08-30-2018, 10:42 PM
Cormac;2994 Wrote:I think "extending no further back than 12 months prior to the application" would do it. Extending "no less" could mean it has to go back at least 12 months, but could go back further.
I continue to disagree with you in regard to the activity requirement, because my experience with it in Osiris was that it was completely useless busywork for the person required to track it. If someone's citizenship was removed, they just reapplied and were accepted, so the tracking was a useless waste of time and energy for the person doing it and the citizenship reapplication was a useless waste of time and energy for the person whose citizenship had lapsed. I don't see the point. That said, I don't consider it a make or break thing as long as I'm not the one who has to do the tracking. I'm not, but the Delegate is, and if I were the Delegate I'd genuinely consider vetoing this just to avoid the useless busywork it entails. But I'm not the Delegate, so I won't vote against an otherwise good bill because of this one issue that isn't a vital matter.
That is a good suggestion. I shall amend it accordingly in the latest draft of the bill.
I understand your point of view. I am interested in hearing if other people share your concern. I am also considering the possibility that the act will allow the Delegate to 'delegate' their responsibility for maintaining a citizenship roll, and only exercise their authority when it comes to enforcing the revocation of citizenship.