Mysterious Player;4196 said:
The problem with this is that the applicant can simply list no identities, and just claim that they didn't realize it was noteworthy. I guess it would only work to a point, but still. I would rather require all identities in a certain time frame be required to list than ones that are considered noteworthy by the applicant.
The crime in question would be fraud. The applicant would be lying if they said that a non-exhaustive list of their notable identities was exhaustive. The way that law is defined, it is necessary to convince the Justices that it was done knowingly. I can only see this being taken to court if somebody omitted a really obviously notable identity, say if Onder came here under an assumed name and just happened to "forget" to mention that he was Onder. In consequential cases like that I believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt for the Justices to accept that the accused just "forgot" so it should be fine as it is.
Also, why not just require applicants to list their entire criminal history? If they committed a crime in another region, even if it wasn't a treatied ally, I imagine that would be good to know.
I think in the thread for Amerion's citizenship act there were concerns about how other regions may have found players guilty with show trials. I think that it's not unreasonable to believe that our and our allies' courts are fair but the same cannot necessarily be said about the rest of NS.
Cormac;4197 said:
Can we please go back just one year, rather than two, for past affiliations? I don't think we need past affiliations listed at all, but we shouldn't go any further back than a year. Asking people to remember years worth of past affiliations is asking too much.
Sure. I mean, I don't think two years is too great a stretch but if you'd rather one that's fine.
I'm against the citizenship appeals process. I would prefer the Assembly hear citizenship appeals, as in Amerion's draft, but that's not the main point of concern and I could tolerate the CLS as a compromise as long as it's not the Court hearing citizenship appeals. As currently worded, the citizenship appeals process requires the CLS to admit an applicant to citizenship on appeal if they have made the pledge sincerely and have not been found guilty of any crimes. That's way too lenient. That essentially strips the Delegate of their discretion to deny citizenship to someone they consider a security risk, because that's not one of the criteria the CLS considers on appeal. I much prefer Amerion's citizenship appeals process, with the Assembly able to overturn a rejection for any reason by 2/3 vote.
I chose the CLS specifically because I felt that that was the institution best informed about security matters, which I agree are the primary concern when it comes to appeals. The Assembly cannot be said to have the same expertise. I don't think anybody who threatens regional security or anybody here with a foreign agenda could make that pledge sincerely, and that the requirement for them to have done so allows the CLS to prevent such players from gaining citizenship with a large degree of discretion.
There is also no provision for forum administration in this bill, making it potentially unconstitutional.
I don't really understand by what mechanism this could make the bill unconstitutional but if you could explain I'm sure I'd be happy to fix it.
This is a valid concern with no clear-cut answer. The Mandate does grant the law the authority to set the appeals process but it is not clear whether that means that such laws may compel the delegate to grant citizenship to those who have successfully applied.
I for one think that an interpretation allowing that makes sense. Why would the mandate provide for an appeals process that depends on the agreement of the Delegate who must have already declined the original application? That would be meaningless.
I could propose an amendment to the mandate explicitly permitting it, that would solve this.
