+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: [Proposal] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) (/showthread.php?tid=364)
[Proposal] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - McChimp - 10-10-2018
Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018)
Proposed by: McChimp
Preamble
This act codifies the procedures by which citizenship may be obtained and renounced.
Section 1. Applications
(1) People may make an application for citizenship on the off-site regional forum. Applications shall include:
a. the applicant’s resident nation.
b. any foreign affiliations the applicant has held within the preceding two years.
c. all noteworthy alternate identities belonging to the applicant.
d. any crimes the applicant has been found guilty of in Lazarus or in regions with which Lazarus has signed a treaty.
e. The following pledge: “From this time forward, I voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, pledge my loyalty to Lazarus and her people, whose community ideals I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.”
(2) Citizenship shall be granted or denied to applicants by the Delegate or an official to whom the Delegate has given the authority to grant citizenship with the exception of members of the Council on Lazarene security in a timely manner.
Section 2. Appeals
(1) Those who have been declined citizenship may make an appeal to the Council on Lazarene Security.
(2) The Delegate shall grant a person citizenship should the Council, having heard a citizenship appeal, confirm by three quarters vote that the person in question:
a. made the pledge sincerely.
b. has not been found guilty of any crimes in Lazarus.
Section 3. Renunciation of Citizenship
(1) A citizen may renounce their citizenship by publicly declaring their desire to do so on the off-site regional forum.
A new, simpler attempt at a citizenship law. Thoughts?
This act codifies the procedures by which citizenship may be obtained and renounced.
Section 1. Applications
(1) People may make an application for citizenship on the off-site regional forum. Applications shall include:
a. the applicant’s resident nation.
b. any foreign affiliations the applicant has held within the preceding two years.
c. all noteworthy alternate identities belonging to the applicant.
d. any crimes the applicant has been found guilty of in Lazarus or in regions with which Lazarus has signed a treaty.
e. The following pledge: “From this time forward, I voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, pledge my loyalty to Lazarus and her people, whose community ideals I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.”
(2) Citizenship shall be granted or denied to applicants by the Delegate or an official to whom the Delegate has given the authority to grant citizenship with the exception of members of the Council on Lazarene security in a timely manner.
Section 2. Appeals
(1) Those who have been declined citizenship may make an appeal to the Council on Lazarene Security.
(2) The Delegate shall grant a person citizenship should the Council, having heard a citizenship appeal, confirm by three quarters vote that the person in question:
a. made the pledge sincerely.
b. has not been found guilty of any crimes in Lazarus.
Section 3. Renunciation of Citizenship
(1) A citizen may renounce their citizenship by publicly declaring their desire to do so on the off-site regional forum.
A new, simpler attempt at a citizenship law. Thoughts?
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - Mysterious Player - 10-10-2018
McChimp;4195 Wrote:
c. all noteworthy alternate identities belonging to the applicant.
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.
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.
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - Cormac - 10-11-2018
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.
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.
There is also no provision for forum administration in this bill, making it potentially unconstitutional.
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - Imaginary - 10-11-2018
I think some things, like the appeals process being specified, are a good idea, although I don't have strong feelings as to how. Generally though, I don't think details of the citizenship application need to be codified. Later delegates may wish to change it up and I think that should be their prerogative.
Also, for renunciation; is that the only way or just one way that a citizen might renouce his or her citizenship in Lazarus?
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - New Rogernomics - 10-11-2018
Quote:(2) The Delegate shall grant a person citizenship should the Council, having heard a citizenship appeal, confirm by three quarters vote that the person in question:
a. made the pledge sincerely.
b. has not been found guilty of any crimes in Lazarus.
I would be concerned about such a restriction that compels the delegate, which at least in simple interpretation i.e. compelling the delegate to grant a citizenship, is not constitutional.
As such this section would require not a 2/3 majority but full super-majority, as it would require a constitutional amendment to effectively place citizenship approvals at the feet of the Council of Lazarene Security.
Currently only the Assembly has the power to overturn a decision that removes a citizenship, though not to decide a citizenship in place of the Delegate.
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - McChimp - 10-11-2018
OK, I've fixed a drafting error I made last night. In terms of feedback:
Mysterious Player;4196 Wrote: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.
Quote: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 Wrote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
New Rogernomics;4199 Wrote:I would be concerned about such a restriction that compels the delegate, which at least in simple interpretation i.e. compelling the delegate to grant a citizenship, is not constitutional.
As such this section would require not a 2/3 majority but full super-majority, as it would require a constitutional amendment to effectively place citizenship approvals at the feet of the Council of Lazarene Security.
Currently only the Assembly has the power to overturn a decision that removes a citizenship, though not to decide a citizenship in place of the Delegate.
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.
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - Mysterious Player - 10-12-2018
McChimp;4200 Wrote:OK, I've fixed a drafting error I made last night. In terms of feedback:
Mysterious Player;4196 Wrote: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.
The problem is that a "notable" identity is subjective. Although, i think it would be fine if the Delegate had authority on what constitutes a "notable" identity.
Quote: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.
If the Delegate thinks that a player was found guilty through a show trial, then they should just ignore it. The Delegate wouldn't be required to deny somebody citizen due to committing a crime in another region.
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - McChimp - 10-12-2018
Mysterious Player;4204 Wrote:The problem is that a "notable" identity is subjective. Although, i think it would be fine if the Delegate had authority on what constitutes a "notable" identity.
If the Delegate thinks that a player was found guilty through a show trial, then they should just ignore it. The Delegate wouldn't be required to deny somebody citizen due to committing a crime in another region.
I think that you have fundamentally misunderstood how this bill works. The Delegate may give anybody citizenship no matter what they write in each of the in the application's fields. So long as they have made an application containing the information requested by the bill, the delegate or whoever is acting on the delegate's behalf may approve it. If the application is declined, then they may appeal to the CLS, who may only grant citizenship if they meet certain requirements (which are essentially not being a security threat and not being a criminal).
You say people ought to have to write their entire criminal record, others have said that that's not necessary. As the law stands, the Delegate wouldn't have to deny anybody citizenship no matter what they wrote.
My argument regarding the subjectivity of "notable" is this: the word "identity" in itself is subjective. Every puppet, every switcher, even nicknames other people have given you might be construed as an "identity". Laws may be subjective so long as there is an authority who makes the decision on a case-by-case basis according to well defined procedures. It just so happens that such an authority exists-the Court. If there was an identity omitted that people felt ought to have been included, a criminal review can occur and the court will come to a conclusion regarding whether the identity omitted was notable enough that the applicant could have forgotten it or just thought it wasn't notable and whether or not it was therefore fraud.
RE: [Proposal/Discussion] Citizenship Procedures Act (October 2018) - McChimp - 10-12-2018
Imaginary;4198 Wrote:I think some things, like the appeals process being specified, are a good idea, although I don't have strong feelings as to how. Generally though, I don't think details of the citizenship application need to be codified. Later delegates may wish to change it up and I think that should be their prerogative.
Also, for renunciation; is that the only way or just one way that a citizen might renouce his or her citizenship in Lazarus?
I don't think it's too much effort for the Delegate to amend a regular law and it's worth bearing in mind that they can ask for additional information without legislating at all.