[PASSED] The Citizenship Rejection Act [C.R.A.]

Vivanco

Vivanco

Legal Nerd? Yeah, that's me
-
-
-
Pronouns
She/Her They/Them
TNP Nation
vivanco
Discord
ra#9794
Upon examination of the Legal Code, for the administration and loss of citizenship, there's no clear indication on what to do upon a citizen willingly wanting to no longer being a citizen.
This has been commonly handled by the Speakers' Office, but I just wanted to have it properly set in the Legal Code for clarity purposes.

The Legal Code, Chapter 6, Section 6.2. shall be amended as follows:
Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
17. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of citizens and their registered nations.
18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court,or those whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or ceases to exist, or whose citizenship is voluntarily renounced by notifying the Speaker.
19. 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.
20. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose registered nations in The North Pacific are not in the World Assembly, except as part of an operation with the North Pacific Army, if their citizenship was granted by the Regional Assembly after failing an evaluation by forum administration.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call it rejecting citizenship if a citizen does it, would "rescind their citizenship" sound better?

That's the only question I have the rest is fairly simple and easy. Good stuff!
 
Kronos:
I wouldn't call it rejecting citizenship if a citizen does it, would "rescind their citizenship" sound better?

That's the only question I have the rest is fairly simple and easy. Good stuff!
Click to expand...
Fair! After all, English is not still my main language. Thank you for your feedback! I'll fix it tomorrow morning (it's almost 4 AM here as I'm writing this.)
 
I think this would go well with other, more pressing changes that recent events have highlighted as a necessity. For instance, handling cases where someone is permanently banned from the forum, or allowing the Speaker a chance to correct mistakes. This problem is as easily solved as the person revoking citizenship leaving the region for a bit and coming back.
 
Pallaith:
I think this would go well with other, more pressing changes that recent events have highlighted as a necessity. For instance, handling cases where someone is permanently banned from the forum, or allowing the Speaker a chance to correct mistakes. This problem is as easily solved as the person revoking citizenship leaving the region for a bit and coming back.
Click to expand...
I'm going with things first that I know are easy and I can properly do. Baby steps.
 
Looks good to me, but I would personally use "renounce" instead of "rescind".
 
I agree that “renounce“ would be preferable wording. However, I will oppose the bill so long as the administrative ban issue is bundled into it, particularly in its current format. If a nation is banned by the Administration but the Delegate does not find that sufficient grounds to eject and ban them from the region, they should not lose citizenship. I would oppose loss of citizenship either way, but for it to follow solely from Administrative judgment is very concerning.

Also, it uses different language to the other parts of the Legal Code that refer to the Administration. For consistency “forum administration” should be used.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
I agree that “renounce“ would be preferable wording. However, I will oppose the bill so long as the administrative ban issue is bundled into it, particularly in its current format. If a nation is banned by the Administration but the Delegate does not find that sufficient grounds to eject and ban them from the region, they should not lose citizenship. I would oppose loss of citizenship either way, but for it to follow solely from Administrative judgment is very concerning.

Also, it uses different language to the other parts of the Legal Code that refer to the Administration. For consistency “forum administration” should be used.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure we should want to have people as citizens who were banned by forum administration. That’s not exactly common and not done lightly. Why are opposed to this in principle?
 
Since the fact of the citizenship from administrative actions is already being discussed in LD's proposal, I will leave it as only adding the fact of renouncing of citizenship.
 
Is discussion still ongoing? Anything else that needs to be discussed? :P
 
I guess I have no reason to oppose a change I favor just because we're changing the law multiple times for the same type of stuff. It's not how I prefer to do business, but if the bill moves forward then I would evaluate it on the merits.

I would propose this wording for the change: "18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or cease to exist, or whose citizenship is voluntarily renounced by notifying the Speaker."

Fixes a small grammar issue that always bugged me (ceases to exist referring to a plural group?) and matches the phrasing of the other parts of the clause.
 
Pallaith:
I guess I have no reason to oppose a change I favor just because we're changing the law multiple times for the same type of stuff. It's not how I prefer to do business, but if the bill moves forward then I would evaluate it on the merits.

I would propose this wording for the change: "18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or cease to exist, or whose citizenship is voluntarily renounced by notifying the Speaker."

Fixes a small grammar issue that always bugged me (ceases to exist referring to a plural group?) and matches the phrasing of the other parts of the clause.
Click to expand...
I also motion this to vote.
 
Vivanco:
I motion this to a vote.
Click to expand...
According to the Standing Procedures for Legislative Proposals, the Formal Debate would have been declared (time=1654193814) (your forum time)

The Formal Debate should last five days after a vote being called for.

This Formal Debate will end at (time=1654625814) (your forum time).

Voting will beign approximately at (time=1654705014) (your forum time).
 
Vivanco:
According to the Standing Procedures for Legislative Proposals, the Formal Debate would have been declared (time=1654193814) (your forum time)

The Formal Debate should last five days after a vote being called for.

This Formal Debate will end at (time=1654625814) (your forum time).

Voting will beign approximately at (time=1654705014) (your forum time).
Click to expand...
I note that this was a miscommunication on my part - I failed to clarify if the post after Comfed's one stating "but discussions are still ongoing" was meant to be a retract of the motion to vote.
 
Did I miss another post from the Speaker? Not sure why he’s weighing in here.

I am pleased to see my suggestion was adopted and I will vote for the bill when the time comes.
 
I do have a small question, what if somebody doesn’t know that they have to notify the speaker office in order for their citizenship to be removed?
What if it was simply changed to making a public announcement on the forum?
 
Madeline Valois:
I do have a small question, what if somebody doesn’t know that they have to notify the speaker office in order for their citizenship to be removed?
What if it was simply changed to making a public announcement on the forum?
Click to expand...
If they don't know they can be directed to the speaker.

As the keeper of the citizenry rolls, it's appropriate that such matters are directed to the speaker, as currently happens in the Citizenship and Residency Update topic.
 
Fregerson:
I am not sure on the relevance of your snark comment over here.
Click to expand...
It’s not actually snark - you appeared to be correcting yourself but I missed the post you were referring to, and it was a bit confusing what you were correcting.
 
Pallaith:
It’s not actually snark - you appeared to be correcting yourself but I missed the post you were referring to, and it was a bit confusing what you were correcting.
Click to expand...
Could have just said that. I was correcting myself that I acknowledged the motion post and deleted it without clarifying with Viv whether he meant to rescind the motion following the question by Yuno/Anna.

Madeline Valois:
I’m confused are we waiting for something else or is this in formal debate…?
Click to expand...
No it is already in formal debate.
 
Last edited:
Formal Debate is now over.

Voting will begin tomorrow as scheduled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top