Loss of Citizenship Clarification Bill

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
Over the last few months, a few discussions have been had on ejections of citizen nations. Although the court has a clear ruling on this scenario, I find it to be somewhat counterintuitive, especially since it creates a loophole where a nation can remain outside the region indefinitely and retain citizenship. So, I am proposing a bill that will make what I believe to be more sensible rules, covering all scenarios of an ejection.
Loss of Citizenship Clarification Bill said:
Section 6.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:
Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
11. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of citizens and their registered nations.
12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board with their registered nations.
14. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who has been summarily ejected and/or banned from The North Pacific, and promptly reinstate them if they return to The North Pacific.
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who has been ejected and/or banned from The North Pacific with approval of the Court pending criminal charges, providing no objections were made, and promptly reinstate them if the nation returns to The North Pacific.
Section 9.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:
Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, but shall have their status removed if they do not return when they next log in to their nation.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return by the Delegate or an authorized government official once the emergency is over, and informed that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return before they next log in to their nation.
Loss of Citizenship Clarification Bill said:
Section 6.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:
Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
11. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of citizens and their registered nations.
12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board with their registered nations.
14. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who has been summarily ejected and/or banned from The North Pacific, and promptly reinstate them if they return to The North Pacific.
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who has been ejected and/or banned from The North Pacific with approval of the Court pending criminal charges, providing no objections were made, and promptly reinstate them if the nation returns to The North Pacific.
Section 9.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:
Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
76. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency but shall have their status removed if they do not return when they next log in to their nation.
67. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return by the Delegate or an authorized government official once the emergency is over, and informed that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return before they next log in to their nation.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.
Loss of Citizenship Clarification Bill said:
Section 6.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:
Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
11. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of citizens and their registered nations.
12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board with their registered nations.
14. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who has been summarily ejected and/or banned from The North Pacific, and promptly reinstate them if the decision is revoked and they return to The North Pacific.
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who has been ejected and/or banned from The North Pacific pending criminal charges, and promptly reinstate them if the decision was appealed successfully, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty, and the nation returns to The North Pacific.
Section 9.2 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:
Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, but shall have their status removed if they do not return when they next log in to their nation.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return by the Delegate or an authorized government official once the emergency is over, and informed that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return before they next log in to their nation.
 
Last edited:

Lady Raven Wing

Justice
-
-
6.2.15 mandates removal of citizenship on Court approval, as written. Ignoring the other issues I imagine that'd cause, is this your intention?
 
Last edited:

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
I don't understand why you went after the disease control language, it doesn't really have anything to do with the purpose of your bill, since the time frame they have to be out of the region and maintain citizenship is by design limited - no loophole there. Not to mention, the way it is written, you open the door to a very technical speaker who may revoke citizenship before a citizen even has a chance to return. After all, to return they need to be logged in, and once they are logged in, and are not in the region at that time...well you can see how this could be abused.

You can also remove citizenship from people for bad or illegal bans on the part of abusive officials. You seem to be aware of this by including language about reversals, but why create the gap? Right now if a rogue official kicks people out, they have some recourse. I see this proposed remedy as being a bit too much of a correction.

If you really want to clear up the loophole, I suggest a better way of looking at the disease control law: adopt its language to set up a time limit for their return, even if they were ejected involuntarily. Include the communication mandate as well if you want to give them a fighting chance.
 

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
I don't understand why you went after the disease control language, it doesn't really have anything to do with the purpose of your bill, since the time frame they have to be out of the region and maintain citizenship is by design limited - no loophole there.
I don't believe so. The court has ruled that the only way for an ejected citizen to lose citizenship, apart from the normal means, is returning to the region then leaving of their own volition. So someone can potentially remain outside the region indefinitely while still posting on the forums, thereby keeping their citizenship.
Not to mention, the way it is written, you open the door to a very technical speaker who may revoke citizenship before a citizen even has a chance to return. After all, to return they need to be logged in, and once they are logged in, and are not in the region at that time...well you can see how this could be abused.
I'll change this if there is enough concern about this, potentially to a certain number of days after their login, or after their next login but before their next login.
You can also remove citizenship from people for bad or illegal bans on the part of abusive officials. You seem to be aware of this by including language about reversals, but why create the gap? Right now if a rogue official kicks people out, they have some recourse. I see this proposed remedy as being a bit too much of a correction.
Would a change to mandate the removal only if the nation hasn't filed an appeal within a certain number of days be satisfactory?
 

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
I don't believe so. The court has ruled that the only way for an ejected citizen to lose citizenship, apart from the normal means, is returning to the region then leaving of their own volition. So someone can potentially remain outside the region indefinitely while still posting on the forums, thereby keeping their citizenship.

I'll change this if there is enough concern about this, potentially to a certain number of days after their login, or after their next login but before their next login.

Would a change to mandate the removal only if the nation hasn't filed an appeal within a certain number of days be satisfactory?
If this Court ruling can ignore the language of the disease control law, which explicitly states a situation where citizenship can be revoked that is specific to the situation being legislated, then I don't see how your fix would somehow negate that ruling. It's just as ignorable.

I don't think much of this login standard in general, and if you're setting days after last login, just leave it at a standard of a certain number of days, because there's really no difference, and not logging in can potentially lead to another version of this loophole you're trying to close.

No, your proposed fix to the bans wouldn't be satisfactory. What if the ban is illegal but no appeal is filed?
 

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
If this Court ruling can ignore the language of the disease control law, which explicitly states a situation where citizenship can be revoked that is specific to the situation being legislated, then I don't see how your fix would somehow negate that ruling. It's just as ignorable.
The wording of the original clause is such that removal of citizenship is only stated as a possibility, not an inevitability. The wording in the proposal is such that it requires citizenship to be removed if the conditions are met, thus rendering the ruling moot. That is my opinion.
No, your proposed fix to the bans wouldn't be satisfactory. What if the ban is illegal but no appeal is filed?
Tough luck for them. They remain banned. There are many cases where people can get away with an illegal action. How is this one any different?
 

Lord Lore

I'm anything you want me to be.
-
-
-
-
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who has been ejected and/or banned from The North Pacific pending criminal charges, and promptly reinstate them if the decision was appealed successfully, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty, and the nation returns to The North Pacific.
This, This right here scares the hell out of me. I can see MASSIVE abuse issues. "Pending Criminal Charges" assumes that the second an indictment is files by the AG's office or perhaps even a complaint is filed. And hell the fact that a delegate is able to issue an indictment makes this even more terrifying.

An incumbent AG or Delegate losing an election by 3-4 votes? Well no problem! Just file 5-10 indictments a few hours before the closing a vote hopefully while 1-2 justices are offline. And voila all of a sudden you are winning because those votes are now invalid because they weren't legally citizens at the end of the vote! The law only states that a Delegate must identify them as a security threat and must seek the court's approval within one day.

Bonus points if you got a friend as Chief Justice who can accept the Indictments, name another friend as SHO, name themselves as the moderating justice in each case and issue the ejections as moderating justice which doesn't require the "court" to approve.

And beside the only remedy to improper ejecting in this process. 3.3.17 stating that the bans should be revoked but for the sake of this scenario it doesn't remedy the fact that it would invalidate their votes as long as it holds until the end of vote.
 
Last edited:

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
This, This right here scares the hell out of me. I can see MASSIVE abuse issues. "Pending Criminal Charges" assumes that the second an indictment is files by the AG's office or perhaps even a complaint is filed. And hell the fact that a delegate is able to issue an indictment makes this even more terrifying.

An incumbent AG or Delegate losing an election by 3-4 votes? Well no problem! Just file 5-10 indictments a few hours before the closing a vote hopefully while 1-2 justices are offline. And voila all of a sudden you are winning because those votes are now invalid because they weren't legally citizens at the end of the vote! The law only states that a Delegate must identify them as a security threat and must seek the court's approval within one day.

Bonus points if you got a friend as Chief Justice who can accept the Indictments, name another friend as SHO, name themselves as the moderating justice in each case and issue the ejections as moderating justice which doesn't require the "court" to approve.

And beside the only remedy to improper ejecting in this process. 3.3.17 stating that the bans should be revoked but for the sake of this scenario it doesn't remedy the fact that it would invalidate their votes as long as it holds until the end of vote.
In the extremely implausible scenario of such a thing occurring, firstly, a lot of things here would be illegal. Sure, it can be done, but if you're violating the law to take advantage of a loophole in a law, you might as well just violate the law directly. The wording could probably be tightened up, so I'm changing it to ensure it is only after the proper approval procedures has been done.
 

Lord Lore

I'm anything you want me to be.
-
-
-
-
In the extremely implausible scenario of such a thing occurring, firstly, a lot of things here would be illegal. Sure, it can be done, but if you're violating the law to take advantage of a loophole in a law, you might as well just violate the law directly. The wording could probably be tightened up, so I'm changing it to ensure it is only after the proper approval procedures has been done.
But that is the problem I did take into account the Proper procedure. Unless you are going to change the wording in 3.3 But even then I would say that removal of Citizenship in a criminal case should ONLY be part of sentencing. Removal of Citizenship is a hallmark of several different criminal code violations. To strip them of their citizenship before the end of a trial is effectively finding a person guilty before a sentence is handed down by the court. Especially because in the intermediate time you are revoking all their power and abilities as a citizen before the court has determined guilt. You can not reinstate what has been taken away if they are found innocent, they can not get that back. If an election goes by during the case and they are found innocent. Congrats you have just deprived a citizen of their vote and participate in an election for no reason.
 
Last edited:

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
But that is the problem I did take into account the Proper procedure. Unless you are going to change the wording in 3.3 But even then I would say that removal of Citizenship in a criminal case should ONLY be part of sentencing. Removal of Citizenship is a hallmark of several different criminal code violations. To strip them of their citizenship before the end of a trial is effectively finding a person guilty before a sentence is handed down by the court. Especially because in the intermediate time you are revoking all their power and abilities as a citizen before the court has determined guilt. You can not reinstate what has been taken away if they are found innocent, they can not get that back. If an election goes by during the case and they are found innocent. Congrats you have just deprived a citizen of their vote and participate in an election for no reason.
Most of the things you mentioned previously would constitute Gross Misconduct or Fraud. If such a serious case happens I'm almost certain the election would be redone, or the Election Commission would make a suitable judgment to remedy the situation. And plus, following your logic, why is preemptively banjecting someone allowed? That's depriving someone of their rights as a resident.
 

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
If this Court ruling can ignore the language of the disease control law, which explicitly states a situation where citizenship can be revoked that is specific to the situation being legislated, then I don't see how your fix would somehow negate that ruling. It's just as ignorable.
The disease control law does not relate to nations that are ejected, it relates to nations that leave the region, which is the same language that is used in the current loss of citizenship provisions and which has for the longest time been thought by the Speaker (even before the decision of the Court, confirming that thinking) to require a voluntary action by the nation in question. The amendment proposed to that provision, in isolation, would be of no effect for that very reason, as it retains the language of "leaving".

As to the proposal, I am absolutely opposed to it. The Delegate should not be given an effectively unilateral power to remove citizenship, whether or not it is reversible by appeal, and neither should removal of citizenship follow for nations pending trial.

On nations pending trial, there is little security justification to remove their citizenship, given that it is unlikely that such a nation could pose a security threat simply by voting (if only because it is unlikely that the vote of any given nation will determine a vote) or by being elected, such that the only real issue, to my mind, would be that continued citizenship allows the nation to see the Private Halls. If that is a concern, then I do not see great issue with a provision allowing for restrictions on access to the Private Halls, presuming it was framed in such as was as to ensure proper oversight. However, it otherwise seems like it is little more than bringing forward punishment for a crime to a point before the nation is found guilty.

I would note that it was, historically, the law that a nation could be expelled from the Assembly (before the Citizenship Bill, when Assembly membership was the status we now think of as citizenship) pending trial, with the approval of a Justice. The discussion of the change of that provision to what it is today can be found: here. I would lose note that the proposal in fact reduces oversight in relation to loss of citizenship relative to the old law, in that the loss of citizenship will happen automatically as a consequence of the decision that banning is necessary, rather than requiring separate decision as to whether citizenship removal is necessary.

I can perhaps see that there is an argument to say that a nation that remains out of the region, despite not being banned, for a particularly lengthy time. But even then, it should not follow automatically in the way proposed, the nation should have prior notice and opportunity to return or dispute the removal before it takes place.

EDIT: extraneous "would"
 
Last edited:

St George

Citizen
-
-
-
We really don't need to be further empowering the delegacy at the expense of either the RA or the courts, so for that reason, and the others mentioned above, I'm against this.
 

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
The disease control law does not relate to nations that are ejected, it relates to nations that leave the region, which is the same language that is used in the current loss of citizenship provisions and which has for the longest time been thought by the Speaker (even before the decision of the Court, confirming that thinking) to require a voluntary action by the nation in question. The amendment proposed to that provision, in isolation, would be of no effect for that very reason, as it retains the language of "leaving".
I will change the language to reflect both voluntary leaving and ejection.
As to the proposal, I am absolutely opposed to it. The Delegate should not be given an effectively unilateral power to remove citizenship, whether or not it is reversible by appeal, and neither should removal of citizenship follow for nations pending trial.

On nations pending trial, there is little security justification to remove their citizenship, given that it is unlikely that such a nation could pose a security threat simply by voting (if only because it is unlikely that the vote of any given nation will determine a vote) or by being elected, such that the only real issue, to my mind, would be that continued citizenship allows the nation to see the Private Halls. If that is a concern, then I do not see great issue with a provision allowing for restrictions on access to the Private Halls, presuming it was framed in such as was as to ensure proper oversight. However, it otherwise seems like it is little more than bringing forward punishment for a crime to a point before the nation is found guilty.

I would note that it was, historically, the law that a nation could be expelled from the Assembly (before the Citizenship Bill, when Assembly membership was the status we now think of as citizenship) pending trial, with the approval of a Justice. The discussion of the change of that provision to what it is today can be found: here. I would lose note that the proposal in fact reduces oversight in relation to loss of citizenship relative to the old law, in that the loss of citizenship will happen automatically as a consequence of the decision that banning is necessary, rather than requiring separate decision as to whether citizenship removal is necessary.

I can perhaps see that there is an argument to say that a nation that remains out of the region, despite not being banned, for a particularly lengthy time. But even then, it should not follow automatically in the way proposed, the nation should have prior notice and opportunity to return or dispute the removal before it takes place.

EDIT: extraneous "would"
To me, the question seems more to be, if someone isn't trusted to even remain in the region, why are they trusted to retain citizenship, which is a position that requires greater security? On the flip side, linking ejection to loss of citizenship could reduce ejections to only the most necessary of circumstances, given the costs attached.

I will however make some changes to allow the defendant to raise objections on their ejection before the citizenship is removed. Additionally, I have simplified language regarding reinstatement, since the only way a banned nation could return is if the ban was revoked, and in the case of ejection, well, the intention would have been to allow for return.
 
Last edited:

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
-
To me, the question seems more to be, if someone isn't trusted to even remain in the region, why are they trusted to retain citizenship, which is a position that requires greater security?
Because citizenship is a right afforded to the nations of The North Pacific. Nations do not lose the right to their citizenship simply because the delegate does not like them, does not trust them, or does not want them to be citizens.

The current language in the legal code, as well as the court ruling you reference, are vital safeguards of the rights of the citizenry against an abuse of power by an elected official. Simply believing it is unlikely that a delegate would abuse their power in such a way is not, in my mind, sufficient argument for weakening those protections.

And plus, following your logic, why is preemptively banjecting someone allowed? That's depriving someone of their rights as a resident.
It is absolutely depriving a nation of (some of) the privileges afforded to them as residents and citizens of The North Pacific. That is why it is strictly limited, and Court approval must be sought and granted. Additionally, somebody preemptively banned retains their legal status as both a resident and a citizen - they cannot participate fully on, say, the RMB, but they continue to be covered by the protections in the Bill of Rights and retain their citizenship until outright revoked by the Court.

Needless to say, I oppose these changes.
 
Top