Sil makes a good point about mobile technology in the future. I trust the admins can retool their process to apply their check with those things in mind. I don't think the RA ought to try to do that. We also shouldn't subject their checks to up or down votes. Creating another process to get citizenship if the normal one isn't possible is something the RA can do, even if it really would only be sidestepping the admin check, since what I propose below maintains the residency requirement and specifies non-security rejections, and that only leaves the admin check as the one causing failed applications. Those are both situations I simply cannot imagine other proposals like this would ignore. But just because we can do it doesn't mean we should - I think it's a big deal. It is easier to just play with the underlying problem - appointing someone who can't be appointed because of a lack of citizenship. I will explore both possibilities though, and how I would approach them.
I'm really not sure how to carve out an exception without completely defeating the purpose of the admin check. There may very well be people like Boston Castle who I trust and believe is a unique and good-intentioned player, and we can put all the safeguards we want, but at the end of the day, we're establishing a means to disregard a crucial part of our citizenship process that exists for a very good reason. With additional thought, I'm not longer convinced this is undeniably the better approach, but it is the only other way we can do this, so I wanted to imagine how it would work. Creating an alternative path to citizenship needs to be very carefully done, and create a very high bar for people who would use it (because by definition these would be people who can't jump through what are honestly pretty simple hoops), since this wouldn't just open the door to people like Boston Castle. Citizenship confers a lot of privileges and opportunities, and once granted can be purposely difficult to take back should we ever feel the need to in the future. For that reason I think a 2/3 majority RA vote makes more sense in that context. This change would require only a legal code amendment, so it's easier to do. If this were to be considered, I think it would require the Speaker reviewing a formal request from the would-be citizen in question, following a prolonged period of uninterrupted residency (say, 6 months) that consists of frequent posting and participation in regional activity and involvement in the executive staff. The ministers who had this resident in their staff would have to confirm this service and vouch for the applicant to the Speaker. And obviously, this person would have had to have previously applied for citizenship and been denied for non-security reasons. If the Speaker decides it's worth the trouble, they will present the question to the RA as a whole, giving the RA a chance to question and debate the applicant as well as the Speaker's evaluation in bringing the applicant to them in the first place. They will then have a vote, requiring a 2/3 majority, on whether this person should be granted citizenship. If they pass the vote, the Speaker declares them a citizen like anyone else in the normal citizenship process.
With Sil's suggestion in mind, I think the simplest mechanism for changing appointment rules is if the Delegate appoints someone who is not a citizen, they have to take it to the RA for approval. The RA can then decide if the pick is substantial enough to warrant a vote letting them ignore the citizenship requirement for government officials. Of course, citizenship is rather easy to get, and most non-citizens aren't putting in the time and commitment someone like Boston Castle is. I think the RA can discern those special exceptions to the rule. This would be a majority vote - if the VD check can be overturned with a majority, I don't see why essentially giving a waiver to someone to do an executive job needs to be at a higher threshold. This change would require a constitutional amendment. My problem with this method is that I think requiring government officials to be citizens makes sense, and not just for security. I believe citizenship means something, and there should be things to aspire to when you commit to citizenship in this region. This is sometimes the highest peak many citizens will reach in this region. For that reason, I agree with Sil's stipulation that mandatory ministries are off-limits for this exception - they tend to be the most significant and crucial roles in the executive, and some of the most sensitive. The final category ("at least one Executive Officer charged with focusing primarily on matters of internal interest to The North Pacific") is a little harder to regulate, since we have a lot of those. I think it may just be better to say no to appointing them to the mandatory positions overseeing foreign or military affairs. I would place this change in Chapter 7, as a clause at the end of the Mandatory Ministries section, because honestly I don't know where else it would go, though it is a tad awkward there. And of course, this would make the appointee a government official, so they are subject to the same restrictions and accountability as other government officials.
I really do feel for Boston's situation. I don't think I can remember anyone else in my time in this region who so clearly was an accepted, regular part of our community, someone who put in the work and the time to be one of us, and became a beloved and appreciated part of our region, someone who would absolutely have become a citizen if he could, but cannot due to factors outside his control. I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened before. I know other people couldn't get citizenship because of internet access issues, but unlike Boston they never stuck around or distinguished themselves to the extent he has. Like Fiji, I wish there was something I could do to help him. This post, these suggestions I'm throwing out there, I think this is the best thing I can do now. I would hate for there to be future Boston Castles, because I want to open the door to opportunity and all the great things that come with citizenship to aspiring and dedicated players like him. I don't want to discourage or turn them away because of the quality of their internet, because some sneaky people years ago made us come up with additional security methods. I want to strike a balance, come up with reasonable restrictions to what should be an unusual digression from our normal citizenship process or our appointment of government officials. I want to respect the spirit of those restrictions without simply being blocked by them just because that's what the rules say. I hope what I outlined above accomplished that, and I hope that we can find a agreeable path forward not only for those of us in the RA, but also for Boston, all the people we never got to know in the past just like him, and all the people who will come after.
)
