Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5461
Next month in: 02:21:59
Server time: 17:38:00, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (5): Caoimhean | hexaus19 | HopesFor | Maarten_saridan | starfruit | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: The Justice Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Aldegar Freedom Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: June 2383

Description[?]:

The True Conservative Party proposes this small collection of bills in the interests of improving the justice system of this nation, and the safety and protection of this nation's people.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date09:56:05, March 17, 2007 CET
FromS.C.A.F.R.
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageNo.

Date16:30:11, March 17, 2007 CET
FromCommunist Party of Aldegar
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageNo.

Date18:29:48, March 17, 2007 CET
FromIndependent Right
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageWe would prefer if Article 1 was removed. If the military is in place to back up the police in serious situations, there is little need for the police to carry the same weapons as the military, we think.

However, we support the other two articles, and will be voting in favor of this bill regardless.

Date00:39:44, March 18, 2007 CET
FromSocial Democrats
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageWe can see this acts as direct attacks on human liberty. The police is just the police, nothing more. Giving the police firearms just turns our nation into a police-state. This is an act of oppression and as such it will only make the justice system worse.

We are absolutely against the gated communities and no government has the right to segregate. We are already very sceptic towards the private gated communities, and therefore we will not allow the government to enforce them.

The expulsion is not an option for SD. We are absolutely convinced that just because somebody was born some miles north or south, he is the same, regardless if there is a border in between. We cannot see reason to make a difference. We believe that anyone should have the right to be a part of this nation if they choose to abide by our laws. In fact we do not believe in the term - illegal immigrants.

Date07:40:23, March 18, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageThe Party of Moderates is against this bill. We are against it because of two main reasons. The first is Article 1. We see no reason why police need military grade equipment. It seems like the current weapons are good enough. The SWAT teams can easily handle the really nasty situations. Giving military grade equipment to police would make them military, no longer civilian law enforcement. As for the second reason, what has been proposed in Article 3 would be a violation of the 4th amendment if proposed in the US. The only time that anyone has the right to search and seizure within a home is with a search warrant and a reasonable basis for the need of that search warrant. However, I do agree that the current laws dealing with refugees need to be stronger.

Also, to the Social Democratic Party, they already chose not to abide by our laws when they broke them and jumped the border. The law against illegal immigration was made so that many thousands or millions of refugees come over and become burdens on the economy.

Now, on one last note, even though we realize we currently don't have any influence, we are still debating this subject for the sake of morality.

Date19:31:26, March 18, 2007 CET
FromSocial Democrats
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageWe are happy to see a new political option rising in Aldegar.

To the comment made by the PM we must object out of the following reason - We do not believe that we need to have bounty hunters chasing these so called illegal immigrants, on the other hand we believe that if we welcome the educated individuals into this country we will benefit from them in many ways, economic the most obvious. We are all inhabitants of one planet and we feel pointless to discriminate people's right to live elsewhere just because they were born in place X instead of Y. The way this nation's legislation is written AT THE MOMENT states that we do not discriminate anyone and give everyone the opportunity to all to create a life worth living here. Of course we emphasise that this means abiding by our laws.

The other parties will please permit me to break the rules a bit in stating that USA is at the moment the superpower of the world just because of the permissive migration policies in the past two centuries, but I must inform our new player that using real life examples is not permitted here by the game rules.

Once again - welcome to our new party, we are looking forward to possible cooperation.

Date03:03:21, March 19, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageSo, real life examples aren't allowed? Can we use parallels? For example, if I wanted to mention some riot in France, can I instead use the name Holy Lithori Empire or some other fake nation in place of the name France? As for your comments pertaining to illegal immigration, isn't it important to balance our interests of welcoming those foreigners with our interests of maintaining prosperity? After all, a huge influx of refugees means a huge influx of potential workers. A huge influx of workers means lowering of wages and increased unemployment. A lowering of wages or increased unemployment means an increase in poverty. An increase in poverty creates a large amount of problems including a lowering of the standard of living, a decrease in culture, and an increase in crime.

Sure, we have the living wage, but the more skilled workers who now work above it will now be payed the living wage. Burger flippers will payed as much as architects. This will cause a decrease in competition and motivation. More people will become lazy and work as burger flippers and that will put extra pressure upon the true working class. Also, the lack of motivation and competition will cause a decreased amount of efficiency and productivity. There is also problem that if we have many people equally payed, that could inspire businesses to cause inflation or it could devalue our currency.

As with dealing with the enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration, if you don't enforce laws, how will anybody take them seriously?

Date03:09:11, March 19, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageBy the way, we thank the SD party for their invitation. We hope to introduce some new views and debate for truth.

Date09:33:16, March 19, 2007 CET
FromSocial Democrats
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageOur opinion is that if someone believes he can succeed in the market he should have all the opportunity to do so. In modern societies it has happened already that people are on average achieving at least high school education and tend to be able to secure good jobs. This causes shortages of employees in the low paying sector of the economy, and we say, why not allowing foreigners to take those jobs?

On the issue of unemployment, we estimate that the majority of unemployed people in our country are belonging to the structural unemployment group - the workers that were layed off because of their companies going bankrupt. Those are mostly aged over 50 years (think textilles industry) and cannot secure any other job. We suggest active policies on employment and life long education programmes to deal with them.

Back to immigrants, we must say that we have a problem with the word illegal, however we understand the concern that the other parties have - they want the best for our citizens. We want the same, and of course we will enforce the laws, however we feel that if every immigrant has the right to enter an integration centre and start a language course very cheap, nobody will want to flee from the authorities. Most immigrants emigrate for a reason - they want to work and provide for their family, and we believe that given the opportunity they will do just that - become hard working citizens. If they will not adhere to our laws, of course, we will expell them.

We do not believe that immigrants are posing a threat to our nationals, there are many sectors where we are facing shortages in the workforce, and they will primarily try to fill those.

Date11:59:09, March 21, 2007 CET
FromAldegar Freedom Party
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageThe TCP is more than happy for a certain ammount of immigrants, who have passed background checks and various tests in order to ensure that they are fit and safe for the security of our people, to enter the nation. Finding illegal immigrants is a matter of national security - the TCP simply wants to protect our own nation's people from the threat of terrorism, and also the threat of being attacked by racist, exclusionary race enclaves from extremist nations. As far as the TCP is concerned, any member of another nation who is not willing to at least adopt the culture of this nation, to socialize with this nation's people, and even the most fundamental of all - speak this nation's language, should not be in this nation at all. If they do not want to adopt this nation's ways then they should not have come here. Furthermore, there is no reason that our nation's people should have to endure the constant threat of terrorism and race gang attacks, in their own nation. The TCP is also suspicious of the efficiency and effectiveness of so called 'intergration program's, and believe these are unnessicary and will not actually help anything. The TCP is absolutely certain that almost the entire populace of this nation would sympathize with these aims, and that they would see that this is plain common sense.

Date12:02:37, March 21, 2007 CET
FromAldegar Freedom Party
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageTo the SD's comments, the TCP of course supports everybodies right to compete in the market in this nation - so long as they are a LEGAL member of this nation to begin with!! There are very obvious reasons for maintaining background checks for immigrants - for the safety of this nation, this nation's own people, and the freedom of the populace to live their lives without the threat of terrorism. The TCP is not suggesting at any point that EVERY foreigner is a terrorist. Quite the opposite - but the TCP IS suggesting that if, out of 100 immigrants, so much as even 1 of them is a terrorist, then we will have let them into our country and given them a free shot at our people. It only takes 1. Background checks are VITAL to ensure the security of this nation from threats of terrorism and enclave attacks - the importance of this can NOT be disputed by any reasonable, intelligent party!

Date17:11:07, March 21, 2007 CET
FromSocial Democrats
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageIn other words, the TCP's stance is that if one out of a hundred has a beard and looks slightly like a terrorist, not just him, but a whole hundred people must be expelled from the country.

Where would TCP expell them? To the country through which they travelled here? To the original country so they die of starvation? To immigrant centres on desolate uninhabited islands?

Of course, the less we see them the better. All the population thinks so, so let us ruin million people's chances to a life just because some rich citizens do not like the colour of their skin.

Date21:20:51, March 21, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageThe PM supports immigration control acts for reasons other than national security. The PM believes that although illegal immigrants are a nuisance to national security, there are only a small part of the equation, and the security of the border is far more important an issue than the illegal immigrants already here.

Nonetheless, the PM still supports getting rid of illegal immigrants. We believe that if they want to become a part of the country so badly, they should do that legally. Does this mean the PM is against imigration. No, not by any means. While we want to stop illegal immigrants, we want to increase the legal immigration quota. Also, if you were to look at internationalistic leaning stances in past bills and debates, you would know that we love the diversity of culture that immigration brings.

So, now is the time to ask what is the difference between us and you, then. The difference is that we know what it means to choose the lesser of two evils. We know that these immigrants come from third-world hellholes, but we realize that accepting too many of them, especially without knowingly accepting them, can make this state a poverty stricken, crime ridden hellhole as well. In which case, there would be one less asylum for those who live in third-world hellholes. So, in order to protect our industries, protect our people and protect our posterity, it is necesary to crack down hard on illegal immigration.

Date02:52:36, March 22, 2007 CET
FromAldegar Freedom Party
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageUnfortunately, the TCP can see the SD's comments as nothing but irrelevance. The party succeeded in completely misinterpreting and sensationalizing the TCP's comments and views on immigration. The TCP is NOT anti immigration. The TCP is NOT racist or xenophobic, as the SD have suggested in their bizarre, unsubstantiated and frankly irrelevant little story about one immigrant having a beard, and 100 others being expelled from the country (on this point, the TCP reminds the SD that they have completely misunderstood the views of the TCP - the TCP wishes all immigrants to come in legally merely as a way of running background checks just to make sure that the immigrants are not in any way terrorist affiliated, and also that they will be able to be properly intergrated into our society and culture without too much hastle).
What the TCP IS however, is anti-terrorist. The hypothetical of 1 in 100 immigrants being a terrorist was simply a demonstration that whilst the TCP understands not *all* immigrants are terrorists, there is a remote chance that one of them MIGHT be. And as slim and unlikely as this chance is and as slim as the SD may view this chance to be, even this margin of error is one that the TCP is NOT willing to take. This margin of error is NOT acceptable for the TCP, OR the great people of this nation. The SD may want to risk the lives and safety of hundreds and thousands of our nation's OWN PEOPLE, just for the sake of letting in a few ILLEGAL immigrants in who have taken the liberty to slide in to our country through the back door to avoid this nation's laws, but the TCP is NOT. The TCP, unlike the SD, wants above all else for this nation's OWN PEOPLE to be safe and free from danger - it is indisputable that this could be somehow LESS important than some kind of bizarre, paranoid political correctness that the SD subscribes to. The TCP believes our people's security and our people's safety and our people's rights to live in a safe and protected environment come far, far before some weak, diluted, tired socialist ideology of open borders in importance. If immigrants want to come into this country, regardless of their reasons and how dire their reasons may be, they CAN. They are WELCOME here, SO LONG AS THEY DO IT LEGALLY. But if they take it upon themselves to duck our laws, to disrespect this country by effectively trespassing on it, then the TCP will not stand for them being in this country.
As for the SD's ABSURD statements about 'rich people not liking the colour of their skin', the TCP can do nothing but sit puzzled and baffled in amazement - not ONCE did the TCP mention the social elite, OR the colour of an immigrants skin! The TCP does not care if immigrants are white, black, asian, middle eastern, or ANYTHING! They should STILL be subject to the same background checks and quotas that this nation requires for optimum safety of its people. These things are irrelvant, and the SD's bringing them up has not only twisted the words of the TCP; it's MADE UP words of the TCP that the party did not so much as mention ONCE in their debates!
In summary, if the SD wants to support allowing illegal immigrants who have deliberately broken and avoided the laws of this nation, just because the SD feels sorry for them and their nation's situations, then they can support this all they want. The TCP knows that any decent, logical party with any common sense whatsoever will support this bill, and the TCP also knows that this nation's citizens would support this bill.
Remember, it only takes 1. It only takes 1 terrorist to kill hundreds and thousands of people. The SD may support terrorism but the TCP remains steadfast.

Date12:02:14, March 22, 2007 CET
FromSocial Democrats
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageEverything in the world has a cause. Terrorism being just one of those things. Our policies were always positive to all international partners. We wish to extend a hand of friendship to all individuals and all countries, giving them no motive to commit any kind of terror against us.

On the other hand, recent proposals by the TCP, threatening the world with nukes, using a secret service in other countries, disallowing international trade with protectionist quotas, not abiding to the universal declaration of human rights, disallowing non native religious symbols, and so on, clearly gives a very good motive for some desperate people to try and attack us. It is understandable to be afraid after this kind of provocations, and yes, in that case, many would be afraid.

Rather then using oppresive measures to tackle this, we are concerned with prevention. But as to saying that SD's view is irrelevant, of course, who has brought up terrorism in the first place?

We are talking about gated communities and expulsion of illegal immigrants. The first is probably to protect the inhabitants from their neighbours, who in 99.999999% are legal local residents, while the second one is just a question of our determination to humanity. With integration centres we give people a chance rather than sending them to the place they were running away in the first place.

The SD is convinced that this bill is more than unacceptable and will not support it in the current form.

Date22:24:05, March 22, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageIf the SD cannot agree with the TCP's reasons for fighting illegal immigration, will it accept the PM's reasons for combatting illegal immigration?

Also, the PM would like to say, that even though it supports article 2 of this act, we cannot see any reason why the government should set up gated communities or why civilian police officers should be practically turned into the military.

Date10:29:08, March 23, 2007 CET
FromSocial Democrats
ToDebating the The Justice Act
MessageWe both oppose then. Present something better, this bill cannot pass.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 117

no
      

Total Seats: 415

abstain
   

Total Seats: 118


Random fact: "Doxxing", or the publishing of personally identifiable information about another player without permission, is forbidden.

Random quote: "The liberal state is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building." - Benito Mussolini

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 93