WHEREAS, at present, the catchment areas of provinces in Talossa are confusing and incongruous; and
WHEREAS while a balanced intake of immigrants, geographical contiguity and common cultural roots may very well be impossible to achieve all at the same time, this is still a step in the right direction to achieve just that.
THEREFORE the Ziu hereby amends El Lexhatx Section E, Article 7 as detailed below.
Article 7.4 which currently reads:
Quote7.4. ATATÜRK PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Atatürk Province: All suburbs of Milwaukee within Milwaukee County, which lie to the north and east of the City of Milwaukee; the Wisconsin Counties of Washington, Ozaukee, Sheboygan, Calumet, Manitowoc, Kewaunee, and Door; and the U.S. states of Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia. Overseas, the nations of Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Northern Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Banghladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Dem. Rep. of the Congo, Rep. of the Congo, Gabon, Sao Tomé, Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.4. ATATÜRK PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Atatürk Province: the Wisconsin counties of Calumet, Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Ozaukee, Sheboygan, and Washington; and the U.S. states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont, and the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia. Prince Edward Island, Quebec; Internationally, the nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Georgia, India, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Somaliland, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
Article 7.5 which currently reads:
Quote7.5. BENITO PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Benito Province: the Wisconsin counties of Waukesha, Jefferson, Dane, Marathon, Wood, Portage, Waupaca, Waushara, Winnebago, Marquette, Green Lake, Fond du Lac, Columbia, and Dodge. Overseas, the nations of Italy, San Marino, Vatican City, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Cyprus; plus all nations in Africa north of the Equator not listed elsewhere.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.5. BENITO PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Benito Province: the Wisconsin counties of Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Green Lake, Jefferson, Marathon, Marquette, Portage, Waukesha, Waupaca, Waushara, Winnebago, and Wood. Internationally, Albania, Andorra, Austria, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Vatican City.
Article 7.6 which currently reads:
Quote7.6. VUODE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Vuode Province: The City of Milwaukee (WI) and the U.S. states of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.6. VUODE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Vuode Province: the City of Milwaukee (WI) and all suburbs of Milwaukee, which lie to the north and east of the City of Milwaukee; and the U.S. states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; And the Mexican States of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Queretero, and Zacatecas. Internationally, the nations of Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.
Article 7.7 which currently reads:
Quote7.7. MARICOPA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maricopa Province: the Wisconsin counties of Polk, Barron, St. Croix, Pierce, Dunn, Chippewa, Eau Claire, Clark, Pepin, Buffalo, Trempeleau, Jackson, La Crosse, Monroe, Juneau, Adams, Vernon, Crawford, Richland, Sauk, Grant, Iowa, Lafayette, and Green; and the U.S. states of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Hawaii, California, Arkansas and Louisiana. Overseas, the nations of South America (except Brazil) and all of continental Central America.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.7. MARICOPA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maricopa Province: the Wisconsin counties of Adams, Barron, Buffalo, Chippewa, Clark, Crawford, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lafayette, Monroe, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Richland, St. Croix, Sauk, Trempealeau, and Vernon; the U.S. states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Mexican States of Campeche, Chiapas, Ciudad de México, Colima, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacan, Mexico, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatan. Internationally, the nations of Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Article 7.8 which currently reads:
Quote7.8. FLORENCIA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Florencia Province: the Wisconsin counties of Florence, Douglas, Bayfield, Ashland, Iron, Vilas, Burnett, Washburn, Sawyer, Rusk, Taylor, Price, Oneida, Lincoln, Langlade, Forest, Menominee, Shawano, Marinette, Oconto, Outagamie, and Brown; and the U.S. states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and the Canadian provinces and territories of Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.8. FLORENCIA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Florencia Province: the Wisconsin counties of Ashland, Bayfield, Brown, Burnett, Douglas, Florence, Forest, Iron, Lincoln, Langlade, Marinette, Menominee, Oconto, Oneida, Outagamie, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, and Washburn; and the U.S. states and territories of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Northern Marianas Islands, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming; and the Canadian provinces and territories of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Northwest Territory, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon Territory. Internationally, the nations of Brunei, Bouganville, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, North Korea, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Taiwan, Tonga, Vanuatu.
Article 7.9 which currently reads:
Quote7.9. MARITIIMI-MAXHESTIC PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maritiimi-Maxhestic Province: All suburbs of the City of Milwaukee within Milwaukee County which lie to the south and west of the City of Milwaukee, and also the Wisconsin Counties of Racine, Kenosha, Walworth, and Rock; and the U.S. states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, Delaware and Maryland. Overseas, all the nations of insular Central America and Puerto Rico.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.9. MARITIIMI-MAXHESTIC PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maritiimi-Maxhestic Province: All suburbs of the City of Milwaukee within Milwaukee County which lie to the south and west of the City of Milwaukee, and also the Wisconsin Counties of Kenosha, Racine, Rock, and Walworth; and the U.S. states and territories of Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia. Internationally, the nations of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Bahamas, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Article 7.10 which currently reads:
Quote7.10. CÉZEMBRE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Cézembre Province: the nations of Ireland, United Kingdom, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Monaco and any European nation not listed elsewhere.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.10. CÉZEMBRE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Cézembre Province: the nations of Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
Article 7.11 which currently reads:
Quote7.11. FIOVA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Fiova Province: the nations of Australia, New Zealand, all Oceanian nations, all Asian nations not listed elsewhere, Brazil, South Africa, Madagascar, Mauritius, the Comoros, Seychelles, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Angola, and all nations in Africa south of the Equator not listed elsewhere, and all nations of the world not included elsewhere.
Is amended to read as follows:
Quote7.11. FIOVA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Fiova Province: the nations of Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Eswatini, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Laos, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, New Zealand, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
A new section 7.13 is added as follows:
Quote7.13 The Ministry of Immigration is encouraged to review catchment areas for potential updates no less than every five (5) years.
A new
section 3.1 is added as follows:
Quote3.1 The Ministry of Immigration shall note the prospective immigrant's future provincial assignment in the introducing thread.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Minister of Immigration)
Modifications:
- All general descriptors are removed. Every nation is individually placed in a specific province.
- Mexico is treated as a part of North America. As such, its catchment area scheme is handled at the sub-national level just as the US and Canada. Some states to Vuode and some to Maricopa.
- Florencia is expanded to include most Oceanian nations (excepting Australia and New Zealand)
- Catchment descriptions are alphabetical
- Vuode receives nations with a known Berber population or heritage (connecting the Talossan home province with its mystical Berber heritage
- Regular catchment area review is mandated with the Ministry of Immigration being responsible.
- There have a half dozen naming updates (ex: Czechia, Eswatini, etc.)
This is just a proposal so feel free to tear it to pieces.
Unless you are prepared to give Pengopats Senate representation (or abolish the Senate I guess), putting citizens there seems like a bad idea.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:22:40 PMUnless you are prepared to give Pengopats Senate representation (or abolish the Senate I guess), putting citizens there seems like a bad idea.
If people are assigned there then why would I be opposed to that, Ian?
Also, could we get a map of these changes?
Also also, unless you are personally still MinImm five years from now, I can pretty much guarantee the new reporting requirement will be ignored. Surely a better solution if we are really concerned about this is just to keep an eye on provincial populations and make changes if/when needed?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:22:40 PMUnless you are prepared to give Pengopats Senate representation (or abolish the Senate I guess), putting citizens there seems like a bad idea.
If people are assigned there then why would I be opposed to that, Ian?
For one thing, that would require an OrgLaw amendment. Is that forthcoming?
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:26:38 PMAlso, could we get a map of these changes?
Also also, unless you are personally still MinImm five years from now, I can pretty much guarantee the new reporting requirement will be ignored. Surely a better solution if we are really concerned about this is just to keep an eye on provincial populations and make changes if/when needed?
I just did the work of pulling it all together. Anyone who sees the benefit of a map is welcome to create it.
You are suggesting that a future MinImm will ignore a statutory requirement. And that no Opposition will be active enough to call them on it.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:27:38 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:22:40 PMUnless you are prepared to give Pengopats Senate representation (or abolish the Senate I guess), putting citizens there seems like a bad idea.
If people are assigned there then why would I be opposed to that, Ian?
For one thing, that would require an OrgLaw amendment. Is that forthcoming?
No, not from me.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:28:46 PMI just did the work of pulling it all together. Anyone who sees the benefit of a map is welcome to create it.
Well, you're the one who wants to make this change, but OK.
QuoteYou are suggesting that a future MinImm will ignore a statutory requirement. And that no Opposition will be active enough to call them on it.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's a silly report and no one should spend time putting it together or complaining that it hasn't been (unless there is a real need for it).
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:29:29 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:27:38 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:22:40 PMUnless you are prepared to give Pengopats Senate representation (or abolish the Senate I guess), putting citizens there seems like a bad idea.
If people are assigned there then why would I be opposed to that, Ian?
For one thing, that would require an OrgLaw amendment. Is that forthcoming?
No, not from me.
Seems like you just answered your own question then.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:32:47 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:28:46 PMI just did the work of pulling it all together. Anyone who sees the benefit of a map is welcome to create it.
Well, you're the one who wants to make this change, but OK.
QuoteYou are suggesting that a future MinImm will ignore a statutory requirement. And that no Opposition will be active enough to call them on it.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's a silly report and no one should spend time putting it together or complaining that it hasn't been (unless there is a real need for it).
The reporting is only necessary IF the Ministry finds the need for changes. The requirement is to REVIEW the catchment area for potential changes. Please read.
QuoteThe reporting is only necessary IF the Ministry finds the need for changes. The requirement is to REVIEW the catchment area for potential changes. Please read.
You are splitting hairs. Clearly the time spent doing the review (if it is done in good faith) would far outweigh the time physically typing out the report.
Ian's point concerning the need for Organic Law change on Pengopats is a good one though. I have removed that from the proposal.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:38:56 PMQuoteThe reporting is only necessary IF the Ministry finds the need for changes. The requirement is to REVIEW the catchment area for potential changes. Please read.
You are splitting hairs. Clearly the time spent doing the review (if it is done in good faith) would far outweigh the time physically typing out the report.
No I am not splitting hairs, Ian.
I am reading what I wrote.I have removed the Pengopats section as you made a good point on the need for other changes to implement it.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:40:22 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:38:56 PMQuoteThe reporting is only necessary IF the Ministry finds the need for changes. The requirement is to REVIEW the catchment area for potential changes. Please read.
You are splitting hairs. Clearly the time spent doing the review (if it is done in good faith) would far outweigh the time physically typing out the report.
No I am not splitting hairs, Ian. I am reading what I wrote.
I have removed the Pengopats section as you made a good point on the need for other changes to implement it.
My point has been the time consuming part of this is not the part where the Minister types a report, it's the part where they do the review, which must be done whether or not a report is issued. Sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:42:12 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:40:22 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:38:56 PMQuoteThe reporting is only necessary IF the Ministry finds the need for changes. The requirement is to REVIEW the catchment area for potential changes. Please read.
You are splitting hairs. Clearly the time spent doing the review (if it is done in good faith) would far outweigh the time physically typing out the report.
No I am not splitting hairs, Ian. I am reading what I wrote.
I have removed the Pengopats section as you made a good point on the need for other changes to implement it.
My point has been the time consuming part of this is not the part where the Minister types a report, it's the part where they do the review, which must be done whether or not a report is issued. Sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.
Thank you for clarifying, Ian.
I think I need to clarify too. I hope I just proved it with removing the Pengopats section based on your point. But this proposal is intended as a potential starting point but not the end-point. The only reform I feel strongly about is spelling out each country rather than using potentially ambiguous general descriptors as we have in the current statutes.
If the regular review section is an objection which prevents you from supporting the reform effort then I am happy to remove it.
It's definitely a good idea to specify each country (or at least avoid vague and obscure phrases like "insular Central America")
Here is a quick map I did of all the international assignments instead of sleeping (it's 4 AM help).
(https://i.imgur.com/X1sstDv.png)
Some comments:
- Several countries appear misassigned, e.g. Uganda, CAR, Uruguay and Malta.
- The Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and the Solomon Islands are unassigned.
- Based on this assignment we can expect all future citizens of Maritiimi-Maxhestic to be from the US. I don't know what to think of that.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on March 11, 2023, 09:11:17 PMHere is a quick map I did of all the international assignments instead of sleeping (it's 4 AM help).
(https://i.imgur.com/X1sstDv.png)
Some comments:
- Several countries appear misassigned, e.g. Uganda, CAR, Uruguay and Malta.
- The Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and the Solomon Islands are unassigned.
- Based on this assignment we can expect all future citizens of Maritiimi-Maxhestic to be from the US. I don't know what to think of that.
Thank you so much for the map Marcel. I have corrected those Oceanian nations I neglected.
And have corrected the placements for CAR, Uganda, Malta, and Uruguay.
I made no changes to M-M btw besides spelling out each nation and alphabetizing the lists.
Can provinces independently swap catchment areas? ("We'll give you Serbia and Moldova for Libya and Morocco.") The whole catchment area thing has seemed to me to be largely arbitrary...like throwing darts at a map. "And...Burkina Faso goes to Benito!" Is there really any rhyme or reason to it? Being named Benito and having a large contingent of Italians in our province, I would assume that Benitian culture is largely based on Italian culture...but within our provincial catchment areas are places that have no connection with anything Italian. Places not even conquered by Italy. You'd think Sardinians would be placed in Benito. Is there no cultural basis behind provincial assignments? (Our Cjovani subculture is open to everybody. If you like us and we like you, you're in. Doesn't matter where you're from.)
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:06:19 PM[...] Articles 7.4 to 7.11 are amended as follows:
Quote[...]7.6. VUODE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Vuode Province: The City of Milwaukee (WI) and the U.S. states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; And the Mexican States of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Queretero, and Zacatecas. Internationally, the nations of Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.
7.7. MARICOPA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maricopa Province: the Wisconsin counties of Adams, Barron, Buffalo, Chippewa, Clark, Crawford, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lafayette, Monroe, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Richland, St. Croix, Sauk, Trempeleau, and Vernon; the U.S. states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Mexican States of Campeche, Chiapas, Colima, Distrito Federal (Mexico City), Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacan, Mexico, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatan. Internationally, the nations of Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, uruguay, and Venezuela.
[...]
[...]
Hmm, my state went to Vuode, with which we have no connection. I'm in Maricopa and Bråneu is in Fiova, even though we're both from the same city. If anything, the Northern states should go to Maricopa and the Southern states to Vuode.
Also, the Distrito Federal does not exist anymore, it's Ciudad de México (Mexico City).
Quote from: Danihel Txechescu on March 11, 2023, 09:54:09 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:06:19 PM[...] Articles 7.4 to 7.11 are amended as follows:
Quote[...]7.6. VUODE PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Vuode Province: The City of Milwaukee (WI) and the U.S. states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; And the Mexican States of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Queretero, and Zacatecas. Internationally, the nations of Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.
7.7. MARICOPA PROVINCE. Talossan citizens living in the following areas shall be assigned to Maricopa Province: the Wisconsin counties of Adams, Barron, Buffalo, Chippewa, Clark, Crawford, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lafayette, Monroe, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Richland, St. Croix, Sauk, Trempeleau, and Vernon; the U.S. states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Mexican States of Campeche, Chiapas, Colima, Distrito Federal (Mexico City), Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacan, Mexico, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatan. Internationally, the nations of Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, uruguay, and Venezuela.
[...]
[...]
Hmm, my state went to Vuode, with which we have no connection. I'm in Maricopa and Bråneu is in Fiova, even though we're both from the same city. If anything, the Northern states should go to Maricopa and the Southern states to Vuode.
Also, the Distrito Federal does not exist anymore, it's Ciudad de México (Mexico City).
This was an attempt to address Vuode's underpopulation.
I have corrected the Distrito Federal reference.
I can switch the catchment breakdown if that makes more sense.
@Bråneu Excelsio what do you think?
A suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,
or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.
Quote from: xpb on March 16, 2023, 09:56:25 PMA suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,
or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.
Thank you
@xpb this has been added to the bill.
Can we omit "biological," please?
Quote from: xpb on March 16, 2023, 09:56:25 PMA suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,
or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.
So by this logic, if I decided that since my mother was born in Iowa I could transfer to Vuode, and since I was born in Germany, I could transfer to Cezembre, despite the fact I've lived in California and thus Maricopa since 1987?
Quote from: xpb on March 16, 2023, 09:56:25 PMA suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,
or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.
Not a big fan of this
@xpb there appears to be some skepticism to your contribution. Would you like to provide additional information?
@Ian Plätschisch what are your concerns?
Probably the same as mine. People to Provinces should mean just that. We stand by the principle of geographical assignment, otherwise the Provinces will cease to be provinces, they will become "self-sorting clubs" as people tweak the rules to end up in provinces with their friends. Fine, but let's abolish the Senäts if we do that.
My suggestion is simply not to adopt XPB's suggestion. It would stretch the principle of Provincial Assignment beyond recognition. Status quo, please. Sorry, I appear to have replied to a disappearing post?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 17, 2023, 02:46:03 PMMy suggestion is simply not to adopt XPB's suggestion. It would stretch the principle of Provincial Assignment beyond recognition. Status quo, please. Sorry, I appear to have replied to a disappearing post?
Yeah, self-moderation at work.
XPB, I am curious to hear your response to the concern expressed by Miestra.
Also Miestra...any other comments on the bill which deals with far more than XPB's addition?
Generally I think provincial assignments are quite arbitrary, so I was only really concerned with two issues: (a) fixing the Mexico loophole; (b) rebalancing in favour of Vuode which is becoming a "ghost province". I can see you fixed the first one; as for the second one, I'll defer to Vuodeans themselves. However, it looks like the overseas catchment area for Vuode is North-West Africa, which I wouldn't have considered a growth area...
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 17, 2023, 07:26:50 PMGenerally I think provincial assignments are quite arbitrary, so I was only really concerned with two issues: (a) fixing the Mexico loophole; (b) rebalancing in favour of Vuode which is becoming a "ghost province". I can see you fixed the first one; as for the second one, I'll defer to Vuodeans themselves. However, it looks like the overseas catchment area for Vuode is North-West Africa, which I wouldn't have considered a growth area...
Thank you Miestra. I also divided Mexico (treating it like the other North American nations) at the state/provincial level. Half of the Mexican states went to Vuode and half went to Maricopa. I am completely open to changes, of course.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on March 17, 2023, 05:55:32 AMQuote from: xpb on March 16, 2023, 09:56:25 PMA suggestion on 7.3.
No Talossan citizens may transfer his their provincial citizenship to a different province, except either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province,
or by providing bona fides as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) The biological mother or biological father of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
c) One of biological grandparents of a citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
d) The citizen has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant province.
So by this logic, if I decided that since my mother was born in Iowa I could transfer to Vuode, and since I was born in Germany, I could transfer to Cezembre, despite the fact I've lived in California and thus Maricopa since 1987?
This is similar to rules adopted by FIFA as to what country a participant may represent in worldwide competition. As is noted in 7.3.1 The provisions in this section do not apply unless the citizen explicitly consents to being reassigned. Whenever any Talossan wants to move his provincial assignment to the province in whose assigned area he actually lives, he may do so by notifying the Chancery. The move will be officially recognised once the Chancery has validated the request. (49RZ21 49RZ13)
As to the comment
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 17, 2023, 02:43:31 PMProbably the same as mine. People to Provinces should mean just that. We stand by the principle of geographical assignment, otherwise the Provinces will cease to be provinces, they will become "self-sorting clubs" as people tweak the rules to end up in provinces with their friends. Fine, but let's abolish the Senäts if we do that.
Is there something wrong with citizens having self determination? Was not Fiovă founded among those who had similar interests?
Quote from: xpb on March 18, 2023, 12:15:26 AMIs there something wrong with citizens having self determination? Was not Fiovă founded among those who had similar interests?
That's a curious way to describe why Fiovă came to be...
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 18, 2023, 02:20:45 AMQuote from: xpb on March 18, 2023, 12:15:26 AMIs there something wrong with citizens having self determination? Was not Fiovă founded among those who had similar interests?
That's a curious way to describe why Fiovă came to be...
A group of people decided that they would rather not be part of the Kingdom by self determination. When they decided to return, Fiovă was established at the culmination of the Reunision of the Talossan people as the home Province for the former citizens.
The proposed addition along the lines of expanded ancestry offers limited flexibility, and where others that wish to relocate that do not have bona fides related to a specific area could instead petition the Crown for relocation.
As it stands, the provinces are being treated as nations in and of themselves based on portions of, or entire other nations.
And that's Talossan Tradition. The TNC is all in favour of Talossan tradition, right?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 18, 2023, 03:17:02 PMAnd that's Talossan Tradition. The TNC is all in favour of Talossan tradition, right?
It sounds like you are in support of the change then, Miestra?
@xpb @Miestră Schivă, UrN Would you both be agreeable to this?
Quote7.3. Talossan citizens may transfer their provincial citizenship to a different province, either by physically moving into that province or into the zone corresponding to that province, or by providing bona fides (determined by the Ministry of Immigration) as to the following:
a) A citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
b) A parent or guardian of the citizen was born on the territory of the relevant province;
This would lessen the room for an ancestral claim to self or parents.
No. Provincial assignment must always be based on where you personally reside, unless grandfathered in. The last thing we want is "self-determination" of provincial membership, which will lead to people migrating between provinces for perceived electoral advantages, leading to gerrymandering. "Volunteer provinces" can only be considered if we abolish the Senäts.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 21, 2023, 10:18:26 PMNo. Provincial assignment must always be based on where you personally reside, unless grandfathered in. The last thing we want is "self-determination" of provincial membership, which will lead to people migrating between provinces for perceived electoral advantages, leading to gerrymandering. "Volunteer provinces" can only be considered if we abolish the Senäts.
Understood. Are there any other issues with the proposal which would prevent you from supporting it?
I *personally* have no issue with the new catchment boundaries, but I would really appreciate someone actually from Vuode chiming in.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 22, 2023, 03:57:25 PMI *personally* have no issue with the new catchment boundaries, but I would really appreciate someone actually from Vuode chiming in.
Thank you Miestra. I also would love someone from Vuode to comment.
I do think we may need to add additional countries to Vuode, as you said the Berber countries are not a growth area and I am unable to predict the intake of new citizens from the Mexican states currently allotted to Vuode in this proposal.
As a citizen of Vuode, I think the catchment areas in the United States and Mexico are great, the African catchment area to me is negligible but I think it works.
Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on March 23, 2023, 12:31:54 PMAs a citizen of Vuode, I think the catchment areas in the United States and Mexico are great, the African catchment area to me is negligible but I think it works.
Thank you Tric'hard!
I am hoping we have addressed any outstanding objections, but if not, please let me know.
This weekend I will send to the CRL.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 25, 2023, 08:52:14 AMA new Article 7.13 is added as follows:
Quote7.13 NOTING ON APPLICATION. The Ministry of Immigration shall note the applying immigrant's province when presenting the application for consideration.
I suggest to modify that part in this way, and move it to the section of title E concerning the introduction of the prospective immigrant and not under section 7 that is about the issuing of the grant of citizenship:
A new
section 3.1 is added as follows:
Quote3.1 The Ministry of Immigration shall note the prospective immigrant's future provincial assignment in the introducing thread.
Thanks.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 25, 2023, 01:14:55 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 25, 2023, 08:52:14 AMA new Article 7.13 is added as follows:
Quote7.13 NOTING ON APPLICATION. The Ministry of Immigration shall note the applying immigrant's province when presenting the application for consideration.
I suggest to modify that part in this way, and move it to the section of title E concerning the introduction of the prospective immigrant and not under section 7 that is about the issuing of the grant of citizenship:
A new section 3.1 is added as follows:
Quote3.1 The Ministry of Immigration shall note the prospective immigrant's future provincial assignment in the introducing thread.
Thanks.
Thanks, I've edited the bill in the CRL.
Folks, I am delaying clarking this until May. I have updated the bill in this thread with suggestions from the CRL. As Immigration Minister I have worked earnestly and ardently to submit a proposal with rolling revisions to meet the concerns of all participants in dialogue.
The Hopper is open to the public so please do not wait until it goes to the CRL to make your concerns known.
QuoteThe Hopper is open to the public so please do not wait until it goes to the CRL to make your concerns known.
First of all, just to be clear, I didn't wait until the CRL to make my concerns known. I didn't like to "storm" that thread but I felt I had to for one simple reason.
In the last 48h (more or less, it was in my world time so I guess something like 50h in Talossa) before the Clark was out you
added in the CRL thread a new section that wasn't part of the bill you submitted to CRL after the Hopper debate.
How can someone be expected to be aware here of profound changes you are making to the bill on the CRL thread?
Time was running out, you added a new section, two members of the CRL gave approval, yes I had to storm that thread to say "wait". I wasn't happy, it was not appropriate but it was necessary.
QuoteAs Immigration Minister I have worked earnestly and ardently to submit a proposal with rolling revisions to meet the concerns of all participants in dialogue
If you amend the text adding a new section, that feels like sneaking in as it's a calque on a section that was present in the first ever draft and after a long debate on the issue it was removed, in the last hours in a thread were other people except the members aren't supposed to partecipate, that falls a little short in the definition of great concern to all participants in dialogue.
I appreciate your attitude and I'm persuaded that you did it in good faith, but at a certain point you have to draw a line. Changes in the language or placements of sections that don't affect how the bill "works" can be done anytime because they are "harmless". But adding new sections on the CRL thread only few hours before the Clark is different because it has consequences on the bill and on the "consensus" previously reached (or not).
(By the way: this is one of the reasons why I proposed a bill on the CRL to better highlight that it main focus should be on proofreading bills that came out of the Hopper on its working, language and coherence to improve the quality of the legislation, otherwise if everything is up to be added, removed, changed it will become a duplication of the Hopper for only few people.)
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 29, 2023, 09:21:31 PMFolks, I am delaying clarking this until May. I have updated the bill in this thread with suggestions from the CRL.
I suggested to clark the bill without the new added section, and hopper a bill to debate only on that new section - or on how to achieve the concerns in a different way - to be added later.
But here we are. This is the section you added:
Quote7.13 The Ministry of Immigration is encouraged to review catchment areas for potential updates no less than every five (5) years.
This is a calque on a previous section you proposed that was criticized by some people like
@Ian Plätschisch. I do agree with his criticism, and using the verb "encourage" doesn't change the substance of the section: asking the minister to do a revision is useless jbecause in 5 years from now we will probably forget about it and, given our systems, we will probably already modified that part of the law so 5 year from what? Do we really need to review a law 5 years from now even if it could be changed anytime between now and 5 years? It's asking the Minister to do a long work potentially useless. 5 years from the last change? This will potentially mean that the section will never kick in as we keep changing our laws and it will become just a relic that we all forget about Moreover, the verb "encourage" doesn't change the substance, but from my point of view - and I believe that sentiment is shared by members of my party - it makes it worse.
I will never vote for a law that encourages the State, officers, members of the government or the Ziu to do an action connected within the exercise of their powers or prerogatives.
If the goal of this section is to address the concern on how to deal with changes of names or countries that split in two without changing the law everytime it happens (which is by the way very rare and not something that happens frequently), it can be done differently.
We can say (I'm not writing in legalese now so it must be rewritten, I'm just explaining the concept) that the Minister is authorised to consider name changing or new state created from a previous country listed and not existing when those sections were approved to be assimilated to the previous name or previous state included in the catchment area subject to judicial review.
This simply achieve the goal without mandating or encouraging complicated, work-demanding and potentially useless review of the law by the ImmMin.
One member of the CRL had approved the bill. I had made a request to the senator about one aspect of the bill's form and one aspect of the bill's function. Seneschal-Senator-Minister-Assassin Tzaracomprada added a section in direct response to my concerns, and it was being discussed. Let's please always remember to be collegial to each other, but especially when someone is just following the rules.
There was no emergency, but if you were worried that your opinion might go unnoticed -- heaven forfend -- then you could tag the sponsor in your reply in the Hopper, or send him a PM with your concerns, or send a member of the committee a PM with your concerns.
For my part, I already expressed that I thought the best solution here was this:
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 29, 2023, 09:05:33 PMI'd rather assign some discretion to the minister in question to make determinations about the best assignment, as would be in keeping with the guidelines set out in the law, whenever geopolitics made their literal application difficult. And I'd put that determination under possible judicial review.
I remain open to additional suggestions for revisions and to potential cosponsors as I was really hoping for this to be a multipartisan effort. I do plan on clarking this bill in May as I think that will mean there has been adequate time for reflection and consideration.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 29, 2023, 09:05:33 PMI'd rather assign some discretion to the minister in question to make determinations about the best assignment, as would be in keeping with the guidelines set out in the law, whenever geopolitics made their literal application difficult. And I'd put that determination under possible judicial review.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on March 30, 2023, 04:14:14 AMWe can say (I'm not writing in legalese now so it must be rewritten, I'm just explaining the concept) that the Minister is authorised to consider name changing or new state created from a previous country listed and not existing when those sections were approved to be assimilated to the previous name or previous state included in the catchment area subject to judicial review.
Yeah, more or less we are saying the same thing.
@Breneir Tzaracomprada , I'll be happy to suggest some specific language to add to the bill. Give me a few days to work out phrasing. Thank you for being so accommodating!
I'll be happy to support a section phrased in that way for what is worth.
If there are any outstanding issues please let me know. I'm planning on submitting this for the third clark.
The same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 01:35:46 AMThe same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.
So no major issues then. This appears to be ready for clarking.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 05:08:08 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 01:35:46 AMThe same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.
So no major issues then. This appears to be ready for clarking.
Well, a massive issue if you Clark it with that section as it stands now.
Perhaps a new 7.14, reading, "The Ministry of Immigration shall have the discretion to determine appropriate provincial assignment when the statutory guidance is unclear or deprecated." Or this could replace the proposed 7.13, if it suits the purpose.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 05:34:24 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 05:08:08 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 01:35:46 AMThe same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.
So no major issues then. This appears to be ready for clarking.
Well, a massive issue if you Clark it with that section as it stands now.
No
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2023, 06:59:42 AMPerhaps a new 7.14, reading, "The Ministry of Immigration shall have the discretion to determine appropriate provincial assignment when the statutory guidance is unclear or deprecated." Or this could replace the proposed 7.13, if it suits the purpose.
Thanks Baron. I'll add a new 7.14. If someone has a better way to state 7.13 I am all ears but I would like to include some language that regularizes catchment area review. Ad-hoc and haphazard catchment area review is insufficient.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 08:15:18 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 05:34:24 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 05:08:08 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 01:35:46 AMThe same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.
So no major issues then. This appears to be ready for clarking.
Well, a massive issue if you Clark it with that section as it stands now.
No
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2023, 06:59:42 AMPerhaps a new 7.14, reading, "The Ministry of Immigration shall have the discretion to determine appropriate provincial assignment when the statutory guidance is unclear or deprecated." Or this could replace the proposed 7.13, if it suits the purpose.
Thanks Baron. I'll add a new 7.14. If someone has a better way to state 7.13 I am all ears but I would like to include some language that regularizes catchment area review. Ad-hoc and haphazard catchment area review is insufficient.
What does "no" means to you? I'm puzzled.
I said that there are massive issues if you'd Clark it with 7.13.
You replied "No".
And then you said that you are willing to include that section?
I appreciate Alexandreu addition, but I must stress that it is up to the
Secretary of State and not the Minister of Immigration to determine the provincial assignment (Lexh.E.7).
However the issues on principle with 7.13 still stands, it's not only a problem of language.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 08:31:51 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 08:15:18 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 05:34:24 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 05:08:08 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 01:35:46 AMThe same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.
So no major issues then. This appears to be ready for clarking.
Well, a massive issue if you Clark it with that section as it stands now.
No
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2023, 06:59:42 AMPerhaps a new 7.14, reading, "The Ministry of Immigration shall have the discretion to determine appropriate provincial assignment when the statutory guidance is unclear or deprecated." Or this could replace the proposed 7.13, if it suits the purpose.
Thanks Baron. I'll add a new 7.14. If someone has a better way to state 7.13 I am all ears but I would like to include some language that regularizes catchment area review. Ad-hoc and haphazard catchment area review is insufficient.
What does "no" means to you? I'm puzzled.
I said that there are massive issues if you'd Clark it with 7.13.
You replied "No".
And then you said that you are willing to include that section?
I appreciate Alexandreu addition, but I must stress that it is up to the Secretary of State and not the Minister of Immigration to determine the provincial assignment (Lexh.E.7).
However the issues on principle with 7.13 still stands, it's not only a problem of language.
You typed many words without adding to the discussion. As I just stated I want that language included because we need to regularly review catchment areas not leave it to the whim of one superactive citizen.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 08:58:11 AMYou typed many words without adding to the discussion. As I just stated I want that language included because we need to regularly review catchment areas not leave it to the whim of one superactive citizen.
And as I just stated I stand by the objections I already made and those made by Senator
@Ian Plätschisch, you just need to click on the arrow below to read previous posts in this thread. I won't write again exactly what I and others already wrote.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 09:07:36 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 08:58:11 AMYou typed many words without adding to the discussion. As I just stated I want that language included because we need to regularly review catchment areas not leave it to the whim of one superactive citizen.
And as I just stated I stand by the objections I already made and those made by Senator @Ian Plätschisch, you just need to click on the arrow below to read previous posts in this thread. I won't write again exactly what I and others already wrote.
Ok. So vote against the bill and let the people decide who is correct during the next election.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 09:09:52 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 09:07:36 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 08:58:11 AMYou typed many words without adding to the discussion. As I just stated I want that language included because we need to regularly review catchment areas not leave it to the whim of one superactive citizen.
And as I just stated I stand by the objections I already made and those made by Senator @Ian Plätschisch, you just need to click on the arrow below to read previous posts in this thread. I won't write again exactly what I and others already wrote.
Ok. So vote against the bill and let the people decide who is correct during the next election.
Or you can clark it without that section.
Or you can just split this bill in two if you really want to try to add that section: one with all the others sections and one with just that section.
Or I can clark a bill with the same text without that section, and you can vote against the bill and let the people decide who is correct during the next election.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 09:14:12 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 09:09:52 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 09:07:36 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 08:58:11 AMYou typed many words without adding to the discussion. As I just stated I want that language included because we need to regularly review catchment areas not leave it to the whim of one superactive citizen.
And as I just stated I stand by the objections I already made and those made by Senator @Ian Plätschisch, you just need to click on the arrow below to read previous posts in this thread. I won't write again exactly what I and others already wrote.
Ok. So vote against the bill and let the people decide who is correct during the next election.
Or you can clark it without that section.
Or you can just split this bill in two if you really want to try to add that section: one with all the others sections and one with just that section.
Or I can clark a bill with the same text without that section, and you can vote against the bill and let the people decide who is correct during the next election.
Yes let the people decide. The section in question is staying. Reviewers are free to suggested edits to address purported concerns on principle but the reason for its inclusion is logical and based on principle as well. You are free to propose whatever you like.
Just to be clear: you asked if everyone had issues and I said yes.
And I also said that Alexandreu addition sounds good because it address a possible flaw in the law (even if very remote)- if the change I pointed out is made.
You are the one that declared that you were trying to make a bipartisan bill, and you are the one now that is saying that after all no, you are not interested at all.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 10:17:49 AMJust to be clear: you asked if everyone had issues and I said yes.
And I also said that Alexandreu addition sounds good because it address a possible flaw in the law (even if very remote)- if the change I pointed out is made.
You are the one that declared that you were trying to make a bipartisan bill, and you are the one now that is saying that after all no, you are not interested at all.
I will restate for the third time. The section in question is to be included BUT if you have suggestions for edits that address your concern on principle then I am all ears. Ian opposed the reporting requirement and it was removed. Baron asked for language changed to be reflected and it was done. Miestra asked for feedback from a Vuodean and it happened. There have been multiple suggestions accommodated in this bill.
I oppose the reporting/reviewing requirement you brought back in the encouraging language only when the bill arrived to the CRL to address Alexandreu concerns that can - and are - resolved by the simpler section he proposed (with the correction I made).
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 10:31:55 AMI oppose the reporting/reviewing requirement you brought back in the encouraging language only when the bill arrived to the CRL to address Alexandreu concerns that can - and are - resolved by the simpler section he proposed (with the correction I made).
Thank you for clarifying.
Are you saying that you can support the bill with the Baron's suggestion replacing the current 7.13?
If that is the case then while I would prefer the review requirement be explicit I will take on that revision and remove the current 7.13.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 10:46:57 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 10:31:55 AMI oppose the reporting/reviewing requirement you brought back in the encouraging language only when the bill arrived to the CRL to address Alexandreu concerns that can - and are - resolved by the simpler section he proposed (with the correction I made).
Thank you for clarifying.
Wasn't that clear enough on the 30th of March?
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 11:03:00 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 10:46:57 AMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 10:31:55 AMI oppose the reporting/reviewing requirement you brought back in the encouraging language only when the bill arrived to the CRL to address Alexandreu concerns that can - and are - resolved by the simpler section he proposed (with the correction I made).
Thank you for clarifying.
Wasn't that clear enough on the 30th of March?
I will take that as a sideways yes...
Change made. Any other folks have suggestions for revisions before this is clarked.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:06:19 PMA new section 7.13 is added as follows:
Quote7.13 The Ministry of Immigration is encouraged to review catchment areas for potential updates no less than every five (5) years.
What if you said in this section something more like "The Ministry of Immigration shall review catchment areas and propose updates to the Ziu if required every even numbered Cosa." or something more like that? Ambiguity in laws is probably not a good way to go.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 13, 2023, 01:41:18 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 11, 2023, 08:06:19 PMA new section 7.13 is added as follows:
Quote7.13 The Ministry of Immigration is encouraged to review catchment areas for potential updates no less than every five (5) years.
What if you said in this section something more like "The Ministry of Immigration shall review catchment areas and propose updates to the Ziu if required every even numbered Cosa." or something more like that? Ambiguity in laws is probably not a good way to go.
Thank you @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu and Uc any objections to this proposal?
That is an excellent suggestion.
Thanks again
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB This suggested edit has been entered into the bill currently in the CRL thread.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 10:31:55 AMI oppose the reporting/reviewing requirement you brought back in the encouraging language only when the bill arrived to the CRL to address Alexandreu concerns that can - and are - resolved by the simpler section he proposed (with the correction I made).
It seems like I have to repeat myself... We do have issues with reporting/reviewing requirements in that law.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 16, 2023, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 10:31:55 AMI oppose the reporting/reviewing requirement you brought back in the encouraging language only when the bill arrived to the CRL to address Alexandreu concerns that can - and are - resolved by the simpler section he proposed (with the correction I made).
It seems like I have to repeat myself... We do have issues with reporting/reviewing requirements in that law.
What are the issues with the proposal from
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB ?
The issues are still those explained by Senator
@Ian Plätschisch:
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:42:12 PMMy point has been the time consuming part of this is not the part where the Minister types a report, it's the part where they do the review, which must be done whether or not a report is issued. Sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.
Suggestion: add to the data on immigration on the Infoteca aslo the provinces the immigrants were assigned to, in order to have informations on which province get new immigrants. In this way every data is readily available and is not necessary to do a law mandated review to gather those data.
Of course any Minister of Immingration can do whichever review they seems fit anytime, there's no need for requiring by law a time-consuming review that could be useless.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 17, 2023, 10:56:45 AMThe issues are still those explained by Senator @Ian Plätschisch:
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 11, 2023, 08:42:12 PMMy point has been the time consuming part of this is not the part where the Minister types a report, it's the part where they do the review, which must be done whether or not a report is issued. Sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.
Suggestion: add to the data on immigration on the Infoteca aslo the provinces the immigrants were assigned to, in order to have informations on which province get new immigrants. In this way every data is readily available and is not necessary to do a law mandated review to gather those data.
Of course any Minister of Immingration can do whichever review they seems fit anytime, there's no need for requiring by law a time-consuming review that could be useless.
I agree, it is true that the Immigration Minister can do a review at anytime. You are referring to the status quo and it
has repeatedly led to ad-hoc and haphazard reviews of the catchment areas such as the one we are currently undergoing.
I am all for expanding Infoteca immigration reporting but I am still opposed to the status quo where we depend on very active citizens to do the work that Government should be required to do. Catchment area review needs to be standardized and predictable.
I don't want this to be point which torpedoes the bill so I want to ask
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB ,as the proposer of that change, for suggestions to accommodate the concerns of Uc and Ian.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 17, 2023, 11:21:32 AMCatchment area review needs to be standardized and predictable.
Catchment areas reform cannot be standardized or predictable unless we define principles for their standardization and predictability. (For example: the old "open/closed provinces", which I'm not advocating, was a sort of standard). Otherwise any reform deriving from any kind of review will always be and "ad hoc" change of the catchement areas that is not "standardized" but "subjective". Even the need of a review is subjective: what defines that a changement area needs to be reformed?
Any law-mandated review doesn't change the status quo (a subjective need for a reform), but simply repeat the status quo at fixed interval creating a law-mandated time consuming task to the MinImm potentially useless and without any objective definition.
The section suggested by Aledandreu instead adds a standardized mechanism that to the status quo removes the need for a reform just to change deprecated names or countries no longer existing. This is an improvement.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 17, 2023, 11:37:35 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 17, 2023, 11:21:32 AMCatchment area review needs to be standardized and predictable.
Catchment areas reform cannot be standardized or predictable unless we define principles for their standardization and predictability. (For example: the old "open/closed provinces", which I'm not advocating, was a sort of standard). Otherwise any reform deriving from any kind of review will always be and "ad hoc" change of the catchement areas that is not "standardized" but "subjective". Even the need of a review is subjective: what defines that a changement area needs to be reformed?
Any law-mandated review doesn't change the status quo (a subjective need for a reform), but simply repeat the status quo at fixed interval creating a law-mandated time consuming task to the MinImm potentially useless and without any objective definition.
The section suggested by Aledandreu instead adds a standardized mechanism that to the status quo removes the need for a reform just to change deprecated names or countries no longer existing. This is an improvement.
Going by what you just stated this change only addresses name changes and country changes and does not address population imbalances or other similar issues arising over time which is what the current round of catchment reform addresses. It may be an improvement but appears insufficient to address the issue.
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu Correct me if I'm wrong here.
"Potentially useless" is pretty subjective as well. I am hopeful others will chime in with suggestions to address all concerns here.
I for one don't see a problem with ad hoc reviews. There's almost no difference between "active citizens" and "government" anyway.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 17, 2023, 12:07:26 PMI for one don't see a problem with ad hoc reviews. There's almost no difference between "active citizens" and "government" anyway.
Agreed.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 17, 2023, 12:07:26 PMI for one don't see a problem with ad hoc reviews. There's almost no difference between "active citizens" and "government" anyway.
I do. We are at an unfortunate impasse currently. I will hope others chime in with additional suggestions.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 17, 2023, 10:56:45 AMSuggestion: add to the data on immigration on the Infoteca aslo the provinces the immigrants were assigned to, in order to have informations on which province get new immigrants. In this way every data is readily available and is not necessary to do a law mandated review to gather those data.
This is largely a good suggestion, but I have been focused on keeping the maintenance on Infoteca as absolutely brutally minimal as possible. I believe this information can be found on the database, currently -- citizens are sorted into order of immigration by default, so it's pretty easy to just total them up.
Of the most recent fifty immigrants, for example:
4 Atatûrk
12 Benito
5 Cézembre
5 Fiova
1 Florencià
3 Maricopa
9 Maritiimi-Maxhestic
5 Vuode
So while this is definitely useful information, I'm loathe to add to the regular labor required to maintain the system unless it will be useful for the citizens in general.
About the reporting thing -- I don't feel strongly about it either way, honestly. I thought Txec's suggestion was good, and it would be good to regularly review this stuff. But if Ian and Üc will vote for the bill if the section is removed, then that's probably worth it as a compromise.
I'm of the same mind as the other FreeDem MZs