[PROPOSAL] Proscription Efficiency Amendment to the Citizenship Act



…6.1. Any individual without a Citizenship can be declared prohibited from having any nation reside in The East Pacific.Proscription shall be a status which confers banishment from the region for reasons of regional security based on actions committed abroad or against The East Pacific. No proscription may be issued against any resident for reason of summary or indictable offense; all such instances must be tried by Conclave.

…6.2. Any Vizier can nominate any eligible Nation for prohibition to The Praesidium for reasons of regional security, which can declare prohibition by a 2 / 3 majority vote. By the same majority the Praesidium can lift or amend any prohibition.Individuals with no known resident nation may be proscribed by the Praesidium through any process dictated by the Standing Orders of the Praesidium.

…6.3. The Magisterium shall be notified by the Grand Vizier or appointee thereof whenever a nation is prohibited.Non-citizen residents may be proscribed by the Praesidium through a 3/4 majority vote, the administration of which shall be defined by the Standing Orders of the Praesidium.

…6.4. The Praesidium shall maintain a public list of prohibited groups and nations on The East Pacific’s forum.No Citizen may be proscribed by the Praesidium.

…6.5. The Conclave can reverse a prohibition or decrease its length, upon appeal by a prohibited nation.The Grand Vizier shall maintain a public record of proscribed groups and nations on the forums or in a dispatch, as well as the reasons behind proscription.

…6.6. The maintenance of a Resident nation by a prohibited individual shall be considered a summary offense with a sentence of permanent banishment of said nation, for as long as the individual’s prohibition lasts.The Delegate must be informed upon the beginning of a proscription process, as well as once a decision is made. The Grand Vizier must announce each proscription, or consign such a task to the Delegate. This announcement must adequately justify the proscription.

…6.7. The maintenance of a resident nation by an individual proscribed by the Praesidium shall be considered a summary offense with a sentence of banishment for as long as the proscription lasts.

…6.8. The Praesidium may alter or lift any proscription by the process in which it was established, or establish a time limit or terms within the initial proscription decision.

…6.9. Any proscribed nation may appeal to the Conclave, in which the length or terms of proscription may be altered, including an exception to group proscriptions, or the proscription may be fully lifted, if it is determined to be unreasonable or unjustified.


…7.1. The Praesidium and the Delegate can each deny entry or residence to any nation it deems a significant risk to the East Pacific.

…7.1.1. This power may not be exercised against the nations of Residents who present a significant risk by committing an indictable offense or being suspected of such, unless said Residents utilized nations in a clear military attack against the East Pacific.

…7.1.2. The Praesidium may overrule any Delegate exercise of this power following the Standing Orders of the Viziers.

…7.2. Residents whose nations were banned or ejected from the East Pacific without having been sentenced by the Conclave to ejection or banishment have the right to seek appeal before the Conclave.

…7.3. This power cannot be exercised against Residents or Citizens as individuals.


…8.1. Nothing in this Act permits an individual to maintain multiple Citizenships, which shall constitute an indictable offense with a maximum sentence of permanent banishment.

…8.2. Any individual who attempts to vote during Delegate Elections and regional referenda without valid Citizenship shall be committing an indictable offense with a maximum sentence of one year banishment.

The Prohibition and Entrance Denial systems are too complicated. Not only are they so outdated that they refer to the SOV rather than SOP, which was renamed well over a year ago, but they needlessly complicate the procedure – Prohibition with a 2/3 vote (less than the SOP requires for any other decision) can be done for any resident or foreigner but Entrance Denial by fiat can be done for any foreigner. And with the current wording of 7.3, potentially entire groups of Residents or Citizens. Having two systems for proscription is lame. Naming it prohibition or entrance denial is similarly lame. Proscription is an important power conferred to the Praesidium and should be adequately defined and streamlined in law to ensure that procedure matches common sense practice. This amendment seeks to do that. It establishes distinct lines between residents and foreigners within a single system, defers authority to the SOP, maintains every other requirement in law, adds that the Delegate must be consulted, and even adds an additional requirement to justify the proscription – no nation should be preemptively banned without any justification. I seek a system which works for a modern TEP and a modern Praesidium, as the person required to see this system through. To that end, I would also like to solicit any ideas for how we can further change the system. This can be more than cleaning up the law, this can be outright reform, and I would love the Magisterium’s ideas on that reform.

1 Like
  1. It may be prudent to note whether foreigners have the right to appeal proscription to the Conclave. While the Concordat only guarantees the right to residents, it is legally plausible for a statutory law to extend that right to other individuals like for appealing proscriptions.

  2. Under this system, how would nations be dealt with in an emergency situation like due to the Del bump a few months ago?

As a general note, this is depowering the Delegate since the delegate can no longer make direct bans for “security reasons” (read: the struck out Section 7.1), unlike under the current system. I don’t care too much about this, especially seeing as compared to 2014 (when 7.1 was initially written as part of the Dictum) that the Delegate doesn’t play as much law enforcement roles anymore, but I do think it is an important principle to note.

  1. The intention is for anyone to appeal. Should that be made more clear?

  2. The SOP deals with this. Clause 4.2 states, “In the event of an immediate security threat of great urgency, the Grand Vizier may act unilaterally by issuing a Memorandum, which details the action to be taken and the justification for such action. Memoranda of the Praesidium shall be maintained in a topic in the Praesidium forum. Viziers may then vote to approve or reverse the Memorandum.”

Yes. Merlovich, however, was told that he did not have the power to do this because of the conflicting nature of Sections 6 and 7, so I don’t think it’s officially losing much.

I also would note to anyone who may be concerned at this removal (I know not you) that the Delegate should not be unilaterally deciding who is a security threat. In fact, to involve the Delegate at all is already a concession, considering regional security is an entire branch.

1 Like
  1. Yes.

  2. But doesn’t the proposal say that said proscription of non-citizen residents requires a 3/4 vote of Viziers? As it reads, the GV can’t proscribe via SOP Clause 4.2 because the proposed law strongly implies a vote needs to take place firstI’d suggest adding a sentence somewhere saying explicitly allowing the GV to give out a temp proscription later confirmed/rejected by the Prae during an emergency situation for non-citizen residents.

Another concern I thought of - what if Citizens commit a behavior that is proscribable? Why shouldn’t they be proscribed?

Well if a nation is a resident, then they should be afforded certain rights, which means a vote – potentially expedited, but a vote nevertheless. In the case of the del bump, considering they jumped from a foreign region and dumped into another, they’re still considered a foreigner.

I move for a vote

I second this motion.

1 Like