View Topic

Seeing as how there was some talk in the Discord about restoring citizenship (to an unnamed individual in particular), I thought I'd take a gander at the laws regarding that (part of my broader examination of 'the Laws in general). And what I found was that really there aren't any that deal with that in specific. The only laws that sort of look like they'd apply is clause 2.5, which just says 'The Monarch, or any subordinate official appointed by the Monarch, shall have the authority to grant or deny citizenship to any person who applies.'

While this generally works out for the cases in which we have people who, for whatever reason, had their citizenship lapse to have it be easily/readily restored, I'm not sure if that should be the case for people who have had it actively revoked (as in the case of clauses 2.2 and 2.3) - and certainly comments from Wintermoot (quote: 'The Storting revoked...Citizenship to begin with, it would be up to the Storting to restore') would suggest that this should also be the case.

As such, I urge the Storting to consider the matter and judge whether it is worthy of legislation, or if the present legislation is deemed suitable.

I admit I totally copypasta-ed it off where I posted this in the Discord, but I figured more of y'all would actually look here.

Are we speaking of Gov?

I do believe the context was Gov asking whether he'd be allowed to reapply for citizenship, yes.

Laurentus tries to keep a straight face.

Let's be real. This particular case would probably require the consent of the community as a whole. Any decision made by the Storting, one way or another, is going to piss someone off.

EDIT: That said, I believe that if someone had their citizenship revoked through an act by the Storting, they should, in theory, have some sort of mechanism to have it reinstated. Perhaps something similar to a probation period, where the affected person gets his citizenship reinstated, but the Storting monitors their behaviour for, say, a 3 month period, and then decide whether to allow the person to be a normal citizen again. In theory. In reality, if someone managed to get their citizenship revoked here, then they've probably burned so many bridges that many people would rather said person never returned.

Are we speaking of Gov?

Amazingly blunt Can't say that wasn't my immediate first thoughts when I saw this topic, even without any context.

Regarding the restoration of citizenship, if the Storting made the decision to revoke an individual's citizenship (which in this case, yes), then the onus should be on the Storting to repeal the revocation act (if such a repeal is perceived to be of sound judgement of course) before the individual in question attempts at reapplying for citizenship. Meanwhile, I would caution to be extra careful regarding this case.

Having read through the Discord conversations, I am not hopeful that giving Gov citizenship would work out any better than last time.

Essentially all I'm saying is 'rather than think of ad hoc measures should the need arise, have a pre-existing legal method for it'.
Whether that means 'call for a plebiscite on the issue' or 'the Storting votes to repeal the revocation' or 'straight up not possible' (with a possible addendum of 'and arguably a revocation should equate to a PNG', depending on the depth of bad feeling that may be anticipated from statements like 'burned so many bridges that many people would rather said person never returned' - clearly that isn't the case now, since the still-unnamed individual has recently posted on the forums, and regularly on the discord), there should be some consideration given to 'what exactly should our approach be'.

All I'm saying is that I've been able to vote in elections publicly without this unnamed individual causing a fuss that I didn't vote for him, for more than a year now, and it's been great. The only reason he wants citizenship, as far as I can tell, is to run in elections and get positions of authority, again. If that was not the case, then he can pretty much engage in all other activities the community offers without having citizenship, and he has, for the most part, declined to do so.

But you're right, we definitely should amend our laws so it's clear how someone can go about getting his citizenship back once the Storting has revoked it.

Also, it is not quite tantamount to a PNG declaration, as he would have been banned from the forum completely if it was.

EDIT actually i'll just break down all of the statements into legalese

The three possibilities I mentioned mean, in order,
'A community-wide plebiscite shall be called in order to determine whether the person in question may be admitted back into the community. With a simple majority, the person may be granted citizenship as normal.'
'The Storting votes to repeal the revocation of citizenship; should it pass both houses, the person in question may reapply for citizenship as if their citizenship had merely lapsed due to inactivity.'
'Restoration of citizenship after it has been revoked is not possible.'

Additionally, what I meant in saying 'and arguably a revocation should equate to a PNG' is effectively
'Additionally, a revocation shall additionally be taken to mean a declaration that the individual is PNG', or words to that effect - only functioning as a subset of the third possible clause (where restoration is impossible) - because effectively if you're removing someone's citizenship, it stands to reason that your goal is not merely to remove their ability to run for public office, but to remove them from the community as a whole.

For the first two possibilities, however, if one of them was implemented, the Storting should probably consider if there are any probationary measures that need to be attached to any potential restoration of citizenship.

DOUBLE EDIT:
The citizenship and demonym act says "Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Storting may appeal the decision to the Monarch, who can restore Citizenship by decree."
So that's my question resolved then!

Additionally, what I meant in saying 'and arguably a revocation should equate to a PNG' is effectively
'Additionally, a revocation shall additionally be taken to mean a declaration that the individual is PNG', or words to that effect - only functioning as a subset of the third possible clause (where restoration is impossible) - because effectively if you're removing someone's citizenship, it stands to reason that your goal is not merely to remove their ability to run for public office, but to remove them from the community as a whole.

I'm not most familiar with the situation, but IIRC the intent is that revocation of citizenship isn't a ban, but rather a removal of certain privileges.

Here is my opinion on how one that has had his citizenship revoked gets it back, at least at this time.

Legally speaking, that person just needs to reapply, at which point the Monarch (or their designated appointee) will take a look at the application and accept or reject it. However there are four things that could potentially happen:

1. The Monarch refuses to allow the application to be answered by the Monarchy, thus requiring the application to go through the Storting in order to be answered (although the Storting lacks any legal requirement to do so).
2. The Monarch delegates his authority over that application to the Storting, and thus it requires the Storting to answer the question (which there is a bit more of a legal weight to do so, as it is now the Storting's express responsibility.)
3. The Storting intervenes on its own accord (without the Monarch going to the Storting), and acts to override the Monarch. Although there is no procedure for this, the Storting's decision would (in my opinion) take precedence over the Monarchy's decision because the Storting is the once that delegated them their powers over it in the first place.
4. The Storting intervenes on its own accord (without the Monarch going to the Storting), and preempts the Monarchy. There is no procedure for this, but unlike the above, this can be handled through its own legislative procedure.

Now, as to creating a procedure for those getting citizenship after it being revoked, I would personally like for the Storting to have the authority to review the Citizenship application itself and be able to vote on a course of action. If the applicant is no longer displaying the reasons for having the revocation occur they can vote to accept it, if the applicant is still showing the reasons for having the revocation occur they can vote to reject it. They could also, theoretically, vote to leave it to the Monarch or to open a plebiscite if the Storting is either split, or if the individual is rather contentious.

Also while the Monarch can hear appeals of a citizenship revocation, that can only really occur once, and I would prefer such power be used in cases where the Storting was acting in a manner that wouldn't cause the community to be better by a revocation (somehow).

I think one reason it makes sense to delegate Citizenship approvals to a particular person or group in general is because the basic Citizenship requirements aren't subjective. There is a provision allowing for a Citizenship application to be denied for any reason, but in practice this is in place in the event of some unforeseen circumstance where an application really should be denied but they technically meet the requirements. In over four years only one application has been denied through Section 2.5.

But when it comes to someone whose Citizenship has been revoked, it's much more objective...what did they do to have their Citizenship revoked? Is it something they can put behind them or overcome in order to regain Citizenship, and if so how will it be determined that they've done so and are ready for any application from them to be approved? The fact is, it's going to depend on each individual case, so besides either leaving it to the Monarch or having the Storting vote on it, there's no systematic way of dealing with all the potential circumstances.

In cases where the Storting revoked Citizenship, it makes the most sense to me that they be the ones who determine if that person has put their issues behind them and can be welcomed back as a Citizen. I also think that there should be a time limit on how long someone can appeal a revocation, perhaps a week or so. I can see where people would want to appeal such a big decision, but people shouldn't be able to come back after years and declare their intent to do so.

If that's the case, then I urge you-as-Admin (rather than you-as-Monarch) to make a separate masking for people who've had citizenship revoked, so it's immediately apparent - and if the Storting decides that there's some kind of probationary thing that can be worked out, it makes gradually extending privileges back as progress is made easier.

If that's the case, then I urge you-as-Admin (rather than you-as-Monarch) to make a separate masking for people who've had citizenship revoked, so it's immediately apparent -

What is this intended to achieve, other than unproductive shame?

Clearly flagging that person as 'dangerous', so new people or visitors don't look at them and assume they're representative of the community's values.
It's a bit excessive of an analogy, but it's like requiring an ex-felon to disclose that they once committed a felony. It's not for the benefit of the people in the community (people who would already know) - it's for the benefit of new members who weren't necessarily affected by bad behavior directly, or people looking in from the outside.
If the person is rehabilitated and citizenship is offered again, then there's no need for there to be some continued mark - but not flagging someone who the community perceives as sufficiently toxic or dangerous that they cast him out seems like a serious failing.