[PASSED] The Immigration Reform (Quality over Quantity) Bill

[King Txec]

Gotcha. I'm sure I'll sleep well. Thank you.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

It's still really unclear to me why we'd want this bill.  The only benefit seems to be that it will be slightly easier for the MinImm, since they can reject some petitions.  But since they'll now be in charge of scrutinizing all of the essay portions and issuing directions as to their deficiency, it looks to me as though it would increase the workload.  The MinImm job would expand from "process applications" to "be the first judge of applicant worth and then process their applications," which is surely more labour.

Speaking out of my experience processing applications for a while, it takes longer than you would think just to copy the application from the email into Witt. Certainly it takes much longer than observing that someone has submitted a one-sentence essay and telling them to try harder. It can feel like an eternity when the application is so low-effort or lacking understanding of Talossa that you're 99.99% certain the application is going nowhere and that the effort of posting it is completely in vain.

The other side of this, as I mentioned above, is making it easier for Talossans to engage with immigrants that are actually serious. I must admit that I commented on one to many threads of immigrants that could not even be bothered to post once, and I kind of stopped engaging on immigration threads altogether because of it. Shame on me, I know.

To me, this legislation is not about making it more difficult for serious applicants to get through. It's about recognizing that processing blatantly unserious applications makes everyone involved a lot less motivated, which probably isn't a good thing.

Also, as pointed out, this would be an astonishing amount of power for a Government official to have.  The minister is evaluating the worth of an applicant in private, rejecting them based on their subjective assessment of the essay.  Even though I'm sure that this is well-meant, such a power could be abused with great ease.  Unless there's a very good reason, we shouldn't be giving anyone right of first refusal on new immigrants who successfully fulfill the process.

I'm not going to argue that such an abuse would be impossible, but I don't think it would be nearly significant enough to outweigh the practical benefits. Would it make you more comfortable if we tried defining objective criteria for what constitutes a "blatantly unserious" application?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Speaking out of my experience processing applications for a while, it takes longer than you would think just to copy the application from the email into Witt. Certainly it takes much longer than observing that someone has submitted a one-sentence essay and telling them to try harder. It can feel like an eternity when the application is so low-effort or lacking understanding of Talossa that you're 99.99% certain the application is going nowhere and that the effort of posting it is completely in vain.

As mentioned, it will definitely be much more work to subjectively scrutinize each applicant, approve and post some, reject some others, and then explain the deficiencies to those who are rejected.

I have some sympathy for the idea that it could be an easier process in some ways, but isn't that more an argument for fixing the process?  That would solve the problem that's been identified, without the risk of making a government minister the new Judge of All Essays.

I mean, right now the process is just a website form that generates emails.  I think it would not be too hard to tweak it so that it spat out something that was ready-to-post, also.  Then it's just CTRL+C, CTRL+V.

To me, this legislation is not about making it more difficult for serious applicants to get through. It's about recognizing that processing blatantly unserious applications makes everyone involved a lot less motivated, which probably isn't a good thing.

This makes sense.  Maybe if we're going to do this, it makes sense to just do it in the open?  Create a new immigration program -- maybe call it a visa -- which takes notice of those prospectives who have put extra care into their essays?

The Ministry of Immigration has identified this prospective immigrant as particularly energetic and interested in immigrating, and has added them to the RF-1 Visa Program

I'm not going to argue that such an abuse would be impossible, but I don't think it would be nearly significant enough to outweigh the practical benefits. Would it make you more comfortable if we tried defining objective criteria for what constitutes a "blatantly unserious" application?

The proposed law says that the standard right now isn't "blatantly unserious."  Instead, it's the far scarier: "If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay shows an insufficient understanding of what Talossa is."

It would be better to discard this law, since it seems like a solution in search of a problem.  The real motive here is just to make it harder to immigrate.  If the problem of ministerial workload is so bad, then the solution can't be to add on more work.  Fix the actual problems, instead. 

But yes, if it's absolutely necessary to do this, then you guys should at least establish some more objective standards.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Speaking out of my experience processing applications for a while, it takes longer than you would think just to copy the application from the email into Witt. Certainly it takes much longer than observing that someone has submitted a one-sentence essay and telling them to try harder. It can feel like an eternity when the application is so low-effort or lacking understanding of Talossa that you're 99.99% certain the application is going nowhere and that the effort of posting it is completely in vain.

As mentioned, it will definitely be much more work to subjectively scrutinize each applicant, approve and post some, reject some others, and then explain the deficiencies to those who are rejected.

I have some sympathy for the idea that it could be an easier process in some ways, but isn't that more an argument for fixing the process?  That would solve the problem that's been identified, without the risk of making a government minister the new Judge of All Essays.

I mean, right now the process is just a website form that generates emails.  I think it would not be too hard to tweak it so that it spat out something that was ready-to-post, also.  Then it's just CTRL+C, CTRL+V.

To me, this legislation is not about making it more difficult for serious applicants to get through. It's about recognizing that processing blatantly unserious applications makes everyone involved a lot less motivated, which probably isn't a good thing.

This makes sense.  Maybe if we're going to do this, it makes sense to just do it in the open?  Create a new immigration program -- maybe call it a visa -- which takes notice of those prospectives who have put extra care into their essays?

The Ministry of Immigration has identified this prospective immigrant as particularly energetic and interested in immigrating, and has added them to the RF-1 Visa Program

I'm not going to argue that such an abuse would be impossible, but I don't think it would be nearly significant enough to outweigh the practical benefits. Would it make you more comfortable if we tried defining objective criteria for what constitutes a "blatantly unserious" application?

The proposed law says that the standard right now isn't "blatantly unserious."  Instead, it's the far scarier: "If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay shows an insufficient understanding of what Talossa is."

It would be better to discard this law, since it seems like a solution in search of a problem.  The real motive here is just to make it harder to immigrate.  If the problem of ministerial workload is so bad, then the solution can't be to add on more work.  Fix the actual problems, instead. 

But yes, if it's absolutely necessary to do this, then you guys should at least establish some more objective standards.

Things have quieted down but my two bence. The Baron's idea is a really good one here.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Thanks for everyone's comments.

Upon discussion within the Cabinet, we have decided to change the wording slightly as so:

If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay shows an insufficient understanding of what Talossa is or interest in Talossa and what Talossan citizenship entails, they may require the applicant to submit a rewritten essay that shows such understanding or interest before proceeding to the next stage.

I understand citizens' worries that Immigration staff with a chip on their shoulder could simply "flush" applications that they don't like the looks of. But this is the case already. El Lexh E.2. as written says that Immigration are entitled to reject applications if they don't consider the prospective to have furnished sufficient proof of identity. As we have seen with that clown who called himself a Lord and tried to immigrate a second time after being rejected a first time, this is somewhat toothless unless Immigration has the confidence to look more closely, and not the presumption that we "let everyone in and let the people decide".

The text of this amendment not only gives Immigration more confidence to actually enforce Immigration law as currently written, it gives precise instructions as to how Immigration are supposed to counsel prospectives to find out more about Talossa and to write an essay which not only demonstrates they know what Talossa is, but gives citizens vital information in order to ask intelligent questions of them in the immigration process.

Thus, I call upon the CRL being @Ian Plätschisch , @Glüc da Dhi S.H. and @þerxh Sant-Enogat , to take up this bill (text as in the first post in this thread) with a view to getting it on the next Clark.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think the changes improve the bill, marginally, but it yet remains a problem that it wouldn't accomplish its own stated goals and it would make it much harder to immigrate without clear benefit.

I understand citizens' worries that Immigration staff with a chip on their shoulder could simply "flush" applications that they don't like the looks of. But this is the case already. El Lexh E.2. as written says that Immigration are entitled to reject applications if they don't consider the prospective to have furnished sufficient proof of identity.

Your proposal would change the current standard for the minister to process an application from an administrative one to an ideological one.  There's a yawning gulf between "they didn't prove their identity" and "they don't understand enough about the country to meet my standards."

I think you're probably going to go ahead with this no matter what, but you guys should be aware that this appears horribly corrupt.  I'm sure intentions are good and current personnel won't abuse this power, but it's crazy to say that one person gets to secretly decide which citizens meet their subjective standards of knowledge and writing.

This is especially true when there's no reasonable defense of the proposal. 

• It takes too long to process applications?  Okay, well, this would make it take longer.
• We need a way to keep track of which applications deserve more scrutiny?  Why not point them out in public, rather than gatekeep in secret?
• We need more serious immigrants?  Well, rejecting some serious applicants who might not write well in English due to their educational background, their location, or a disability like dyslexia is not going to help!

Making the minister into the Secret Judge will take more time, it's wide-open for corruption, and it will discriminate against some types of immigrants.  If the Free Democrats shove this through, ignoring the red flags, then they will deserve it when voters are upset about it.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I think you're probably going to go ahead with this no matter what, but you guys should be aware that this appears horribly corrupt.  I'm sure intentions are good and current personnel won't abuse this power, but it's crazy to say that one person gets to secretly decide which citizens meet their subjective standards of knowledge and writing

...

Making the minister into the Secret Judge will take more time, it's wide-open for corruption, and it will discriminate against some types of immigrants.  If the Free Democrats shove this through, ignoring the red flags, then they will deserve it when voters are upset about it.

The claims of corruption and discrimination only make sense if you assume the absolute worst motives of the official, which, while I agree doing so would be appropriate if we were determining policy for another country, just doesn't seem necessary in today's Talossa. Again, I'm not saying such a thing is inconceivable, but seriously. I'm not here to design laws that pretend we have a much greater need for anti-corruption measures than we actually do. The possibility of this comment itself being used as evidence of corruption is not lost on me, but I stand by it.

Also, in the imagined "worst case scenario" of immigration Minister, there would be nothing stopping them from secretly throwing out applications under current law. This bill wouldn't give them any legal cover since, if they reject an application, they are required to provide advice on making it better. However, I don't believe this will add any more net workload because most applications will likely either:
- Be accepted as they are now on the first try, or
- Be rejected without any follow-up attempt, saving the Minister the time of posting the application and saving everyone else the time of evaluating it.

The bill only appears horribly corrupt to those that have a vested interest in it appearing so. Hey, I guess the opposition needs something to run on next time and it may as well be this.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I mean, it may well be that "the Government changed Immigration laws so it could exclude perfectly good citizens for reasons of corruption" might motivate a big voting bloc at the next election. Alternatively, we could be about to see a golden age where every new citizen is an informed and active one, and the voters would love that.

But all this is entirely hypothetical because right now there hasn't been an immigration application in almost two months, which is unfortunate but not something this bill is meant to deal with. Other government action will deal with that, schi Allà en volt.

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

So what you are saying is that only prospective citizens who are intelligent enough to write an essay are capable of becoming useful active citizens?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

So what you are saying is that only prospective citizens who are intelligent enough to write an essay are capable of becoming useful active citizens?

No

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The claims of corruption and discrimination only make sense if you assume the absolute worst motives of the official, which, while I agree doing so would be appropriate if we were determining policy for another country, just doesn't seem necessary in today's Talossa.

No -- exactly the opposite is true.  In Talossa, there is very little chance that anyone will ever have the time and interest to scrutinize the records of dozens or hundreds of minor decisions about immigration.  We didn't even keep records on immigration numbers until a year ago!  There's virtually no journalism, there's only about seven or eight warm bodies who might even care, and the stakes are quite low in terms of anyone's real life.

And we're not even talking about open corruption, although that's the obvious objection to a secret immigration tribunal.

We're talking about the very human tendency to let the right-thinking essay slide a little more than the wrong-thinking essay.  If I get two essays from two applicants in poor English, but one of them vibes with me more?  Well, I will very obviously tend to judge that one as better.  That's not villainous, mustache-twirling corruption.  But it is corrupt, since it will tend to favor the person who thinks like the secret immigration judge.

I mean... yes, it's possible someone will tie a victim to the railroad tracks and then start trashing essays that speak fondly of capitalism or whatever, but that seems much less likely than the secret immigration gatekeeper just carelessly favouring those who strike them as the "right" sort of person.

Also, in the imagined "worst case scenario" of immigration Minister, there would be nothing stopping them from secretly throwing out applications under current law.

It's illegal to run people over with your car, but that's not an argument for painting over the crosswalks.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I mean, it may well be that "the Government changed Immigration laws so it could exclude perfectly good citizens for reasons of corruption" might motivate a big voting bloc at the next election. Alternatively, we could be about to see a golden age where every new citizen is an informed and active one, and the voters would love that.

But all this is entirely hypothetical because right now there hasn't been an immigration application in almost two months, which is unfortunate but not something this bill is meant to deal with. Other government action will deal with that, schi Allà en volt.

In the Republic of Talossa, it was much harder to immigrate.  Indeed, this bill replicates a whole lot of those strictures.  And you yourself said that this substantially lowered the immigration rate, noting that "trade-offs must be made."

I think that probably it's a little early to worry, but if we're concerned immigration rate is dropping again, then is it the time to start trading it off for having a higher percentage of citizens who can write decent essays?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Referring to a very basic screening as a "secret tribunal" is one of those things that, while not conclusively false or dishonest (depending on definitions), is not, as the kids say, keeping it 💯.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Referring to a very basic screening as a "secret tribunal" is one of those things that, while not conclusively false or dishonest (depending on definitions), is not, as the kids say, keeping it 💯.

The lesson has been learned in Talossan politics that rhetorical hyperinflation, and picking a catchphrase and running with it (Christopher Rufo-style) is a good way to win arguments, i.e. to get your opposition to give up with a sore head. Let's compare this to the similar rhetorical move applied to 54RZ4:

We're talking about the very human tendency to let a friendly applicant provide less proof of their identity than a grouchy applicant. If I get two social media accounts from two applicants, but I like the photos on one of them more?  Well, I will very obviously tend to judge that one more credible. That's not villainous, mustache-twirling corruption.  But it is corrupt, since it will tend to favor the person who thinks like the secret identity-confirmation tribunal.

The only way to go from this decision is to remove all Immigration Minister discretion at all, and allow prospectives to simply post their applications themselves, which would at least be consistent.

I remember when someone was saying that a particular decision of the CpI now meant that all cases would now be determined by lobbying the Judge in private. Didn't happen, but it was an exciting scenario to discuss.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Referring to a very basic screening as a "secret tribunal" is one of those things that, while not conclusively false or dishonest (depending on definitions), is not, as the kids say, keeping it 💯.

I don't know what a "very basic screening" might be, since the bill says that the secret judgment happens on the basis of whether the applicant has "insufficient understanding of or interest in Talossa" for the first check, and "sufficient understanding of Talossan life and culture for full participation" for the second check.

You might be under the impression that these are objective, clear-cut criteria.  But they are not.

I know you guys are going to pass this bill either way, but at the very minimum I can do my best to alert you to the fact that this is (a) not going to achieve the claimed goals, (b) probably bad on net for the country, and (c) a huge political liability because it looks really bad when the Government decides to institute secret gatekeeping on all applications.

I would much prefer you snatch away this campaign platform, crushing it to slivers before my very eyes, and foiling my dastardly attempt to sucker you into passing this bill.  Draft some clear and objective criteria for the secret immigration judge, and take the wind out of my sails!  Decide on an open process instead, and INSERT METAPHOR HERE!

Yes, it will be very easy to attack this Government for creating a new secret process where a Government official decides if a prospective immigrant "understands" the country enough.  I am telling you right now, before the bill is passed, that this is an obvious criticism since the plan sounds really bad.  Please defeat my sinister campaigning plan by not doing the obviously bad-sounding thing!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Let's compare this to the similar rhetorical move applied to 54RZ4:

We're talking about the very human tendency to let a friendly applicant provide less proof of their identity than a grouchy applicant. If I get two social media accounts from two applicants, but I like the photos on one of them more?  Well, I will very obviously tend to judge that one more credible. That's not villainous, mustache-twirling corruption.  But it is corrupt, since it will tend to favor the person who thinks like the secret identity-confirmation tribunal.

The only way to go from this decision is to remove all Immigration Minister discretion at all, and allow prospectives to simply post their applications themselves, which would at least be consistent.

I'm not sure it's equally hard to stay objective about proof of someone's physical reality and the contents of an essay they wrote.  I mean, do you not understand how I could be concerned here?  Not just disagree, but you earnestly don't see what I'm talking about, and think these two judgment calls are equivalent?  If so, that might be an error of communication... maybe I have failed to write clearly about my concerns here.

But yes, there are a lot of other choices that could be taken to address the stated concerns here.  I already presented one: if we want the MinImm to judge who is a "quality" applicant to make them stand out, then why not just do that publicly and openly?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm not sure it's equally hard to stay objective about proof of someone's physical reality

Yeah, the thing is, unless you've got the investigative resources of a macronational police force, it is impossible to be 100% sure that Joe Schmoe from Bupkis, Alaska in the immigrant queue is who they say they are. I mean, they can provide social media accounts, etc., but it would be trivially easy for a determined crook falsify these (as I say, Lord Whatsisface fooled my predecessor). The Immigration Minister must use their discretion to decide, on the balance of probabilities, that the credentials offered are bona fide.

Not every use of discretion - for example, one to say "I don't think you understand what Talossa really is, here's some info, please rewrite your application accordingly" - is corrupt. That line of thought ends up with, for public officials, "anything not compulsory is forbidden" and hand the whole thing over to AI. Or, it ends at an arbitrary space, chosen for political advantage.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your point makes sense when you say that it's not purely objective, and that there is a judgment call.  Ultimately, there are a ton of small judgment calls like that when processing applications, including the speed with which you act and (most particularly) who gets treated with enthusiasm after posting.

But surely it is much less subjective than reading an essay and deciding if it's up to snuff, and it is much less harmful if that judgment happens in the open?

I'm not even saying it's a bad idea to sort the wheat from the chaff when introducing immigrants, but there's a way to do it that has much less risk of corruption -- accidental or purposeful -- and which will be more useful to citizens.  Give high-enthusiasm applicants a public stamp of approval in some way.  It will be less work than rejecting some applicants and explaining to them why they were rejected, and it will have the same positive results.

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

So what you are saying is that only prospective citizens who are intelligent enough to write an essay are capable of becoming useful active citizens?

No

That is exactly what I see in this proposal. You MUST write an essay basically to show how intelligent you are to be considered for citizenship. I for one could not write an essay that would be accepted by the academic elites and intelligence police on this website to save my life. If it were to be instituted retroactively I would immediately lose my citizenship. Not everyone is capable of hashing out an intelligent sounding essay in english, or even in their own home language. I like to think I have been somewhat active and involved, I know I am not intelligent enough to hold any office higher than that which I hold now (senator). I turned down the opportunity to hold cabinet level positions because I knew I couldn't do the job. That does not mean I am not capable of being involved. A nation (even a micronation) needs citizens, not all of them need to be highly intelligent members of the government or judges in the cort. I feel that this proposal will lead to a MASSIVE drop off in applications for citizenship and likely lead to a majority of applications being rejected.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

If it were to be instituted retroactively I would immediately lose my citizenship. [...] I know I am not intelligent enough to hold any office higher than that which I hold now (senator).

This law cannot be applied retroactively; Org.VII.14 explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws.

Also, Tric'hard, you need to stop selling yourself short, ok?