[Passed] The Boston Amendment

This was inspired by Fiji's resolution/discussion on the subject. That guy should be Speaker again.

For those who aren't aware of the relevant situation: @Boston Castle joined TNP's government during the September 2020 Delegate term. He quickly proved himself an invaluable asset to both the Ministry of WA Affairs and the wider region, opening the vast majority of WA voting threads last term and writing a good chunk of the Ministry's Information For WA Voters (IFV) voting recommendations. Boston Castle is a natural at the role and a shoe-in for Minister. However, a Delegate can't appoint Boston to any cabinet position due to Article 6 of the Constitution:

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, members of the Security Council, and Justices.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
7. All government officials must maintain citizenship while in office.

Click to expand...

Boston Castle is not a citizen, and cannot acquire citizenship in the foreseeable future for reasons elaborated on in this post.

I do not believe that someone should be denied opportunities in this region due to circumstances outside of their control when they have proven time and time again to be a dedicated part of it. Rather than deliberate on potential alternative routes to citizenship, I have decided to propose a simple constitutional amendment that would allow residents who have previously applied for citizenship to be granted a waiver for the non-elected government official citizenship requirement for a specific position by majority vote of the Regional Assembly until revoked by the same or until they leave that position. A simple majority is the requirement for upholding or denying a Vice Delegate citizenship rejection on regional security grounds. I see no reason to use a different standard here.

---

The motion proposed:

Article 6 of the Constitution of The North Pacific shall be amended as follows:

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, and Justices.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, and government officials appointed by the Delegate or Vice Delegate.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by the Speaker.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by Justices.
6. Any temporary replacement for a government official in the case of an absence or vacancy will be considered a government official in the branch of the official being replaced, regardless of the method of their selection.
7. All government officials must maintain citizenship while in office.
8. The Delegate may appoint a non-citizen resident as a government official provided the Regional Assembly exempts that resident from the preceding clause by majority vote.
9. Non-citizen residents may only be exempted from the requirement to maintain citizenship while a government official if they have maintained continuous residency for at least 6 months and have previously applied for citizenship, and they may not be appointed to any office charged with the region’s foreign or military affairs.
10. Exemptions to the requirement to maintain citizenship while a government official will only apply to the specific office to which the non-citizen resident is appointed, and not to subsequent appointments to the same office.
11. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
12. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected office.
13. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.
14. Candidates in any election must maintain citizenship for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.
15. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
16. Procedures to fill vacancies and absences in constitutionally-mandated elected offices and the Security Council may be established by law.
17. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Comments are appreciated. I wrote the amendment to not apply to elected positions and the SC because these positions are intricately tied to having citizen-level access, and this amendment does not provide an alternative path to citizenship.

When I puzzled over this and agreed with not including mandatory ministries, I pointed out that the internal ministry is vague enough that I don’t think we want to bar them from that. We have a lot of ministries that are internal in nature - which one of them is the required one? Does that mean just to be safe the potential person in this situation cannot serve in any of them? What does that leave us with? Much cleaner to just bar the military and foreign ministries from this I think, and avoid that thorny question.

I’m not sure how I feel about this being a valve the RA can activate instead of specifically a response to a move by the delegate, but maybe that doesn’t really matter.

I’m inclined to support this, but it’s tricky, so I’m going to have to take another few looks to figure out if it’s missing anything we should be keeping in mind.

Pallaith:

Much cleaner to just bar the military and foreign ministries from this I think, and avoid that thorny question.

Click to expand...

You could ask the same question regarding foreign ministries. Isn't the WA Affairs ministry inherently dedicated to external affairs?

Pallaith:

When I puzzled over this and agreed with not including mandatory ministries, I pointed out that the internal ministry is vague enough that I don’t think we want to bar them from that. We have a lot of ministries that are internal in nature - which one of them is the required one? Does that mean just to be safe the potential person in this situation cannot serve in any of them? What does that leave us with? Much cleaner to just bar the military and foreign ministries from this I think, and avoid that thorny question.

Click to expand...

The proposed amendment specifies constitutionally-mandated elected official. This amendment would not bar the person from being a Minister of one of the mandatory ministries in Legal Code Section 7.5, since the Executive Officers are chosen, not elected.

While I’m cool with the general idea, a simple majority seems a bit low.

I recognize that the simple majority is the same with overriding the security check (which honestly, seems a bit low now that I think on it), but this would seem to have the qualitative difference of overriding every reason for someone to be denied citizenship short of a forum ban.

I could rework this into a one-off exemption for a specific position following delegate nomination.

BluieGamer:

The proposed amendment specifies constitutionally-mandated elected official. This amendment would not bar the person from being a Minister of one of the mandatory ministries in Legal Code Section 7.5, since the Executive Officers are chosen, not elected.

Click to expand...

Thanks Bluie. I read something into his bill that isn’t there. So it’s different from my idea in another big way, it doesn’t bar mandatory ministries. So my critique not only doesn’t make sense, it is completely avoided by the way this bill is currently written. I amend my feedback accordingly: I think you should bar the military and foreign officer mandatory ministers from this exception. Would I vote against that if that isn’t in there? Not sure, but I think I would prefer that provision.

Your proposed alternative approach is obviously something I like, since that’s how I imagined it would be set up in my previous post in the Boston Castle resolution.

Why does it matter that they previously applied for citizenship?

Praetor:

Why does it matter that they previously applied for citizenship?

Click to expand...

Why would you give an exception to citizenship to someone who doesn’t need it? Setting that aside, why would you want to grant this exception to someone who didn’t want citizenship? The whole reason this is being considered is because there are scenarios where people want to get it but aren’t able to due to circumstances outside their control.

Pallaith:

where people want to get it but aren’t able to die to circumstances outside their control.

Click to expand...

I too hate it when I become immortal despite my best efforts.

Joking aside, this is proposal is not to give citizenship—it is to let someone be an appointed government official.

Praetor:

I too hate it when I become immortal despite my best efforts.

Joking aside, this is proposal is not to give citizenship—it is to let someone be an appointed government official.

Click to expand...

Post edited...

I know what the proposal does. But we wouldn't be considering an exception to a citizenship requirement for ministers unless we wanted to accommodate certain situations where people who can't get citizenship. It's obviously relevant to this bill, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

If the Regional Assembly is going to appoint a resident to become a minister, then expecting them to have at least applied for citizenship seems a relatively reasonable expectation to have to me.

After all, the entire reason for this bill is to allow someone who can't get citizenship to become a minister.

What I would like to see, however, is for language to be added that ensures the exemption expires automatically, preferably after a term or two.

Praetor:

Why does it matter that they previously applied for citizenship?

Click to expand...

the main argument was there is currently no way to get people pass the admin check without compromising the ability to detect and prevent people from making multiple accounts

St George:

If the Regional Assembly is going to appoint a resident to become a minister, then expecting them to have at least applied for citizenship seems a relatively reasonable expectation to have to me.

After all, the entire reason for this bill is to allow someone who can't get citizenship to become a minister.

What I would like to see, however, is for language to be added that ensures the exemption expires automatically, preferably after a term or two.

Click to expand...

Cretox offered to write this in response to a delegate appointment, kind of like a confirmation of that appointment if the person isn’t a citizen. This is actually the same approach I advocated for in the other thread, and it has the added benefit of only applying to that posting - the person couldn’t be appointed again without citizenship without going through the same process. Currently he has it set up like how SC members are granted BC powers. I agree that’s super broad and (obviously) prefer the confirmation-style method. I would note that he hasn’t updated the OP with a draft of this, though I know he’s drafted the language as I saw it in Discord.

I'm not sure why it's necessary for someone to apply for citizenship when they know that they will fail. The inclusion of that mandate unnecessarily complicates the law. The only reason to include that requirement is if there is another part of the citizenship application which is integral to demonstrating suitability to being an appointed government official.

Now, there is also the SC check in addition to the admin check which would be easily passable by a bad actor (given that in this scenario, they could just create a new account with the use of a VPN if their IP is previously on file) or failing the SC check would not procedurally impact their ability to become an appointed government official. Furthermore, given that the RA would be voting on the individual, it seems a sufficient security check.

Edits made. Exemptions are now specific to unique positions, and FA and military positions are excluded.

Praetor:

I'm not sure why it's necessary for someone to apply for citizenship when they know that they will fail. The inclusion of that mandate unnecessarily complicates the law. The only reason to include that requirement is if there is another part of the citizenship application which is integral to demonstrating suitability to being an appointed government official.

Now, there is also the SC check in addition to the admin check which would be easily passable by a bad actor (given that in this scenario, they could just create a new account with the use of a VPN if their IP is previously on file) or failing the SC check would not procedurally impact their ability to become an appointed government official. Furthermore, given that the RA would be voting on the individual, it seems a sufficient security check.

Click to expand...

I was under the assumption that the delegate wasn't going to be trying to appoint non-citizens who never bothered or were never around to apply for citizenship. Could some random non-citizen who has never been around apply for citizenship expecting to fail just to get this out of the way? I guess, but that person probably wouldn't survive the RA vote. And how do they know they will fail until they do? Someone failing the VD check (not the SC check, though you do always have an interesting way of looking at things) would force an RA vote - if the applicant fails that vote, I don't imagine the odds of the person getting the exception would be very high. Someone who avoids failing any of the checks obviously bypasses this entire process, so if the person the delegate wants to appoint applies for citizenship in anticipation of utilizing this provision of the law, and actually passes all the checks, then it's a done deal and the delegate gets an appointment. This provision, if nothing else, eliminates the need for using this clause at all if there is no need to, which saves the RA time and keeps us having citizens in government office. I honestly don't understand why you are so baffled by this.

To Cretox: seeing the new version, I am curious what the functional difference is in revoking the exception to simply recalling the person? I think that last provision is a relic of the old version. If the permission is only for the office the person is being appointed to, it doesn't need to be revoked when that person leaves office, their leaving office is the end of the permission.

Pallaith:

To Cretox: seeing the new version, I am curious what the functional difference is in revoking the exception to simply recalling the person? I think that last provision is a relic of the old version. If the permission is only for the office the person is being appointed to, it doesn't need to be revoked when that person leaves office, their leaving office is the end of the permission.

Click to expand...

You're correct. I removed it.

Pallaith:

I was under the assumption that the delegate wasn't going to be trying to appoint non-citizens who never bothered or were never around to apply for citizenship. Could some random non-citizen who has never been around apply for citizenship expecting to fail just to get this out of the way? I guess, but that person probably wouldn't survive the RA vote. And how do they know they will fail until they do? Someone failing the VD check (not the SC check, though you do always have an interesting way of looking at things) would force an RA vote - if the applicant fails that vote, I don't imagine the odds of the person getting the exception would be very high. Someone who avoids failing any of the checks obviously bypasses this entire process, so if the person the delegate wants to appoint applies for citizenship in anticipation of utilizing this provision of the law, and actually passes all the checks, then it's a done deal and the delegate gets an appointment. This provision, if nothing else, eliminates the need for using this clause at all if there is no need to, which saves the RA time and keeps us having citizens in government office. I honestly don't understand why you are so baffled by this.

To Cretox: seeing the new version, I am curious what the functional difference is in revoking the exception to simply recalling the person? I think that last provision is a relic of the old version. If the permission is only for the office the person is being appointed to, it doesn't need to be revoked when that person leaves office, their leaving office is the end of the permission.

Click to expand...

I doubt we'll be seeing much use of this area of the law—albeit we may see more of it if there is new technology that means more people run into issues with the admin check. Regardless of how much use this provision gets, I don't think that's a compelling reason to have a poorly-written law (I recognize that's not a point you're making right now). The requirements to ensure that one passes the admin check are no secret; it's not too difficult for players to know if they will fail an admin check. I'm not sure what you think I'm baffled by.

Additionally, is there a reason this is only limited to the Delegate making appointments?

Praetor:

I doubt we'll be seeing much use of this area of the law—albeit we may see more of it if there is new technology that means more people run into issues with the admin check. Regardless of how much use this provision gets, I don't think that's a compelling reason to have a poorly-written law (I recognize that's not a point you're making right now). The requirements to ensure that one passes the admin check are no secret; it's not too difficult for players to know if they will fail an admin check. I'm not sure what you think I'm baffled by.

Additionally, is there a reason this is only limited to the Delegate making appointments?

Click to expand...

I don’t want to encourage this exception for people who never even tried to become a citizen, and I don’t want it to be used unless it has to. That’s why I believe it makes sense to have this provision in there. I think those are very simple and easy to understand points that give that provision a reason to exist, and that’s why I’m confused as to why you seem to be struggling with them. You’re envisioning a scenario where people make a doomed to fail application to check off a box. I’m envisioning this law (which yes, should be rarely used - this is a feature not a bug as far as I’m concerned) being applied to people who made an effort to join us and didn’t succeed.

I’m not entirely sold on the wording of this, I think it could use some additional drafts. I think what it’s trying to do is rather simple, and before we put our heads together and do some wordsmithing, I think we should address whether the purpose of this law is something you support, because that has a lot to do with how something “poorly written” is adjusted. Because I feel like we’re monopolizing Cretox’s thing here, and we may be arguing about things that aren’t really what we’re arguing about, if that makes sense.

Cretox will have to speak for himself about why the delegate appointments are the target. What other offices should these exceptions apply to? We only have three branches, so other than elected officials, we have deputy speakers I guess? That would strike me as ironic, having a non-citizen do citizenship checks. Seems wrong. I guess for me a lot of this boils down to “it feels wrong” and I suspect most people will just have to decide for themselves if it feels like something they are willing to try.

I imagine that most who wish to be involved in the executive and seek a government position in TNP would first apply for citizenship. After denial, most either fade away or seek to be involved with just resident masking.

Full support. Good to see you moving forward with this idea.

@Cretox State I join you in supporting the aim and current formulation of the legal change, but I would caution the use of "these" in clause 9 since common sense would lead one to know you are referring to clause 8 but it is probably better and more clear to reference clause 8 directly if you wish to keep clause 9 separate from it.

Substantial wording change for version 3 of this. Credit goes to @Pallaith for the new version.

Bumpy. Will move over the weekend if there are no further objections or suggestions.

What does the practical application of this loophole look like? The RA discusses and votes to confirm Boston Castle as WA minister. A new term begins and once again the RA has a discussion and vote. After a time. Boston Castle would like to branch out into HA. The RA gets to discuss the merits of that move. Then have a vote.

I understand the desire to limit the scope of the exception, and have RA oversight for the waivers. Yet I wonder if the process is going to slow down the workings of the executive. Plus, if we allow for the possibility that more nations will come onboard who do not have residential IPs, is this process going to be workable?

Ideally, we would have a path to citizenship for nations in similar circumstances. I worry that talent will not be retained and our "dreamers" will go elsewhere. I see this proposal as more of an expedient solution crafted for this specific situation.

I have to agree with GBM. I don’t think that this is a very good long-term solution, and especially with more people not having residential IPs, we may just need a better citizenship process.

Well, what would be the alternative? Admin check is there to discern whether someone is a unique player or not - any new citizenship process would need to address that.

We do not yet have another way to check for multi-ing. As tech evolves, some alternative may become necessary. I'm definitely open to suggestions.

Great Bights Mum:

What does the practical application of this loophole look like? The RA discusses and votes to confirm Boston Castle as WA minister. A new term begins and once again the RA has a discussion and vote. After a time. Boston Castle would like to branch out into HA. The RA gets to discuss the merits of that move. Then have a vote.

I understand the desire to limit the scope of the exception, and have RA oversight for the waivers. Yet I wonder if the process is going to slow down the workings of the executive. Plus, if we allow for the possibility that more nations will come onboard who do not have residential IPs, is this process going to be workable?

Ideally, we would have a path to citizenship for nations in similar circumstances. I worry that talent will not be retained and our "dreamers" will go elsewhere. I see this proposal as more of an expedient solution crafted for this specific situation.

Click to expand...

I hope it's inconvenient, because it's not something I personally want to encourage being a regular thing. And I suspect the RA isn't going to rubber stamp such appointments either. In practice most delegates will not choose such people to be ministers - those are not picks you give away to someone who is barely around and not engaging so often with the region that they would become a citizen.

A path to citizenship for nations like Boston requires a serious, weighty look at our citizenship process. That's harder to do from a substantive point of view, but easier to do from a mechanical one (only a simple amendment to the legal code, not the constitution). This amendment we're debating now is harder to get done, but it's a relatively conservative change to our law - it preserves our citizenship process as it is and is concerned with one aspect of governance that intersects with citizenship. I personally didn't believe there was much stomach for revisiting our citizenship process, because it truly is rather straightforward currently and the one leg of it that is the problem is the admin check. There's a very good reason we have the procedure and standards we do now, but as we have seen from this subject, there's good reason to consider some of the consequences of those procedures.

Comfed:

I have to agree with GBM. I don’t think that this is a very good long-term solution, and especially with more people not having residential IPs, we may just need a better citizenship process.

Click to expand...

This amendment, it should be noted, is not intended to be a long-term solution to the woes of residents like Boston who can't get citizenship because of their ip. It is intended to give players like Boston a chance to continue to advance and thrive in the community when they have already been doing so - its designed to reduce a barrier to the few who truly make an effort and are an active, known part of the community. I feel for people in his situation who are brand new or not well-known, and I agree the best solution for them is an overhaul of the citizenship process. Let's keep in mind what we're trying to accomplish here though.

St George:

Well, what would be the alternative? Admin check is there to discern whether someone is a unique player or not - any new citizenship process would need to address that.

Click to expand...

This is why I favored this approach. Any alternative would need to tackle the citizenship process itself and that really means going after the admin check, because that's the issue. And I am very much not sold on using a legislative approach to change how it is utilized - carving out exceptions or careful alternative paths is better, but that still undermines the admin check.

Great Bights Mum:

We do not yet have another way to check for multi-ing. As tech evolves, some alternative may become necessary. I'm definitely open to suggestions.

Click to expand...

I would hope admins know better than anyone what to do here, so it is them I would like to hear from the most. This may be a "keep waiting" situation though. So in the meantime...specific changes to our laws that get around some of the bad effects of current policy seems to be the best approach.

As usual, you make a lot of sense, Ghost. I support Fiji's proposal, and I am glad we have been able to address Boston Castle's situation through this amendment.

I guess I'll motion this weekend, unless anyone has further input.

i motion this to vote!

Yuno:

i motion this to vote!

Click to expand...

@East Isles As the proposer, if I move to vote, will Yuno's motion count as a second?

Cretox State:

@East Isles As the proposer, if I move to vote, will Yuno's motion count as a second?

Click to expand...

Per the standing procedures, there is no requirement for a second on legislative proposals. As the proposer, your motion would be sufficient.

East Isles:

Per the standing procedures, there is no requirement for a second on legislative proposals. As the proposer, your motion would be sufficient.

Click to expand...

Alright. In that case, thank you @Yuno for the show of support!

Amendment updated to account for the AGORA fix. I move for a vote.

Cretox State:

Alright. In that case, thank you @Yuno for the show of support!

Amendment updated to account for the AGORA fix. I move for a vote.

Click to expand...

Acknowledged. This proposal is now in Formal Debate, which will last for the next 5 days. @Cretox State may continue to amend the bill during Formal Debate. Once the Formal Debate period has closed, no more amendments may be made and a vote will be scheduled.

I thought of something that may require a slightly modified wording. Forgive me if I am wrong, but based on this interpretation, does this mean that every term where a resident is appointed to the minister position, same or different, there has to be a vote on it? Because the currently wording, to me, doesn't imply that the confirmation is by every appointment. In fact, I was thinking that if the resident is appointed to "Minister of WA Affairs" and confirmed once, they don't need a second confirmation for subsequent terms anymore. Maybe make it more clear in that sense?

Fregerson:

I thought of something that may require a slightly modified wording. Forgive me if I am wrong, but based on this interpretation, does this mean that every term where a resident is appointed to the minister position, same or different, there has to be a vote on it? Because the currently wording, to me, doesn't imply that the confirmation is by every appointment. In fact, I was thinking that if the resident is appointed to "Minister of WA Affairs" and confirmed once, they don't need a second confirmation for subsequent terms anymore. Maybe make it more clear in that sense?

Click to expand...

Don't know how I missed this, my apologies. The intention is that exceptions are unique to each appointment, and there needs to be a new exception granted for multiple appointments to one office. I believe that's implied by the original wording, but I added a phrase to 10 to make it more clear.

Formal Debate has now concluded. No further amendments will be accepted. This will go to vote in two days.