Whereas currently the Seneschal can simply write any laws they wish by themselves, bounded only by the Organic Law and His Majesty's agreement, and

Whereas that's an absurd amount of power for one person to have, and there is insufficient check on this power,

THEREFORE the fourth section of the sixth article of the Organic Law, which currently reads

QuotePrime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law.

shall be amended to read

QuotePrime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law.  All Prime Dictates, excepting only those appropriating monies or with ephemeral effect, shall automatically cease effect after the passage of three months unless affirmed by the Ziu.

What exactly is the change? I can't really see it at a glance.

I apologize, @Sir Lüc , and you're right that I should use this thread.  I have been in the habit of doing it the other way by tagging you, but I should respect the process you have laid out.  In the future, I will be sure to do so.

I wonder if I could trouble you to please re-Clark it with a slight change?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 05, 2025, 05:33:59 PMWHEREAS the immigration process should be open to all, without regard for the religious or political views of the Minister of Immigration, and

Whereas this should be true whether we have a politically conservative Minister, who must not be allowed to block progressives, or a politically progressive Minister, who must not be allowed to block conservatives, etc etc, and

Whereas there are some concerns people have about things which can be easily addressed in this second version,

THEREFORE the fifth section of Title E of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

Quote5. If, at any point during the process, either before or after creation of the Wittenberg account, the Immigration Minister determines that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further, the prospective immigrant shall be informed of this decision, and shall be made aware that a Grant of Citizenship may yet be obtained by the disappointed applicant if an act of the Ziu be passed directing that such a grant be issued. Any account created for the applicant on Wittenberg shall then be terminated

5.1 Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may in the first case appeal this decision by application to the Secretary of State, and be given the Chancery's contact details to enable them to do so. The Secretary of State may, if they believe the Ministry of Immigration has misused their discretion under Talossan law, report to the Ziu with their reasons for so deciding and recommend that the applicant or prospective citizen be given citizenship by act of the Ziu. Alternatively, the applicant or prospective may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general election.

shall be amended to read

Quote5. If the Immigration Minister and a Member of the Ziu associated with the Opposition determines that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further, the prospective immigrant shall be informed of this decision, and shall be made aware that a Grant of Citizenship may yet be obtained by the disappointed applicant if an act of the Ziu be passed directing that such a grant be issued. Any account created for the applicant on Wittenberg shall then be terminated.

5.1. This decision may only be made after the application has been processed and posted, and the public must be informed of the minister's decision and the justification for the decision.  The public need not be informed if an application is merely returned as insufficient or nonsensical under the terms of Lexh.E.2.4.

5.2. Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may in the first case appeal this decision by application to the Secretary of State, and be given the Chancery's contact details to enable them to do so. The Secretary of State may, if they believe the Ministry of Immigration has misused their discretion under Talossan law, report to the Ziu with their reasons for so deciding and recommend that the applicant or prospective citizen be given citizenship by act of the Ziu.

5.3. Alternatively, the applicant or prospective may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general election.

FURTHERMORE, this bill shall not be construed as an ex post facto attempt to criminalize any associated behavior within ministerial duties of the past, and shall not be grounds for prosecution.

FURTHERMORE, there will be a new Lexh.E.2.6, which shall read:

Quote2.6.  Immigration applications shall all be automatically forwarded to an email address that is under the control of His Majesty the king and that is not accessible to any member of His Majesty's Government, and His Majesty will give access to this email address to the Leader of the Opposition.

Uréu q'estadra så
Alexandreu Davinescu, Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial (MC-URL)

I am here assuming that @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP doesn't object to this change -- please correct me if this is wrong, Tafi.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Yesterday at 09:13:47 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 04:08:18 PMSo what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

The simplest answer would be that the Seneschal himself has campaigned against the Immigration Minister having a secret, unilateral veto over citizenship applications. One of his most zealously-delivered criticisms was his concern that the Immigration Minister could simply reject applications they found objectionable, including on political grounds. While this was obviously not happening under the previous Immigration Minister, it is a valid concern more generally, and an effective way of addressing this would be to require the permission of a politically-opposed individual in order to terminate an application. His bill, after feedback from others, finally addresses the "secret", but not the "unilateral". Why settle for fixing one when we can fix both?

That makes sense to me.  I will withdraw my bill from the Clark and amend it to that effect.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 04:08:18 PMSo what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

The simplest answer would be that the Seneschal himself has campaigned against the Immigration Minister having a secret, unilateral veto over citizenship applications. One of his most zealously-delivered criticisms was his concern that the Immigration Minister could simply reject applications they found objectionable, including on political grounds. While this was obviously not happening under the previous Immigration Minister, it is a valid concern more generally, and an effective way of addressing this would be to require the permission of a politically-opposed individual in order to terminate an application. His bill, after feedback from others, finally addresses the "secret", but not the "unilateral". Why settle for fixing one when we can fix both?

Let's maybe take stock of what each side would stand to gain from a compromise:

Government gets:
- Basically everything they want out of the PPA2, including addressing the secrecy of the immigration process.
- Regaining some of the trust from the Opposition that they have squandered before the Cosa has even been seated.

Opposition gets:
- Addressing the unilateral nature of the Immigration Minister's power, which we believe to be of equal importance.
- An indication that the Government understands the necessity of government by consensus during the term to come.

Both sides get:
- Their respective leaders as co-sponsors of this bill (assuming the Seneschal is open to doing so).
- "Partial credit" for improving the accountability and impartiality of the immigration process.
- As a result, all involved get to count this as "a win" for their side, so to speak.

The country gets:
- An immigration process that can be better held accountable.
- A "lowered temperature", to an extent, that can hopefully lead to further collaboration on practical issues facing the country.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 06:00:53 PMI do really think we should get to actually talking about why we would want to change the immigration process to require the opposition leader (Mic'haglh right now) to approve of halting immigration.

As previously noted, that would be any member of the opposition, not just myself. Just wanted to clarify in case you had actually failed to notice the first time I corrected you, and are not simply mischaracterizing the plain text of the bill in an attempt to spin a narrative.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 04:57:45 PMThere are a grand total of two choices to get any Government legislation passed this term:

1) the PA and the URL make a mutually satisfying deal.
2) the PA shames and condemns the URL for angry, cynical gamesmanship and illegitimate motives, and hopes at least one URL Senator will admit you're right and surrender.

Lol... most people would probably include a third option, where neither party is whipping the vote to achieve maximum leverage, and instead approves of a bill based on its merits.

Listen, you can scroll back through the thread and see that I have been really active and engaged in discussing this thing. When it was introduced 5 days ago, I immediately asked some clarifying questions so I could better understand it. After a few days, Mic'haglh got back to me with answers, and I've continued to try to get some clarity about why this particular change is important (outside of rebranding), Even though I'm not easily able to access a computer over this holiday season. But if getting this done fast is a priority, I do really think we should get to actually talking about why we would want to change the immigration process to require the opposition leader (Mic'haglh right now) to approve of halting immigration.

As my understanding had it, this would be a emergency thing we would need to do because of serious and immediate harm. When we last discussed this, for example, it was brought up to me that people could say really horrible things and hurt others if the government didn't have the power to stop the process on a dime. So this seems like a strange new requirement - almost the contrary of that. I'm obviously open to it, but I do think we need to actually talk about it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 04:08:18 PMthis is just an effort at gamesmanship, to provide a cynical reason to kill a popular piece of legislation

Certainly, this legislation is popular with PA members.

But that argument comes quite close to an argument that our Senäts delegation are not fully entitled to vote their consciences on any piece of legislation. The counter-majoritarian nature of the Senäts is, we thought, precisely what you used to say was good about it.

There are a grand total of two choices to get any Government legislation passed this term:

1) the PA and the URL make a mutually satisfying deal.
2) the PA shames and condemns the URL for angry, cynical gamesmanship and illegitimate motives, and hopes at least one URL Senator will admit you're right and surrender.

Our party leader Mic'haglh is taking point on this issue and insha'llah he can make the deal with you before Clark time.

We assign all of our seats to Mximo C.

Azul, Progressives! Just an alert that a vote has begun for you to weigh in on!

Our bill was our flagship bill that we made a focus point of our campaign, frequently promised to work hard to pass, and amended with feedback over the course of the months and months it was available. Again, it's been months.

Five days ago, this version was proposed. It's an almost identical copy. I have repeatedly and frequently engaged about it, but I'm not going to derail the main focus of our campaign at the last minute.

If this change is a good one, then I can pull the bill from the Clark and add it, if we're in time. I'm happy to do that, and there's precedent for that happening. Or we can just make this a stand-alone bill. I don't actually have any immediate objection to the change, and it's not directly related to the main focus of the bill, so it wouldn't be a problem. Some in my party have suggested that this is just an effort at gamesmanship, to provide a cynical reason to kill a popular piece of legislation. I don't think that's true, though, and so I do still want to discuss this proposed change.

So what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?