Catchment Area Reform Proposal

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

Thank you @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu and Uc any objections to this proposal?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

That is an excellent suggestion.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Thanks again @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB
This suggested edit has been entered into the bill currently in the CRL thread.

[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).

It seems like I have to repeat myself... We do have issues with reporting/reviewing requirements in that law.

[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).

It seems like I have to repeat myself... We do have issues with reporting/reviewing requirements in that law.

What are the issues with the proposal from @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB ?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

The issues are still those explained by Senator @Ian Plätschisch:

My point has been the time consuming part of this is not the part where the Minister types a report, it's the part where they do the review, which must be done whether or not a report is issued. Sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.

Suggestion: add to the data on immigration on the Infoteca aslo the provinces the immigrants were assigned to, in order to have informations on which province get new immigrants. In this way every data is readily available and is not necessary to do a law mandated review to gather those data.

Of course any Minister of Immingration can do whichever review they seems fit anytime, there's no need for requiring by law a time-consuming review that could be useless.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

The issues are still those explained by Senator @Ian Plätschisch:

My point has been the time consuming part of this is not the part where the Minister types a report, it's the part where they do the review, which must be done whether or not a report is issued. Sorry that I did not make this distinction clear.

Suggestion: add to the data on immigration on the Infoteca aslo the provinces the immigrants were assigned to, in order to have informations on which province get new immigrants. In this way every data is readily available and is not necessary to do a law mandated review to gather those data.

Of course any Minister of Immingration can do whichever review they seems fit anytime, there's no need for requiring by law a time-consuming review that could be useless.

I agree, it is true that the Immigration Minister can do a review at anytime. You are referring to the status quo and it has repeatedly led to ad-hoc and haphazard reviews of the catchment areas such as the one we are currently undergoing.

I am all for expanding Infoteca immigration reporting but I am still opposed to the status quo where we depend on very active citizens to do the work that Government should be required to do. Catchment area review needs to be standardized and predictable.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I don't want this to be point which torpedoes the bill so I want to ask @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB ,as the proposer of that change, for suggestions to accommodate the concerns of Uc and Ian.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Catchment area review needs to be standardized and predictable.

Catchment areas reform cannot be standardized or predictable unless we define principles for their standardization and predictability. (For example: the old "open/closed provinces", which I'm not advocating, was a sort of standard). Otherwise any reform deriving from any kind of review will always be and "ad hoc" change of the catchement areas that is not "standardized" but "subjective". Even the need of a review is subjective: what defines that a changement area needs to be reformed?

Any law-mandated review doesn't change the status quo (a subjective need for a reform), but simply repeat the status quo at fixed interval creating a law-mandated time consuming task to the MinImm potentially useless and without any objective definition.

The section suggested by Aledandreu instead adds a standardized mechanism that to the status quo removes the need for a reform just to change deprecated  names or countries no longer existing. This is an improvement.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Catchment area review needs to be standardized and predictable.

Catchment areas reform cannot be standardized or predictable unless we define principles for their standardization and predictability. (For example: the old "open/closed provinces", which I'm not advocating, was a sort of standard). Otherwise any reform deriving from any kind of review will always be and "ad hoc" change of the catchement areas that is not "standardized" but "subjective". Even the need of a review is subjective: what defines that a changement area needs to be reformed?

Any law-mandated review doesn't change the status quo (a subjective need for a reform), but simply repeat the status quo at fixed interval creating a law-mandated time consuming task to the MinImm potentially useless and without any objective definition.

The section suggested by Aledandreu instead adds a standardized mechanism that to the status quo removes the need for a reform just to change deprecated  names or countries no longer existing. This is an improvement.

Going by what you just stated this change only addresses name changes and country changes and does not address population imbalances or other similar issues arising over time which is what the current round of catchment reform addresses. It may be an improvement but appears insufficient to address the issue. @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu Correct me if I'm wrong here.

"Potentially useless" is pretty subjective as well. I am hopeful others will chime in with suggestions to address all concerns here.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I for one don't see a problem with ad hoc reviews. There's almost no difference between "active citizens" and "government" anyway.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I for one don't see a problem with ad hoc reviews. There's almost no difference between "active citizens" and "government" anyway.

Agreed.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I for one don't see a problem with ad hoc reviews. There's almost no difference between "active citizens" and "government" anyway.

I do. We are at an unfortunate impasse currently. I will hope others chime in with additional suggestions.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Suggestion: add to the data on immigration on the Infoteca aslo the provinces the immigrants were assigned to, in order to have informations on which province get new immigrants. In this way every data is readily available and is not necessary to do a law mandated review to gather those data.

This is largely a good suggestion, but I have been focused on keeping the maintenance on Infoteca as absolutely brutally minimal as possible.  I believe this information can be found on the database, currently -- citizens are sorted into order of immigration by default, so it's pretty easy to just total them up.

Of the most recent fifty immigrants, for example:

4 Atatûrk
12 Benito
5 Cézembre
5 Fiova
1 Florencià
3 Maricopa
9 Maritiimi-Maxhestic
5 Vuode

So while this is definitely useful information, I'm loathe to add to the regular labor required to maintain the system unless it will be useful for the citizens in general.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

About the reporting thing -- I don't feel strongly about it either way, honestly.  I thought Txec's suggestion was good, and it would be good to regularly review this stuff.  But if Ian and Üc will vote for the bill if the section is removed, then that's probably worth it as a compromise.