Quote from: Eðo Grischun on October 31, 2020, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 31, 2020, 11:40:13 AM
Welcome Alfred! You have an interesting surname. Are you descended from the Hapsburgs who ruled much of Europe in previous centures?
NB: The applicant has decided to "deed poll" their surname and go by an assumed 'street name'. Their true and legal name has been collected and verified by the Immigration Sectetary and MinInterior and will be kept on file as part of our records, and can be shared with the Chancery, if required.
May I ask how many citizens have a availed themselves of this pseudonym service? I wasn't aware that was a thing we were doing.
(modified by E. Grischun: Topic split and moved from an immigration thread to its own Terp thread in Lobby. Post contents not edited.)
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on October 31, 2020, 08:47:01 PM
May I ask how many citizens have a availed themselves of this pseudonym service? I wasn't aware that was a thing we were doing.
This practice came in as a result of the Sebastian Penache case. The courts final ruling on that was very weird, as you probably remember. So, rather than allow that to ever happen again and to happen without us knowing about it, Interior allows the practice, but now demands (under Pete Townsend) that an applicant provide a method for us to verify their legal name. This allows folk to continue their 'incognito' statuses for whatever reason, but ensures that we still know who they are.
This is the middle ground compromise. We either have it be completely open with little to no protection on things like electoral fraud or from sock puppets and Guy Incognitos or we go whole hog in the other direction and have a strict 'real name only' rule, but to truly enforce that we would need a strict ID card requirement. I think this compromise works better than those two extremes.
To your question, without checking (but I can go and double check this if you need)
no citizens have naturalised under this practice as far as I can remember. However, a number of applicants have applied under assumed names, but what we find is that those that do this don't actually go on to become full citizens. To this date, the only person going around in Talossa using a pseudonym is Sebastian Penache, I believe.
By the way, this isn't just about internet privacy and incognito pseudonyms. There are various legit reasons that someone may wish to become Talossan using a name other than the name printed on their macronational identification, such as divorced surnames or transgender name changes. So, to prevent those legitimate cases ever ending up a cause for fraud charges, we permit them to use a different name as long as they have been truthful and open to begin with during immigration.
In case you are wondering, and in anticipation of follow up questions on this, in almost all cases we now ask the applicant to provide at least one link to a social media account in their true and legal name. We have a look at that profile, ensure it is in the legal name of the applicant and just generally check for any signs that the account is legit (age of account, etc). Interestingly, in the past week or so the Immigration Secretary has actually forwarded me two cases where the applicant was unwilling or unable to provide details for a social media verification check. One of those cases went to an 'immigration interview' with myself where the applicant did go on to provide me with adequate evidence (although that person wasn't actually applying using a 'deed poll' name; they just don't use social media). The second case was where they applied using just a forename and no links to social media. Upon further communication that applicant provided a surname, but still refused to provide any links to a social media profile. This application was rejected.
Thank you, S:reu Ministreu. I would like to note that this was a casual question, and I didn't intend the legal mandates of a Terp, but I appreciate your thoughtful and thorough response.
For the record, I am very troubled at this trend. While there are very good reasons for using a pseudonym in some circumstances, I think those circumstances should be nearly a requirement. By and large, we should try to ask people to interact with us as their own and true selves.
Is the Pinatsch case continuing? I can't remember if it was challenged to an en banc cort.
Yes, I kind of figured your question was more casual than not. I just felt the discussion didn't belong in an active immigration thread. Then when I was moving it a Terp made most sense in the moment.
I agree, by the way. The policy isn't ideal. I would rather prospectives were required to be open books (I believe most of us do), but, as I mentioned, this policy was put in place hot on the heels of the UC's ruling that fake names given during immigration didn't constitute fraud. I could have went severe and strict following the passage of the Townsend Act. I didn't feel wholly comfortable at that time putting in place a system that required immigrants to provide official ID. I'm still not wholly comfortable with that, but the longer I do this job the more my appetite for it grows.
Also, the Seneschal voiced opinion (which I agree with) that she didn't see a major issue with people using a deed poll name, so long as they still tell us their real name in the background.
I tried to reach a sensible balance with it all. I think that balance is working okay for now seeing as it hasn't caused a load of controversy.
To answer your question about the Pinatsch case; I don't actually know the status of that. I've not been keeping tabs.
I have inquired of the A-X on this matter. Thank you very much for your excellent reply. I won't venture an opinion about IDs, but I do think it will harm our shared Talossan community if this trend increases. I understand that you can't speak to whether or not any of those understandable reasons are at hand here, but I will just urge you to do everything you can to just nudge people to their real names. I appreciate you are just trying to manage a difficult situation, though.
Just FYI, in the future, I don't think it's wise to change a casual question to a formal legislative inquiry that has the force of law. I have a philosophical objection to anyone adjusting conversations like that in general, but this seems particularly an area that we should be careful about.
I should note that the A-Xh is currently in the process of moving to a different state, and thus has been incommunicado for a while
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on November 02, 2020, 11:30:22 AM
I have inquired of the A-X on this matter. Thank you very much for your excellent reply. I won't venture an opinion about IDs, but I do think it will harm our shared Talossan community if this trend increases. I understand that you can't speak to whether or not any of those understandable reasons are at hand here, but I will just urge you to do everything you can to just nudge people to their real names. I appreciate you are just trying to manage a difficult situation, though.
Just FYI, in the future, I don't think it's wise to change a casual question to a formal legislative inquiry that has the force of law. I have a philosophical objection to anyone adjusting conversations like that in general, but this seems particularly an area that we should be careful about.
My apologies. I didn't put any thought into how rigid the Terp system actually is. I wrote the thread title without really thinking about it. Feel free to remove the Terp tag and rename the thread to something more casual if you prefer.
I take issue, though, with your comment that the conversation has been adjusted. It hasn't. Your question was moved to a more appropriate venue and is still displayed exactly as originally posted and my reply was given as it was always going to be given regardless of it being a "terp" or not (in fact, my reply was originally posted in the immigration thread and moved along with the question). The contents of this thread, sans discussion over terps, is exactly as it always was and would have been regardless of venue or thread title. Again, apologies for naming it a Terp, though.
In my view, excising someone's reply from a conversation is certainly altering that conversation! If you say something, and I say -- in effect -- that you're not allowed to say that here, removing the statement to some other venue... well, clearly it's altered the conversation. There's an explicit change (my speech has been deleted from the previous conversation) and an implicit message is sent in the process (eg "You're not permitted to talk about that here"). I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I'll let it go since it's not a big deal in this instance, but I just don't want this dynamic to continue where people in power feel free to decide what speech is acceptable in a given conversation based on their whim.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on November 02, 2020, 03:21:57 PM
I should note that the A-Xh is currently in the process of moving to a different state, and thus has been incommunicado for a while
Anyone else who can offer some insight on this, then? I'd appreciate it.
As Seneschál, I believe the consensus of the Cabinet at the time was, after Justice Nordselva said he couldn't do nuthin' on appeal, we believed we had reached the end of our legal resources.
Am I mistaken in thinking that the Ziu could just pass a law to fix the problem?
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on November 04, 2020, 04:41:09 PM
Am I mistaken in thinking that the Ziu could just pass a law to fix the problem?
It already did. The Pete Townsend Act that I mentioned above.
Here it is here: https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13669/pete-townshend-who-bill?page=1
The Act gave my Ministry very broad powers to verify the identity of all prospective citizens. The method of ID check I have chose to implement (in the first instance) is a soft-check by social media, but whenever that fails to satisfy me (or the Immigration Secretary) then I conduct further checks. There are a small handful of times when I have felt the need to conduct further checks. Sometimes, these further checks lead to the applicant providing more documentation and sometimes these checks lead to the applicant being unwilling to do so, in turn leading to rejection. As far as is reasonably practicable, this Ministry, over the past two governments, has verified the "real world" identity of every single applicant that has been posted to the immigration forum. The old policies that allowed GuyIncognitoGate to happen (which were in place all the way back to the mid noughties) have been tightened to prevent that from ever happening again. So, there isn't a "problem" to fix.
Please also note this WHEREAS clause from the act: "WHEREAS no-one is suggesting that people should use their "street names" in easily Google-searchable Talossan forums, but that the Kingdom should have confidence that everyone here is a real person with a first name, hind name and address (to quote Ezra Pound), even if this is not publicly disclosed;"
This government is of the view that as long as the true identity of an applicant is provided and verified at the time of immigration then there is no major problem requiring further fixes.
I haven't been in the job very long, but in the event it sheds some light on the issue at hand this is the rough process I use.
1. Does the profile exist and is it something I can access? I had a case recently where an applicant sent a link that was behind a login page, and one where they sent a dead link citing privacy concerns. The first case ended up being reviewed by Ministreu Grischun, and the second refused to provide further information was was thus rejected.
2. Does the name match? If not, as has also happened recently, I send out a request for further information.
3. What site is the account on, how old is it, and how active is it? This is the critical one. While sure, it is possible to make fake accounts on legit sites that have enough activity to look real, it's quite difficult. The date accounts are created is generally pretty public, and it'd take a lot of work to make an account years in advance and then seed it with activity. If an account is new or doesn't look legit, then I'll ask for further info. or forward the case up to Ministreu Grischun
4. At any point if I'm not confident it's legit I'll request further information or forward the case to Ministreu Grischun. I've bothered him more than a few times with specific cases or unusual issues. Generally, people don't have that much of an issue with providing the requisite info, and if they're cagey those are forwarded.
I agree that there is no longer a problem. Every applicant accepted for prospective citizenship must satisfy Immigration that they are a real person and give acceptable evidence of their identity. I'm not entirely sure where the Regent's line of questioning is going, but it seems to be in the direction that it is unseemly that anyone should be allowed to use a pseudonym in Talossa - which is bizarre because as far as I recall, the Regent gets VERY jumpy when anyone in Talossa posts his street name in a public forum. The use of pseudonyms is only an extra layer of security under changing your name into our national language for those who want to keep their Talossan life compartmentalised.
The problem with "Sebastian Panache" was never that he used a pseudonym, it's that he never gave his real name at all, and we only found it out by accident.
My line of questioning is aimed at following up at a problem which I saw: the possible proliferation of pseudonymous people potentially percolating in private. We're not supposed to just be an internet message board -- we're supposed to be a community. There are potentially good reasons to adopt a pseudonym, even before you immigrate, but I wanted to inquire about whether or not we were working to minimize this development. If the answer is, "yes, we nudge people to use their real names," great. If the answer is, "we don't care," then that worries me.
Perhaps I am "jumpy" about having my English-language name posted here on this search-indexed forum, but there is zero question about who I am and much about my life is well-known. I think you probably actually remember the reason for my caution about my English-language name, though: I have a mortgage and a growing family to feed, and only a few years ago a Talossan wrote formal letters to my boss and his boss to try to get me fired from my job.
My personal preference would be for people to use their real names, in Talossan-language equivalents if they prefer. That said, as long as we have a Senator of the Kingdom who won a Cort case saying that he was entirely entitled to use a pseudonym and not give his real name, and has celebrated his victory for the last year by *checks notes* voting CONTRA on every single bill until we finally vote him out of there, just to be a verpa, I think we have to accept that that's the way things stand.
Am I to understand the Regent that Immigration should be announcing, or hinting, to prospectives that pseudonyms are frowned upon? I think that would be a bit heavy-handed. Free Democrats tend to go for "anything not expressly forbidden has to be tolerated".
I would like to say: case law is law only to the extent that a judge interpreted statutes at the time of judgement, meaning in other words that a change to those statutes would indirectly invalidate (or make moot) any contradictory case law.
The criminal case being mentioned was not decided on law but on the merits of the prosecution, certain dicta notwithstanding, and the appeal after it bore no precedent according to the OrgLaw because it was heard by only one member of the Uppermost Cort. That is to say: the judgement at issue does not by itself create case law for Talossa, but affords justice only for the particular defendant in that particular case.
The Ziu is entirely at liberty under the Organic Law to enact a statute defining what a name is, prohibiting the use of "fake names" and so forth, despite the acquittal of Senator Guy Incognito.
If there is appetite for this, I will gladly write a draft and place it in the Hopper. There is room to go further than the Pete Townsend Act.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on November 12, 2020, 03:27:39 PM
My personal preference would be for people to use their real names, in Talossan-language equivalents if they prefer. That said, as long as we have a Senator of the Kingdom who won a Cort case saying that he was entirely entitled to use a pseudonym and not give his real name, and has celebrated his victory for the last year by *checks notes* voting CONTRA on every single bill until we finally vote him out of there, just to be a verpa, I think we have to accept that that's the way things stand.
Am I to understand the Regent that Immigration should be announcing, or hinting, to prospectives that pseudonyms are frowned upon? I think that would be a bit heavy-handed. Free Democrats tend to go for "anything not expressly forbidden has to be tolerated".
I think the whole point is not to be heavy-handed, but just to nudge people towards a culture where we use names that correspond with our real names as a general norm, with exceptions made for specific and understandable reasons. I think that should be our culture and our norm.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on November 12, 2020, 04:34:56 PM
I would like to say: case law is law only to the extent that a judge interpreted statutes at the time of judgement, meaning in other words that a change to those statutes would indirectly invalidate (or make moot) any contradictory case law.
The criminal case being mentioned was not decided on law but on the merits of the prosecution, certain dicta notwithstanding, and the appeal after it bore no precedent according to the OrgLaw because it was heard by only one member of the Uppermost Cort. That is to say: the judgement at issue does not by itself create case law for Talossa, but affords justice only for the particular defendant in that particular case.
The Ziu is entirely at liberty under the Organic Law to enact a statute defining what a name is, prohibiting the use of "fake names" and so forth, despite the acquittal of Senator Guy Incognito.
If there is appetite for this, I will gladly write a draft and place it in the Hopper. There is room to go further than the Pete Townsend Act.
Yes, this is pretty much what I was driving at, here. Something as simple as permitting a pseudonym only with the specific affirmation of the MinImm predicated on a set of general principles for guidance (eg, "if the Ministreu determines that the adoption of a pseudonym is necessary for the health or well-being of the applicant").
No. I would have to vote against any measure trying to force a "real name" only rule. I try to make it a habit not to vote for things in Talossa that are more authoritarian and limiting than the laws of my resident country.
"We're not supposed to just be an internet message board -- we're supposed to be a community."
I agree. So, let's look at all this with a derivitist viewpoint and that quote in mind...
In the UK I am free to go about my daily life using whatever name I so choose. This can be as simple as going by Eddie instead of Edward, or choosing to interchange both depending on how I feel. I actually do this, both at home and in Talossa. I can also choose to go by any random name. If I decide I don't like my surname, I can just decide, right here and right now, to start using a different one. If I fancy sounding more pompous in life I might want to choose to change my name to Reginald Nigel Hargreaves and it would be completely allowed. I don't need special certificates or anything if I want to do that. I'm sure the US has similar freedoms.
Of course, a limit applies. I can't have it printed on my driving licence or open a bank account in this new name unless I go through the 'deed poll' process. I say "process", but all I need to do is fill out a form and pay a fee.
When would it not be allowed? There might be more circumstances in the UK where it would not be allowed, but for now the only relevant answer is immigration. People coming into the country must provide immigration authorities with real details, obviously. However, once they have left the immigration buildings and have gone into the community, they can start going about using whatever name they wish.
That is the Talossan status quo (-ish). We demand that a real and legal name is collected during immigration. We verify that to the best of our ability. After that, we leave it up to the person to have the freedom to go by whatever name they wish for whatever reason they wish.
Bottom line. It is none of anyone's business, other than for official reasons, what a person's birth name might be unless they choose to tell you. The fact that somebody might not like that is, well, gradnă.
I think I would support tougher measures of identity verification; that's fair enough. I think it will hurt immigration numbers, but I can get behind it. However, I will not support the abolition of deed polls / introduction of a "real names only" law. Again, I try to make it a habit not to vote for laws in Talossa that restrict freedoms to a degree where I would be less free in Talossa than I would be in my resident country of the UK.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
No. I would have to vote against any measure trying to force a "real name" only rule. I try to make it a habit not to vote for things in Talossa that are more authoritarian and limiting than the laws of my resident country.
There is a difference between 'forcing a real name' and 'prohibiting fake names'. I proposed the latter.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
In the UK I am free to go about my daily life using whatever name I so choose. This can be as simple as going by Eddie instead of Edward, or choosing to interchange both depending on how I feel. I actually do this, both at home and in Talossa. I can also choose to go by any random name. If I decide I don't like my surname, I can just decide, right here and right now, to start using a different one. If I fancy sounding more pompous in life I might want to choose to change my name to Reginald Nigel Hargreaves and it would be completely allowed. I don't need special certificates or anything if I want to do that. I'm sure the US has similar freedoms.
The US does not have similar freedoms.
For one, it would be grounds for fraud to walk around using different names.
For two, all (or nearly all) of the states require a process far more strenuous than you are describing. I have two personal friends who changed their names in the last 5 years, and it was not nearly as simple as paying some fees. A person has to send put out an ad in a newspaper whose audience is larger than a certain number; they have to send certified mail to all their creditors, and prove to the court that those creditors have received ALL POTENTIAL NOTIFICATION that the name change occurred; they have to wait X number of days so that members of the public may protest against the change; and they have to carry documents
for the rest of their lives to prove why their legal name is now different than their birth name.
For three, I strongly contest the assertion on its merits, anyways, that you can go around with "whatever name you so choose". Sure, in the narrowest sense possible, that is true and no one will stop you. But you cannot rightly purchase a car under "Steve Mccaw" while paying down a mortgage under "Julius Pumpernickel".
Yeah, the government cannot and will not proscribe any particular names - so I very well could change my own surname to
Pumpernickel - but I most certainly cannot walk around the community using two different names depending on who I want to fool. Actors don't get two stage names, and even when they use one, both the government and anyone who gives them money have every legal right to know their "real name" and their whereabouts (in addition to the legal power to find them and compel answers).
At least in the U.S., what you're describing would be fraudulent and constitute a cause of action for any civil suit... especially if any money was exchanged.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
Of course, a limit applies. I can't have it printed on my driving licence or open a bank account in this new name unless I go through the 'deed poll' process. I say "process", but all I need to do is fill out a form and pay a fee.
See above.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
When would it not be allowed? There might be more circumstances in the UK where it would not be allowed, but for now the only relevant answer is immigration. People coming into the country must provide immigration authorities with real details, obviously. However, once they have left the immigration buildings and have gone into the community, they can start going about using whatever name they wish.
That is the Talossan status quo (-ish). We demand that a real and legal name is collected during immigration. We verify that to the best of our ability. After that, we leave it up to the person to have the freedom to go by whatever name they wish for whatever reason they wish.
Bottom line. It is none of anyone's business, other than for official reasons, what a person's birth name might be unless they choose to tell you. The fact that somebody might not like that is, well, gradnă.
I'm gonna have to sternly agree to disagree. It is absolutely my right as a Talossan to know that the person on the other side of the table is real, acting in good faith, and answerable to a court of law. The entire fiasco of Guy Incognito is that, if it were not for his own failure to perpetuate his lies and hide them better, then one day he could have disappeared and taken Talossa's treasury/website/other property with him... and we would have ZERO recourse to recover any of it.
I do not care if someone uses a Talossan name. After all, look at me. What I do mind is when someone makes themself unanswerable to our laws.
Bottom line, if you can't trust Talossa enough with your "real name", then you don't belong here. Either you have a malicious agenda, you are flaky, you are trying to undermine the sovereignty or validity of our government, or combinations thereof.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on November 13, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
I think I would support tougher measures of identity verification; that's fair enough. I think it will hurt immigration numbers, but I can get behind it. However, I will not support the abolition of deed polls / introduction of a "real names only" law. Again, I try to make it a habit not to vote for laws in Talossa that restrict freedoms to a degree where I would be less free in Talossa than I would be in my resident country of the UK.
It is possible to prohibit "fake names" at the same time as allowing "street names". These things are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on November 13, 2020, 02:06:30 PM
There is a difference between 'forcing a real name' and 'prohibiting fake names'. I proposed the latter.
The end result is the same. By prohibiting assumed names you effectively force real names. Unless there's an aspect here I'm missing?
QuoteThe US does not have similar freedoms.
Except it does. Forgive me for using Wikipedia as my reference for this.
"Several federal court rulings have set precedents regarding both court decreed name changes and common law name changes (changing the name at will), including Lindon v. First National Bank. In Christianson v. King County, 239 U.S. 356 (1915), the Supreme Court accepted a name changed using the common law method as a legal name (more detail of the decision accepted by the Supreme Court is found at 196 F. 791 (1912)).
As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change." This is almost the same situation as the one I described for the UK. Just 4 of the 50 US States disallow the practice of adopting an new name to be used at will and in everyday settings. A certification process does exist, similar to the UK's deed poll system, if the person wanted to use the name for official purposes that process would be required, such as recording the name on identity documents or for entering into contracts. But, for everyday stuff, like introducing yourself to neighbours and new friends, no.
Quote
For one, it would be grounds for fraud to walk around using different names.
No, it wouldn't. The mere act of introducing yourself and going by a name different to the one that your parents gave you is not fraud. Using the name to enter into contracts, evade debts, secure identity documents, however, is. There is a difference.
QuoteFor two, all (or nearly all) of the states require a process far more strenuous than you are describing. I have two personal friends who changed their names in the last 5 years, and it was not nearly as simple as paying some fees. A person has to send put out an ad in a newspaper whose audience is larger than a certain number; they have to send certified mail to all their creditors, and prove to the court that those creditors have received ALL POTENTIAL NOTIFICATION that the name change occurred; they have to wait X number of days so that members of the public may protest against the change; and they have to carry documents for the rest of their lives to prove why their legal name is now different than their birth name.
It seems each State has it's own rules on how strict the process would be, but, again, the process is only required if they wanted the name change recorded on official documents, against bank accounts, and things like that. None of that happens in Talossa, so it's all moot.
QuoteFor three, I strongly contest the assertion on its merits, anyways, that you can go around with "whatever name you so choose". Sure, in the narrowest sense possible, that is true and no one will stop you. But you cannot rightly purchase a car under "Steve Mccaw" while paying down a mortgage under "Julius Pumpernickel".
Two different things there, though. Buying the car or paying the mortgage required entering into some form of contract and both examples would have required producing identity docs. Of course, then, both scenarios would have to be played out under the same name as only one set of identity docs would be considered legal. However, those are not examples of going around with whatever name you so choose; ie. using a name in the community for non official purposes.
QuoteYeah, the government cannot and will not proscribe any particular names - so I very well could change my own surname to Pumpernickel - but I most certainly cannot walk around the community using two different names depending on who I want to fool. Actors don't get two stage names, and even when they use one, both the government and anyone who gives them money have every legal right to know their "real name" and their whereabouts (in addition to the legal power to find them and compel answers).
At least in the U.S., what you're describing would be fraudulent and constitute a cause of action for any civil suit... especially if any money was exchanged.
If you got a new neighbour tomorrow and he introduced himself as William and for the next few months you went about believing his name to be William, but then accidentally got a bit of his mail through your door and seen that his name was not actually William... I seriously, seriously doubt you would have any cause for action. Fraud has not occurred there.
QuoteI'm gonna have to sternly agree to disagree. It is absolutely my right as a Talossan to know that the person on the other side of the table is real, acting in good faith, and answerable to a court of law.
I'm not entirely convinced we do have that "right". It would simply be your preference.
QuoteThe entire fiasco of Guy Incognito is that, if it were not for his own failure to perpetuate his lies and hide them better, then one day he could have disappeared and taken Talossa's treasury/website/other property with him... and we would have ZERO recourse to recover any of it.
Quote
I do not care if someone uses a Talossan name. After all, look at me. What I do mind is when someone makes themself unanswerable to our laws.
That was fixed under Townsend. We would have their real and legal names. Again, if you want to strengthen the verification process, say by demanding a copy of ID docs, I can probably get behind that.
Whether they go around with an assumed name or not wouldn't affect any of the concerns you raise. We would have their real and legal names on file.
QuoteBottom line, if you can't trust Talossa enough with your "real name", then you don't belong here. Either you have a malicious agenda, you are flaky, you are trying to undermine the sovereignty or validity of our government, or combinations thereof.
I agree, which is why the immigration process
requires a real and legal name to be provided.
QuoteIt is possible to prohibit "fake names" at the same time as allowing "street names". These things are not mutually exclusive.
Can you elaborate on that? I don't understand what you mean or how it would be achieved.
***
Final copy/paste as it is relevant:
"Under U.S. nationality law, when aliens apply for naturalization, they have the option of asking for their names to be changed upon the grants of citizenship with no additional fees. This allows them the opportunity to adopt more Americanized names.[25] During the naturalization interview, a petition for a name change is prepared to be forwarded to a federal court. Applicants certify that they are not seeking a change of name for any unlawful purpose such as the avoidance of debt or evasion of law enforcement. Such a name change would become final if within their jurisdiction, once a federal court naturalizes an applicant."