Catchment Area Reform Proposal

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

No

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.

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.

[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.

No

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.

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

No

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.

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.

You 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.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

You 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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

You 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.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

You 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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

You 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.

Yes let the people decide. The section in question is staying. Reviewers are free to suggested edits to address purported concerns on principle but the reason for its inclusion is logical and based on principle as well. You are free to propose whatever you like.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

I will restate for the third time. The section in question is to be included BUT if you have suggestions for edits that address your concern on principle then I am all ears. Ian opposed the reporting requirement and it was removed. Baron asked for language changed to be reflected and it was done. Miestra asked for feedback from a Vuodean and it happened. There have been multiple suggestions accommodated in this bill.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

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).

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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).

Thank you for clarifying.
Are you saying that you can support the bill with the Baron's suggestion replacing the current 7.13?
If that is the case then while I would prefer the review requirement be explicit I will take on that revision and remove the current 7.13.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

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).

Thank you for clarifying.

Wasn't that clear enough on the 30th of March?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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).

Thank you for clarifying.

Wasn't that clear enough on the 30th of March?

I will take that as a sideways yes...

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Change made. Any other folks have suggestions for revisions before this is clarked.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

A new section 7.13 is added as follows:

7.13 The Ministry of Immigration is encouraged to review catchment areas for potential updates no less than every five (5) years.

What if you said in this section something more like "The Ministry of Immigration shall review catchment areas and propose updates to the Ziu if required every even numbered Cosa." or something more like that? Ambiguity in laws is probably not a good way to go.