They can be denied citizenship, which is same thing
Yes, as long as we know theyâve done it. If we learn after they join TEP weâre screwed.
I see. I understand and agree to the two points in principle.
[An additional bit bringing back the Praesidiumâs power to remove citizenship on the basis of hostile actions, with a very strict scrutiny standard for doing so]
Regarding this point - I think we might want to specify if [undeclared] previous evidence surfaces. For example, if they declared in a public disclosure form their ex nation includes Couper A.
Although currently cit applications need no public disclosure formsâŚ
Idea: Cit applications require public disclosure, which Magi already needs.
Prae would then be empowered to remove citizenship as an emergency measure if new evidence emerges that had been hidden from public disclosure form.
[I imagine that if itâs that serious, a court case would be in the works]
And finally to close the circle - Subject to a court appeal for a verdict if user is a threat or not (and should have citizenship reinstated)
Hm okay. I like this. Lying on a PDF is already a crime, so there can be a trial still on that. I think itâd be great to include an additional field in PDFs such as âHave you ever been involved in or aware of any attempt to subvert the democracy or the stability of The East Pacific?â Like how job applications ask for a criminal record.
I donât think requiring all cit apps to include a public disclosure form is viable. maybe we could change to the citizenship pledge to include swearing to disclose information relevant to the security of TEP instead? Though the wording on that would need to be very well considered.
Tbf, a lot of regions do something like a PDF for citizenship. Off the top of my head, TSP and FNR, but likely others.
Every WA can vote in TSP delegate elections and FNR has a governor, they can afford to diminish their citizen pool. I donât think this translates so well to TEP.
Just a quick thought, before I hope to come back to this more extensively later: as I read the proposed section, it seems to me this would have barred Fedele & co being tried after the 2019 coup, since they were no longer residents of TEP during their trial?
Interesting point. Thatâs an odd situation because technically they were extrajudicially banned by the Praesidium. In those cases, I think the way our precedent has leaned is that theyâre legally still residents just temporarily outside of jurisdiction (kinda like those ejected for endocap violations)? I donât know. Itâd be really tough to account for a situation where someone is gone. Under the current Conclave verdict, though, it is also the case that Fedele and co would be immune to trial.
However, with that in mind, any non-resident can be barred unilaterally by the Praesidium from re-entering sooo. Idk. Itâs odd to contend with.
Coming back to this, I donât see why we would limit ourselves like this? The proposed section, as written, is a limitation on a presumptively universally applicable Concordat?
The current Conclave has assumed an even more limited Concordat than this, so itâs an expansion, really.
Why would you write an expansion as a limit?
Because the limit Iâm countering has no basis in the actual text of the Concordat, so it wouldnât make semantic sense to phrase it as such.
Wouldnât it make more sense to positively state some way that there is no limit?
Done as suggested.