Shireroth

The Minister of Immigration and Naturalization has issued an ultimatum to Mr. Santelran Rottsaa, that if he does not comply with the Tri-Cit law by 3802 ASC his citizenship shall be revoked. I hold that such a move is illegal, although if not illegal, that it is at least not mandatory.

LB, IX, B wrote:1. Citizens of Shireroth are allowed only three national allegiances including Shireroth. When applying for citizenship, an individual must have two or less citizenship, else they will be denied citizenship.
2. If a citizen comes into violation of these requirements, he/she must remedy the situation within one Shirerithian week. (14 days).

I hold that this section does not require the loss of citizenship for violation of the Tri-Cit rule by an existing citizen. It only requires a citizen to remedy the situation. Furthermore, I hold the assertion by the MiniImNat that Mr. Rottsaa's citizenship was never valid to be untrue, since all authorities in the Republic have treated him as such. I finally suggest that any move by the Minister to strip Mr. Rottsaa of his citizenship would be illegal under the following provision of the LawBook:

LB, VI, E wrote:3. No citizen of Shireroth will lose citizenship solely on the basis of failure to fill out a census form, nor by any other means save Kaiserial decree or voluntary emigration.

To deprive a citizen of zir citizenship, an Imperial Decree is required.

I disagree with Mr. Tosha's assessment of his first point but strongly feel that my disagreement is moot because his second point is quite straightforward and clear.

My interpretation of the above law would be that a violating citizen would be served a notice (as per 9.B.1), similar to an eviction, whereby he or she is given a grace period of 14 days to rectify the exceeding citizenships (as per 9.B.2). If he does not, then MinImNat would seek the Kaiser's assent in nullifying said citizenship (as per 6.E.3).


But even under that interpretation, the present demand would be in violation. So MinImNat should be asked to modify their position on the matter.

I'm not entirely confident in my first point. It is a matter of interpretation, and I consider both interpretations to be possible, although I believe mine to be the more correct one (of course, why else present it?). It is my belief that 1. only applies to applicants, not existing citizens. The second one though is, I believe, pretty obvious.

We'll see what Erik says.

Your first point is a solid one Malliki and I doubt the Arbiter would disagree. A law must outline a punishment for failing to adhere. It is a failure of the law if none is presented. I do however think that this law should be reevaluated in the Landssrad to be polished.

There are blanket provisions concerning punishments, but Ministers are not allowed to revoke citizenships anywhere in the laws.

By not complying with the requirement to have only 3 citizenships Corey has of his own actions chosen to not be a citizen of Shireroth. The law is clear, despite the contradiction (A clarification to the law is needed), one may only have 3 citizenships including Shireroth to be a citizen. The Ultimatum was ill worded. The MiniImNat cannot remove citizenship, but he can acknowledge that by not complying with Tri-Cit Corey has relinquished his own citizenship.

That is how I reconcile/interpret the law.

Must the law mention a punishment to be law? Is not the fact it is the law, backed by the courts, ample support? I'm not sure how much of a separation between legislature and judiciary Shireroth has but it would seem that it would be up to the courts to determine punishment if the law does not specify.

Lawbook 1.9.2 B: Tri Citizenship Restriction may be poorly written, but it seems there are two separate concepts here: one as an overall statement saying that no citizen shall have more than three citizenships, and another saying that applying citizens must have two or less citizenships or get declined. They're sort of mishmashed together though, which is why Baron Tosha's is remotely valid, though that seems to be more of nitpicking at poor wording than following the spirit of the law. Of course, the spirit of the law holds no legal backing. I actually checked the Charter - I'm almost certain that one of the Kaisers (probably Scott; sounds like a Scott thing to do) made the following the spirit of the law rather than the letter as offical law, though that seems to be sort of a weird paradox now that I think more about it. In any event, it's not there anymore, if it ever existed to begin with.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that the Minister cannot give a straight ultimatum to Corey, or at best cannot enforce said ultimatum, without violating 1.6.4 E. Minister of Immigration And Naturalization.


Edit: oh wow, I disagree with the whole "relinquished his own citizenship" argument more than I disagree with anything else said so far on this mater. That's pretty absurd. We haven't even had an invesigation to see if, in fact, the claim that he has violated the law is true. Do you have documents proving his citizenship in at least three other micronations, or are we just sort of winging this in a hurry?

http://shireroth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12475

I've put a straight forward and clear fix before the Landsraad.

Harvey: It was there, I think I removed it a while later cause it caused issues, or at the least I put it somewhere else cause I was trying to simplify the charter.

He stated that he has four citizenships (discounting Hurmu) in his census form. He listed Toketoshalsk as one, but that one is pretty non-existant at the moment.

I also disagree with the notion that one voluntarily gives up one's citizenship. That is not mentioned anywhere in the laws.

I also think we forget, at least I do from time to time, that this is pretty much a thing that Corey does so we will kick him out. I can't really figure out why, but if he wants to be kicked out so much, perhaps we should oblige him.

That law was made to be enforced. Else it would not be there. Someone later decided to make a law to protect those who forget to fill out the census without looking at what laws that would effect. I'm just putting forward an interpretation that keeps both laws valid. I'm arbitrating!

It's not the conclusion I disagree with, it's the process. I'm fully behind tri-cit and other laws being enforced (though a good quote about being sinless and first stones does come to mind...). I just think that you're trying to make a snap decision on what is pretty clearly one of our biggest legal tangles in the history of the nation.

Erik Mortis wrote:That law was made to be enforced. Else it would not be there.

True, but as I said in my previous point. This is a case of a shortcoming of this particular law. We can not simply manipulate the law to make it work for us short of rewriting it. (Which we are in the process of doing)

Would his honor the Arbiter consider postponing this er... thing until the Landssrad has come to an agreement on the proper amendments to the law in question?

Would the Arbiter be willing to issue an opinion regarding the Ministry's other contention that Mr. Rottsaa's citizenship was never valid?

It is the Ministry's assertion that the Minister of Immigration and Naturalization is prohibited from granting citizenship to applicants in violation of the tri-citizenship rule. Mr. Rottsaa was, at the time of approval, a claimant of five (or four, depending on interpretation) nation's citizenship. Therefore, the previous Minister was never legally authorized to grant citizenship and, as such, Mr. Rottsaa was never a citizen of Shireroth.

How is it one of the biggest legal tangles in the history of the nation?

A problem was put forth, I saw an interpretation that made sense given the laws in the books. Another solution is the MiniImNat going before the Kaiser and requesting enforcement. This probably would be the simplest solution.

At the time of that immigration, I was in full compliance with the tri-cit law.

He has been treated as a citizen by the MiniInt, the Landsraad, the Duchies and the Kaiser. The citizenship is a fact.

Citizenship should not have been granted under the conditions, but none the less it was. In this case the punishment/reprimand would have to be given to the MiniImNat. Corey should not have had citizenship, but on all levels this government recognized his citizenship despite the issue. We cannot deny that he was a citizen. If the issue were not already raised I would call for the MiniImNat to require Corey to come into compliance. but that's already happened.

I WAS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRI-CIT LAW WHEN I IMMIGRATED!

I repeat:

I WAS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRI-CIT LAW WHEN I IMMIGRATED!

I think the big question here is why Corey was let into the nation at all when he wasn't in full compliance with Tri-Cit when he immigrated!

Erik Mortis wrote:Another solution is the MiniImNat going before the Kaiser and requesting enforcement. This probably would be the simplest solution.

Should the petitioner concur, I would accept this as a resolution to this matter.

In the event that the amendment before the Landsraad pass, this case will become moot.

Thus, should the petitioner decline that resolution, I join in the previous motion to defer until a decision by the Landsraad on the tri-citizenship amendment is made.

As the Plaintiff in this case (since I initiated it) I hereby file a Pone.

I gotta be the first to say it... PONE'D!!!!

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a Pone?

Leo Fenrir wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but what is a Pone?

A Pone is a request for the case to be moved to a higher court.

a. A pone is a writ to move the case to a higher court, any Defendant may file a pone subject to the following restrictions.

Aw, I was just about to post a transcript from #micronations :C

Yeah, at this point it is a matter best left to the Kaiser. I gave my interpretation, but him just making a decree one way or the other on the matter would be the simplest course of action.