The Immigration Reform Compromise Act

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

WHEREAS, the current immigration process is noted for several shortcomings, and

WHEREAS, several different bills were proposed in the last Cosa term to address them, and

WHEREAS, these bills largely focused on different aspects of the process, and each had bill had its positives and negatives, and

WHEREAS, a compromise bill focused on a "carrot and stick" approach seems the most likely method to ensure the process is improved as much as possible; then

BE IT RESOLVED by the Ziu that the following changes be made to El Lexhatx:

• Title E, Section 2.1, which currently reads:

  The Minister of Immigration shall ascertain to their own satisfaction 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.

  shall be amended by deletion of the text "telephone number, ".
• Title E, Section 2.6 shall be created to read:

  All immigration applications shall be automatically forwarded to an email address under the control of the Crown. This email address shall not be accessible to any member of His Majesty's Government, but the King shall give access to this email address to the Leader of the Opposition or their designee.

• Title E, Section 5, which currently reads:

  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.

  shall be replaced in its entirety with:

  5. If, at any point during the process, either before or after creation of the Wittenberg account, the Immigration Minister and any member of the Opposition determine 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. This decision may only be made after the application has been processed and posted, and the public must be informed of the minister's decision and the justification for the decision.  The public need not be informed if an insufficient application is being returned to the applicant under the terms of Lexh.E.2.4.
  
  5.2. 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.

FURTHERMORE, nothing in this bill shall be construed as an ex post facto attempt to criminalize any associated behavior performed in any ministerial duties of the past, nor shall any such behavior be grounds for prosecution.

Ureu q'estadra så,
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC - URL)

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

As the title implies, this is meant to be a good-faith compromise between the Public Process Act and the Immigration Process Reform Act that improves upon both.

- The PPA was criticized for doing nothing to actually prevent abuses of the law and requiring the Immigration Minister to "tell on themselves", so to speak. The re-introduced version, to its credit, addresses the latter more effectively, at least.
- The IPRA's dilution of power was well-received, but some criticized the introduction of a new bureaucracy needed to do so. This bill still dilutes ministerial power, but does so without the creation of new bureaucracy, so hopefully the IPRA's critics will look upon this new bill more favorably.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

At a first glance, this looks extremely similar to the Public Process Act, except that we would no longer be asking for phone numbers? But that's not really mentioned in the explanation. Could you unpack that for us and explain any other differences that might exist?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

The other main difference is the inclusion of that bolded text in Item 3:

5. If, at any point during the process, either before or after creation of the Wittenberg account, the Immigration Minister and any member of the Opposition determine that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further

This is that "dilution of power" I referred to, the clause that actually removes the Immigration Minister's power that the PA campaigned against. The IPRA portion is the carrot, the PPA portion is the stick, and it would seem to make the most sense to do both.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Okay, but I was really first asking about the phone number thing. You don't explain that in the bill or anywhere else. Could you please unpack that for us?

[Xheralt Del’Encradeir]

WHEREAS, the current immigration process is noted for several shortcomings, and

WHEREAS, several different bills were proposed in the last Cosa term to address them, and

WHEREAS, these bills largely focused on different aspects of the process, and each had bill had its positives and negatives, and

WHEREAS, a compromise bill focused on a "carrot and stick" approach seems the most likely method to ensure the process is improved as much as possible; then

BE IT RESOLVED by the Ziu that the following changes be made to El Lexhatx:

• Title E, Section 2.1, which currently reads:

  The Minister of Immigration shall ascertain to their own satisfaction 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.

  shall be amended by deletion of the text "telephone number, ".
• Title E, Section 2.6 shall be created to read:

  All immigration applications shall be automatically forwarded to an email address under the control of the Crown. This email address shall not be accessible to any member of His Majesty's Government, but the King shall give access to this email address to the Leader of the Opposition or their designee.

• Title E, Section 5, which currently reads:

  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.

  shall be replaced in its entirety with:

  5. If, at any point during the process, either before or after creation of the Wittenberg account, the Immigration Minister and any member of the Opposition determine 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. This decision may only be made after the application has been processed and posted, and the public must be informed of the minister's decision and the justification for the decision.  The public need not be informed if an insufficient application is being returned to the applicant under the terms of Lexh.E.2.4.
  
  5.2. 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.

FURTHERMORE, nothing in this bill shall be construed as an ex post facto attempt to criminalize any associated behavior performed in any ministerial duties of the past, nor shall any such behavior be grounds for prosecution.

Ureu q'estadra så,
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC - URL)

WHY is there deletion of the user account?!  That is very unfriendly and not conducive for reapplication.  Say instead "Wittenberg access shall be restricted to the level of access permitted other non-citizens (Landing Pier, etc.)"

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Okay, but I was really first asking about the phone number thing. You don't explain that in the bill or anywhere else. Could you please unpack that for us?

Ah, you asked me to "explain any other differences that might exist", so I was focusing on the main functional difference between this bill and the PPA. Since this bill is deliberately intended as a compromise act that can safely count on the approval of the Ziu, obvious similarities with the PPA are to be expected.

The deletion of the phone number requirement is mostly due to changes over the years in how people are reachable; the previous Immigration Minister had even mentioned that this is likely an outdated requirement. It is also probably the least important change in the bill, so I am flexible on it if it means we can look at the rest of the bill.

WHY is there deletion of the user account?!  That is very unfriendly and not conducive for reapplication.  Say instead "Wittenberg access shall be restricted to the level of access permitted other non-citizens (Landing Pier, etc.)"

Deletion of the user account is not a change enacted by this law, to be clear. That appears to have been first put in place by 35RZ22, if not before even that. 35RZ22 was passed on the December 2005 Clark, so we've been doing things this way for 20 years now. If you think that's something we should look at, I'm ok with that, but I'd like to keep this bill focused if possible.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It feels like the phone number is still a pretty important requirement to have. There are a couple of applications from the past couple of days to be processed, and I think the main way I would check their authenticity if I doubted them was to call their phone numbers. What are the changes that have happened in how people are reachable? I'm not 100% sure what that means.

So the other change from the main bill is that you would need to sign off on the public halting of anyone's application process? That is a pretty dramatic change, S:reu Opposition Leader, because I'm not aware of much else in the law where the Opposition gets to share government powers. Could you tell me more what you mean by the carrot and the stick? Who is the donkey in the metaphor?


The last thing I'll note is that your bill as written conflicts with the Public Process Act, so probably we will need to tweak it so that it can be considered alongside that.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

It feels like the phone number is still a pretty important requirement to have. There are a couple of applications from the past couple of days to be processed, and I think the main way I would check their authenticity if I doubted them was to call their phone numbers. What are the changes that have happened in how people are reachable? I'm not 100% sure what that means.

Alright, then let's see what other people think.

So the other change from the main bill is that you would need to sign off on the public halting of anyone's application process? That is a pretty dramatic change, S:reu Opposition Leader, because I'm not aware of much else in the law where the Opposition gets to share government powers. Could you tell me more what you mean by the carrot and the stick? Who is the donkey in the metaphor?

Not necessarily myself, or any other future Opposition Leader. Could be anyone. Could be Miestra, could be Iac Moritzescu. Anyone who shares the concerns of the Immigration Minister about a given prospective citizen. Interestingly enough, Immigration is actually one area that the Opposition has had a stake in before, the difference there being that back in the day it was only the Leader.
Also, to be clear, the donkey in the metaphor is an immigration process in need of accountability and transparency.

The last thing I'll note is that your bill as written conflicts with the Public Process Act, so probably we will need to tweak it so that it can be considered alongside that.

As this bill does everything the Public Process Act does and then some, it renders the PPA redundant. On the upside, this means that I am certainly open to co-sponsorship from the Seneschal (as well as Sir Tafial) in return for dropping the PPA, to make sure credit is distributed as deserved. Unfortunately, with the Government's actions early in their tenure eroding what little trust they enjoyed among the wider Ziu, I do not believe the appetite exists from our side to engage in what I'll call "Wimpy-style dealmaking" ("I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"), so I think it's best to try and work on a single compromise bill rather than to play hardball.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Not necessarily myself, or any other future Opposition Leader. Could be anyone. Could be Miestra, could be Iac Moritzescu. Anyone who shares the concerns of the Immigration Minister about a given prospective citizen. Interestingly enough, Immigration is actually one area that the Opposition has had a stake in before, the difference there being that back in the day it was only the Leader.
Also, to be clear, the donkey in the metaphor is an immigration process in need of accountability and transparency.

But what is the actual reason here? Most of this bill is mine, except for this change (and the phone thing which you actually don't seem that enamored with). So you must have some pretty strong and specific reasons why this is an improvement.

As this bill does everything the Public Process Act does and then some, it renders the PPA redundant. On the upside, this means that I am certainly open to co-sponsorship from the Seneschal (as well as Sir Tafial) in return for dropping the PPA, to make sure credit is distributed as deserved. Unfortunately, with the Government's actions early in their tenure eroding what little trust they enjoyed among the wider Ziu, I do not believe the appetite exists from our side to engage in what I'll call "Wimpy-style dealmaking" ("I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"), so I think it's best to try and work on a single compromise bill rather than to play hardball.

Well, our flagship bill that we campaigned on for months and that I have already moved to the CRL and which has bipartisan sponsorship is going to move forward, obviously. I'm glad that you liked it enough to duplicate it for the most part here, but it doesn't make any sense for us to abandon it in favor of a nearly identical bill with your name on it, lol.

Because the changes are actually about a different thing and in a different place, though, it would be relatively easy to isolate them so that they can pass on their own merits. Our bill is about making sure that it's impossible to secretly block an immigrant, well this one is about changing a process so that it requires your agreement. Presumably the URL is not again threatening to block the Public Process Act, after all, so it makes more sense to separate these things out.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

. Presumably the URL is not again threatening to block the Public Process Act,

There seems to exist an inaccurate belief within the Progressive Alliance that the URL did not simply suffer an election defeat on the numbers, but that we suffered one morally, in that we are not entitled to use our blocking majority in the Senäts in the way that it seems good to us to do so.

Mic'haglh is promoting a compromise bill which would make the PPA's provisions acceptable to the URL. Now, I can foresee a situation where the PA rejects this, puts the PPA2 on the First Clark, and it fails in the Senäts. Then, Mic'haglh puts the IRCA on the Second Clark, and the PA shoot it down. So that's two Clarks lost and then the choices are some kind of compromise bill, or no reform this Cosă. Seems wise to do the compromise *now*.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I hope the URL will not try to block this legislation again - especially now that it's improved, has support from multiple parties, and since it's so acceptable it's mostly copied here.

Still, I would love to talk about the specifics here. We might just agree and amend the bill if we could discuss it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I would love to talk about the specifics here. We might just agree and amend the bill if we could discuss it.

If you're Clarking it, then apparently not?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I must say, it seems like bad form (and frankly also foolhardiness) to signal the possibility for compromise only to clark the bill on the very next day.

For any bill to be passed into law this Cosă, the Progressives and the Free Reformists need to work together and essentially govern by consensus. It would be better for everyone involved to get used to this arrangement sooner rather than later.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Our bill was our flagship bill that we made a focus point of our campaign, frequently promised to work hard to pass, and amended with feedback over the course of the months and months it was available. Again, it's been months.

Five days ago, this version was proposed. It's an almost identical copy. I have repeatedly and frequently engaged about it, but I'm not going to derail the main focus of our campaign at the last minute.

If this change is a good one, then I can pull the bill from the Clark and add it, if we're in time. I'm happy to do that, and there's precedent for that happening. Or we can just make this a stand-alone bill. I don't actually have any immediate objection to the change, and it's not directly related to the main focus of the bill, so it wouldn't be a problem. Some in my party have suggested that this is just an effort at gamesmanship, to provide a cynical reason to kill a popular piece of legislation. I don't think that's true, though, and so I do still want to discuss this proposed change.

So what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

this is just an effort at gamesmanship, to provide a cynical reason to kill a popular piece of legislation

Certainly, this legislation is popular with PA members.

But that argument comes quite close to an argument that our Senäts delegation are not fully entitled to vote their consciences on any piece of legislation. The counter-majoritarian nature of the Senäts is, we thought, precisely what you used to say was good about it.

There are a grand total of two choices to get any Government legislation passed this term:

1) the PA and the URL make a mutually satisfying deal.
2) the PA shames and condemns the URL for angry, cynical gamesmanship and illegitimate motives, and hopes at least one URL Senator will admit you're right and surrender.

Our party leader Mic'haglh is taking point on this issue and insha'llah he can make the deal with you before Clark time.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

There are a grand total of two choices to get any Government legislation passed this term:

1) the PA and the URL make a mutually satisfying deal.
2) the PA shames and condemns the URL for angry, cynical gamesmanship and illegitimate motives, and hopes at least one URL Senator will admit you're right and surrender.

Lol... most people would probably include a third option, where neither party is whipping the vote to achieve maximum leverage, and instead approves of a bill based on its merits.

Listen, you can scroll back through the thread and see that I have been really active and engaged in discussing this thing. When it was introduced 5 days ago, I immediately asked some clarifying questions so I could better understand it. After a few days, Mic'haglh got back to me with answers, and I've continued to try to get some clarity about why this particular change is important (outside of rebranding), Even though I'm not easily able to access a computer over this holiday season. But if getting this done fast is a priority, I do really think we should get to actually talking about why we would want to change the immigration process to require the opposition leader (Mic'haglh right now) to approve of halting immigration.

As my understanding had it, this would be a emergency thing we would need to do because of serious and immediate harm. When we last discussed this, for example, it was brought up to me that people could say really horrible things and hurt others if the government didn't have the power to stop the process on a dime. So this seems like a strange new requirement - almost the contrary of that. I'm obviously open to it, but I do think we need to actually talk about it.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

So what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

The simplest answer would be that the Seneschal himself has campaigned against the Immigration Minister having a secret, unilateral veto over citizenship applications. One of his most zealously-delivered criticisms was his concern that the Immigration Minister could simply reject applications they found objectionable, including on political grounds. While this was obviously not happening under the previous Immigration Minister, it is a valid concern more generally, and an effective way of addressing this would be to require the permission of a politically-opposed individual in order to terminate an application. His bill, after feedback from others, finally addresses the "secret", but not the "unilateral". Why settle for fixing one when we can fix both?

Let's maybe take stock of what each side would stand to gain from a compromise:

Government gets:
- Basically everything they want out of the PPA2, including addressing the secrecy of the immigration process.
- Regaining some of the trust from the Opposition that they have squandered before the Cosa has even been seated.

Opposition gets:
- Addressing the unilateral nature of the Immigration Minister's power, which we believe to be of equal importance.
- An indication that the Government understands the necessity of government by consensus during the term to come.

Both sides get:
- Their respective leaders as co-sponsors of this bill (assuming the Seneschal is open to doing so).
- "Partial credit" for improving the accountability and impartiality of the immigration process.
- As a result, all involved get to count this as "a win" for their side, so to speak.

The country gets:
- An immigration process that can be better held accountable.
- A "lowered temperature", to an extent, that can hopefully lead to further collaboration on practical issues facing the country.

I do really think we should get to actually talking about why we would want to change the immigration process to require the opposition leader (Mic'haglh right now) to approve of halting immigration.

As previously noted, that would be any member of the opposition, not just myself. Just wanted to clarify in case you had actually failed to notice the first time I corrected you, and are not simply mischaracterizing the plain text of the bill in an attempt to spin a narrative.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

So what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

The simplest answer would be that the Seneschal himself has campaigned against the Immigration Minister having a secret, unilateral veto over citizenship applications. One of his most zealously-delivered criticisms was his concern that the Immigration Minister could simply reject applications they found objectionable, including on political grounds. While this was obviously not happening under the previous Immigration Minister, it is a valid concern more generally, and an effective way of addressing this would be to require the permission of a politically-opposed individual in order to terminate an application. His bill, after feedback from others, finally addresses the "secret", but not the "unilateral". Why settle for fixing one when we can fix both?

That makes sense to me.  I will withdraw my bill from the Clark and amend it to that effect.