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

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

OKAY YOU GUYS. In accordance with the Government's programmatic commitments and with public feedback, here is our immigration reform bill. The significant changes are as follows:

    * the "What Talossa Means To Me" essay will be required to demonstrate an understanding of what Talossa is and what citizenship means (if it doesn't, the application doesn't get rejected but the ImmMin can require rewriting before publication);
    * citizenship applications will include a checkbox section on "what parts of Talossa most appeal to you", and the ImmMin will give guidance on who to approach to help with that (this fills the New Citizen's Committee gap)
    * citizenship can be granted on the petition of two citizens and on "certification from the Ministry of Immigration that the prospective citizen has sufficient understanding of Talossan life and culture for full participation" (which would, at least in the short term, meaning passing the Civics Test and consequently getting an ID card);
    * provision that if the ImmMin misuses their new powers to deep-six applications without a good reason, the applicant can appeal to the SoS.

===

WHEREAS the Government of Talossa desires that frivolous applications for Talossan citizenship be discouraged, but serious applications get all the help that they need;

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Senäts and Cosă of Talossa in Ziu assembled as follows:

1. That El Lexhatx E.2 be amended by addition of the bolded text as follows:

2.1 The Minister of Immigration shall ascertain to his own satisfaction, through correspondence or conversation, that the prospective immigrant is a real human being with genuine interest in becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. 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, postal address (optional if the applicant is under 18 years of age, except for information needed to assign the applicant to a province), telephone number, and e-mail address(es) of the candidate, which information the Minister shall communicate to the Secretary of State. 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.

2.2 Additionally, the Immigration Minister shall be required to collect an essay, written by the applicant, entitled "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan." If the Immigration Minister considers that this essay misunderstands the nature of Talossa or the rights and duties of Talossan citizenship, or gives insufficient information to enable citizens to ask meaningful questions of the prospective, they may require the applicant to submit a rewritten essay before proceeding to the next stage. When doing so, the Immigration Minister shall provide the applicant with sufficient information to do so successfully, or indicate where to find such information.

2.3 The Immigration Minister shall also allow every applicant to indicate, whether in the essay described elsewhere in this section or otherwise, what part or parts of Talossan life are the Special Interests of the applicant. These may include Politics, Language, Culture, Heraldry, or any other categories as the Minister may see fit or that may be suggested by the applicant.

2.4 The Immigration Minister shall make a monthly report to the Ziu reporting the number of immigration applications received in that month which did not proceed because failing to fulfil the requirements of this section. For each failed application the Minister shall note which part or part of the requirements of this section were lacking in the application.

2. That El Lexhatx E.3 be amended by addition of the bolded text and deletion of struck-through text as follows:

3. The Minister of Immigration, working with the Seneschal, the Minister of Stuff, The Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Technology and/or the nation's Wittmeister shall cause the prospective immigrant to be granted an account on Wittenberg, allowing said prospective immigrant to converse with the subjects of the Kingdom gathered there. The Immigration Minister shall verify that the said account is fully-enabled, and that the candidate is able to communicate using this forum with the citizens of the Kingdom. The Immigration Minister shall then begin a single thread on Wittenberg introducing the prospective immigrant to the nation. The "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" essay shall be published by the Immigration Minister in this introduction. The Immigration Minister is further directed to remind his fellow citizens from time to time that the initiation of new citizens into Talossa is a serious matter and that questioning a prospective citizen is a patriotic obligation of all who love their King and Country.

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

   3.2 The Ministry of Immigration shall also publish any Special Interests identified by the prospective citizen in the application, and put them in touch with Talossan citizens who are identified by the Ministry as being able and willing to help them pursue those interests. In doing so the Ministry shall not promote any particular political party to the exclusion of any other.

3. That El Lexhatx E.5 be amended by addition of the bolded text as follows:

5. If, at any point during the process, either before or after creation of the Wittenberg account, the Immigration Minister determines that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further, the prospective immigrant shall be informed of this decision, and shall be made aware that a Grant of Citizenship may yet be obtained by the disappointed applicant if an act of the Ziu be passed directing that such a grant be issued. Any account created for the applicant on Wittenberg shall then be terminated.

     5.1 Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may in the first case appeal this decision by application to the Secretary of State, and be given the Chancery's contact details to enable them to do so. The Secretary of State may, if they believe the Ministry of Immigration has misused their discretion under Talossan law, report to the Ziu with their reasons for so deciding and recommend that the applicant or prospective citizen be given citizenship by act of the Ziu. Alternatively, the applicant or prospective may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general election.

4. That El Lexhatx E.7 be amended by addition of the bolded text as follows:

7. The Secretary of State shall, on a date of his choosing, but within a period of ten days after receiving a petition from at least two citizens to issue a Grant of Citizenship as described in clause 4, and upon certification from the Ministry of Immigration that the prospective citizen has sufficient understanding of Talossan life and culture for full participation, determine the provincial assignment of the prospective immigrant and issue a Royal Grant of Citizenship to the immigrant. This Grant shall be issued under the Royal Seal, either as applied by the Chancery, or, should the Majesty request, by the Sovereign under his or her own hand. If requested by the Government, the Grant may also bear the signatures of the Seneschal and/or Immigration Minister. The Royal Grant shall be promptly issued coincident with the candidate affirming his fealty to the Royal House and his allegiance to the Kingdom by taking any Oath of Talossan Citizenship specified by law. At the time this Royal Grant is issued, and from that point forward, the applicant shall be a full citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. The fact of the issuance of this Grant shall be posted on Wittenberg by the Secretary of State, that the new citizen may be welcomed by his compatriots. Any and all objections raised to the immigration made after this Royal Grant will be moot.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Considering some of the discussion in the other thread I am surprised to not see additional language concerning the explaining of what broosking is and why it is discouraged. I'd recommend putting it in there if it is not there already or strengthening the language. This could include who the prospective citizen should notify should they believe they've encountered broosking.

Would it be more appropriate for the appeal to go to the Corts rather than the SoS if the MinImm misuses their powers?

I still think that a civil servant is better suited to perform many of these new duties rather than the MinImm if we want to make the process less prone to politicization. Civil servant for administration, MinImm for policy direction.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Would it be better to move the requirement for "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" to after the prospective applicant has access to Witt, rather than deny them for insufficiency before they have the ability to interact on Witt? Or grant them prospective access contingent upon them writing an addendum to their original essay prior to citizenship?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Would it be better to move the requirement for "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" to after the prospective applicant has access to Witt, rather than deny them for insufficiency before they have the ability to interact on Witt? Or grant them prospective access contingent upon them writing an addendum to their original essay prior to citizenship?

The issue this is meant to address is that too many unserious applications are posted, which makes it hard to know which ones are worthwhile to interact with.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Would it be better to move the requirement for "Why I am Interested in Becoming a Talossan" to after the prospective applicant has access to Witt, rather than deny them for insufficiency before they have the ability to interact on Witt? Or grant them prospective access contingent upon them writing an addendum to their original essay prior to citizenship?

The issue this is meant to address is that too many unserious applications are posted, which makes it hard to know which ones are worthwhile to interact with.

But then the concern becomes, should we allow a single individual to judge the qualities of an applicant in this manner? Such that it would deny the applicant the ability to participte on Witt and be judged by a larger body of Talossans who could make their own determinations as whether they are a serious applicant?

I understand a concern about unserious applicants, but we should let Talossans be the judge of whether an applicant is serious or not. More importantly though, it may difficult for an applicant to truly ascertain why they want to be Talossan without first interacting with and learning about Talossa first hand--and to deny an applicant prior to this stage could be preventing curious, but serious applicants from proceeding.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

it may difficult for an applicant to truly ascertain why they want to be Talossan without first interacting with and learning about Talossa first hand--and to deny an applicant prior to this stage could be preventing curious, but serious applicants from proceeding.

Then why would such a person be applying for citizenship in the first place? As opposed to, say, reading the Wiki and the website and watching Witt?

The problem is that at the moment, there is an incentive for the Immigration Minister to conduct absolutely zero basic screening. The incentive is for every application to just be slapped up on the Immigration Board, to which 90% of them are replied only to by Zilect Wombat yelling "AZUL!" and maybe someone asking questions on the basis of the very weak information usually supplied.

Talossans can simply not judge new applicants unless those applicants offer an account of themselves and why they want to be Talossans up front. It is also a waste of the Immigration Ministry's time to have to post applications from people who just want an ID card or think that Talossan citizenship will get them a passport they can use for international travel.

Two further points:
a) The bill offers a method by which prospectives who are not happy with the Immigration Minister's decisions can appeal them.
b) I have argued for years for a board on Witt called "the Landing Pier" where non-citizens can freely engage without having to take out a citizenship application (but at the peril of being moderated with a blow-torch).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

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.

Thirdly, why would we require someone to mick a petition before approval?  Why require getting an ID, a process that can take weeks or months (especially if the minister in charge has had a really shitty run of luck)?  I guess it wouldn't hurt things any, but it seems like a weird additional hurdle.  Is the idea to just generally make it harder for people to immigrate?  Why would we want to do that?  That's a bad thing for a country that continues to exist on the basis of regular new immigrants.

Maybe my macronational sympathies are bleeding through a little, but I think gatekeeping Talossa is probably not a good idea -- let's let everyone in who wants to join with any seriousness.  We already regularly kick out people who lose interest afterwards.  If we're going to start locking our door, we should also stop kicking people out the window.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

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.

Thirdly, why would we require someone to mick a petition before approval?  Why require getting an ID, a process that can take weeks or months (especially if the minister in charge has had a really shitty run of luck)?  I guess it wouldn't hurt things any, but it seems like a weird additional hurdle.  Is the idea to just generally make it harder for people to immigrate?  Why would we want to do that?  That's a bad thing for a country that continues to exist on the basis of regular new immigrants.

Maybe my macronational sympathies are bleeding through a little, but I think gatekeeping Talossa is probably not a good idea -- let's let everyone in who wants to join with any seriousness.  We already regularly kick out people who lose interest afterwards.  If we're going to start locking our door, we should also stop kicking people out the window.

@Miestră Schivă, UrN This is well-reasoned and I agree particularly with the second point reiterated by the Baron and first expressed by Dien. I would add that you should continue your search for a Immigration Permanent Secretary.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

s the idea to just generally make it harder for people to immigrate?  Why would we want to do that?

Because recent experience shows that just accepting everyone who fills out an online form and makes 1 post on Witt leads to:

(a) low-quality citizens who overwhelmingly don't contribute to Talossan life, apart from making a number on Infoteca look good for those who care about such things;

(b) unintentional broosking to the ImmMin's party. Honestly, this is a hangover from the pre-Reunision days, when the ruling party discovered that a completely open-door immigration policy led "somehow" to a semi-permanent political majority.

There is a phenomenon whereby people who don't want something offered to them for free will be interested if they have to pay a small fee. We call Talossan citizenship "The Best Thing That Money Can't Buy", and we literally go out and throw our "pearls before swine". I wouldn't be surprised if this policy actually increased immigration numbers, but in any case, the wager is that it will increase active citizenship.

Honestly, I share the Baron's discomfort that this is very different from my macronational political stance, but that's something we all have to get used to. I don't believe there is such a thing as "high/low quality" citizenship in New Zealand. I do in Talossa.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It seems inarguable to me that the quality of discussion and effort on Wittenberg has been dramatically better since the immigration rate ticked up.  2021 and 2022 were very quiet times here, which makes sense because no one was immigrating.  The doldrums in activity/interest and immigration were deeply correlated.  It's not the only factor, but I think it's hard to ignore that higher immigration seems to have corresponded to a healthier country.

This is mostly a numbers game.  There's a "quality" factor, but that mostly has to do with how people hear about Talossa.  Folks searching for "free passport" or "free ID card" might get the wrong idea, but that probably just means we should be thoughtful about how we present ourselves to applicants... like maybe the application needs big lettering at the top that says, "TALOSSAN DOCUMENTATION NOT VALID FOR BORDERS OR MIGRATION" if we're actually worried about this.  Or think about how we spread the word -- where are we advertising or whatever?

Now, would it increase "quality" if we made it harder to get in?  Probably!  But the math doesn't math, if you think about it.  To wit:

• A small percentage of immigrants are going to turn out to be active and interesting and pleasant.  So that's a little piece of a big pie.
• If we make it harder to get in, the percentage of "quality" immigrants will be higher.  We will not get so many disinterested people, but also we'll lose a few of the more interested ones.  So it's a bigger piece of a smaller pie.
• But I think it has always turned out that the little piece of the big pie is still bigger than the big piece of the little pie.

I'm sorry... I just flat-out don't believe that making it harder to immigrate will result in a larger number of "quality" immigrants.  It doesn't make any sense in principle, and that's not how it's turned out in the past when we ran this actual experiment.

Further, it's not going to help broosking if we give a political appointee a new role as private gatekeeper... isn't that what this bill would do?  Won't that make the problem much, much worse?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

There is a phenomenon whereby people who don't want something offered to them for free will be interested if they have to pay a small fee.

Is this true?  I can only find studies and discussions of people valuing something more after the fact if they paid for it, versus when it's free.  This is a widely-known phenomenon that factors even into things like fraternity hazing ("It was hard to get in, so it's an awesome frat, bro!")

Studies I found on this matter also seem to say the exact opposite -- that people assign an inordinately higher value to free products: Duke study.

I'm very interested in the idea that more people will be interested in a product if it costs a small amount than if it's free, mostly for extraTalossan reasons.  Do you happen to have any links on hand?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I can only find studies and discussions of people valuing something more after the fact if they paid for it, versus when it's free.

That's probably a more rigorous and better way of putting it. I encourage everyone to read the hilarious article this is from:

when something has no cost, you're not motivated to get your money's worth. New games have learning processes, and if you invest zero dollars in one, you invest the same amount of time in figuring out how to play. I know how this sounds, but it's almost as if you have to tax the player in order to get them to learn how to play your game. Ugh. I type 15 jokes about Hitler a day, and that was the most awful sentence I've ever written.

So after a few months, we changed the price from zero to three dollars (then back to free again). And here's what's nuts: When it cost more money, more people downloaded it. And everyone who downloaded it played it more.

But that's what I was getting at. If a new citizen has to make an *effort* to get in, they're more likely to cherish their Talossan citizenship and contribute to the community. So thanks for helping me clarify. And also to clarify, the "effort" I'm suggesting is one of demonstrating understanding what Talossa is and how a new citizen can contribute. I'll never forget that one citizenship who immigrated, tried to play the two major political parties off against each other, choose one, and then vaporized.

I hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.

This appears to be one of those new tasks, Txec. @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB I assume this came up in discussions?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I can only find studies and discussions of people valuing something more after the fact if they paid for it, versus when it's free.

That's probably a more rigorous and better way of putting it.

Hmm... Well, like I said, I knew about that effect, but it's also not quite pertinent to what we're talking about.  In fact, along the same lines, there's another existing phenomenon called the zero-price effect.  It's very well-studied, and it suggests that people tend to value a free thing even higher than they should.  I don't think it actually applies here, but I was curious to tease out that bit there.

But that's what I was getting at. If a new citizen has to make an *effort* to get in, they're more likely to cherish their Talossan citizenship and contribute to the community.

Oh, I definitely agree on that proposition!

But the problem is that the overall effect is still much lower participation, in my opinion, since in this case a small slice of a big pie outweighs the big slice of a small pie.

I don't think there's any reason to think that we'd benefit on net from making it harder to immigrate, in other words.

I hope you noticed that I also identified the problem of "ImmMin getting too much gatekeeping authority", which is why I included the option of an appeal to the SoS.

I mean... come on, Dama Miestra!

Imagine Minister of Immigration Robert Ben Madison telling you, "Dama Miestra, I'm going to be the one to talk to every immigrant first.  If I like their application, I'll approve it.  This process will happen in secret.  You don't have to worry that I will be extra harsh with people who don't think like me, I promise.  But again, you do have to trust me because it'll be a secret process.  And for oversight, these people can appeal to the Secretary of State if they get rejected.  Assuming their rejection doesn't drive them away.  And assuming they know how to do that.  And assuming they can figure out how to do that."

Are you really telling me that you'd be fine with that?  Step away from the fact that it's your idea, and that you've loved this idea of "winnowing out the chaff" for many years: are you telling me you're trusting MinImm Madison with this?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

With the greatest of respect:

1) I actually worked with Ben Madison as Immigration Minister. He decided to keep me out, but he didn't do that through unaccountable backroom shenanigans. He did so by briefing against me with the Uppermost Cort, who had the final say. He wrote a snotty note in his newspaper saying that I could be reconsidered if I learned to toe the line, and of course I was already forming a new micronation by then, lol.

2) I could *already* be throwing half of the immigration applications in the bin and you'd know nothing about it, because you can't see the immigration mailbox. If you really think that any quality control is going to turn into unaccountable gatekeeping, then I expect you to support an automated process where any immigration application gets autoposted to Wittenberg. Which I'd actually support if we decided to reject the idea of quality hurdles.