and the justification for the decision."  Right now, the Seneschal and 100% of URL-aligned senators have voted against the bill.

We believe the Government when they say that they're not using their secret power to control immigration.  But we also don't think they should even have that power.  The Progressive Alliance doesn't think a bureaucrat should get to secretly control who gets to apply to immigrate.

This does not mean allowing gross people or spammers to immigrate.  The Government could still block them, but they should have to tell the people about it.

No bureaucrats should control who gets to apply to immigrate.  No one person should get to decide who's allowed to immigrate.  The immigration process should be public and open.  No one should be excluded from Talossa just because someone in the Government doesn't like their vibe (or their politics or whatever else).

The law should be changed.  There's no reason for the Government to have the power to secretly bar people from applying to immigrate.  If someone objectionable or gross applies to immigrate, then the Ziu can block them, or the Corts can block them, or His Majesty can block them, or people can just refuse to petition for that person.  And if the Government does need to intervene even before that, then they should just be required to tell us.  There's no reason to keep this a secret, unless there's something to hide.

Past abuses must be sought out, investigated, and brought to light.  We believe the Government when they say that they've never used the secret power that they want to keep.  But it's possible that other governments have not been responsible in this regard.  The Progressive Alliance will investigate any possible past abuses and bring them to light.


The Progressive Alliance will promise never to secretly block potential immigrants, and we will pass legislation to eliminate this government power.  No bureaucrat should secretly control immigration.

We're only a few days away from the end of the voting for the Clark, and we're very close to the URL killing The Public Process Act.  As a reminder, this is a very simple bill which bars the government from secretly blocking any immigration applications.  The Public Process Act directs that "the decision [to block someone's application] 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."

In other words, the Government would still be able to block someone's application if they're too dangerous or objectionable to immigrate, but they can't block it in secret.  They have to tell the people.

No Government minister or bureaucrat should have the power to secretly bar people from trying to immigrate.  Such a power would be incredibly easy to abuse:

• A minister who's a bit prejudiced might quietly delete the application of a member of the queer community if that person seems "off" or "weird."
• A minister who has strong political beliefs might delete the application of someone who's likely to join another party.
• A minister who just doesn't like someone might delete their application because they don't have the right "vibes."

Actually, it doesn't even have to be so blatant.  If the Government can just secretly reject applications whenever they feel like it, then they might just not get around to processing some of them.

Contact your MZ today and tell them that you don't want the Government to have the power to secretly control who's allowed to apply to immigrate.  Tell them you want transparency, and that they should vote for The Public Process Act.  Tell them that your vote in the next election depends on their vote now!

It's 2025, and people around the world have learned to be careful how much power they give their governments.  Even if you approve of the people in power now, Talossa is a democracy -- someone else will have that power soon.  Do you trust every politician who will ever serve in the Government with the power to secretly control who's even allowed to apply?

The Public Process Act, 61RZ27, is a simple bill, and it only requires that your government is required to disclose to the public whenever they block an immigration petition.  It prevents a minister or bureaucrat from just casually deleting an application.

But this URL Government is on the brink of killing The Public Process Act so that they can keep the power to secretly bar immigration.  But no government should have that power!  We need this reform!  We need this progress!

Is a future minister secretly kind of a bigot?  Too bad, The Public Process Act says that they can't secretly block queer people from applying to immigrate.

Is a future minister maybe a little too enthusiastic about their political cause?  Too bad, The Public Process Act says that they can't secretly block someone with the "wrong" beliefs from applying to immigrate.

Does a future minister just really not like someone's "vibes?"  Too bad, The Public Process Act says that they can't secretly block people who they don't like.

Remember, The Public Process Act doesn't prevent the Government from blocking the immigration of people who are abusive or delusional or dangerous -- they would just have to tell the people.

Contact your MZ today and tell them that you don't want the Government to have the power to secretly control who's allowed to apply to immigrate.  Tell them you want transparency, and that they should vote for The Public Process Act, 61RZ27!  Tell them that your vote in the next election depends on their vote now!

Well, the votes are almost all in.  The URL has killed The Public Process bill.  For now, the Government will continue to have the ability to secretly control immigration.

The Progressive Alliance will be campaigning hard on this issue in the upcoming election, and we hope for your support.  We need to win, so that we can change this law.  Even if we don't win, your public pressure might embarrass the URL enough to force them into action.  Will they really keep defending the right to secretly control immigration?

No bureaucrats should control who gets to apply to immigrate.  No one person should get to decide who's allowed to immigrate.  The immigration process should be public and open.  No one should be excluded from Talossa just because someone in the Government doesn't like their vibes (or their politics or their sexuality or whatever else).

The law should be changed.  There's no reason for the Government to have the power to secretly bar people from applying to immigrate.  We will fight for this change in the law, and we won't rest until we make progress.

Remember: if someone objectionable or gross applies to immigrate, then the Ziu can block them, or the Corts can block them, or His Majesty can block them, or people can just refuse to petition for that person.  The Government could even intervene to block the application... but they should be required to tell us!  There's no reason to keep this a secret, unless there's something to hide.

Past abuses must be sought out, investigated, and brought to light.  We believe the Government when they say that they've never used the secret power that they want to keep.  But it's possible that other governments have not been responsible in this regard.  The Progressive Alliance will investigate any past abuses and bring them to light.  The people have a right to know whether a bureaucrat has been secretly controlling immigration.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 21, 2025, 09:12:40 AMThe Progressive Alliance will investigate any past abuses and bring them to light.  The people have a right to know whether a bureaucrat has been secretly controlling immigration.

Pardon my intrusion, but this last bit makes me uncomfortable as it appears that you are pledging to conduct a McCarthy style witch-hunt - a with-hunt with no basis in fact or even a whiff of wrong-doing. This kind of hyperbole is at the least off-putting, and at the most dangerous. It should also be noted that immigration has seen a surge recently, with six new citizens this term.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on October 22, 2025, 08:48:51 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 21, 2025, 09:12:40 AMThe Progressive Alliance will investigate any past abuses and bring them to light.  The people have a right to know whether a bureaucrat has been secretly controlling immigration.

Pardon my intrusion, but this last bit makes me uncomfortable as it appears that you are pledging to conduct a McCarthy style witch-hunt - a with-hunt with no basis in fact or even a whiff of wrong-doing. This kind of hyperbole is at the least off-putting, and at the most dangerous. It should also be noted that immigration has seen a surge recently, with six new citizens this term.

-Txec R

Thank you for your input, Your Majesty.  But at no point does this say anything about a "McCarthy style witch-hunt."  If I may say so respectfully, your rhetoric is perhaps the hyperbole here.  Not every investigation into past abuses is a "witch-hunt"!!!

We just want to know the truth.  And we think the voters will, too.

The Progressive Alliance believes that the Government should not have the right to secretly control immigration.  It is just plain wrong for a minister to be allowed to secretly block the immigration of people.  They might think they have the country's best interests at heart, but nonetheless it is too much power for the government.

If the government believes that a potential immigrant is so scurrilous or dangerous that they can't even be allowed to apply, we think they should still have the power to stop it -- but that they need to tell the people.  Even that should be rarely necessary, since there are many other mechanisms to halt someone's immigration: the Cort, the Ziu, or Your Grace.  But there's certainly no good reason for a Government bureaucrat or political appointee to secretly control who's allowed to apply.

This power has allegedly been in the law for a long time, although I think it's legally ambiguous at best.  But we think it's worth investigating to see if at any point any government has chosen to exercise it.  We wouldn't know if they did!  That's the whole problem with secret government powers!

It is entirely possible that in some past term, a minister was a bit of a homophobe, and so they just deleted an application from someone who made them feel uncomfortable.  Or they might have been a very conservative minister, and maybe they lost the application of someone who seemed very liberal.  Or maybe they were a very progressive minister, and they lost the application of someone who was conservative.  Or maybe it was a personal enemy, or they just didn't like their "vibes," or whatever else.

From the start, we've been very clear: we believe the current Government when they say that they haven't done this.  But they're not the only government we've ever had.

The people deserve to know.  We are not promising a "witch-hunt"... we just want to know!  We don't want to prosecute people or yell at them or whatever -- it's not even a crime!  It's possible that Talossans will say, "Now hold on, maybe we just don't want to know if the government's been secretly controlling applications."  But we don't think so.

This upcoming election will present voters with a choice.  The Progressive Alliance wants to get rid of the government's power to secretly control elections, while the URL just voted unanimously to protect it.  The Progressive Alliance is the party pledging not to use this power, either way.  And the Progressive Alliance is the party that's pledging to find out if this has actually been happening.

We are extremely happy to field any more discussion on this issue.  The more people who know about this, the better!

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 22, 2025, 09:33:18 AMwhile the URL just voted unanimously to protect it

My thoughts may have been hyperbolic, but this statement is not true.

-Txec R

Ah, you're right: one MC of the URL voted to eliminate this power. Excellentt!  Sorry, that person voted very late and I didn't see it.  This is also excellent news: there is tripartisan support for The Public Process Act.

I amend my statement, and I apologize for the mistake: virtually every member of the URL.

We think it is crystal clear that the government should not have the power to secretly control immigration. We are glad that one MZ from the URL joined us in that conviction. But I think it is really clear where the parties stand on this.

Remember, even if you trust this current government, do you trust every minister who has ever been in government? Do you trust every minister who will ever be in government?

Also, it's 2025... Haven't we all learned about the dangers of giving people in government too much power?  Who among us is reading the news these days and thinking, "I wish the government had more power over the country"?

I should step out of this conversation as I don't want to be seen promoting a partisan point of view, my only concern was it appears that there is, on some level, whether true or not or simply because of my forced domicile in an authoritarian regime, a whiff of political retaliation. Apologies if this is not the case, but nowadays I think many of us see political whataboutism everywhere.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on October 22, 2025, 09:55:08 AMI should step out of this conversation as I don't want to be seen promoting a partisan point of view, my only concern was it appears that there is, on some level, whether true or not or simply because of my forced domicile in an authoritarian regime, a whiff of political retaliation. Apologies if this is not the case, but nowadays I think many of us see political whataboutism everywhere.

-Txec R

Of course, Your Majesty.  Let me say very clearly that I think you were speaking in good faith, and that you are a nonpartisan and excellent monarch.  I am proud to support you and serve in your Sabor.  Long may you reign!

The Progressive Alliance believes that the Government should not have the right to secretly control immigration.  It is just plain wrong for a minister to be allowed to secretly block the immigration of people.  They might think they have the country's best interests at heart, but nonetheless it is too much power for the government.

If the government believes that a potential immigrant is so scurrilous or dangerous that they can't even be allowed to apply, we think they should still have the power to stop it -- but that they need to tell the people.  Even that should be rarely necessary, since there are many other mechanisms to halt someone's immigration: the Cort, the Ziu, or Your Grace.  But there's certainly no good reason for a Government bureaucrat or political appointee to secretly control who's allowed to apply.

It is entirely possible that in some past term, a minister was a bit of a homophobe, and so they just deleted an application from someone who made them feel uncomfortable.  Or they might have been a very conservative minister, and maybe they lost the application of someone who seemed very liberal.  Or maybe they were a very progressive minister, and they lost the application of someone who was conservative.  Or maybe it was a personal enemy, or they just didn't like their "vibes."

From the start, we've been very clear: we believe the current Government when they say that they haven't done this.  But they're not the only government we've ever had.

The people deserve to know.  We don't want to prosecute people or yell at them or whatever -- it's not even a crime!  It's possible that Talossans will say, "Now hold on, maybe we just don't want to know if the government's been secretly controlling applications."  But we don't think so.

This upcoming election will present voters with a choice.  The Progressive Alliance wants to get rid of the government's power to secretly control elections, while the URL just voted nearly unanimously to protect it.  The Progressive Alliance is the party pledging not to use this power, either way.  And the Progressive Alliance is the party that's pledging to find out if this has actually been happening.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 21, 2025, 09:12:40 AMThe Progressive Alliance will investigate any past abuses and bring them to light.  The people have a right to know whether a bureaucrat has been secretly controlling immigration.

Next minute:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 02, 2025, 09:08:13 AMThe people deserve to know.  We don't want to prosecute people or yell at them or whatever --

If not that, then what do you want to do to me if you find out that I've been throwing applications in the bin, Alexandreu?

The problem with witchhunts like this is that you can't prove a negative. The next Government will of course have access to the immigration emails and be able to go on all the fishing expeditions they want. But even if these emails show nothing, if they feel their oats, will the new AD-aligned Attorney General then go on to subpoena me for my private emails, Facebook and Discord chats?

We do not believe that Baron Davinescu should be the next Seneschal precisely because of this paranoid, accusatory way of dealing with political opponents. His practice is to throw around accusations of criminality and corruption first, demand investigations, then grudgingly take them back - after they have done their work reducing their targets to nervous wrecks. This is a long pattern of behaviour going back at least a decade, and I can give citations.

And once again - it is only ever the Baron's political opponents who get this treatment.

These two quotes... don't contradict each other?  Like, even a little.

We will investigate and found out if people have been secretly abusing the power to control immigration, and then we'll bring them to light.  That means tell people about them.  There's no world in which "bring to light" means anything like a threat.

"Bring something to light" is a really common idiom.  As one dictionary says, "If someone brings something to light, they discover it or make it known publicly."

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on November 02, 2025, 01:20:53 PMThe problem with witchhunts like this is that you can't prove a negative. The next Government will of course have access to the immigration emails and be able to go on all the fishing expeditions they want. But even if these emails show nothing, if they feel their oats, will the new AD-aligned Attorney General then go on to subpoena me for my private emails, Facebook and Discord chats?

We do not believe that Baron Davinescu should be the next Seneschal precisely because of this paranoid, accusatory way of dealing with political opponents. His practice is to throw around accusations of criminality and corruption first, demand investigations, then grudgingly take them back - after they have done their work reducing their targets to nervous wrecks.

But... I didn't accuse you of criminality?  I didn't threaten to subpoena anything?  I've actually said, over and over, that I believe you when you say that you're not engaging in this abuse of power.  I said it like five times in this thread!

You're just... making this up.  You're inventing threats from me, and then yelling at me about them.

And listen, I get it.  The URL is an uncomfortable position, because it's honestly really hard to defend the government's power to secretly control immigration.  How do you even begin to defend that?

But this is really just not the way.  This kind of politics brings us all down: the personal attacks on me, the fabricated accusations, the relentless negativity... This just isn't going to work, and it's going to hurt the country.

How about we campaign on the issues?  You guys have a long record... focus on that and your accomplishments.  Focus on positive aspects of your candidate and his achievements.  Focus on the policies you want to implement to make Talossans' lives better.

But fabricating threats from me, when people can easily see the contrary?  This is not a good look, Most Honourable Seneschal.

If not me, then which Immigration Minister do you suspect of throwing immigration applications in the trash, please? I'm going to guess it's not my immediate predecessor, the Senator from Cezembre who thinks that "supporting you is the best way to act for progress".

This. Is. A. Witchhunt. In the sense that it is a chase after malfeasance which you have no evidence has ever taken place. And in that it aims to scare and rouse an audience against this imagined malfeasance.

Cut this nonsense out and we can have a real discussion in the next Cosa about reforming Ministry discretion over applications. I hope @Françal I. Lux is reading this, he might change his mind about you running a "positive campaign".

Who do I suspect?  I hope that no one has been abusing their power!

I am flabbergasted that the Most Honourable Seneschal thinks that a pledge to investigate any possible abuses is a witch-hunt!  It's pretty fundamental civil liberties and good governance stuff: the government shouldn't have this secret power, let's please reveal who might have abused it.  The whole problem with secret powers is that we don't know how they've been used.

If no one's abused this secret government power, then that's good news.  But stop inventing accusations... you're lighting yourself on fire and hollering arson.

That said, I would welcome a complete reversal of the URL position on this.  We desperately need this reform, since it's truly unconscionable for the government to have the power to secretly control immigration applications.  Please join us and let's pass the Public Process Act!

And again, please please let's focus on things like the policies we want to see enacted, the accomplishments we're proud of, and our pride in our candidates.

The fact that there are no actual suspects is precisely what makes this a witch-hunt. If you don't have a suspect, what you are promising is to comb through years of immigration emails, and cross reference them against Wittenberg posts, to search for entirely hypothetical malfeasance. This simply cannot be done in any way that will get results - not least because I have no idea how many immigration emails are still available from before my and Þerxh's terms!

If this is *not* a fishing expedition against me, personally, then it cannot be done in any way that means anything. It is not serious, it is simple fearmongering for political capital. And no, the alternative is not to vote for your extremely flawed bill which was voted down for good reasons. Discussions on reforming ImmMin discretion will be good, but they need to start from zero.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on November 02, 2025, 04:23:55 PMThe fact that there are no actual suspects is precisely what makes this a witch-hunt.

Okay, just so I can get this straight:

In your eyes, this is a witch-hunt because we're not seeking to investigate a specific person?  Like... it's bad that we want to just make sure no one's been abusing this power, no matter who it might be?

I'm not sure I agree with that.  Or that a lot of other people would agree with it.  But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

It's certainly possible that it will be a challenge to investigate past abuses.  I think it will actually be pretty easy, personally.  I mean, there's only like a hundred applications a year or so, and some years much less than that.  Put them into a spreadsheet, see which ones are missing replies with application postings, and I bet the list is not very long.

Even if it's a bit difficult... I mean, okay?  So?  Sometimes things are worth doing, even if it takes a bit of thinking.

The stark contrast in tone between the campaigns aside...

Baron Davinescu is right in raising this issue. It is unacceptable that the minister of immigration has so much discretion with what they can do with prospective applications. You yourself agree in the opening paragraph of your statement below.

https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4465.0

And as it pertains to 61RZ27, I would like to ask why the government torpedoed it. Given the increased level of scrutiny you were receiving about this, I would think the Reformists would be the first to come up with the idea that would easily remedy the problem especially given its tract record for democratization and transparency. Waiting until after the elections to resolve this issue is a mistake, in my opinion, and needlessly politicized the issue. It just looks bad especially when it could've been easily avoided.

I am, and have always been, unapologetically liberal and making sure the government functions efficiently and with all transparency will always be important to me. I will never be in support of any witch hunts or arbitrary targeting of any individuals whether they're private citizens or public servants because of principled disagreements. What I simply want is accountability and responsible governance.


F. I. Lux

I think it would be great to fix this issue as one of the first things next term.  My bill essentially makes the most minimal change imaginable, just saying that the public must be made aware of any applications that are rejected.

It adds in just this clause: "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."

As mentioned, this would still allow for applications from spammers and bots to be rejected as incomplete by the minister under the existing provisions of the law.  And loathsome applications could still be halted by the Ziu, the King, or the Corts... or by the minister, as long as they did it with public disclosure.