Wittenberg

Part of the problem with the Chancery's decision to allow all parties to send out mailers a month before Balloting Day is that it caught my party, the Union of Free Reformists, on the hop, with our Seneschál candidate overseas for two weeks. This unfortunately allowed our opponents to get out to those parts of the nation who don't "live on Witt" early with what can only be described as rank dishonesty.

I would have liked to explain to my old friend @Françal I. Lux that what the Progressive Alliance discussed in its mailer about 61RZ27 bears no relation to Talossan reality, as I went into detail here (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4465.0). But my experience is that once someone's made a decision based on falsehoods, and made a public commitment to it, it's almost impossible to talk them out of it.

Telling a whole heap of falsehoods, very quickly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop), is an effective rhetorical technique. As a Talossan said elsewhere (lightly edited for anonymity):

QuoteIt's impressive how someone can simply make up talking points and issues out of thin air and have everyone take them seriously. Similarly, they can just discard issues that have outlived their political usefulness and everyone else just goes along with it.

Did you notice, they're really quiet about immigration as an existential problem that is all the fault of sitting governments fault now that we've had an immigration boom (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4492.0)?

It forces you to acknowledge these issues as if they were real and develop counterarguments. If you didn't do that, you'd be ceding that point to them.

The Union of Free Reformists will proudly stand on the record of the outgoing government. I personally made a decision *not* to go "toe to toe" with the Davinescu Gallop because no-one can be bothered reading those huge, angry, threads. But simply disengaging is not politically effective - as shown by my old friend Françal getting recruited, and not even waiting to hear any counterarguments.

So, what is the new tactic?

(TO BE CONTINUED)

I think that Francal should certainly hear you out.  And if you have better arguments, I think he'll change his mind.

Also, a speech attacking me is a weird way to respond to the charge that you're running a negative campaign.  If you absolutely have to write another long speech just attacking me, maybe space them out more.  You don't want your whole campaign to just be personal attacks.   An angry campaign just doesn't sound fun.  Let's be positive!

I mean, Mic'haglh is a great guy, so it might make sense to focus on him.  Talk about his personal attributes.  He's usually kind, he helps people in the Coletx a lot, he's an amazing graphic designer, and het gets along with people.  And there's nothing to make me think he wouldn't also be an effective leader.  And the point you guys made about him being a fresh face is a great one!  That would be a great thing to focus on!

Or talk about the things you're proud of accomplishing.  After two full terms, there must be a decent list of them.  You simplified the immigration reform a couple of months ago, for example. 

Or even better, a discussion of some of the specific policy plans and promises you guys intend to accomplish would be great.  We're asking them to trust us with our vote, so let's tell them what we want to get done!  Mic'haglh has some posts up with a few things, so you already have a start with that.

Overall, I just think it would be better for Talossa if both parties are running positive campaigns full of pride and promises.  People will feel more comfortable, it will make us seem friendlier, and overall it will also be more fun.  It's certainly our plan, at least.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 03, 2025, 03:18:04 PMAn angry campaign just doesn't does fun.

The English teacher in me wondered how someone "doesn't does" :-)

-Txec R

Typo! "Doesn't sound fun."

Thank you, Your Majesty!

Ah, good. I was worried it was some new slang term my 53 year old brain can't comprehend!

-Txec R

That's not very skibidi toilet Ohio sigma 67 41 of you.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 03, 2025, 03:18:04 PMAn angry campaign just doesn't does fun.

Having people plain lie about you and your record isn't much fun, either. But trash needs to be taken out.

Anyway, Part two. The tactic to deal with an opponent who just tells arrant falsehoods, stokes up moral panics, and then resorts to "you can't get angry, I'm just a smol bean, a little birthday boy, contradicting me doesn't does fun!" is to say to voters: consider the source.

It is appropriate to critically examine Baron Davinescu's record and personal style, especially as he is open that this election campaign is one about making him, personally, Seneschal. (Which is an improvement from some previous Senescháis he's supported, I suppose.)

Baron Davinescu is on record that he feels a Talossan political party is simply a brand associated with a political leader. He's supported abolishing party lists (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3963.0), so that party leaders can just appoint whoever they like to the Cosa. So, given that he is the 'brand leader' of the PA, extra scrutiny of his personal qualities and record is appropriate.

This nonsense about Sekrit Immigration Crime is nothing new. Baron Davinescu has a track record of falsely accusing his opponents of criminality and corruption going back almost a decade to the "Proclamation Crisis", the "Ex Parte Corruption" scandal, etc. I don't want to bore newbies with history lessons, but he does this over and over again - to me, in particular, And I'm supposed to just shrug it off, because being angry "doesn't does fun".

If you want Talossa to be something different than it has been for the last decade or two, then electing one of the central political figures of the last decade or two would probably be counterproductive. In contrast, the Union of Free Reformists is a team, led by the fresh ideas and energy of relative newcomer @Mic'haglh Autófil, backed by the experience and wisdom of my good self and others, at the head of a small group of Talossans of various experiences united behind a political program. Not a program which is meant to shame people out of doing politics at all.

A vote for the URL is a vote for the current Government's record of success. We look forward to the debate between the party leaders.

Listen: I have said, over and over and over again, that I'm specifically not accusing anyone, including you, of abusing the current government power to secretly control immigration.  I think I've been careful to say that almost every post I've made about this, actually.  Here's just a few examples:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 08, 2025, 09:18:52 AMThe Government also claims that they have never used this power.  There is no evidence to the contrary, and we believe them.
...
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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 22, 2025, 09:33:18 AMFrom 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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 02, 2025, 09:08:13 AMFrom 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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 02, 2025, 01:47:04 PMBut... 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!

Maybe you're just confused, since you also keep saying that you're not reading my posts?  But you're very angry at me about something that isn't true.  You invented some threats and now you're angry at me about your own imagination.

For like the twentieth time: we are not saying you abused this power.  We are saying the Government shouldn't have this power, whether or not it has been abused.  And we're saying we want to investigate to see if this power has ever been abused by anyone.  Please stop lighting yourself on fire and shouting about arson.

There are so very many reasons why the government shouldn't be allowed to secretly discard immigration applications.

• 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."
• A progressive might delete the application of a conservative.
• A conservative might delete the application of a progressive.
• Someone might just not like an applicant.

Let's join forces and pass my Public Process Act (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/61RZ27) and reform this problem!  And then if you're worried, you can even volunteer to help look into possible abuses of the practice... surely if you're helping doing the investigation, you can't be afraid of it!  It will be like a buddy cop movie.  We're unwilling partners, but the Chief demands that we solve the crime together!  We've got just 24 hours to solve it, or we're off the force!

I'm not gonna engage in ad hominem attacks, but I would appreciate some answers from my old friend, the former Seneschal.

I would like to know why your government seemingly allowed this glaring gap in accountability to go unresolved.

The Ministry of Immigration was already under scrutiny because of perceived biases towards certain applications. Now, the validity of those allegations are a different conversation. What is relevant to my question is how come, given the heat the government was already getting, it didn't act more proactively to resolve this issue?  If Baron Davinescu's bill wasn't sufficient enough to resolve the problem in your view, how come no amendments were offered? Was there any effort to collaborate at all? It seems to me that this was an easily avoided mistake had the government acted more decisively.


F. I. Lux

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on November 03, 2025, 07:12:39 PMI would like to know why your government seemingly allowed this glaring gap in accountability to go unresolved.

I explained all this in a post last week. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4465.0) It debunks several of the things you say in your post, so I guess you haven't read it yet. But I'd like your input.

Here's the explanation from the Most Honourable Seneschal for why she lobbied her party to kill the bill:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on October 22, 2025, 02:37:30 PMThe Baron put the Public Process Bill in the Hopper at the height of his dudgeon ... I made one snide comment, then more or less ignored it. I hoped he would calm down about it and it would go by the wayside; so I was disappointed that he took it to the CRL for the Sixth Clark. It was clearly too late by then to make further principled arguments against it. So, I just decided to lobby my party to vote against it.

With the utmost respect, I think this shows a lot about priorities.

This is a question of civil liberties, good government, and transparency.  The Seneschal claims that they have the power to take any immigration application and "chuck it in the bin" in secret, as she puts it.  It is completely unacceptable for any government to have this power, and the Progressive Alliance proposed a bill that would require them to disclose any "binning" to the public.

It should have been a priority.  Instead, the URL killed it.

Let me say this right now:  If I am fortunate enough to get the support to lead our amazing little country, I won't be turning away anyone's help.

• If you present a bill fixing an important issue, I'll vote for it.  Even if you're not in my party.  If I don't agree with the bill, I'll work with you to amend it.  If that's not possible, I'll try to fix it myself in my own version.  We won't ignore it or fight it, just out of partisanship.
• If you pose a terpelaziun identifying a problem, I will listen to you.  And if you're right, I'll try to fix that problem.  I won't always succeed.  Some problems are difficult and thorny.  But we'll try, and we'll commiserate together if we fail.
• If I fall short in representing Talossa, speaking intemperately, I will apologize.  And I'll try to do better.  I'm only human, but one of the best things about being human is that we can always try to improve.
• If you want to help the country with something, or you have an idea, or you have a question: we'll be there to try to help you.  We're all in this little community together, and we can all help make it a great place to be.
• If you remind me of this pledge when I have broken it, I will thank you for the reminder.  And I'll try again.

Yes, but you haven't answered my question. I'm not accusing you or anybody of misconduct, I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning behind this decision.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on October 22, 2025, 02:37:30 PMFirst things first. I agree that El Lexhatx E.5. gives too much discretion to the Immigration Minister to just "yoink" an immigration application at any time for any reason. I think the next Cosa should look at this topic again.

You acknowledge that this issue exists as quoted above. Why didn't the government act more proactively to rectify this gap in accountability? Why wait until after the election? Again, if 61RZ27 wasn't sufficient in your view, how come no effort was made to collaborate? I'm sure Baron Davinescu would've be open to amendments.

My issue here is by voting down this bill and then deciding to address this problem some other time makes it seem like the government either does not take the matter seriously or made the decision because of personal animosity towards the sponsor. Either way, it reflects badly on the government.


F. I. Lux

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 03, 2025, 08:11:48 PMWith the utmost respect, I think this shows a lot about priorities.

Yes it does, unfortunately.


F. I. Lux

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on November 03, 2025, 08:19:27 PMMy issue here is by voting down this bill and then deciding to address this problem some other time makes it seem like the government either does not take the matter seriously

No. Frankly, we do not take this matter seriously. Because there is no shred of evidence to suggest that this provision has ever been used improperly by any Minister of Immigration, ever. It will be good to close it, but the panic about it is ridiculous and fraudulent.

And that panic has been stirred up only because:

• Baron Davinescu was preparing to run an election campaign on the idea that the incumbent Government was "killing immigration" - either negligently or for corrupt purposes;
• Talossa started going through an immigration boom, which put paid to that;
• Baron Davinescu cynically and dishonestly started a different immigration related panic.

@Françal I. Lux , you were around at least one of the times he did this before - during the Proclamation Crisis. Do you remember how he almost got the Secretary of State - now the King - to renounce his citizenship? Do you remember how I had to take six months off Talossa because his smear campaign/moral panic had meant I had to take sleeping pills to function?

The Baron is a Talossan patriot who cares about this Kingdom deeply, and I respect that. I have spent most of a year mainly ignoring what he says - partly because there is a much worse person in Talossa whom we have a united front against, and partly because I'm too old to want to fight any more. But it seems that that is losing my party the election, because I'm not rebutting deliberate falsehoods in time. Enough.

And yes, I'm sorry to say, I do have personal animosity towards the Baron. I'm not ashamed of it. Thankfully, you can work constructively with someone despite personal animosity.

It is increasingly clear that the excessive discretion given to the Immigration Minister to abort immigration applications has become a Glonzo issue. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glonzo+Issue)

We are in an immigration boom. Fear that immigration applications are being thrown in the trash, without trace, is - in the words of the late Frank Zappa - to leave the realms of mumbo-jumbo and to enter the realms of mumbo-pocus.

At absolute best, the Most Honourable Seneschal is confused about events.  Thankfully, the thread is right here (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4316.0).

Original Context
I wrote and posted my simple bill on August 12th.  At that time, there had been zero immigration for four months.  Literally, zero.  We hadn't yet lucked out with the Tiktok video or magazine article of last month.

The Process
MC Somelieir objected to one of the introductory clauses, since I said the bill was to resolve a legal ambiguity.  She said that I wasn't allowed to say that.  We argued about it briefly, but I decided that it wasn't important and just deleted the entire clause to which she objected.

Then the Most Honourable Seneschal posted what she calls a "snide comment," saying "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."

Then when I Clarked it, she has already confessed to lobbying her party to vote against it.  And so it failed to pass.

The Motivation
Please notice that I am directly recounting and often quoting from the public record about this, whereas the Most Honourable Seneschal feels free to be a little more creative.

That's also why she says, over and over again, that she's afraid she's going to be prosecuted.  At this point, this has to be called what it is... a falsehood.  She's lying.  She knows that I have repeatedly told her that's outright impossible.  But it's a more sympathetic story than killing a necessary bill just because you don't like the sponsor.

The Most Honourable Seneschal feels caught out on a deeply unpopular decision, knows that there will be a reckoning with the voters, and she's looking for an excuse to explain it.  But there's no excuse that holds water, folks.  There's no good explanation for the Government demanding the power to secretly control immigration.  There's no good explanation for lying about it.

Riddle me this, Batman:

- if the PA admits that they have no evidence that I'm not throwing immigration apps in the trash, and that they don't even think I'm doing it;
- and that I'm going to be immigration minister at least until December 1;

then: why was reforming this law last month such an urgent priority that people would flip parties over it?

I was honestly very surprised that the URL voted down The Public Process Act.  Here's a power that you have admitted many times you think is excessive, and a simple bill which would fix it to require transparency in the process.

I guess my thinking was like this:

STEP ONE
"Hey, an egregious violation of our civil liberties and basic good governance.  Let's fix it!"

STEP TWO
"Wait, the URL is voting against the bill... they want to keep the power to secretly control immigration?  I should try to get public support for the bill, so they don't kill it."

STEP THREE
"Well, I guess the URL has taken a position in favor of secret government control over immigration, so we'd better campaign on that and get the votes to fix this... since they just showed everyone their position."

And that's where we're at now.  I think that if you didn't want your party to take this position, you probably shouldn't have lobbied for it so hard.  You stuck them with this, and now you won't let them move on to a more positive subject.

Maybe we can move on and discuss some other topic?  Like we could talk about some policy plans for the next term?

You did not answer my question.

This saga has a few points which go to the question of your personal fitness to be Seneschal:

• The original intemperate comments - including accusations of corrupt interference in the immigration process of that Malawian fellow - which sapped my interest in engaging with you at all.
• The unwillingness to consult with other parties over the (howsoever well-intentioned but) flawed bill. This attitude that "silence = consent" is what the Distáin was criticised for over the Fixed Terms amendment.
• The opportunistic panic-mongering that a loophole which you know I hadn't used and wasn't intending to was such an urgent priority as to make a central election issue.

That's not to deny my own responsibility. I made a political blunder in that I thought if I deprived your increasingly shrill accusations of the oxygen of my attention, no-one else would pay attention either. Clearly I was wrong, and you've made great political hay out of it. Well done.

As I keep saying to the Sex Pest, I beg you to understand that your behaviour has consequences on how other people engage with you.

The problem with "Step Three" as listed above is that it completely ignores the Immigration Process Reform Act, which I myself currently have in the Hopper and will be continuing to refine with feedback from the community once the new Cosa is seated.

One of the central tenets of the bill — one I am more adamant on proceeding with — is that the review of immigration applications is handled by a committee of at least three, as opposed to the unilateral, "secret" discretion of the Immigration Minister. In other words, it neutralizes the same concerns to Public Process Act claims to address.

Additionally, one of the committee members must be nominated by the Opposition — meaning that the workings of the Ministry will be known to the very people intended to keep the Government accountable. This also serves to better balance the committee politically, assuaging concerns about political bias affecting immigration applications.

One of the big advantages in the committee method under the IPRA as compared to the Public Process Act is that the committee approach still increases transparency and Ziu oversight of the immigration process, without subjecting the Ministry's day-to-day operations to Ziu micromanagement. There is a difference between the two.

To claim that a government run by the person who put this committee approach forward (me) would somehow be more secretive is a level of dishonesty bordering on the comical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point. IMHO Mic'haglh's proposal has all the positive features of 61RZ27 without the potentially dangerous loopholes/make-work for Immigration Minister.

What say you, Baron?

First of all, I am glad that we're turning towards a positive discussion of solutions!  The current situation is intolerable, and even if it took this much pressure to make it happen, it's still a good thing to turn our attention towards solutions!

It is fundamentally a terrible idea to allow the government to secretly control immigration, so we need to fix it!

Now, on the bill.  I'm a little surprised to see you bring it up... that bill was posted in September, and within the day, I pointed out some fairly serious problems with it.  And then... nothing.  No response, and here we are in November.

Now that it's a priority, I think my objections from September still need to be addressed.  Here's what I wrote back then, and which you never responded to:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 23, 2025, 08:59:34 AMI appreciate the thought and care behind this bill!  It is drafted with great exactness.  I also appreciate your openness to feedback.  I think there's some merit here, but I'd also like to hear more about some aspects.

A couple of immediate notes:

• A lot of this bill isn't strictly necessary, if the Government wants to try this.  The MinImm could establish a Comità del Veitariçaziun today.  Indeed, whatever happens to the bill and regardless of what the peanut gallery thinks, the Government should probably do this immediately if they feel it's a good idea.
• This bill seems like it would establish a third category of ministers, called staff, who are neither deputies nor permanent secretaries.  This doesn't seem like a good idea, and I'd suggest incorporating this into the existing system instead, if possible.
• While I think I understand the rationale for expanding the petition time, it also seems like it's going to be frustrating for eager new immigrants to wait a full month to start participating.  Is this the best way to stop people from feeling adrift once they migrate?  This is the change that is most likely to have the biggest impact.
• The part I don't feel like I understand the rationale for is the need for the clerks and so on.  Can you speak to why you think this is better than just the minister being transparent in public about the process?  As I understand it, if the minister processes every application and announces when they're declining to do so, then we're already maximally transparent (short of automating the process and taking the human element out, which would be a mistake).  What's the advantage of a new bureaucracy here?

So there you have it.  There are some pretty big hurdles here.

1.  First of all, it should probably be pointed out that the problems with The Public Process Act are imaginary, lol.  The law still says very clearly that an incomplete or deficient application can be returned to the applicant with an explanation, and that disclosure to the Ziu would only be required if a complete application was discarded.  And of course, the fear of prosecution is entirely fictional.

But hey, I'm flexible: why not just amend my bill to include a clause saying explicitly that it's not grounds for prosecution or making anything illegal ex post facto (already impossible, of course, but no matter), and another clause saying explicitly that disclosure doesn't apply for incomplete/nonsense applications?  I'll draft up the changes tonight, and we can pass that bill immediately while we work on what you call "very much a draft?"

2.  But anyway: I note that this bill doesn't actually provide government transparency!  I guess it's good that the Opposition would get to appoint one of the bureaucrats who were part of the secret decision-making, but it's not actual government transparency.  I think it's a pretty simple proposition: if the people in our government are secretly blocking applications, I think that the people should know about it!  And that's true even if the bureaucrats are bipartisan.

3.  Speaking of bureaucrats... why exactly would we want to create a new bureaucracy?  One of our planks in this campaign is to cut red tape and eliminate bureaucracy... this seems really counterproductive.  I'm not adamantly opposed, but "let's make a new bureaucracy" seems like a pretty drastic thing to do.

4.  And of course, it has to be pointed out that you guys could have done this back in September if you thought it was a good idea.  You don't need legislation to do this... this very night you could announce two new deputy positions, one of which would be nominated by the Opposition, and let them in on the secret process.  Before we make it mandatory in law, in fact, it seems like you'd want to try it!

All of that being said, I'd love to keep working on this and try to work out the kinks.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 05, 2025, 05:30:03 PMNow, on the bill.  I'm a little surprised to see you bring it up... that bill was posted in September, and within the day, I pointed out some fairly serious problems with it.  And then... nothing.  No response, and here we are in November.

I was waiting for someone I can trust to engage in good faith. I still am. I do however find it very amusing that you can simply claim "well your bill has a bunch of problems with it, but mine is perfectly fine!" Like a political party containing the furthest-right politicians in the country claiming to be Progressive, it's an entire electoral campaign built on the concept of "source: just trust me bro!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeKuaJ4nlw)

However, to correct your criticisms, I would point out that "this bill is unnecessary, the Immigration Ministry could just create the committee now" does nothing to address that simply creating the committee ad-hoc does nothing to take away the legal powers that are vested very much in the Immigration Minister alone. You have to change the law if you want to do that. And to head off your counterargument: yes, the Immigration Minister could simply agree to abide by the committee's wishes, but that's still solely on an honor system and therefore no better than the current situation.

As for the assertion that the committee approach "doesn't actually provide government transparency" -- do you honestly mean to tell me that if you were the Opposition member of the committee, and you were therefore able to witness a hypothetical situation where the Government secretly blocked or discarded an application, you would...simply sit on it? You wouldn't shriek to high heaven about alleged government malfeasance, the same way you do whenever the government does anything without your say-so? None of the standard  theatrics or hyperventilation, nothing? Because after your behavior this last term, I find that hard to believe. Actively including the Opposition in the process allows the Opposition to fulfill its most basic and important duty more effectively: namely, the duty to hold the Government to account. The fact that I need to explain the role of the Opposition in our constitutional order to the person who currently leads it is gravely concerning.

If you were actually concerned about inordinate amounts of power being vested in a single role, you would agree that the best and most effective solution would be to dilute that power among multiple individuals. There are at least two reasons I can think of off the top of my head to believe that you are not actually concerned:

One, part of your platform explicitly calls for concentrating roles and power in the hands of a small number of individuals, and this explicitly runs counter to that.

Two, there is no reason to believe your stances on any issue are taken for any reason other than to use as a cudgel against your opponents. For example, this is why you've changed your tack on immigration at least three times in the last six months, or why you don't believe in devoting a mailer to warn unaware citizens (the ones who never visit Witt) of the dangers of electorally validating S:reu Tzaracomprada -- the only calculation that matters to you is "how can I use [thing] for electoral success".

While I am glad to see that you are at least claiming to abandon your plan to bring lawfare to Talossa, one of the other massive flaws with 61RZ27 that we haven't even addressed yet is that it involves the Chancery, which is a poor plan for at least three reasons:
- From a practical standpoint, the Chancery has enough of a workload as it is.
- This act would require the Chancery to render a decision on whether or not the Government has broken the law, a decision process best left to the judiciary (surely the Clerk of Corts remembers the judiciary?)
- Requiring this decision from the Chancery could open the Secretary of State to baseless accusations of favoritism, something we have seen for other reasons in recent years.

It's pretty obvious that in this case, creating a bit more bureaucracy is preferable to simply stacking more on the desk of the existing positions.

Quotewe can pass that bill immediately while we work on what you call "very much a draft?"

"Just give us what we want and trust us to give you want you want later!" Yeah, no.

I'm going to try to ignore the ton of personal, mean attacks on my character here.  I guess you guys have a brand, and you need to keep to it.

And I also guess I'm happy about the contrast, even though it's not a lot of fun to read right now.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on November 05, 2025, 10:46:11 PMI would point out that "this bill is unnecessary, the Immigration Ministry could just create the committee now" does nothing to address that simply creating the committee ad-hoc does nothing to take away the legal powers that are vested very much in the Immigration Minister alone. You have to change the law if you want to do that. And to head off your counterargument: yes, the Immigration Minister could simply agree to abide by the committee's wishes, but that's still solely on an honor system and therefore no better than the current situation.

Well, the reason you've given for maintaining the government secrecy around immigration control in your plan is that there'd be someone nominated by the Opposition involved.  That's like... the main thing.  You guys could do that tonight.  If you think this is a good idea, why don't you?

Yes, it wouldn't be required by law, but isn't it preferable to try it before you make it legally mandatory?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on November 05, 2025, 10:46:11 PMIf you were actually concerned about inordinate amounts of power being vested in a single role, you would agree that the best and most effective solution would be to dilute that power among multiple individuals.

I think probably the best and most effective solution to making the immigration process transparent is to make it transparent, not to just let more officials in on the secret.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on November 05, 2025, 10:46:11 PMone of the other massive flaws with 61RZ27 that we haven't even addressed yet is that it involves the Chancery,

...what?  That's the current law.

I know it might be surprising, but The Public Process Act only adds one small provision... the one requiring the government to disclose when it has blocked someone's immigration application.  Otherwise it's not really changing much of anything.

Don't just take my word for it... here's my bill (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/61RZ27) and here's the current law (https://wiki.talossa.com/Law:El_Lexhatx#E._Immigration).

Oof...

Alexandreu, like I say to Breneir, I beg you to consider the role in which your (collective; the PA's) own behaviour makes the people trying to compete/negotiate with you so frustrated. If you actually want a cross-party consensus that can actually pass during the next Cosa, the right reaction to a positive attempt from us to meet your concerns is not to run off to your party board to declare victory and pat each other on the back.

If you *were* acting in bad faith, not interested in solving a real problem but just in "creating stories" to throw red meat to the base, JD Vance-style, how would you behave differently?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 05, 2025, 11:08:01 PMI'm going to try to ignore the ton of personal, mean attacks on my character here.

Truths may hurt, but the only way to truly avoid them is to earn better truths. I don't give honest criticism with the intent to be mean, I give it to offer chances for self-improvement.

QuoteWell, the reason you've given for maintaining the government secrecy around immigration control in your plan is that there'd be someone nominated by the Opposition involved.  That's like... the main thing.  You guys could do that tonight.  If you think this is a good idea, why don't you?

This bill does the literal opposite of maintain secrecy, which means you're just going to either ignore everything I've written, or just claim I wrote the opposite.

QuoteYes, it wouldn't be required by law, but isn't it preferable to try it before you make it legally mandatory?

We're already trying the "honor system" version of things. You yourself don't seem to think it's working, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with. Evidently then, we have crossed into where it becomes legally mandatory.

QuoteI think probably the best and most effective solution to making the immigration process transparent is to make it transparent, not to just let more officials in on the secret.

Again -- what motivation would the Opposition have to "keep things secret"?

Your criticism of the current system, if taken at face value, stems from two (well, two-and-a-half) issues:
- One, that the Immigration Minister could discard immigration applications without first informing the public
- Two, as per the preamble to 61RZ27, that a future Immigration Minister could abuse their power to unilaterally discard immigration applications based on the perceived views of the applicant (political, religious, etc)
- Two and a half, the country would be none the wiser for this bias as a result of (One).

Now, both the Public Process Act and the Immigration Process Reform Act address the first concern, albeit in different manners. The Public Process Act simply says "the Minister has to tell everybody before they junk an application", which sounds nice in theory, but unfortunately non-compliance is hard to detect -- if they don't post it to begin with, there's no way for the public to know that there was an application to discard in the frst place, which leads us right back to...basically where we are now. The IPRA on the other hand addresses this by placing more eyeballs in the room, and at least one set of those eyeballs has every incentive imaginable to blow the whistle and alert the public if they see something sketchy.

Where they differ is that the IPRA goes further by dividing the Immigration Minister's power among those same "sets of eyeballs", which does a lot to make situation (Two) less likely in the first place. It attacks the issue from both ends, making for a more effective solution.

Mic'haglh, slow your roll for a second.  You wrote a whole bulleted list about how outrageous it was that The Public Process Act would put more work on the Chancery.  But it doesn't -- that's the current process, and you made a significant mistake when you were reading the bill.

So do you think it's maybe possible you're also mistaken in other areas of this discussion?  I know that right now you're going attack attack attack, but it is worth maybe slowing down and taking another look?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on November 06, 2025, 12:47:28 AMWe're already trying the "honor system" version of things.

So let's think through it.  As I understand your bill, the main protection against a corrupt government bureaucrat secretly discarding applications is that the Opposition would appoint their own government bureaucrat as well, and they'd keep an eye on each other.

We're not doing that right now, agreed?  But if you think this is a good idea, you could do it today.

So why not do it?  Either it's a good idea, or it's not.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on November 06, 2025, 12:47:28 AMAgain -- what motivation would the Opposition have to "keep things secret"?

I don't want government bureaucrats to have the power to secretly control immigration, even if one of those bureaucrats is chosen by another political party.

I think we should instead just opt for transparency.  And since I'm already skeptical of a plan that requires creating a whole new bureaucracy, I don't know why we'd choose that route instead, just to keep the process secret.  Why is "keep it secret" even a goal?  The people deserve to know.

I mean... what are we trying to hide?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on November 06, 2025, 12:47:28 AMWThe Public Process Act simply says "the Minister has to tell everybody before they junk an application", which sounds nice in theory, but unfortunately non-compliance is hard to detect

This is a fair point!  I thought about this, but if my bill passed, the minister couldn't legally just delete an application -- they'd be committing a crime.  That's a very different thing from the current system, where they might not be proud of doing something unethical, but they know it's legal (shockingly so).

It seems pretty easy to fix as a practical matter, if you're really worried about this.  I mean, we can just mirror the application emails to another email address that only the Avocat-Xheneral or someone else can access.  Or even a justice on the cort.

Just for my own understanding. How is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition (not just "another political party" but specifically the Opposition)? The A-Xh might even have an incentive not to publicise corrupt behaviour by fellow coalitioners, whereas an Opposition appointee would have every incentive to publicise such behaviour. What am I missing here?

Similarly, since in the current set-up the MinImm has no obligation to share new applications with anyone, even if the Opposition were to appoint an immigration inspector right now, the MinImm could just as well delete applications, tell the appointee that no applications came in, and the rest of us would be none the wiser (as there is neither an obligation to be transparent nor any mechanism to ensure that the Opposition gets notified of new applications unadulterated). If a MinImm is already inclined to withhold or delete applications, they would have no additional ethical dilemma about withholding information that they are not legally and mechanically obligated to share. So in the end implementing this idea without legal enforceability would rely on the honour system again. What am I missing here also?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 07:55:40 AMHow is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition

Yeah, that's a great point!  I'd suggest that my other suggested option of a justice would be the better choice.  I think the A-X is typically going to be fairly unlikely to abet a crime, but a justice would be much more unlikely.  Or even an email account the justices can all access.  It'd probably never be used, unless there's some reason to suspect that applications are being secretly discarded (like a later Government wants to check or the like).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 06, 2025, 08:18:52 AMI'd suggest that my other suggested option of a justice would be the better choice

Getting the judiciary involved "without case or controversy"? I don't think you get the concept of "separation of powers".

There is a weird reluctance here to actually authorise the Opposition Leader to do an opposition leader's job, i.e. keep an eye on the Government. Which makes me suspect the good faith of this discussion.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 06, 2025, 08:18:52 AM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 07:55:40 AMHow is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition

Yeah, that's a great point!  I'd suggest that my other suggested option of a justice would be the better choice.  I think the A-X is typically going to be fairly unlikely to abet a crime, but a justice would be much more unlikely.  Or even an email account the justices can all access.  It'd probably never be used, unless there's some reason to suspect that applications are being secretly discarded (like a later Government wants to check or the like).

Justices would be impartial I suppose, but when it comes to scrutinising the Government's actions I don't think you want impartiality, but rather thoroughness and rigorosity. Maybe this is a cultural barrier of sorts, but from my understanding, the whole point of the Opposition is to scrutinise the Government and discredit them for wrongdoing. As such, the most logical choice for who to give mirrored applications to would be the Opposition. Whatever other criteria we might want to place on the MinImm to disincentivise deleting or withholding applications, it should be up to the elected Opposition to make sure that no deleting or withholding actually takes place. I hope what I'm writing here makes sense.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on November 06, 2025, 02:33:08 PMGetting the judiciary involved "without case or controversy"? I don't think you get the concept of "separation of powers".

We ask the justices to do all kinds of things like this.  The senior justice advises His Majesty and they appoint people to oversee elections.

I mean... this kind of stuff is the point of separation of powers, lol.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 02:36:01 PMJustices would be impartial I suppose, but when it comes to scrutinising the Government's actions I don't think you want impartiality, but rather thoroughness and rigorosity. Maybe this is a cultural barrier of sorts, but from my understanding, the whole point of the Opposition is to scrutinise the Government and discredit them for wrongdoing. As such, the most logical choice for who to give mirrored applications to would be the Opposition. Whatever other criteria we might want to place on the MinImm to disincentivise deleting or withholding applications, it should be up to the elected Opposition to make sure that no deleting or withholding actually takes place. I hope what I'm writing here makes sense.

No, you're right, and I definitely didn't envision the justices as having any hand in investigating or whatever.  I was just thinking about a person outside of our electeds to have a copy of the record in a way that would be outside of government control.  Even if the Government just quickly and quietly deleted an application, there would still be evidence of it.  His Majesty might also make sense as someone with access to the record.

Is there a version of this where the Opposition could request access to the record, or something similar?  I guess, and I'm not really opposed.  I'm just wary of creating a whole new big edifice to address what is hopefully a theoretical concern, and so I'd also be content with a preserved record available for another government to investigate in the future.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 06, 2025, 02:44:03 PMIs there a version of this where the Opposition could request access to the record, or something similar?  I guess, and I'm not really opposed.  I'm just wary of creating a whole new big edifice to address what is hopefully a theoretical concern, and so I'd also be content with a preserved record available for another government to investigate in the future.

If you simply were to give access to an account with mirrored applications on it to e.g. the Tanaischteu you wouldn't need any further edifices. Better yet, the Opposition wouldn't have to wait until they win an election to discover illegally suppressed applications, since they have full access to the emails as they come in in real time. Wouldn't that be preferable?

Two points: first, it seems that if the opposition did as most other parliamentary systems do, which is to employ a shadow cabinet, then could not the Shadow Immigration Minister perform this function?

Second: Chief Judge Edwards doesn't advise me in any substantial way, is not on my Privy Council, so I don't exactly know what you are referring to Baron. Puisne Judge Plätschisch is a member of the Privy Council, however, but his advice is limited to the functions of any other Guaír (as are you).

-Txec R

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 02:56:04 PMIf you simply were to give access to an account with mirrored applications on it to e.g. the Tanaischteu you wouldn't need any further edifices. Better yet, the Opposition wouldn't have to wait until they win an election to discover illegally suppressed applications, since they have full access to the emails as they come in in real time. Wouldn't that be preferable?

As an addition to legally requiring public disclosure, I guess that would make sense?  I'm not too fussed about it either way when we get to this juncture, because I do think that just making it actually against the law to do this in secret is 90% of the battle.  So sure, yeah, if that's what gets everyone on board, I'd be fine with adding that to the bill.  Do you have suggested language or would you prefer I write it?

Quote from: King Txec on November 06, 2025, 03:13:31 PMTwo points: first, it seems that if the opposition did as most other parliamentary systems do, which is to employ a shadow cabinet, then could not the Shadow Immigration Minister perform this function?

Sure, although we probably don't want to require that.  It could just be a person nominated by the Opposition, almost similar to what Mic'halgh has suggested (albeit without the new bureaucracy).

Quote from: King Txec on November 06, 2025, 03:13:31 PMSecond: Chief Judge Edwards doesn't advise me in any substantial way, is not on my Privy Council, so I don't exactly know what you are referring to Baron. Puisne Judge Plätschisch is a member of the Privy Council, however, but his advice is limited to the functions of any other Guaír (as are you).
-Txec R

It's not done as a matter of practice, but the senior justice is ex officio a member of the Sabor, according to the law, Your Majesty.  So is the Seneschal.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 06, 2025, 03:23:29 PMAs an addition to legally requiring public disclosure, I guess that would make sense?  I'm not too fussed about it either way when we get to this juncture, because I do think that just making it actually against the law to do this in secret is 90% of the battle.

As Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the purported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

QuoteSo sure, yeah, if that's what gets everyone on board, I'd be fine with adding that to the bill.  Do you have suggested language or would you prefer I write it?

Nah, go ahead.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 03:29:20 PMAs Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the proported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

I actually think it's worth quite a bit to criminalize it.  I think that most people are hesitant to break the law, even if they think they might get away with it.

Okay, so then, I'll try to build a consensus around that: The Public Process Bill with an extra provision requiring that immigration applications be mirrored to an account accessible by the Opposition Leader.  The account will need a custodian, so I guess maybe either His Majesty or the Chancery?  I'll see what makes sense and what people are comfortable with.  It's basically just "save this password somewhere" so it's not a lot.

You're right. I had quite forgotten that and should probably include Owen in PMs and such.

-Txec R

Quote from: King Txec on November 06, 2025, 03:13:31 PMTwo points: first, it seems that if the opposition did as most other parliamentary systems do, which is to employ a shadow cabinet, then could not the Shadow Immigration Minister perform this function?

I would say this is a good idea, if not for the fact that Shadow Cabinets seem to be rare in part due to manpower. If we broaden the language a bit (again, perhaps to simply make it an appointee of the Leader of the Opposition, which is functionally equivalent to a Shadow MinImm anyway) that would achieve one of the main goals of increasing the transparency of the immigration system, since that is of course what the Opposition's purpose is in a parliamentary democracy.

The fact that awareness of this purpose is spreading is a good thing.