Amending Citizenship

I'm also against the idea of giving citizenship to people without an explicit nation in NS. While I do believe that accommodating minorities (such as DOS players) is important, I believe that opening up such a door can lead to many complications in the future. Not only would such an amendment degrade TNP's citizenship, but it would also require a large number of our laws to be written or rewritten to cover DOS players as well.

For those reasons, I am against this.

~ Tomb
 
SillyString:
Citizenship is not a requirement to be a deputy minister, so I am not sure how that is relevant.
Click to expand...
In that case, how is this entire discussion relevant? I'm outies. XD
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
My personal interpretation of the BoR is that it extends to all nations of TNP, and has nothing to do with citizenship. If we were to create an avenue to citizenship for people who did not have nations in TNP, the BoR would still not apply to them. If you read each clause of the BoR, it specifically applies itself to nations, not citizens.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I find problematic - a non-nation path to citizenship would invite people to participate in our community without providing them with any of the standard protections for doing so. Extranational citizens could be banned from the forum on a whim, they could have their speech stifled and suppressed, they could be convicted in a show trial, they could be illegally prevented from voting or stripped of citizenship...

It's already somewhat problematic that Nierr is a deputy minister in such a situation, but he is at least both unique and unexpected. If we legislate in a path to citizenship without adjusting the BOR, though, we could end up with a much higher proportion of our population, relatively speaking, vulnerable to such legal abuse.
 
SillyString:
Crushing Our Enemies:
My personal interpretation of the BoR is that it extends to all nations of TNP, and has nothing to do with citizenship. If we were to create an avenue to citizenship for people who did not have nations in TNP, the BoR would still not apply to them. If you read each clause of the BoR, it specifically applies itself to nations, not citizens.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I find problematic - a non-nation path to citizenship would invite people to participate in our community without providing them with any of the standard protections for doing so. Extranational citizens could be banned from the forum on a whim, they could have their speech stifled and suppressed, they could be convicted in a show trial, they could be illegally prevented from voting or stripped of citizenship...

It's already somewhat problematic that Nierr is a deputy minister in such a situation, but he is at least both unique and unexpected. If we legislate in a path to citizenship without adjusting the BOR, though, we could end up with a much higher proportion of our population, relatively speaking, vulnerable to such legal abuse.
Click to expand...
Actually I am changing my mind about this proposal. it would be nice to have a citizen I can admin-abuse until their eyeballs bleed without any legal comeback.
 
Aaaaaand that is why the BoR would need amending. Not because technically it has to be but because a citizen without any rights under the BoR distinctly bothers me as an idea. We'd be accepting that someone can be a part of our community as a citizen without offering them any protection under our laws. I surely can't be the only person bothered by this idea?
 
The whole purpose of this community is in connection with and in respect of the region of The North Pacific, and the players who have nations in game in The North Pacific. The Bill of Rights was written for and to protect them and not those whose in-game behavior made them DOS, period.

I will fight against any change in the BoR on this point. If that means some cannot be part of the off-site government, that is the price they pay for their misbehavior. Period.

If some want to create another community outside of the scope of Nationstates and The North Pacific, and choose to start their own forum for such an ill-conceived, they should go ahead and do so. But they should not use this community and these forums for such an enterprise.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
If some want to create another community outside of the scope of Nationstates and The North Pacific, and choose to start their own forum for such an ill-conceived, they should go ahead and do so. But they should not use this community and these forums for such an enterprise.
Click to expand...

I may be invoking some big time wrath here, but: Why not?
 
Abbey Anumia:
Aaaaaand that is why the BoR would need amending. Not because technically it has to be but because a citizen without any rights under the BoR distinctly bothers me as an idea. We'd be accepting that someone can be a part of our community as a citizen without offering them any protection under our laws. I surely can't be the only person bothered by this idea?
Click to expand...
I am a part of English society but I'm not a British citizen. And I'm OK with it. I could be a cartographer in England if I want to (In fact that makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time working in a kitchen instead) and I'm not sure but maybe I could even be a deputy speaker or whatever the British equivalent is. That's enough protection if you ask me. I don't meet the requirements for citizenship and that's it. I'm not bothered, the English are not bothered, and we're all happy.
 
Lennart:
Abbey Anumia:
Aaaaaand that is why the BoR would need amending. Not because technically it has to be but because a citizen without any rights under the BoR distinctly bothers me as an idea. We'd be accepting that someone can be a part of our community as a citizen without offering them any protection under our laws. I surely can't be the only person bothered by this idea?
Click to expand...
I am a part of English society but I'm not a British citizen. And I'm OK with it. I could be a cartographer in England if I want to (In fact that makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time working in a kitchen instead) and I'm not sure but maybe I could even be a deputy speaker or whatever the British equivalent is. That's enough protection if you ask me. I don't meet the requirements for citizenship and that's it. I'm not bothered, the English are not bothered, and we're all happy.
Click to expand...
But in my understanding of British law, and certainly in my understanding of american law, you don't have zero rights and legal protections just because you're not a citizen. You don't have all of the privileges, but... like... killing you is still a crime. Throwing you in prison without a trial is still illegal (or ought to be?). That's not the case with TNP nations. If you don't have a nation in TNP, you by definition have no rights.
 
To be a "Deputy Speaker", you'd need to be an elected member of the House of Commons, or an appointed member of the House of Lords, which requires British citizenship. :P
 
SillyString:
Lennart:
Abbey Anumia:
Aaaaaand that is why the BoR would need amending. Not because technically it has to be but because a citizen without any rights under the BoR distinctly bothers me as an idea. We'd be accepting that someone can be a part of our community as a citizen without offering them any protection under our laws. I surely can't be the only person bothered by this idea?
Click to expand...
I am a part of English society but I'm not a British citizen. And I'm OK with it. I could be a cartographer in England if I want to (In fact that makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time working in a kitchen instead) and I'm not sure but maybe I could even be a deputy speaker or whatever the British equivalent is. That's enough protection if you ask me. I don't meet the requirements for citizenship and that's it. I'm not bothered, the English are not bothered, and we're all happy.
Click to expand...
But in my understanding of British law, and certainly in my understanding of american law, you don't have zero rights and legal protections just because you're not a citizen. You don't have all of the privileges, but... like... killing you is still a crime. Throwing you in prison without a trial is still illegal (or ought to be?). That's not the case with TNP nations. If you don't have a nation in TNP, you by definition have no rights.
Click to expand...
I think for this analogy to work you have to compare similar situations. The example of having a nation and not having a nation is closer to being alive and being a ghost. Ghosts do not have rights because they are not part of the corporeal world. It isn't the same as saying their dead body has a certain amount of rights because that is still a substantive object, whereas being DoS in NS is paramount to being a ghost if you take part in the offsite communities.

So, no, a ghost would not have rights in America or the UK (or anywhere else except possibly Haiti but that is likely untrue as well).
 
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing in favor of giving rights to people without TNP nations, just as I wouldn't argue in favor of ghost rights. My point is that if we wanted to open broad avenues of participation to extranationals and encourage them to become citizens and be part of the community, we would have an obligation to ensure those people are protected under the law just as national citizens are.

I have some criticisms of the ghost analogy, in that people without nations in TNP can still exist physically on the forum, and we regularly have people who do so in the form of ambassadors and the like. So it's not quite the same thing. But even working within that analogy, the corresponding situation would be if we wanted to start getting ghosts involved in their communities and government; I think there'd be a Ghosts Rights movement there to ensure that they have the same protections as bodied citizens.

But it starts getting ridiculous to expand on that any further. :P
 
SillyString:
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing in favor of giving rights to people without TNP nations, just as I wouldn't argue in favor of ghost rights. My point is that if we wanted to open broad avenues of participation to extranationals and encourage them to become citizens and be part of the community, we would have an obligation to ensure those people are protected under the law just as national citizens are.

I have some criticisms of the ghost analogy, in that people without nations in TNP can still exist physically on the forum, and we regularly have people who do so in the form of ambassadors and the like. So it's not quite the same thing. But even working within that analogy, the corresponding situation would be if we wanted to start getting ghosts involved in their communities and government; I think there'd be a Ghosts Rights movement there to ensure that they have the same protections as bodied citizens.

But it starts getting ridiculous to expand on that any further. :P
Click to expand...
Except that Ambassadors have a nation elsewhere in Nation States, which is more like your original analogy regarding foreign citizens within the UK. A presence on the forum without a nation in NS (not just TNP) is more directly 'ghost-like' than your original analogy.
 
Lennart:
Abbey Anumia:
Aaaaaand that is why the BoR would need amending. Not because technically it has to be but because a citizen without any rights under the BoR distinctly bothers me as an idea. We'd be accepting that someone can be a part of our community as a citizen without offering them any protection under our laws. I surely can't be the only person bothered by this idea?
Click to expand...
I am a part of English society but I'm not a British citizen. And I'm OK with it. I could be a cartographer in England if I want to (In fact that makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time working in a kitchen instead) and I'm not sure but maybe I could even be a deputy speaker or whatever the British equivalent is. That's enough protection if you ask me. I don't meet the requirements for citizenship and that's it. I'm not bothered, the English are not bothered, and we're all happy.
Click to expand...
The thing is is that the comparison doesn't work. Anybody in the UK is protected at least by the fundamental rights we've inherited from the European Convention on Human Rights. You might not have all the entitlements and rights of a British Citizen but at a fundamental level you're still protected. You're still entitled to the minimum wage, to not being a slave, to not be attacked or be in fear of your life. Even the "ghosts" comparison doesn't work because they cannot interact with the real world.

This, this would mean that these citizens would have no protective rights at all. They might have the right to participate in government and suchlike (similar to the Minimum Wage in the UK example) but they could have their free speech curtailed, be forced to participate in government, charged and prosecuted outside of the legal framework. They would have no rights at all and that is why we should not allow anyone to be in that situation but also participating in our community. We'd be asking them to contribute without giving anything back.
 
Abbey Anumia:
Lennart:
Abbey Anumia:
Aaaaaand that is why the BoR would need amending. Not because technically it has to be but because a citizen without any rights under the BoR distinctly bothers me as an idea. We'd be accepting that someone can be a part of our community as a citizen without offering them any protection under our laws. I surely can't be the only person bothered by this idea?
Click to expand...
I am a part of English society but I'm not a British citizen. And I'm OK with it. I could be a cartographer in England if I want to (In fact that makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time working in a kitchen instead) and I'm not sure but maybe I could even be a deputy speaker or whatever the British equivalent is. That's enough protection if you ask me. I don't meet the requirements for citizenship and that's it. I'm not bothered, the English are not bothered, and we're all happy.
Click to expand...
The thing is is that the comparison doesn't work. Anybody in the UK is protected at least by the fundamental rights we've inherited from the European Convention on Human Rights. You might not have all the entitlements and rights of a British Citizen but at a fundamental level you're still protected. You're still entitled to the minimum wage, to not being a slave, to not be attacked or be in fear of your life. Even the "ghosts" comparison doesn't work because they cannot interact with the real world.

This, this would mean that these citizens would have no protective rights at all. They might have the right to participate in government and suchlike (similar to the Minimum Wage in the UK example) but they could have their free speech curtailed, be forced to participate in government, charged and prosecuted outside of the legal framework. They would have no rights at all and that is why we should not allow anyone to be in that situation but also participating in our community. We'd be asking them to contribute without giving anything back.
Click to expand...
I withdrew my comparison immediately, as SillyString made me realise that it was a rather stupid one. I didn't edit and delete the whole post because it was quoted and it would be weird to follow the thread.
 
Mr Speaker,
May I please inform you that five days have passed since this bill entered formal debate so I would like to call on you to now open this matter for a vote by the Regional Assembly.

Yours sincerely,
The Hon. Gradea Sanguine MRA
 
If I may, there has not been a particularly lengthy delay, indeed, by my time we had not even entered the fifth day (as formal debate began on my recognition of the motion, rather than when the motion was made) when the post above was made, and I would recommend that members wait slightly longer before calling on the Speaker's Office to take action on bills, well-intentioned though such calls may be, timezones and RL sometimes work against incredibly prompt business management.

Formal debate on the bill is now concluded. A vote on the bill is scheduled to begin in two days.
 
I have a friend called Mr Tidy. He has been my friend since I was three. He does not have a nation in Nationstates. Indeed, he does not have an account on the forum because nobody can see or hear him except me. However, I do not see why this should preclude him having citizenship and the full protection of the Bill of Rights.

Imaginary friends are people too. Don't discriminate against them.
 
And thus, the sheer absurdity of the proposal is amply demonstrated. I will be voting against this bill, with its implied twinges of political favoritism.
 
I think it would perhaps be better to limit petitioners under such a bill to Former Residents, and further limit it to Further Residents who are unable to return their nation to The North Pacific. Furthermore, their TNP nation of record would thus be their former TNP nation.

I'm by no means certain that this would be a good law, but it does seem clearly better than what is under consideration.
 
Eluvatar:
I think it would perhaps be better to limit petitioners under such a bill to Former Residents, and further limit it to Further Residents who are unable to return their nation to The North Pacific. Furthermore, their TNP nation of record would thus be their former TNP nation.

I'm by no means certain that this would be a good law, but it does seem clearly better than what is under consideration.
Click to expand...

I agree. That would seem to have less possible loopholes than what is currently proposed.
 
I agree with Elu that that would be more sensible legislation. I am not sure that I would support it, but it's got a better chance than this does. :P
 
So basically we are bending out laws into a pretzel just to shoehorn in Nierr somehow, even though he has said he does not want this legislation?
 
I agree that Elu's proposal is better than the one being proposed right now in this thread. However, I support neither of them.

~ Tomb
 
Flemingovia:
So basically we are bending out laws into a pretzel just to shoehorn in Nierr somehow
Click to expand...
Pretty much. The alternate proposal attempts to tailor the requirements to a specific situation (Nierr), but it still allows a person without a nation in TNP to become a citizen. I'm completely against this idea in general.
 
falapatorius:
Flemingovia:
So basically we are bending out laws into a pretzel just to shoehorn in Nierr somehow
Click to expand...
Pretty much. The alternate proposal attempts to tailor the requirements to a specific situation (Nierr), but it still allows a person without a nation in TNP to become a citizen. I'm completely against this idea in general.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

And the alternate sounds like a move of desperation. I won't be supporting it. Either a player has a nation currently in TNP or not. Anything else is simply contrary to the spirit and the letter of the game and this region.
 
That's not strictly speaking true. Our laws already do not remove citizenship of nations which are ejected from the region merely for their having been ejected.

13. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

If you're banned from the region illegitimately, this community should not exclude you.

I don't think it's that far a step to also allow individuals whose nations are unable to return to TNP for other reasons to participate.
 
Eluvatar:
Our laws already do not remove citizenship of nations which are ejected from the region merely for their having been ejected.
Click to expand...
Being ejected is the same as leaving (just not voluntarily). That doesn't apply here anyway.

Eluvatar:
If you're banned from the region illegitimately, this community should not exclude you.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're getting at there. Nierr was banned from the game. If the existence of this Forum is predicated on an extension of NS principles, then Nierr does not exist from a NS viewpoint (and thereby TNP).

None of that really matters though, since he wasn't banjected from the region. He continues to enjoy privileges that the rest of us have to get appointed/elected for in order to experience. How is that fair? I guess it depends on who you know.
 
falapatorius:
Eluvatar:
Our laws already do not remove citizenship of nations which are ejected from the region merely for their having been ejected.
Click to expand...
Being ejected is the same as leaving (just not voluntarily). That doesn't apply here anyway.

Eluvatar:
If you're banned from the region illegitimately, this community should not exclude you.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're getting at there. Nierr was banned from the game. If the existence of this Forum is predicated on an extension of NS principles, then Nierr does not exist from a NS viewpoint (and thereby TNP).

None of that really matters though, since he wasn't banjected from the region.
Click to expand...
Eluvatar:
I don't think it's that far a step to also allow individuals whose nations are unable to return to TNP for other reasons to participate.
Click to expand...
Banjected nations were presented as a related case, not as a case that includes Nierr.
falapatorius:
He continues to enjoy privileges that the rest of us have to get appointed/elected for in order to experience. How is that fair? I guess it depends on who you know.
Click to expand...
What?

Nierr has, as far as I understand the matter, been appointed a Deputy Minister, and a Role Play Moderator. Putting aside the distinctions between duties and privileges, I don't understand the notion that he hasn't been appointed. :eyebrow: Furthermore, the implication of corruption is unfortunate, particularly as I have no idea how such corruption can be imagined in this case. What do you mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top