Earlier today, the Council on Regional Security voted 3-1 to block @Feux’s citizenship application. Per Article 2.(1).c of the Citizenship Act, the Council considers them to be a significant risk to regional security, and thus deems them ineligible for citizenship.
For the Council on Regional Security,
Sporaltryus
Thank you to the Council on Regional Security for taking action on this.
May I ask: why did it take so long to handle Feux’s citizenship application? Was Feux’s application under review before being accepted? What was the delay on handling it? From my point of view, someone who was condemned by the Security Council for voter importation and multiple attempted coups of a GCR, followed by then creating an alt account to rise in the ranks of that same GCR all over again, should be an easy reject. Is there some kind of nuance I’m missing here?
Ohai. I, a concerned member of the public, have asked a question.
Yes and no. A member of CitComm reviews every application. The CRS doesn’t directly review applications — in this case we made a determination, under Citizenship Act 2(1)c, that the applicant (not the application) was a significant risk to regional security.
We had some ongoing discussion with CitComm, and it hasn’t been uncommon for CitComm to pause application review during elections since applicants accepted in that timeframe wouldn’t be able to vote in those elections.
Citizenship applications are now handled by individual CitComm members (with some asterisks). In this case, we had some miscommunications which we’ll aim to improve moving forward, but that’s what caused the ‘nuance’ of two different determinations.
This delay is only necessary if there was any reason not to just immediately reject this application. Please, do tell, why was that a hard decision?
Which CitComm member decided a serial couper was kosher?
I’m not quite sure I understand the premise. As I noted previously, the CRS does not directly review citizenship applications, and in fact can not — unilaterally or otherwise — decide to reject an application. In any case, under current law, applications are processed based on whether information indicates clear ineligibility, not whether it provides a reason to not reject.
That strikes me as a question better asked of CitComm, not the CRS. I can bring it up.
Did you hear back?
The application was processed by Griffindor.
@Griffindor why should you not be recalled?
You are free to bring the topic up to the Assembly.
However, I will note that the CRS has full access to CitComm areas and only issued their result after the application was processed (which was also discussed in an area where every other member of CitComm beside myself had access). Nevertheless, yes, I processed the application under my understanding of the, then recent, changes to the laws regarding citizenship applications.
I’m on mobile right now, so I cannot efficiently reference my understanding of the law.
Regardless, I, and I’d imagine the CRS/CitComm maintain that there was no damage done and serves as a learning opportunity.