Some thoughts on Congress's IES discussion

Day 4,546, 20:49 • Published in USA Chile • by Wilker Nath

At risk of dying on the hill of a non-urgent issue that people have already gotten very emotional about: here I go.

https://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php?topic=48015.0

My disappointment at reading through this thread stemmed from an issue, the root of which was: OP was worded poorly due to being too invested in a closely-related issue, started a vote thread that should've been a discussion thread, and people then equated the IES reform with said closely-related issue. I have no stake and no acquaintance on/with the person that was denied entry. I do not even know the username off the top of my head. However I do have some thoughts, noob as they may be, on the topic of changing the structure of the system to a committee.

A preface first: I hope I don't offend too much or open myself up to long term grudges in writing this. I don't have firsthand experience to tell me what kind of job Rainy is doing, but I've seen a lot of people in the thread and on discord express support for her being in that role.

I believe that RS's position in IES should be made into a committee for a few reasons.

-more eyes on each applicant is more likely to spot security risks
-more discussion of decisions that could potentially lead to PTO threats is never a bad thing
-"the majority of the committee voted no to this applicant" is a more solid defense against accusations of personal bias such as Dom's than "the sole person in this role voted no to this applicant"

Now onto the proposal itself.



The proposed legislative changes should not have immediately come to a vote before discussion, one, for the lack of discussion seeming like a ram-through of unexpected/controversial changes, and two, because the proposed changes are not perfect. They are and should be subject to constructive criticism before a vote is to be taken.

That said, let's dive into constructive criticism of it.



That first line about committees having been banned last decade, I'm sorry to say I am unfamiliar with that reference due to having been out of the loop for so long. I hope someone can educate me in the comments.

Molly's first bullet pointed out that more people involved will slow down the process. I am aware of that, but I do not think speed is needed given the importance of decisions made by IES. I have read that 2 weeks wait time is to be expected, both in this thread and from people on discord. It is a hassle to the applicant, but the decision to change citizenship is a significant one. If the applicant is serious about it, and intends to stay for months or years, they should be able to wait. Others may want a faster process, they can explain their positions better than me.

The second bullet is one that I did want to hit. Fear of partisan bickering within committee is a fair concern. I would ideally like to see PPs given some influence in a hypothetical IES reform proposal, but it's not strictly essential to the conversion of the role into a committee. If congress was made to vote on every single proposed member as well as being given power to vote specific members out of the position, or if the CP or even congress was given the job of proposing members, those would be fair compromises, at least in my mind.

Given my familiarity with eUS law, the third bullet point may be above my pay grade to address.



The idea of congress voting to approve every single applicant, while not my idea of ideal, I don't think is the *worst* proposal that could potentially come out of this discussion. Given a reasoned argument, I could flip either way on this idea.

I've also seen some comments within this thread, expressing concern that 5 qualified active individuals in the eUS may not exist to be found for this role. I've seen our activity increase as of late, I would like to try it, and if we scrap the 1 rep from each party argument, finding people will be easier. Additionally, if we *absolutely* need, we could make it a committee of 3 members.

I'm making this article because I think people have merged too much this topic with the personal issue I mentioned before. I'm trying to present reasoned arguments in favor of IES reform, that I have not seen made. While I am not in congress and have no power over the issue, I would hope someone in congress would take the proposal, reshape it, and put it up for discussion again.

I'm writing because I see a topic that should be debated with reason, instead being overrun with emotion. I hope there is still room for a reasoned discussion of the points I have made, non-urgent as they may be.

Thanks to anyone hearing me out on this, even if we disagree.