[TERP] Interior: 'deed poll' names used during immigration

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

My personal preference would be for people to use their real names, in Talossan-language equivalents if they prefer. That said, as long as we have a Senator of the Kingdom who won a Cort case saying that he was entirely entitled to use a pseudonym and not give his real name, and has celebrated his victory for the last year by *checks notes* voting CONTRA on every single bill until we finally vote him out of there, just to be a verpa, I think we have to accept that that's the way things stand.

Am I to understand the Regent that Immigration should be announcing, or hinting, to prospectives that pseudonyms are frowned upon? I think that would be a bit heavy-handed. Free Democrats tend to go for "anything not expressly forbidden has to be tolerated".

[Açafat del Val]

I would like to say: case law is law only to the extent that a judge interpreted statutes at the time of judgement, meaning in other words that a change to those statutes would indirectly invalidate (or make moot) any contradictory case law.

The criminal case being mentioned was not decided on law but on the merits of the prosecution, certain dicta notwithstanding, and the appeal after it bore no precedent according to the OrgLaw because it was heard by only one member of the Uppermost Cort. That is to say: the judgement at issue does not by itself create case law for Talossa, but affords justice only for the particular defendant in that particular case.

The Ziu is entirely at liberty under the Organic Law to enact a statute defining what a name is, prohibiting the use of "fake names" and so forth, despite the acquittal of Senator Guy Incognito.

If there is appetite for this, I will gladly write a draft and place it in the Hopper. There is room to go further than the Pete Townsend Act.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

My personal preference would be for people to use their real names, in Talossan-language equivalents if they prefer. That said, as long as we have a Senator of the Kingdom who won a Cort case saying that he was entirely entitled to use a pseudonym and not give his real name, and has celebrated his victory for the last year by *checks notes* voting CONTRA on every single bill until we finally vote him out of there, just to be a verpa, I think we have to accept that that's the way things stand.

Am I to understand the Regent that Immigration should be announcing, or hinting, to prospectives that pseudonyms are frowned upon? I think that would be a bit heavy-handed. Free Democrats tend to go for "anything not expressly forbidden has to be tolerated".

I think the whole point is not to be heavy-handed, but just to nudge people towards a culture where we use names that correspond with our real names as a general norm, with exceptions made for specific and understandable reasons.  I think that should be our culture and our norm.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would like to say: case law is law only to the extent that a judge interpreted statutes at the time of judgement, meaning in other words that a change to those statutes would indirectly invalidate (or make moot) any contradictory case law.

The criminal case being mentioned was not decided on law but on the merits of the prosecution, certain dicta notwithstanding, and the appeal after it bore no precedent according to the OrgLaw because it was heard by only one member of the Uppermost Cort. That is to say: the judgement at issue does not by itself create case law for Talossa, but affords justice only for the particular defendant in that particular case.

The Ziu is entirely at liberty under the Organic Law to enact a statute defining what a name is, prohibiting the use of "fake names" and so forth, despite the acquittal of Senator Guy Incognito.

If there is appetite for this, I will gladly write a draft and place it in the Hopper. There is room to go further than the Pete Townsend Act.

Yes, this is pretty much what I was driving at, here.  Something as simple as permitting a pseudonym only with the specific affirmation of the MinImm predicated on a set of general principles for guidance (eg, "if the Ministreu determines that the adoption of a pseudonym is necessary for the health or well-being of the applicant").

[Eðo Grischun]

No.  I would have to vote against any measure trying to force a "real name" only rule.  I try to make it a habit not to vote for things in Talossa that are more authoritarian and limiting than the laws of my resident country.

"We're not supposed to just be an internet message board -- we're supposed to be a community."

I agree.  So, let's look at all this with a derivitist viewpoint and that quote in mind...

In the UK I am free to go about my daily life using whatever name I so choose.  This can be as simple as going by Eddie instead of Edward, or choosing to interchange both depending on how I feel.  I actually do this, both at home and in Talossa.  I can also choose to go by any random name.  If I decide I don't like my surname, I can just decide, right here and right now, to start using a different one.  If I fancy sounding more pompous in life I might want to choose to change my name to Reginald Nigel Hargreaves and it would be completely allowed. I don't need special certificates or anything if I want to do that.  I'm sure the US has similar freedoms.

Of course, a limit applies.  I can't have it printed on my driving licence or open a bank account in this new name unless I go through the 'deed poll' process.  I say "process", but all I need to do is fill out a form and pay a fee.

When would it not be allowed?  There might be more circumstances in the UK where it would not be allowed, but for now the only relevant answer is immigration.  People coming into the country must provide immigration authorities with real details, obviously.  However, once they have left the immigration buildings and have gone into the community, they can start going about using whatever name they wish. 

That is the Talossan status quo (-ish).  We demand that a real and legal name is collected during immigration.  We verify that to the best of our ability.  After that, we leave it up to the person to have the freedom to go by whatever name they wish for whatever reason they wish. 

Bottom line.  It is none of anyone's business, other than for official reasons, what a person's birth name might be unless they choose to tell you.  The fact that somebody might not like that is, well, gradnă.

I think I would support tougher measures of identity verification; that's fair enough.  I think it will hurt immigration numbers, but I can get behind it. However, I will not support the abolition of deed polls / introduction of a "real names only" law.  Again, I try to make it a habit not to vote for laws in Talossa that restrict freedoms to a degree where I would be less free in Talossa than I would be in my resident country of the UK.

[Açafat del Val]

No.  I would have to vote against any measure trying to force a "real name" only rule.  I try to make it a habit not to vote for things in Talossa that are more authoritarian and limiting than the laws of my resident country.

There is a difference between 'forcing a real name' and 'prohibiting fake names'. I proposed the latter.

In the UK I am free to go about my daily life using whatever name I so choose.  This can be as simple as going by Eddie instead of Edward, or choosing to interchange both depending on how I feel.  I actually do this, both at home and in Talossa.  I can also choose to go by any random name.  If I decide I don't like my surname, I can just decide, right here and right now, to start using a different one.  If I fancy sounding more pompous in life I might want to choose to change my name to Reginald Nigel Hargreaves and it would be completely allowed. I don't need special certificates or anything if I want to do that.  I'm sure the US has similar freedoms.

The US does not have similar freedoms.

For one, it would be grounds for fraud to walk around using different names.

For two, all (or nearly all) of the states require a process far more strenuous than you are describing. I have two personal friends who changed their names in the last 5 years, and it was not nearly as simple as paying some fees. A person has to send put out an ad in a newspaper whose audience is larger than a certain number; they have to send certified mail to all their creditors, and prove to the court that those creditors have received ALL POTENTIAL NOTIFICATION that the name change occurred; they have to wait X number of days so that members of the public may protest against the change; and they have to carry documents for the rest of their lives to prove why their legal name is now different than their birth name.

For three, I strongly contest the assertion on its merits, anyways, that you can go around with "whatever name you so choose". Sure, in the narrowest sense possible, that is true and no one will stop you. But you cannot rightly purchase a car under "Steve Mccaw" while paying down a mortgage under "Julius Pumpernickel".

Yeah, the government cannot and will not proscribe any particular names - so I very well could change my own surname to Pumpernickel - but I most certainly cannot walk around the community using two different names depending on who I want to fool. Actors don't get two stage names, and even when they use one, both the government and anyone who gives them money have every legal right to know their "real name" and their whereabouts (in addition to the legal power to find them and compel answers).

At least in the U.S., what you're describing would be fraudulent and constitute a cause of action for any civil suit... especially if any money was exchanged.

Of course, a limit applies.  I can't have it printed on my driving licence or open a bank account in this new name unless I go through the 'deed poll' process.  I say "process", but all I need to do is fill out a form and pay a fee.

See above.

When would it not be allowed?  There might be more circumstances in the UK where it would not be allowed, but for now the only relevant answer is immigration.  People coming into the country must provide immigration authorities with real details, obviously.  However, once they have left the immigration buildings and have gone into the community, they can start going about using whatever name they wish. 

That is the Talossan status quo (-ish).  We demand that a real and legal name is collected during immigration.  We verify that to the best of our ability.  After that, we leave it up to the person to have the freedom to go by whatever name they wish for whatever reason they wish. 

Bottom line.  It is none of anyone's business, other than for official reasons, what a person's birth name might be unless they choose to tell you.  The fact that somebody might not like that is, well, gradnă.

I'm gonna have to sternly agree to disagree. It is absolutely my right as a Talossan to know that the person on the other side of the table is real, acting in good faith, and answerable to a court of law. The entire fiasco of Guy Incognito is that, if it were not for his own failure to perpetuate his lies and hide them better, then one day he could have disappeared and taken Talossa's treasury/website/other property with him... and we would have ZERO recourse to recover any of it.

I do not care if someone uses a Talossan name. After all, look at me. What I do mind is when someone makes themself unanswerable to our laws.

Bottom line, if you can't trust Talossa enough with your "real name", then you don't belong here. Either you have a malicious agenda, you are flaky, you are trying to undermine the sovereignty or validity of our government, or combinations thereof.

I think I would support tougher measures of identity verification; that's fair enough.  I think it will hurt immigration numbers, but I can get behind it. However, I will not support the abolition of deed polls / introduction of a "real names only" law.  Again, I try to make it a habit not to vote for laws in Talossa that restrict freedoms to a degree where I would be less free in Talossa than I would be in my resident country of the UK.

It is possible to prohibit "fake names" at the same time as allowing "street names". These things are not mutually exclusive.

[Eðo Grischun]

There is a difference between 'forcing a real name' and 'prohibiting fake names'. I proposed the latter.

The end result is the same.  By prohibiting assumed names you effectively force real names.  Unless there's an aspect here I'm missing?

The US does not have similar freedoms.

Except it does.  Forgive me for using Wikipedia as my reference for this.

"Several federal court rulings have set precedents regarding both court decreed name changes and common law name changes (changing the name at will), including Lindon v. First National Bank. In Christianson v. King County, 239 U.S. 356 (1915), the Supreme Court accepted a name changed using the common law method as a legal name (more detail of the decision accepted by the Supreme Court is found at 196 F. 791 (1912)).

As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change."

This is almost the same situation as the one I described for the UK.  Just 4 of the 50 US States disallow the practice of adopting an new name to be used at will and in everyday settings.  A certification process does exist, similar to the UK's deed poll system, if the person wanted to use the name for official purposes that process would be required, such as recording the name on identity documents or for entering into contracts. But, for everyday stuff, like introducing yourself to neighbours and new friends, no.

For one, it would be grounds for fraud to walk around using different names.

No, it wouldn't.  The mere act of introducing yourself and going by a name different to the one that your parents gave you is not fraud.  Using the name to enter into contracts, evade debts, secure identity documents, however, is. There is a difference.

For two, all (or nearly all) of the states require a process far more strenuous than you are describing. I have two personal friends who changed their names in the last 5 years, and it was not nearly as simple as paying some fees. A person has to send put out an ad in a newspaper whose audience is larger than a certain number; they have to send certified mail to all their creditors, and prove to the court that those creditors have received ALL POTENTIAL NOTIFICATION that the name change occurred; they have to wait X number of days so that members of the public may protest against the change; and they have to carry documents for the rest of their lives to prove why their legal name is now different than their birth name.

It seems each State has it's own rules on how strict the process would be, but, again, the process is only required if they wanted the name change recorded on official documents, against bank accounts, and things like that.  None of that happens in Talossa, so it's all moot.

For three, I strongly contest the assertion on its merits, anyways, that you can go around with "whatever name you so choose". Sure, in the narrowest sense possible, that is true and no one will stop you. But you cannot rightly purchase a car under "Steve Mccaw" while paying down a mortgage under "Julius Pumpernickel".

Two different things there, though.  Buying the car or paying the mortgage required entering into some form of contract and both examples would have required producing identity docs. Of course, then, both scenarios would have to be played out under the same name as only one set of identity docs would be considered legal. However, those are not examples of going around with whatever name you so choose; ie. using a name in the community for non official purposes.

Yeah, the government cannot and will not proscribe any particular names - so I very well could change my own surname to Pumpernickel - but I most certainly cannot walk around the community using two different names depending on who I want to fool. Actors don't get two stage names, and even when they use one, both the government and anyone who gives them money have every legal right to know their "real name" and their whereabouts (in addition to the legal power to find them and compel answers).

At least in the U.S., what you're describing would be fraudulent and constitute a cause of action for any civil suit... especially if any money was exchanged.

If you got a new neighbour tomorrow and he introduced himself as William and for the next few months you went about believing his name to be William, but then accidentally got a bit of his mail through your door and seen that his name was not actually William... I seriously, seriously doubt you would have any cause for action.  Fraud has not occurred there.

I'm gonna have to sternly agree to disagree. It is absolutely my right as a Talossan to know that the person on the other side of the table is real, acting in good faith, and answerable to a court of law.

I'm not entirely convinced we do have that "right". It would simply be your preference.

The entire fiasco of Guy Incognito is that, if it were not for his own failure to perpetuate his lies and hide them better, then one day he could have disappeared and taken Talossa's treasury/website/other property with him... and we would have ZERO recourse to recover any of it.

I do not care if someone uses a Talossan name. After all, look at me. What I do mind is when someone makes themself unanswerable to our laws.

That was fixed under Townsend.  We would have their real and legal names.  Again, if you want to strengthen the verification process, say by demanding a copy of ID docs, I can probably get behind that.

Whether they go around with an assumed name or not wouldn't affect any of the concerns you raise.  We would have their real and legal names on file.

Bottom line, if you can't trust Talossa enough with your "real name", then you don't belong here. Either you have a malicious agenda, you are flaky, you are trying to undermine the sovereignty or validity of our government, or combinations thereof.

I agree, which is why the immigration process requires a real and legal name to be provided.

It is possible to prohibit "fake names" at the same time as allowing "street names". These things are not mutually exclusive.

Can you elaborate on that?  I don't understand what you mean or how it would be achieved. 

***

Final copy/paste as it is relevant:

"Under U.S. nationality law, when aliens apply for naturalization, they have the option of asking for their names to be changed upon the grants of citizenship with no additional fees. This allows them the opportunity to adopt more Americanized names.[25] During the naturalization interview, a petition for a name change is prepared to be forwarded to a federal court. Applicants certify that they are not seeking a change of name for any unlawful purpose such as the avoidance of debt or evasion of law enforcement. Such a name change would become final if within their jurisdiction, once a federal court naturalizes an applicant."