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).

I still get the "dragon ball feeling" with that symbol and colou, but I'd like the flipped figure: they're definitely more real! I'd love t play with them 😂

BTW: on 2 and 1 the Ben symbol is not coloured.

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: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2023, 09:16:08 AMAs I understand it, your opinion is that this is no longer an issue?  It seems clear to me that this is not accurate, but if you feel like the cort's findings have now been abrogated by the Townsend act's changes, that's great.  I don't know why you're so overtly hostile about this, but I guess a party's brand is their own to decide.

Don't try as always to change the cards on the deck, and comment on things you are the only one saying other people said while as it is evident by anyone reading they weren't said at all.

(1)
I commented a bill that basically just says «legal name shall be held to refer to the legal name» and you just admitted that it is the case:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2023, 09:16:08 AMYes, I think you're right and we should probably adjust E.2 -- maybe exclusively adjust it, actually.  I'll have to take another look.

Am I hostile to a bill that adds nothing and simply says what the law already say? Yes. Because that is the bill posted, and my comments were on the bill you posted.

(2)
I wasn't the one who brought up the case in the first instance. I commented only on the bill posted saying that you want to add a section that says that name should de interpreted as meaning "legal name" and I pointed out that the law already use "legal name" so it was useless.

You were the one that instead of commenting on my owb objections on the fact that "legal name" was already in the law, brought up that case, because I was probably "not aware of it" and I needed to be made aware of it, and you said:

QuoteThe decision held that the term "legal name" could refer to anything someone wanted to call themselves

So, and only to reply to your statement quoted above, I replied that the decision wasn't about "legal name" because at that time the law simply said "name" (and not "legal name") and the decision was on the immigration form that said "full and actual given name" while the law didn't defined what a "name" should be. Because there wasn't the adjective "legal" attached!

So you were the one  proposing a bill that said «legal name shall be held to refer to the legal name» based on the wrong assumption that «a Court said that the term "legal name" could refer to anything» while the Court didn't said that.

Am I persuaded that the cort's findings have now been changed by 54RZ4's changes? Yes, and you were too convinced of that as you just proposed to add to the law exactly the same adjective that 54RZ4 added: «legal name shall be held to refer to the legal name»!

Youd didn't said "legal name" is not enough: you said "it should be held to refer to the legal name".

As you can see

QuoteI don't know why you're so overtly hostile about this, but I guess a party's brand is their own to decide.

You just made this up.

I commented only the bill you proposed, and yes I'm convinced, as you clearly were yourself, that "legal name" is enough.

But, if you are now worried after the posts we exchanged that what you thought twice before is not suddenly enough right now, that legal is not enough, just simply add after "legal name" in E.2 something like "as printed in any ID document issued by the macronation you are citizen of". And leave the "or name used in daily life" for the reasons I stated above. And also in that section you might try to add a verb to allow the Minister to decide on ambiguities if you feel it's not clearly stated enough in E.2 as it stands now.

I believe this is not necessary and might be a bit paranoid because "legal name" it's enough? Yes.

But at least it adds something new and not something that is already said.

I'm not a priori hostile on improvements of the law (I am probably more inclined to improving and "thinkering" with laws than many people here, and in this we are similar I think, because it's also my real job), I'm just hostile a priori to add sections that just says what is already said ;)

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 09:09:52 AM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 09:07:36 AM

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.

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: 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.

All right all right let me think about it

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 08:15:18 AM

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 05:34:24 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 05:08:08 AM

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.

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: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 13, 2023, 06:35:55 AMI think you may not be aware of the current background, here.  There was a case decided by the CpI a couple of years ago which tried a prominent Talossan for immigration fraud, since he immigrated under a pseudonym and never revealed his real name.

I remember you that sometimes other people are indeed aware of the background.

I am aware of the current background here (and not thanks to the Clerk of the Corts as the wiki archive of cases miss lots of them).

QuoteThe decision held that the term "legal name" could refer to anything someone wanted to call themselves, deciding this as a conceptual matter.  Since we actually don't want people to immigrate under pseudonyms or fake names, this is probably something that needs fixing.  There's no statute.

No the decision was on "full and actual given name" used in the immigration form (and you indeed used "full and actual given name" in your original post which is no longer relevant neither to the law nor to the immigration form), and not on "legal name" in E.2 because that part («and shall be required to collect the legal name or name used in daily life») was added to to law after the case:  54RZ4 (the extensive notes I am adding are very useful). So that decision doesn't apply here. That bill was on the January 2020 Clark, the decision (very poor if you ask me) of the inferior court was delivered on the 6th of January of the same year while that bill was voted on by the Ziu.

QuoteBut arguing against any change means that you would prefer to leave the status quo in place, wherein people can make up names under which to immigrate and never reveal their real names.  That's a valid position to take, but you should be aware of the situation, first.

Maybe you weren't aware that the law changed after the decision you are referring to.

QuoteThe current wording of the immigration form is "full and legal," so I'm going to use that in the bill here, instead.

Moreover, you are proposing:

QuoteThe term "name," as used by the Government with respect to immigration procedures, shall be held to refer to the legal name of the individual in question.  The Minister of Immigration shall interpret and decide any ambiguities thereof.

Since February 2020 E.2 ask for the Minister «to collect the legal name or name used in daily life» so you are basically adding a section that says: "legal name shall be held to refer to the legal name".

QuoteI don't think the deadnaming thing is a problem, here, since the MinImm is given authority to decide the closer niceties of this issue under the law

And if "name used in daily life shall be held to refer to the legal name"  that it is indeed a problem of deadnaming, because their chosen name might not be the legal name. Your statement «since the MinImm is given authority to decide the closer niceties of this issue under the law» also strength the conclusion that the section you are proposing is indeed useless because it doesn't add anything that is not already present in the current law and in the only case were it could "restrict" the interpretation of the law you are saying that "however the MinInn is free to decide.

Quotethat last clause is actually the most important part, too -- if we want to just add that to E.2, that might work just fine).

Isn't the whole section E.2 already carefully worded to let the Minister interpret and decide any ambiguities thereof?

«The Minister of Immigration shall ascertain to his own satisfaction, through correspondence or conversation, that [...] The Minister shall be free to inquire of the applicant on any and every subject, and shall be required to collect the legal name or name used in daily life, [...] The applicant shall affirm or swear, under penalty of perjury and under the provisions of Lexh.A.16.1., that this information is accurate, and shall provide documentary evidence of the same if the Minister thinks it appropriate »

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 13, 2023, 05:08:08 AM

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.

Well, a massive issue if you Clark it with that section as it stands now.

As a Mediterranean myself I'm very familiar with those designs. I like them a lot, especially the King! May I suggest

- to use the same "Ben" symbol is used in our coat of arms and a more golden shade? Those heavy symbols and the dark gold/orange make me think of Dragon Balls and not bents ;D 

- to flip figures in 2 suits left facing? This would give them a more realistic flavour to other cards designs.

The same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.

Title E already requires for immigration procedures the Minister to «collect the legal name or name used in daily life» (E.2.)

I don't find any "full and actual given name" in the law. There's only one combination «given name(s)» in D.8.4.1 but is part of a non exhaustive list («such as, but not limited to,») and so it makes sense there.

I don't see the need of this provision, as Title E already requires the legal name, and I should also point out that:
(1) the current formulation of E.2 avoids prospectives deadnaming themselves in the immigration process while yours not,
(2) yours as written would make the legal name, and not talossan, required in all dealings.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 11, 2023, 10:34:13 PMSupplemental question! Don't you feel bad, Most Honourable Seneschal, for both donating money to fund a public initiative and then having the gall to say that you're not ashamed of that fact?  And this at the same time that you're doing multiple different jobs, a fact that you freely admit is a corrupt action designed to fulfil a scurrilous campaign promise?

C'e utratxös!

Point of order estimat Túischac'h @Lüc,

the Distain should be remembered again of your previous rule that, as the Seneschal has not yet answered the question posed by my honourable friend, it isn't in order for an extraneous contribution to be made, unless it is on a point of order. A rather improper and irrespective contribution made in a way as to suggest a mockery of Membreux of this House legitimately asking Terpelaziuns if I may add my humble opinion.

Méirci, smestéu el tarleu.

Congratulations @johnoa! As a member of SIGN I'm really thrilled to have another citizen enthusiast about our glheþ!

Let me know if I can do anything to help you!