Statement on "negative attacks"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Good point. IMHO Mic'haglh's proposal has all the positive features of 61RZ27 without the potentially dangerous loopholes/make-work for Immigration Minister.

What say you, Baron?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

First of all, I am glad that we're turning towards a positive discussion of solutions!  The current situation is intolerable, and even if it took this much pressure to make it happen, it's still a good thing to turn our attention towards solutions!

It is fundamentally a terrible idea to allow the government to secretly control immigration, so we need to fix it!

Now, on the bill.  I'm a little surprised to see you bring it up... that bill was posted in September, and within the day, I pointed out some fairly serious problems with it.  And then... nothing.  No response, and here we are in November.

Now that it's a priority, I think my objections from September still need to be addressed.  Here's what I wrote back then, and which you never responded to:

I appreciate the thought and care behind this bill!  It is drafted with great exactness.  I also appreciate your openness to feedback.  I think there's some merit here, but I'd also like to hear more about some aspects.

A couple of immediate notes:

• A lot of this bill isn't strictly necessary, if the Government wants to try this.  The MinImm could establish a Comità del Veitariçaziun today.  Indeed, whatever happens to the bill and regardless of what the peanut gallery thinks, the Government should probably do this immediately if they feel it's a good idea.
• This bill seems like it would establish a third category of ministers, called staff, who are neither deputies nor permanent secretaries.  This doesn't seem like a good idea, and I'd suggest incorporating this into the existing system instead, if possible.
• While I think I understand the rationale for expanding the petition time, it also seems like it's going to be frustrating for eager new immigrants to wait a full month to start participating.  Is this the best way to stop people from feeling adrift once they migrate?  This is the change that is most likely to have the biggest impact.
• The part I don't feel like I understand the rationale for is the need for the clerks and so on.  Can you speak to why you think this is better than just the minister being transparent in public about the process?  As I understand it, if the minister processes every application and announces when they're declining to do so, then we're already maximally transparent (short of automating the process and taking the human element out, which would be a mistake).  What's the advantage of a new bureaucracy here?

So there you have it.  There are some pretty big hurdles here.

1.  First of all, it should probably be pointed out that the problems with The Public Process Act are imaginary, lol.  The law still says very clearly that an incomplete or deficient application can be returned to the applicant with an explanation, and that disclosure to the Ziu would only be required if a complete application was discarded.  And of course, the fear of prosecution is entirely fictional.

But hey, I'm flexible: why not just amend my bill to include a clause saying explicitly that it's not grounds for prosecution or making anything illegal ex post facto (already impossible, of course, but no matter), and another clause saying explicitly that disclosure doesn't apply for incomplete/nonsense applications?  I'll draft up the changes tonight, and we can pass that bill immediately while we work on what you call "very much a draft?"

2.  But anyway: I note that this bill doesn't actually provide government transparency!  I guess it's good that the Opposition would get to appoint one of the bureaucrats who were part of the secret decision-making, but it's not actual government transparency.  I think it's a pretty simple proposition: if the people in our government are secretly blocking applications, I think that the people should know about it!  And that's true even if the bureaucrats are bipartisan.

3.  Speaking of bureaucrats... why exactly would we want to create a new bureaucracy?  One of our planks in this campaign is to cut red tape and eliminate bureaucracy... this seems really counterproductive.  I'm not adamantly opposed, but "let's make a new bureaucracy" seems like a pretty drastic thing to do.

4.  And of course, it has to be pointed out that you guys could have done this back in September if you thought it was a good idea.  You don't need legislation to do this... this very night you could announce two new deputy positions, one of which would be nominated by the Opposition, and let them in on the secret process.  Before we make it mandatory in law, in fact, it seems like you'd want to try it!

All of that being said, I'd love to keep working on this and try to work out the kinks.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Now, on the bill.  I'm a little surprised to see you bring it up... that bill was posted in September, and within the day, I pointed out some fairly serious problems with it.  And then... nothing.  No response, and here we are in November.

I was waiting for someone I can trust to engage in good faith. I still am. I do however find it very amusing that you can simply claim "well your bill has a bunch of problems with it, but mine is perfectly fine!" Like a political party containing the furthest-right politicians in the country claiming to be Progressive, it's an entire electoral campaign built on the concept of "source: just trust me bro!"

However, to correct your criticisms, I would point out that "this bill is unnecessary, the Immigration Ministry could just create the committee now" does nothing to address that simply creating the committee ad-hoc does nothing to take away the legal powers that are vested very much in the Immigration Minister alone. You have to change the law if you want to do that. And to head off your counterargument: yes, the Immigration Minister could simply agree to abide by the committee's wishes, but that's still solely on an honor system and therefore no better than the current situation.

As for the assertion that the committee approach "doesn't actually provide government transparency" -- do you honestly mean to tell me that if you were the Opposition member of the committee, and you were therefore able to witness a hypothetical situation where the Government secretly blocked or discarded an application, you would...simply sit on it? You wouldn't shriek to high heaven about alleged government malfeasance, the same way you do whenever the government does anything without your say-so? None of the standard  theatrics or hyperventilation, nothing? Because after your behavior this last term, I find that hard to believe. Actively including the Opposition in the process allows the Opposition to fulfill its most basic and important duty more effectively: namely, the duty to hold the Government to account. The fact that I need to explain the role of the Opposition in our constitutional order to the person who currently leads it is gravely concerning.

If you were actually concerned about inordinate amounts of power being vested in a single role, you would agree that the best and most effective solution would be to dilute that power among multiple individuals. There are at least two reasons I can think of off the top of my head to believe that you are not actually concerned:

One, part of your platform explicitly calls for concentrating roles and power in the hands of a small number of individuals, and this explicitly runs counter to that.

Two, there is no reason to believe your stances on any issue are taken for any reason other than to use as a cudgel against your opponents. For example, this is why you've changed your tack on immigration at least three times in the last six months, or why you don't believe in devoting a mailer to warn unaware citizens (the ones who never visit Witt) of the dangers of electorally validating S:reu Tzaracomprada -- the only calculation that matters to you is "how can I use [thing] for electoral success".

While I am glad to see that you are at least claiming to abandon your plan to bring lawfare to Talossa, one of the other massive flaws with 61RZ27 that we haven't even addressed yet is that it involves the Chancery, which is a poor plan for at least three reasons:
- From a practical standpoint, the Chancery has enough of a workload as it is.
- This act would require the Chancery to render a decision on whether or not the Government has broken the law, a decision process best left to the judiciary (surely the Clerk of Corts remembers the judiciary?)
- Requiring this decision from the Chancery could open the Secretary of State to baseless accusations of favoritism, something we have seen for other reasons in recent years.

It's pretty obvious that in this case, creating a bit more bureaucracy is preferable to simply stacking more on the desk of the existing positions.

we can pass that bill immediately while we work on what you call "very much a draft?"

"Just give us what we want and trust us to give you want you want later!" Yeah, no.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm going to try to ignore the ton of personal, mean attacks on my character here.  I guess you guys have a brand, and you need to keep to it.

And I also guess I'm happy about the contrast, even though it's not a lot of fun to read right now.

I would point out that "this bill is unnecessary, the Immigration Ministry could just create the committee now" does nothing to address that simply creating the committee ad-hoc does nothing to take away the legal powers that are vested very much in the Immigration Minister alone. You have to change the law if you want to do that. And to head off your counterargument: yes, the Immigration Minister could simply agree to abide by the committee's wishes, but that's still solely on an honor system and therefore no better than the current situation.

Well, the reason you've given for maintaining the government secrecy around immigration control in your plan is that there'd be someone nominated by the Opposition involved.  That's like... the main thing.  You guys could do that tonight.  If you think this is a good idea, why don't you?

Yes, it wouldn't be required by law, but isn't it preferable to try it before you make it legally mandatory?

If you were actually concerned about inordinate amounts of power being vested in a single role, you would agree that the best and most effective solution would be to dilute that power among multiple individuals.

I think probably the best and most effective solution to making the immigration process transparent is to make it transparent, not to just let more officials in on the secret.

one of the other massive flaws with 61RZ27 that we haven't even addressed yet is that it involves the Chancery,

...what?  That's the current law.

I know it might be surprising, but The Public Process Act only adds one small provision... the one requiring the government to disclose when it has blocked someone's immigration application.  Otherwise it's not really changing much of anything.

Don't just take my word for it... here's my bill and here's the current law.

Oof...

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Alexandreu, like I say to Breneir, I beg you to consider the role in which your (collective; the PA's) own behaviour makes the people trying to compete/negotiate with you so frustrated. If you actually want a cross-party consensus that can actually pass during the next Cosa, the right reaction to a positive attempt from us to meet your concerns is not to run off to your party board to declare victory and pat each other on the back.

If you *were* acting in bad faith, not interested in solving a real problem but just in "creating stories" to throw red meat to the base, JD Vance-style, how would you behave differently?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I'm going to try to ignore the ton of personal, mean attacks on my character here.

Truths may hurt, but the only way to truly avoid them is to earn better truths. I don't give honest criticism with the intent to be mean, I give it to offer chances for self-improvement.

Well, the reason you've given for maintaining the government secrecy around immigration control in your plan is that there'd be someone nominated by the Opposition involved.  That's like... the main thing.  You guys could do that tonight.  If you think this is a good idea, why don't you?

This bill does the literal opposite of maintain secrecy, which means you're just going to either ignore everything I've written, or just claim I wrote the opposite.

Yes, it wouldn't be required by law, but isn't it preferable to try it before you make it legally mandatory?

We're already trying the "honor system" version of things. You yourself don't seem to think it's working, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with. Evidently then, we have crossed into where it becomes legally mandatory.

I think probably the best and most effective solution to making the immigration process transparent is to make it transparent, not to just let more officials in on the secret.

Again -- what motivation would the Opposition have to "keep things secret"?

Your criticism of the current system, if taken at face value, stems from two (well, two-and-a-half) issues:
- One, that the Immigration Minister could discard immigration applications without first informing the public
- Two, as per the preamble to 61RZ27, that a future Immigration Minister could abuse their power to unilaterally discard immigration applications based on the perceived views of the applicant (political, religious, etc)
- Two and a half, the country would be none the wiser for this bias as a result of (One).

Now, both the Public Process Act and the Immigration Process Reform Act address the first concern, albeit in different manners. The Public Process Act simply says "the Minister has to tell everybody before they junk an application", which sounds nice in theory, but unfortunately non-compliance is hard to detect -- if they don't post it to begin with, there's no way for the public to know that there was an application to discard in the frst place, which leads us right back to...basically where we are now. The IPRA on the other hand addresses this by placing more eyeballs in the room, and at least one set of those eyeballs has every incentive imaginable to blow the whistle and alert the public if they see something sketchy.

Where they differ is that the IPRA goes further by dividing the Immigration Minister's power among those same "sets of eyeballs", which does a lot to make situation (Two) less likely in the first place. It attacks the issue from both ends, making for a more effective solution.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mic'haglh, slow your roll for a second.  You wrote a whole bulleted list about how outrageous it was that The Public Process Act would put more work on the Chancery.  But it doesn't -- that's the current process, and you made a significant mistake when you were reading the bill.

So do you think it's maybe possible you're also mistaken in other areas of this discussion?  I know that right now you're going attack attack attack, but it is worth maybe slowing down and taking another look?

We're already trying the "honor system" version of things.

So let's think through it.  As I understand your bill, the main protection against a corrupt government bureaucrat secretly discarding applications is that the Opposition would appoint their own government bureaucrat as well, and they'd keep an eye on each other.

We're not doing that right now, agreed?  But if you think this is a good idea, you could do it today.

So why not do it?  Either it's a good idea, or it's not.

Again -- what motivation would the Opposition have to "keep things secret"?

I don't want government bureaucrats to have the power to secretly control immigration, even if one of those bureaucrats is chosen by another political party.

I think we should instead just opt for transparency.  And since I'm already skeptical of a plan that requires creating a whole new bureaucracy, I don't know why we'd choose that route instead, just to keep the process secret.  Why is "keep it secret" even a goal?  The people deserve to know.

I mean... what are we trying to hide?

WThe Public Process Act simply says "the Minister has to tell everybody before they junk an application", which sounds nice in theory, but unfortunately non-compliance is hard to detect

This is a fair point!  I thought about this, but if my bill passed, the minister couldn't legally just delete an application -- they'd be committing a crime.  That's a very different thing from the current system, where they might not be proud of doing something unethical, but they know it's legal (shockingly so).

It seems pretty easy to fix as a practical matter, if you're really worried about this.  I mean, we can just mirror the application emails to another email address that only the Avocat-Xheneral or someone else can access.  Or even a justice on the cort.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Just for my own understanding. How is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition (not just "another political party" but specifically the Opposition)? The A-Xh might even have an incentive not to publicise corrupt behaviour by fellow coalitioners, whereas an Opposition appointee would have every incentive to publicise such behaviour. What am I missing here?

Similarly, since in the current set-up the MinImm has no obligation to share new applications with anyone, even if the Opposition were to appoint an immigration inspector right now, the MinImm could just as well delete applications, tell the appointee that no applications came in, and the rest of us would be none the wiser (as there is neither an obligation to be transparent nor any mechanism to ensure that the Opposition gets notified of new applications unadulterated). If a MinImm is already inclined to withhold or delete applications, they would have no additional ethical dilemma about withholding information that they are not legally and mechanically obligated to share. So in the end implementing this idea without legal enforceability would rely on the honour system again. What am I missing here also?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

How is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition

Yeah, that's a great point!  I'd suggest that my other suggested option of a justice would be the better choice.  I think the A-X is typically going to be fairly unlikely to abet a crime, but a justice would be much more unlikely.  Or even an email account the justices can all access.  It'd probably never be used, unless there's some reason to suspect that applications are being secretly discarded (like a later Government wants to check or the like).

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'd suggest that my other suggested option of a justice would be the better choice

Getting the judiciary involved "without case or controversy"? I don't think you get the concept of "separation of powers".

There is a weird reluctance here to actually authorise the Opposition Leader to do an opposition leader's job, i.e. keep an eye on the Government. Which makes me suspect the good faith of this discussion.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

How is your idea of mirroring application emails to the A-Xh (who would be a cabinet member and part of the governing coalition) any more transparent than doing the same but with someone appointed by HM Opposition

Yeah, that's a great point!  I'd suggest that my other suggested option of a justice would be the better choice.  I think the A-X is typically going to be fairly unlikely to abet a crime, but a justice would be much more unlikely.  Or even an email account the justices can all access.  It'd probably never be used, unless there's some reason to suspect that applications are being secretly discarded (like a later Government wants to check or the like).

Justices would be impartial I suppose, but when it comes to scrutinising the Government's actions I don't think you want impartiality, but rather thoroughness and rigorosity. Maybe this is a cultural barrier of sorts, but from my understanding, the whole point of the Opposition is to scrutinise the Government and discredit them for wrongdoing. As such, the most logical choice for who to give mirrored applications to would be the Opposition. Whatever other criteria we might want to place on the MinImm to disincentivise deleting or withholding applications, it should be up to the elected Opposition to make sure that no deleting or withholding actually takes place. I hope what I'm writing here makes sense.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Getting the judiciary involved "without case or controversy"? I don't think you get the concept of "separation of powers".

We ask the justices to do all kinds of things like this.  The senior justice advises His Majesty and they appoint people to oversee elections.

I mean... this kind of stuff is the point of separation of powers, lol.

Justices would be impartial I suppose, but when it comes to scrutinising the Government's actions I don't think you want impartiality, but rather thoroughness and rigorosity. Maybe this is a cultural barrier of sorts, but from my understanding, the whole point of the Opposition is to scrutinise the Government and discredit them for wrongdoing. As such, the most logical choice for who to give mirrored applications to would be the Opposition. Whatever other criteria we might want to place on the MinImm to disincentivise deleting or withholding applications, it should be up to the elected Opposition to make sure that no deleting or withholding actually takes place. I hope what I'm writing here makes sense.

No, you're right, and I definitely didn't envision the justices as having any hand in investigating or whatever.  I was just thinking about a person outside of our electeds to have a copy of the record in a way that would be outside of government control.  Even if the Government just quickly and quietly deleted an application, there would still be evidence of it.  His Majesty might also make sense as someone with access to the record.

Is there a version of this where the Opposition could request access to the record, or something similar?  I guess, and I'm not really opposed.  I'm just wary of creating a whole new big edifice to address what is hopefully a theoretical concern, and so I'd also be content with a preserved record available for another government to investigate in the future.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Is there a version of this where the Opposition could request access to the record, or something similar?  I guess, and I'm not really opposed.  I'm just wary of creating a whole new big edifice to address what is hopefully a theoretical concern, and so I'd also be content with a preserved record available for another government to investigate in the future.

If you simply were to give access to an account with mirrored applications on it to e.g. the Tanaischteu you wouldn't need any further edifices. Better yet, the Opposition wouldn't have to wait until they win an election to discover illegally suppressed applications, since they have full access to the emails as they come in in real time. Wouldn't that be preferable?

[King Txec]

Two points: first, it seems that if the opposition did as most other parliamentary systems do, which is to employ a shadow cabinet, then could not the Shadow Immigration Minister perform this function?

Second: Chief Judge Edwards doesn't advise me in any substantial way, is not on my Privy Council, so I don't exactly know what you are referring to Baron. Puisne Judge Plätschisch is a member of the Privy Council, however, but his advice is limited to the functions of any other Guaír (as are you).

-Txec R

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If you simply were to give access to an account with mirrored applications on it to e.g. the Tanaischteu you wouldn't need any further edifices. Better yet, the Opposition wouldn't have to wait until they win an election to discover illegally suppressed applications, since they have full access to the emails as they come in in real time. Wouldn't that be preferable?

As an addition to legally requiring public disclosure, I guess that would make sense?  I'm not too fussed about it either way when we get to this juncture, because I do think that just making it actually against the law to do this in secret is 90% of the battle.  So sure, yeah, if that's what gets everyone on board, I'd be fine with adding that to the bill.  Do you have suggested language or would you prefer I write it?

Two points: first, it seems that if the opposition did as most other parliamentary systems do, which is to employ a shadow cabinet, then could not the Shadow Immigration Minister perform this function?

Sure, although we probably don't want to require that.  It could just be a person nominated by the Opposition, almost similar to what Mic'halgh has suggested (albeit without the new bureaucracy).

Second: Chief Judge Edwards doesn't advise me in any substantial way, is not on my Privy Council, so I don't exactly know what you are referring to Baron. Puisne Judge Plätschisch is a member of the Privy Council, however, but his advice is limited to the functions of any other Guaír (as are you).
-Txec R

It's not done as a matter of practice, but the senior justice is ex officio a member of the Sabor, according to the law, Your Majesty.  So is the Seneschal.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

As an addition to legally requiring public disclosure, I guess that would make sense?  I'm not too fussed about it either way when we get to this juncture, because I do think that just making it actually against the law to do this in secret is 90% of the battle.

As Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the purported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

So sure, yeah, if that's what gets everyone on board, I'd be fine with adding that to the bill.  Do you have suggested language or would you prefer I write it?

Nah, go ahead.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

As Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the proported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

I actually think it's worth quite a bit to criminalize it.  I think that most people are hesitant to break the law, even if they think they might get away with it.

Okay, so then, I'll try to build a consensus around that: The Public Process Bill with an extra provision requiring that immigration applications be mirrored to an account accessible by the Opposition Leader.  The account will need a custodian, so I guess maybe either His Majesty or the Chancery?  I'll see what makes sense and what people are comfortable with.  It's basically just "save this password somewhere" so it's not a lot.

[King Txec]

You're right. I had quite forgotten that and should probably include Owen in PMs and such.

-Txec R

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Two points: first, it seems that if the opposition did as most other parliamentary systems do, which is to employ a shadow cabinet, then could not the Shadow Immigration Minister perform this function?

I would say this is a good idea, if not for the fact that Shadow Cabinets seem to be rare in part due to manpower. If we broaden the language a bit (again, perhaps to simply make it an appointee of the Leader of the Opposition, which is functionally equivalent to a Shadow MinImm anyway) that would achieve one of the main goals of increasing the transparency of the immigration system, since that is of course what the Opposition's purpose is in a parliamentary democracy.

The fact that awareness of this purpose is spreading is a good thing.