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…
- Citizenship can not be denied.
- Naturalization can be denied.
- Citizenship is denied.
This is incorrect. Citizenship cannot be denied, but recognition (which, in this case, is naturalization), can be denied. However, due to the Concordat’s usage of the term “Citizen”, unnaturalized citizens have the same rights as naturalized citizens.
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.