Catchment Area Reform Proposal

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

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.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

A new Article 7.13 is added as follows:

7.13 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:

3.1 The Ministry of Immigration shall note the prospective immigrant's future provincial assignment in the introducing thread.

Thanks.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

A new Article 7.13 is added as follows:

7.13 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:

3.1 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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

The 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.

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

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.)

Folks, 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:

7.13 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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:

I'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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I'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.

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.

Yeah, more or less we are saying the same thing.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

@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!

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I'll be happy to support a section phrased in that way for what is worth.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

If there are any outstanding issues please let me know. I'm planning on submitting this for the third clark.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

The same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The same issue I had with your proposed 7.13.

So no major issues then. This appears to be ready for clarking.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

The 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.