Passed Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2021

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has passed their respective house's legislative process.
Status
Not open for further replies.
EUKBICR

EUKBICR

The Devil
Citizen
Oct 25, 2020
1,729
175
Awards
6
Coat_of_Arms_UDS.png


A MOTION

To amend the Citizenship Act
Introduced into the Senate of the Union of Democratic States on the 21st ofJuly,2021, by @Sacento
As follows:
​

RECOGNIZING that we have the ability to make citizenship applications easier for those involved,

BELIEVING it is now no longer necessary to continue to require applicants to state the oath in full and that several ministerial assistants are able enough to accept applications,

HEREBY AMENDS UL-006 AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Provisions
1. Section 2, Clause 3 shall be struck out and rendered void.

2. Section 3, Clause 1 shall be amended to read, “The Citizenship Application Template must inquire as to the Applicant’s nation, must include a confirmation of Union allegiance and must inquire as to the Applicant’s other nations.
 
I have mixed feelings on this bill.

Firstly, I would like to say that I think it's great that we are looking at ways to streamline our citizenship application, and make it easier to apply. Hooray for technology advancement!

However, I do think that an oath is a pretty important piece of our application, and I am not really convinced that allowing citizens to simply bypass and skim it. I think there's something symbolic in having them restate it and agree to it, rather than just filling in the blank. I don't believe that making citizens copy paste one last part of the application presents an enormous barrier or difficulty in getting citizenship, but I think there is still value in having them 'repeat' it, as an act of symbolism, almost.

While I think this may be something to consider, I don't think that this point is significant enough for me to vote against the bill if the rest of the senators do not see this as a problem.
 
I agree with Moe. I think something like the oath affirms a citizens, I suppose, allegiance for lack of a better term. This bill seems unnecessary.
 
I think it is important to clarify here that my interpretation of this amendment (and the goal of the author) is not to remove the oath completely, but rather to remove the requirement that a citizen has to write it all out, so that the process can be changed from copying/pasting it into the forum, to being able to fit into a form template where the citizen can just insert their name.

I will admit, this is a small point. And to reiterate my stance, I am not necessarily against the bill. But I am raising the question of whether we think there is value in the symbolism of them typing out the oath on the forums and having a higher chance of actually reading it, versus them just filling in the blank?
 
Yes, the oath will remain on the application, just the applicant will only need to "pledge their allegiance" rather than having them put the whole oath in their. To what you say about copying and pasting, most people already do that meaning the oath no longer has much ceremonial purpose or whatever you want to describe it as. The reason I have done this amendment is because we have a cleaner format for the citizenship process, but it cannot legally be implemented due to these clauses in the Citizenship Act.
 
Sacento said:
Yes, the oath will remain on the application, just the applicant will only need to "pledge their allegiance" rather than having them put the whole oath in their. To what you say about copying and pasting, most people already do that meaning the oath no longer has much ceremonial purpose or whatever you want to describe it as. The reason I have done this amendment is because we have a cleaner format for the citizenship process, but it cannot legally be implemented due to these clauses in the Citizenship Act.
Click to expand...
Sorry, just wanted to ask a point here. I get that most people already copy/paste the oath, but I wonder if there is still ceremonial purpose, etc, in having them actually like list out the words in the textbox?

I guess it's my understanding that this form would streamline it so they would only have to enter in their nation name and hit a checkbox that says I agree, or something simplified like that (or perhaps I'm mistaken?). Do we think there is importance in having them actually type/copy paste/list out the full oath, and agree to it in writing?

I also see there is a motion to close debate, it seems like not a lot of other people share my concern, so I am fine with voting if the rest of the region is ok with this amendment.
 
I think the Noes have it, the Noes have it. The motion is rejected. Debate continues.
 
I believe that the act this amends needs to be rewritten in it's entirety. I also don't really think that there are great reasons for removing the requirement for the full restatement of the oath that have been articulated. I'm not sure how ill vote but I'm not aggressively in favor at the least.
 
I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. The motion is approved.
 
We now vote on the bill. Those in favour may say Aye, those against may say No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back