Citizenship Legislation

[Bromo Ivory]

The Commission has concluded, and the next step suggested was to come up with representatives of all active factions to form a multi-faction piece of legislation that has the best chance of passing and including all points of view.

So far identified are:

CARE: Bromo Ivory
SP: Brian Livingston
CSDF: Sleazy Writer (CSDF has decided to not participate)
DPU: Dnate Mars

Once all members have been selected, I will schedule a meeting so we can go over our options.

[Dnate Mars]

Unless someone else from the DPU wants to step up, I can fill this role.

[Sleazy_Writer]

Bromo, feel free to work on legislation, but the CSDF is not going to participate in the meeting for the reasons outlined below:

• With the Citizenship Commission's work concluded, the commission chair and also the factions themselves have analyzed the opinions of the citizens. The CSDF asked me to convey their view of the results to Bromo, and I want to post that view on this forum as well.
  
  Our faction wanted to consult the citizens through a commission on this topic, and seriously consider changes to citizenship.
  That's what we did. The CSDF members also contributed to the commission by sharing their thoughts on citizenship at the meetings or on the forum.
  
  
  When looking at the outcome of the debate and the information, at least two representatives of the CSDF, Patroklus Murakami and Jon Seattle, disagree with the commission's revised report and analysis, and for that reason abstained in RA when asked to accept the report.
  
  In the end the CSDF decided that the results and numbers show: the lack of a clear consensus for a major change in citizenship. For that reason we choose to put this idea on hold.
  
  
  It is possible to imagine a compromise solution. But we believe finding and implementing it will take a large amount of time for many people (and not just one meeting like Bromo suggested), and that it will derail other things that need to get done. The massive amount of time spent on the judiciary and the many weeks spent on the Franchulate act show that this is a realistic assessment indeed. The CSDF thinks that going down this road is not the right priority. It must be mentioned that some CSDF members do support landless citizenship. However they agree that regarding this issue, on which the citizens are divided, we should not waste time on relatively fruitless discussion.
  
  For this reason the CSDF is not participating in Bromo’s ‘compromise finding’ meeting.
  
  Instead we want to focus on things like: getting the third sim up and running, implementing a new web portal and the other things from our election programme.

[Bromo Ivory]

It is a shame that CSDF is not going to participate in any sort of reform. In this I am disappointed, and I am also anticipating that CSDF will not support any out put of the group regardless of its nature (please confirm this is incorrect). The fact that CSDF won't even [i:3lapsnq0]talk[/i:3lapsnq0] about reform with the other factions, really saddens me.

I would like to point out that the [i:3lapsnq0]disagreement[/i:3lapsnq0] to which you link was made [b:3lapsnq0]before the report was issued[/b:3lapsnq0] - so one could easily conclude a rejection of reform of any kind was CSDF's intent form the get-go. I hope I am wrong in this, but the facts and actions speak very loudly to me in this regard.

I hope you guys change your mind. As I will be on a business trip for a week, I sincerely ask CSDF to reconsider, and to use the week to do this.

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Dnate Mars":23ddswpc]Unless someone else from the DPU wants to step up, I can fill this role.[/quote:23ddswpc]

Thank you Dnate!

[Sleazy_Writer]

I hope you guys change your mind

It's a well thought over decision that the CSDF is not participating for a 'landless citizenship' reform. I cannot speak for our representatives so you will have to wait for their answer, but when Patroklus and Jon say that they don't see a clear mandate for major change, then to me that means that it's unlikely that they will support such proposals in the RA.

I don't know why you think that 1 analysis by Patroklus determines what the whole faction thinks. Maybe that's how it works in CARE but definitely not how it works in the CSDF. In the end we had about three active members in favor of major reform and five against, three weeks ago it was more 50% 50%. That disagreeing analysis was made after the last meeting was held and when the forum discussion was at its end. I believe Patroklus and Jon stand by it.

It's simply not true that we are against some useful reform. We just think it's the wrong time and not enough support to adopt landless citizenship or something like that.
The CSDF will be open to work on useful, uncontroversial reforms like

• - what Sudane suggested : clarifying citizenship that's by virtue of group owned land, it improves the citizen roll and democracy
  - opening up the Group Land Ownership Act a bit, in combination with the above

But I believe it's wrong to negotiate this in your meeting. It's not right to trade a controversial form of landless citizenship for other reforms that really only help the citizen rolls and our democracy as a result. To me it seems likely that this would be your approach, Bromo, since you have focused the commission so exclusively on landless citizenship and the like. But I guess everyone's a bit to blame for that.

[Bromo Ivory]

What makes me very concerned baout this situation, Sleazy, is that talking is not commitment to any particular path of reform, and in the conclusions of the revised report, really made no strong overtures to any one particular style of reform - though the people wanting some sort of reform did outnumber those that did not.

I view participation by CSDF as a good thing.

Please take the week when I am gone to reconsider. It does sound like you made up your mind, and I would like to think CSDF has a degree flexibility built into their platform given the variety of opinions they have on the subject.

(side note: I do know that CSDF is not in unity on this issue - though I did feel the need to point out that the link you put in was referring to criticism BEFORE the commission reached closure. There should be no need to critisize me for pointing this out)

[michelmanen]

Sleazy wrote:

nstead we want to focus on things like: getting the third sim up and running, implementing a new web portal and the other things from our election programme

What is clear is that you don't give a damn about the long-term future of the CDS, but only your short-terrm electoral prospects. Enough said. We knew that already.