Meaning of a Name Act

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

WHEREAS I almost forgot this was a thing, but incredibly it is, and

WHEREAS it is currently Talossan law that "full and legal name" can be taken to mean any combination of words you might use for yourself, and thus any form of false or pseudonymous name may be given during the immigration process, and

WHEREAS let's not point fingers here but that's clearly not what was meant by the law or what makes the slightest bit of sense, but it's still a problem we have to fix,

THEREFORE it is the will of the Ziu that a new section 16 shall be added to Title E of el Lexhatx, reading as follows:

The 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.

Uréu q'estadra så
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

[Üc R. Tärfă]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I 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.  The 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.

If you have suggestions about how to better approach this, that would be great!  But 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.

The current wording of the immigration form is "full and legal," so I'm going to use that in the bill here, instead.  I'll also restrict this to immigration matters, since I can't actually think of any other circumstance where this might be relevant.  I 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 (that last clause is actually the most important part, too -- if we want to just add that to E.2, that might work just fine).

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I 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).

The 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.

But 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.

The 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:

The 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".

I 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.

that 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 »

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

Sure, but that doesn't nullify the basic issue, I don't think.

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".

Yes, I think you're right and we should probably adjust E.2 -- maybe exclusively adjust it, actually.  I'll have to take another look.

I 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.

I'm not aware of a clause that gives the MinImm either blanket authority to interpret what is required in the case of any ambiguities, or specific authority in the case of names.  Maybe I just missed it in the law?

that 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]

Not that I can see.  I see that the Minister can determine whether requirements are met to their own satisfaction, but not any authority to interpret those standards in cases of ambiguity, nor any language to address the cort's conclusion about what "name" means.

As 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.

Maybe a good first step is to actually just ask the CpI about their opinion as a whole panel, by requesting an advisory opinion?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

As 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:

Yes, 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:

The 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

I 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 ;)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

We should probably just stay focused on the bill, so I shouldn't have even mentioned FDT branding -- se garder de l'interrompre, as the saying goes.  Sorry about that.  But as far as I can gather from your complex language, you don't think this bill is necessary because it's just adding redundancy to the law and because the solution was already achieved by the standard of "legal name."

The 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".

The decision held explicitly that "we cannot in Talossa forbid a citizen or prospective citizen the right of having some non-Talossan name not known to Talossa, provided that we, from within Talossa, are able to make non-Talossan contact with that citizen or prospective citizen," and that "Talossa cannot request a legal name within the meaning of those words in some other nation, but only an actual name, in the common meaning of those words – a name that is used."

So it seems to me that this is still a problem that should be firmly and specifically addressed in the law to contravene this, especially by giving the minister authority to decide any ambiguity.  But I it's not really much of a priority, so I'm happy to just set this aside for now.  Thank you for your time.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I suggested how I'd address your concerns to further specify the meaning of legal, and to add language to further add the Minister discretion to determine ambiguity. Feel free to use it or not if you think is not a priority.