An additional question based on Zuk’s statement and a follow up to Bach’s.
If a decision to deny a application has been made, shouldn’t the official reason be posted on the forum for the record instead of telling an applicant to see the Delegate and cabinet? The Viceroy and Conclave should be over naturalization; not the Delegate and Executive.
— Begin quote from ____
An additional question based on Zuk’s statement and a follow up to Bach’s.
If a decision to deny a application has been made, shouldn’t the official reason be posted on the forum for the record instead of telling an applicant to see the Delegate and cabinet? The Viceroy and Conclave should be over naturalization; not the Delegate and Executive.
— End quote
Assuming that our system is fine and the Viceory MUST follow the Memorendum, ideally yes, but in reality, no.
There is no law regulating what happens during denial of a citapp. If I’m too be honest, there isn’t much law on denying citapps in general.
In reality, at the very least he should’ve been told to approach the Viceory instead, but even that isn’t required by law in general.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
During the crafting of the Concordat, the spirit of citizenship was that anyone who joined the The East Pacific and ratified the Concordat was welcome as a citizen. We intentionally wanted a place where people got another chance. Yes, even after the hurt caused by “The Empire,” we welcomed former members of that group into TEP. The Viceroy was named as an administrator of citizens, not the granter (or decider or even arbiter) of citizenship. Someone needed to keep track of the citizens.
In the years since the establishment of the Concordat, there’s been some refinement and enhancement, but the language in the Concordat is still consistent with the original intent. We’ve experienced some problematic individuals (citizens) and some procedures have been established to try to prevent those problems. I struggle with this decision. As a place where you get another chance, I have wanted to allow those with troubled pasts to be able to join us … and if they are unreformed, then we have policies and procedures for removing the “menace.” I also recognize the harm that can be done while we follow our procedures – and take the time to document the problem – and understand the desire to keep those people from becoming citizens before they cause any harm.
For this particular case, I have no knowledge of the individual identified as “Unity for NS.” So, if there is some reason, based on this individual’s behavior in other parts of NS, for denying them citizenship, I don’t know it. And I wonder if we need more clarity on denial of citizenship.
If allowed, I join Bachtendekuppen in this petition. And I would urge the Magisterium, not the Conclave, to establish clear guidance on denials of citizenship as a fact of law, not just interpretation of a Memorandum from the Conclave.
I am for the Magisterium making a law clarifying citizenship denial and who can do it.
At the same time, I have to ask if the Concordat needs to change it’s definition of a citizen, because how can we legally deny a citizen if anyone who ratifies the Concordat is a citizen?
We should also change the Concordat so that the Viceory’s role in citizenship applications is clarified.
And probably change the SOC so that the Viceory MUST follow the procedures he/she lays in the Memorendum.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
For clarification, the nation in question ‘Unity for NS’ was denied for perceived lying on his citizenship application. The player in question states TEP is his first and only region on his application, yet I have been shown evidence indicating the player has a understanding of R&D mechanics on the RMB. Whether innocent in intention or not, obviously TEP isn’t the players first region if he comes in with a understanding of R&D mechanics.
I directed a denial/holding of his application and a follow-up with the player as to the cause of the discrepancy. I do not know what the result of that follow up was as I haven’t been advised of it yet.
I will avoid any formal legal opinion on my behalf as I am involved with the case. But I will say that citizen applications have been denied for the past due to similar issues.
— Begin quote from ____
At the same time, I have to ask if the Concordat needs to change it’s definition of a citizen, because how can we legally deny a citizen if anyone who ratifies the Concordat is a citizen?
— End quote
Now -that- is the question I would like to see answered.
— Begin quote from ____
For clarification, the nation in question ‘Unity for NS’ was denied for perceived lying on his citizenship application. The player in question states TEP is his first and only region on his application, yet I have been shown evidence indicating the player has a understanding of R&D mechanics on the RMB. Whether innocent in intention or not, obviously TEP isn’t the players first region if he comes in with a understanding of R&D mechanics.
I directed a denial/holding of his application and a follow-up with the player as to the cause of the discrepancy. I do not know what the result of that follow up was as I haven’t been advised of it yet.
I will avoid any formal legal opinion on my behalf as I am involved with the case. But I will say that citizen applications have been denied for the past due to similar issues.
— End quote
That still doesn’t answer the question whether any of this is legal under the Concordat.
Is it legal or not? On what grounds can it be denied? Is there even such a possibility to “deny” a Citizenship? If no, how do you or the Cabinet plan to remedy this? Is “lying” on an application even a reason, legally, to not grant Citizenship, under the Concordat?
Can we please take TEP law a bit seriously, instead of fumbling around this?
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
At the same time, I have to ask if the Concordat needs to change it’s definition of a citizen, because how can we legally deny a citizen if anyone who ratifies the Concordat is a citizen?
— End quote
Now -that- is the question I would like to see answered.
— Begin quote from ____
For clarification, the nation in question ‘Unity for NS’ was denied for perceived lying on his citizenship application. The player in question states TEP is his first and only region on his application, yet I have been shown evidence indicating the player has a understanding of R&D mechanics on the RMB. Whether innocent in intention or not, obviously TEP isn’t the players first region if he comes in with a understanding of R&D mechanics.
I directed a denial/holding of his application and a follow-up with the player as to the cause of the discrepancy. I do not know what the result of that follow up was as I haven’t been advised of it yet.
I will avoid any formal legal opinion on my behalf as I am involved with the case. But I will say that citizen applications have been denied for the past due to similar issues.
— End quote
That still doesn’t answer the question whether any of this is legal under the Concordat.
Is it legal or not? On what grounds can it be denied? Is there even such a possibility to “deny” a Citizenship? If no, how do you or the Cabinet plan to remedy this? Is “lying” on an application even a reason, legally, to not grant Citizenship, under the Concordat?
Can we please take TEP law a bit seriously, instead of fumbling around this?
— End quote
I mean if you want to -strictly- interpret the Concordat on the issue, then the Concordat states a citizen is any -resident- who has ratified the concordat. The Delegate can effectively have the same controls by just ejecting/banning residents who attempt to become citizens.
There’s a lot of holes in the document which unfortunately leaves a lot of room for interpretation either way. If we are challenging the whole basis that a citizen can be denied for falsifying information their application, is it even legal to have a application? Shouldn’t it be purely automatic based on someone ratifying the Concordat?
By that definition, Article E section 1 infers resident - as in, resident nation - Am I entitled to multiple voting citizen nations if I have multiple resident nations that ratify the concordat?
The concordat is, as usual, very murky on the issue.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
At the same time, I have to ask if the Concordat needs to change it’s definition of a citizen, because how can we legally deny a citizen if anyone who ratifies the Concordat is a citizen?
— End quote
— End quote
Now -that- is the question I would like to see answered.
— Begin quote from ____
For clarification, the nation in question ‘Unity for NS’ was denied for perceived lying on his citizenship application. The player in question states TEP is his first and only region on his application, yet I have been shown evidence indicating the player has a understanding of R&D mechanics on the RMB. Whether innocent in intention or not, obviously TEP isn’t the players first region if he comes in with a understanding of R&D mechanics.
I directed a denial/holding of his application and a follow-up with the player as to the cause of the discrepancy. I do not know what the result of that follow up was as I haven’t been advised of it yet.
I will avoid any formal legal opinion on my behalf as I am involved with the case. But I will say that citizen applications have been denied for the past due to similar issues.
— End quote
That still doesn’t answer the question whether any of this is legal under the Concordat.
Is it legal or not? On what grounds can it be denied? Is there even such a possibility to “deny” a Citizenship? If no, how do you or the Cabinet plan to remedy this? Is “lying” on an application even a reason, legally, to not grant Citizenship, under the Concordat?
Can we please take TEP law a bit seriously, instead of fumbling around this?
I mean if you want to -strictly- interpret the Concordat on the issue, then the Concordat states a citizen is any -resident- who has ratified the concordat. The Delegate can effectively have the same controls by just ejecting/banning residents who attempt to become citizens.
There’s a lot of holes in the document which unfortunately leaves a lot of room for interpretation either way. If we are challenging the whole basis that a citizen can be denied for falsifying information their application, is it even legal to have a application?
— End quote
Good question. Is it?
Given the various answers in this thread, I request to append the following questions to my original petition, to be considered by the Conclave.
I ask the Conclave to consider the post of ASBS and the post of EM as part of the original petition.
I ask the Conclave to consider that after Article E, Section 1 (“A Citizen of the East Pacific is a resident of the East Pacific that has ratified this Concordat.”), and Article E, Section 3 (“The Viceroy shall be charged with overseeing the naturalization process and the Viceroy shall maintain a record of all citizens.”), the Concordat also determines under Article F, Section 9 that “All rights not in this Concordat described or reserved to the government shall remain in the hands of the individual nations” - thereby limiting any powers granted by the Concordat to those explicitly granted.
I ask the Conclave to consider that the Memoranda of the Viceroy - I refer to the ones quoted in my original question for an advisory opinion - are just that: Memoranda. A Memorandum does not a Concordat make.
I ask the Conclave to consider that answers like “We should change …” or “The Concordat is very murky…” may at some point have seen a legal answer from behind bars, but do not pass as such.
I ask the Conclave to consider that, in addition to 4), however ‘murky’ the Concordat may be, we should uphold what is says, and not what we believe it ought to say.
Therefore, this petition includes the following legal questions to the Conclave :
Is the action to refuse Citizenship to applicant “Unity for NS”, without providing any legal ground whatsoever, legal under TEP law?
Is there a legal possibility to “deny” a Citizenship?
On what grounds can a Citizenship application be denied, if possible at all?
If a decision to deny an application has been made, shouldn’t the official reason be posted on the forum for the record instead of telling an applicant to see the Delegate and Cabinet?
Is “lying” on an application even a reason, legally, to not grant Citizenship, under the Concordat?
Is the “Citizenship application” as it currently exists required under the Concordat?
We - referring to myself, ASBS and EM, ask the Conclave to establish clear guidance on denials of citizenship as a fact of law, not just interpretation of a Memorandum from the Conclave.
Before getting to the substantive questions, I would like to address the errata that has been brought up, and will be dismissing it from my consideration of the question.
— Begin quote from ____
Viceroy’s Memorandum on Citizenship, 05/30/2018, “Announcement of Audit”
This particular Memoranda is explicitly self-limiting and has been expired since last year. This would only serve as an example of the Viceroy’s wide-ranging authority on citizenship or as a template for future audits
— End quote
This will be somewhat disjointed, though below I have laid out the various supports for the course of action of the Viceroy and CitiCom. The original question missed a couple pertinent Memoranda, and I am convinced with is a misunderstanding due to a misnomer.
— Begin quote from ____
The Dictum - Regional Considerations and Rights
…4.8- The East Pacific shall assert its right as a Region to deny entry or residence to any nation it has deemed a significant risk to the Region, including but not limited to nations which have been convicted of Treason or High Treason.
This passage has been widely interpreted as the Delegate denying entry or residence to nations, and has precedence of Delegates using this for such actions with non-citizens. This offers some credence to the consultation of the Delegate and Cabinet on the original Issue Application, and more so when considering the military nature of the denial. This alone could have been used to solve a security issue.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Viceroy’s Memorandum on Citizenship, as amended 27/03/18, “Creation of the Public Conciliation Panel”
As the original author of this Memoranda, it was intended to be a public fora through which prominent and interest parties could debate a possibly questionable application. The panel is non-binding, and the Viceroy has the final say on the application, but was meant to have some reasoning and thought behind a high-profile applicant in case of denial.
This Memoranda does not require a panel in the case of a denial, nor does it preclude other processes for consideration. This is effectively immaterial to the question, since it does not place a requirement on the Viceroy or CitiCom.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Viceroy’s Memorandum on Citizenship, as amended 10/11/17, “Citizenship Application Considerations”
This Memoranda establishes a procedural requirement for Citizenship Commission members to ensure the application and Oath have been completed before it can even be processed. This precludes those who have an incomplete application.
Further, it establishes a positive requirement for the applicant to have been fully truthful on the application. Though the Memoranda itself does not explicitly state what do do with an untruthful application, the applicant is required to swear on the contents.
Particularly the applicant swears to be “completely truthful in applying for citizenship within The East Pacific and that I have fully disclosed all information material to this application and its purposes.” If this is not the case, then the applicant has effectively committed perjury and/or fraud. It is safe to say that The East Pacific does not want to see itself become a haven for Perjurers or Fraudsters, and is a reasonable requirement to place on possible community members.
The dishonestly alone could have been used for the denial of the application, in my judgement.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Citizenship Naturalization and Suspension Act
This Act explicitly bifurcates the concepts of Citizenship and Naturalization. Since it had never been the case where a person who ratified the Concordat was immediately masked and fully able to interact with the community as a citizen, it was reasonable to consider there would be some naturalization process to the forums. Without legislating the Forum admin/mod team, the Naturalization Act clarifies the process simply because of the unreasonably low bar of citizenship of mere residency and ratification.
The Act recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of the Viceroy on the matter of Citizenship, and considers Naturalization to be the major aspect of that.
— End quote
With respect to the Naturalization Act, I believe this is all a misunderstanding due to a Misnomer. The application of “Unity for NS” is not an application for Citizenship, rather an application for Naturalization. This denial is supported in a variety of ways, and is only challenged by the question regarding the denial of Citizenship.
If the Viceroy and Citizenship Commission can confirm that it was its intention to deny the Naturalization, that will solve the inherent nature of the advisory question.
— Begin quote from ____
IN SUMMARY
“Given the above, is the action to refuse Citizenship to applicant “Unity for NS”, without providing any legal ground whatsoever, legal under TEP law?” - Bach
Short answer - Yes.
Long answer - Yes, but technically the individual was refused Naturalization. Though generally a reason should be granted even if for plain decency. If this reason is procedural they should have a chance to fix the procedural mistake. If this reason is a ‘security risk’, ejection via the Dictum is possible, as have previous Viceroys convened Public Conciliation Panels to advise them on the treatment of the application up to and including denial.
— End quote
I will suggest the Viceroy and Citizenship Commission be more clear with their language in the future. Though the title “Citizenship Application” should be left for simplicity, it is prudent to not announce the denial of the Citizenship of an applicant, rather the denial of the application for Naturalization.
— Begin quote from ____
-snip-
Therefore, this petition includes the following legal questions to the Conclave :
Is the action to refuse Citizenship to applicant “Unity for NS”, without providing any legal ground whatsoever, legal under TEP law?
Is there a legal possibility to “deny” a Citizenship?
On what grounds can a Citizenship application be denied, if possible at all?
If a decision to deny an application has been made, shouldn’t the official reason be posted on the forum for the record instead of telling an applicant to see the Delegate and Cabinet?
Is “lying” on an application even a reason, legally, to not grant Citizenship, under the Concordat?
Is the “Citizenship application” as it currently exists required under the Concordat?
We - referring to myself, ASBS and EM, ask the Conclave to establish clear guidance on denials of citizenship as a fact of law, not just interpretation of a Memorandum from the Conclave.
— End quote
We, -referring to myself-, state objectively that “refusal of Citizenship” is not legal.*
This case is based on a misunderstanding of terms, and has gotten heated. The difference between Citizenship and Naturalization is supported by the Concordat, the Citizenship Naturalization and Suspension Act, and the precedent on the matter. The Citizenship Commission would be more aptly named “The Naturalization Commission”, and the citizenship application thread would be more aptly named “Concordat Ratification and Naturalization Application”.
The Concordat does have a problem with using certain words interchangeably. Is it a “murky” document on this matter? No. The murkiness (as always) comes in when it is put into practice. We have over years built our current naturalization system, and this system has yet to be successfully challenged - and I attribute this to the fact it is based on the simple rules of community safety and regional integrity.
For simplicity purposes as a lot of people have voiced some confusion, including my former Arbiter self, and let me know if I am wrong or right.
— Begin quote from ____
For simplicity purposes as a lot of people have voiced some confusion, including my former Arbiter self, and let me know if I am wrong or right.
— End quote
Wrong.
1.Citizenship cannot be denied*
2. Naturalization CAN be denied.
3. That person is not naturalized. Naturalization being the process of being accepted/masked as a citizen/community member.
Citizenship =/= naturalization
To suggest otherwise would be a serious detriment to the security of the region. It is absolutely reasonable to have a process by which to induct a person into a community in a safe manner - I am certain the moderation team would agree with that simple statement. This is our legal process.
*Citizenship can be removed or voided by various means,
So basically what you’re saying here is that naturalization process can be stopped/denied. Here’s what the act says is a person who passes naturalization:
— Begin quote from ____
…3.1.5- Naturalized Citizens- “Citizens of the Region which have successfully naturalized, joining the off-game forums of The East Pacific”.
— End quote
But the Concordat doesn’t mention the term “Naturalized Citizens”, it uses the term “Citizen”, which is defined here:
— Begin quote from ____
…3.1.3- Citizen- “a Resident of the Region that has ratified the Concordat”;
— End quote
Which means, by a strict interpretation as utilized by definitions, that ANYONE who has ratified the Concordat has the full rights of being a citizen, as they fulfill the requirements set out by the Concordat, which is that they ratified it. You are saying it is neither granted nor repealed, so that means everyone who follows the definition of a citizen is a citizen, which is again, ratifying the Concordat.
That being said, here’s the question I also am asking clarification for.
So, sorry, now I have another question.
So that means based on the Concordant and Citizenship and Naturalization and Suspension Act we have not been following the law correctly because we only have a Citizen masking. To reconcile this we would need a Citizen (non-voting) masking and Naturalized Citizen (voting) mask to separate the two classes of citizens we have created by law.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
For simplicity purposes as a lot of people have voiced some confusion, including my former Arbiter self, and let me know if I am wrong or right.
— End quote
Wrong.
1.Citizenship cannot be denied*
2. Naturalization CAN be denied.
3. That person is not naturalized. Naturalization being the process of being accepted/masked as a citizen/community member.
Citizenship =/= naturalization
To suggest otherwise would be a serious detriment to the security of the region. It is absolutely reasonable to have a process by which to induct a person into a community in a safe manner - I am certain the moderation team would agree with that simple statement. This is our legal process.
*Citizenship can be removed or voided by various means,
— End quote
But forum moderation is outside TEP law? Forum safety has nothing to do with Citizenship under TEP law, only whether or not people can join the forum as a technical platform? And the Viceroy/CitiComm administers Citizenship, but not forum safety?
These questions are now verging on nit-picking.
We have operated just fine for years with this system. I do not wish to see TEP become a region where anyone waltzes in at any time, as I am sure neither of you do as well.
We have a regional right to ensure our safety, and to deny this would be asinine. “Forum safety” is not the only consideration here, since the forum =/= our community.
The resident ratifies the concordat, the citizen applies for naturalization, and the Viceroy/Citicom request the masking. This is not complicated. This is based on simple realities.
Alright. As my right as an Arbiter, I’ll be leaving an opinion. After that, I will refrain from posting in this thread. I ask for apologies that I was seeking to understand the situation better and see if the Concordat or the SOC needed to be fixed. I won’t lie, I feel insulted at my questions nearing nitpicking, as that wasn’t my intention.
— Begin quote from ____
— End quote
To make this post understandable, I will substitute Citizenship for “Naturalization”, in order to answer Bachtendekuppen’s questions in a way that I feel proper.
My opinion interprets this:
The Viceory is given the power to deny/accept naturalization.
Citizenship can and will be substituted for “Naturalization” whenever Bachtendekuppen uses it.
The Viceory can deny naturalization.
3. In accordance with #2, the Viceory does not even need a legitimate reason, much less a legal reason to deny naturalization.
4. Again, it would be expected. However, there is, again, no law or Order nor in the Concordat stating that this must be so.
5. If you mean lying in itself, no as it is not mentioned in the Concordat. Such a reason could be linked to the Codics though, as it could be something of wanting to commit treason.
But then again, the Viceory is assumed in this opinion to have the power to deny naturalization, so he/she does not need a reasoning to do so.
6. Yes. Since the Concordat gives the Viceory the power to oversee the process, and the SOC does the same, and since the Viceory has determined that citizenship applications are needed for that duty, they are required under the Concordat.
— Begin quote from ____
— End quote
Citizenship cannot be denied. So theoretically, the Concordat requires an amendment to state “Naturalized Citizens” instead of “Citizens”, which will fix this part of the process, as well as to expand on the definition. Here’s an amendment I imagine could provide a potential if not complete fix Section 1 Article E: “A Naturalized Citizen, is a resident who has ratified the Concordat and has been allowed by the Viceory or persons designated by the Viceory to complete the Naturalization Process.” Otherwise, this too does not make sense to me, and I cannot answer the last question properly.
Ah, there we go! I have provided my opinion. I still believe there is something fundamentally wrong with our naturalization system, but I no longer wish to elaborate on it. I have done my job. I will stop posting in this thread unless I feel my presence is needed again.
I also have to formally ask Aelitia for his apologies, as I didn’t mean to attack him. But I had questions, and he was the only other Arbiter who was able to be active in this thread.
It is not because one does something (realities), that it is law (legal).
I would like the Conclave to give a legal opinion, not a political one.
I ask that we all calm down and refrain from using passive aggressive tones (me included as well.)
Please note that while we all have varying stances, a unified Opinion (at this point), doesn’t seem feasible, so I will be forming an individual opinion as granted under the SOC. In this process, I will also be rescinding all my previous statements unless otherwise noted below.
Since there are multiple questions and no clear cut answer, I will simply answer as I know how. Any questions can, obviously, be asked to me. Also, please note that I am not trying to pick and choose definitions for words, but simply choosing the best one that matches the word in the context of what’s going on, but that’s difficult. So if I am doing that, please forgive me!. So read on!
[spoiler]
Let us start from the very tippy top of the spire: The Concordat. The Concordat defines citizen as:
— Begin quote from ____
Section 1) A Citizen of the East Pacific is a resident of the East Pacific that has ratified this Concordat.
— End quote
Great. So the Concordat has given us what a citizen is. However, the Concordat also appoints the Viceroy to a job with this title:
— Begin quote from ____
Section 3) The Viceroy shall be charged with overseeing the naturalization process and the Viceroy shall maintain a record of all citizens.
— End quote
Now, we are introduced to two terms here. “Overseeing” and “Naturalization”.
— Begin quote from ____
Oversee: to survey or watch, as from a higher position.
— End quote
So what does this give us? Oversee, in itself, has its own passive tone. To survey also means to take notes. And to watch means to look and not do anything.
Synonyms to Oversee: Supervise (which means to oversee/direct a process) and Manage (Means to make sure something is accomplished/ to take care and charge of/ to handle.)
Therefore, we can interpret that Article E, Section 3 gives the Viceroy the ability to set up the processes for naturalization, and to make sure that it goes smoothly. Just from this, it IS possible to assume that the Viceroy has the ability to deny citizenship. However, we then turn to the definition of Naturalization…
— Begin quote from ____
…3.1.4- Naturalization- “the process by which Citizens join and are recognized on the off-game forums of The East Pacific”;
— End quote
This definition also gives us a sense of in between. While the Concordat leans more (in my opinion) to not giving the right, this definition is in between. So let us look a little later in the Act.
— Begin quote from ____
Section V- Naturalization of Citizens
…5.1- Naturalization shall be commenced upon the receipt or verification of ratification.
…5.2- Naturalization shall be completed upon the recognition of the citizen to the off-game forums of The East Pacific, namely being masked as such.
…5.3- The Viceroy or Viceroy-designated body responsible for the naturalization of citizens shall oversee:
…5.2.1- That a ratification made within The East Pacific off-game thread shall be referred to the Forum Administration for masking or recognition;
…5.2.2- That a ratification made within the NationStates in-game thread shall be offered information or assistance to undergo naturalization.
— End quote
5.1 says that naturalization shall commence/START when the Viceroy realizes that a ratification has occurred.
5.2 says that naturalization shall finish when the citizen receives the citizen masking on the forums, thus officially being recognized as a citizen by the East Pacific.
There is honestly no way to interpret anything from this. There is no in-between, because these two statements are open.
Therefore, understanding that these few sentences directly regulate naturalization, and that these denote complete apathy or are against the option of giving the Viceroy the right to decide who gets naturalized…
Therefore, my opinion is that the Viceroy does NOT have the right to grant/deny naturalization, as the Concordat stresses more on passivity, and the Citizenship Naturalization Act is too open to take an interpretation from.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
The Citizenship Naturalization Act makes a difference on “naturalized citizens” and “citizens”, by saying that Naturalized Citizens have a “Citizens” mask on TEP’s forums. This is can be interpreted by this section of the act:
— Begin quote from ____
…5.3- The Viceroy or Viceroy-designated body responsible for the naturalization of citizens shall oversee:
…5.2.1- That a ratification made within The East Pacific off-game thread shall be referred to the Forum Administration for masking or recognition;
…5.2.2- That a ratification made within the NationStates in-game thread shall be offered information or assistance to undergo naturalization.
— End quote
As people who ratify the Concordat off TEP’s forums are still, in fact, citizens, must go to TEP’s off-game forums and receive masking before becoming recognized as an official citizen.
Therefore, Citizenship cannot be granted nor removed by the Viceroy. In addition, BECAUSE the Viceroy is interpreted to not have the right to decide on who is naturalized in this opinion, HE/SHE CANNOT DENY recognition of citizenship to the forums. Therefore, ANYONE WHO WAS DENIED is, in reality, still being naturalized as following this opinion, and they are labeled as “CITIZENS”.
However, the Concordat and most legal documents of TEP DO NOT mention “Naturalized Citizens”, but instead utilize the term “Citizens”. BECAUSE the Concordat DEFINES the term “citizen”, it is reasonable that this definition of the term is what the Concordat and other legal documents of TEP use. Again, the definition of this term is defined as “A resident who has ratified the Concordat.”
Because “Citizens” are anyone who ratified the Concordat, ANYONE WHO RATIFIED the Concordat and was denied is STILL a citizen. Therefore, all who were denied naturalization have the same exact rights as Naturalized Citizens.
Therefore, my opinion on this matter is: Citizens can be unmasked on the forums, but as long as they have ratified the Concordat somewhere, they are entitled to the same rights as naturalized citizens, and as of now, are full citizens of TEP in every right but recognition from the TEP government and a forum masking.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
1.Is the action to refuse Citizenship to applicant “Unity for NS”, without providing any legal ground whatsoever, legal under TEP law?
As Aelitia said, citizenship cannot be refused to Unity for NS. In the same vein, (and this is in my opinion), that Unity for NS cannot be denied from becoming naturalized.
2.Is there a legal possibility to “deny” a Citizenship?
As stated in Part 1, I believe the answer is no. However, the Concordat and the law we have on Citizenship is so vague that my interpretation solely depends on the connotation of one word.
The Concordat needs an amendment, or the Conclave must declare a precedent on this matter.
3.On what grounds can a Citizenship application be denied, if possible at all?
Assuming that a citizenship/naturalization COULD be denied, it would be for any reason as seen by the Viceroy. There is nothing regulating the reasons a Viceroy could deny a citapp, assuming that the Viceroy was given the right to deny.
4.If a decision to deny an application has been made, shouldn’t the official reason be posted on the forum for the record instead of telling an applicant to see the Delegate and Cabinet?
Yes, it should. In reality, again, there is no true law regulating this, so it doesn’t necessarily have to occur.
5.Is “lying” on an application even a reason, legally, to not grant Citizenship, under the Concordat?
In itself, lying on an application is not a reason to grant naturalization under the Concordat. It simply isn’t listed as one. However, given that the applicant swears to be truthful, it could be a legitimate reason. But not a legal reason.
The only way I can think of it in any way legal is that somehow, the applicant is found to have been lying to help assist in committing treason (Ex: Wanting to be a sleeper in TEP, but hiding organization you are a sleeper from). In that case, since they already ratified the Concordat and share the same rights as a normal citizen, they can be put immediately on trial and banned.
But this doesn’t really answer your question. So not really, no.
6.Is the “Citizenship application” as it currently exists required under the Concordat?
Kind of. Because the Viceroy is given the power to oversee naturalization, it is assumed that he can add or remove from the process as long as it does not prevent a citizen from being naturalized. Because the “Citizenship application” does not block nor give the Viceroy permission to prevent someone from being naturalized, it isn’t necessarily required, but it is allowed.
And to answer EM’s questions…
Basically, TEP can say that Person A is not a citizen, but if they ratified the Concordat, then they are a citizen no matter what masking or lack of recognition TEP gives, and have all the rights as a normal citizen does.
Basically, imagine this scenario:
Person A is wearing sunglasses. He meets Person B, and Person B does not believe that his sunglasses are real. However, Person A did buy real sunglasses that protected his eyes. No matter what Person B says, if Person A’s sunglasses are real, they’re real.
That’s what my opinion says about this situation.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
My opinion is that the Viceroy does not have the right to deny naturalization or citizenship to anyone. Also, the Concordat legally gives ALL citizens, unnaturalized or naturalized, the same rights (besides naturalized citizens being recognized by TEP and getting a mask to denote their citizenry.)
Therefore, it is also my opinion that Unity for NS, no matter how much lying he did or how suspicious he is, cannot be denied the right to become naturalized.
[/spoiler]
Obviously, my opinion is quite shaky, as simply put, there isn’t really much we can go on. Our interpretations are either 50/50, and the restrictions are so loose on this matter that bias can affect our decision.
Therefore, I am considering asking if this can be elevated to a Review, in order to form precedence on the question:
Does the Viceroy have the right to deny a naturalization application?
But I am not formally asking this, I am still considering.
I would also suggest an amendment to the Concordat by the Magisterium, to help clear the issue on unnaturalized citizens having similar rights to naturalized citizens.
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Please note, this is a draft. I worked on this for a few hours and I just want to post this as soon as possible. If there’s anything not making sense grammatically or idea wise, just ask questions! This is my opinion.
Another note:
I agree with Aelitia that we have the right to a safe community.
What I recommend would be forum administration to continue denying the mask to any suspisous IP address. Otherwise, to accept all other applicants as the law (in my opinion), says.
However, I fully trust in the Executive branch and the Magisterium to keep him out/in a low position. I have seen the Executive limit suspisous people before and it can do it again. Or we could just suspend citizenship. Or keep using our legal system.