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: Open Boarders Bill of 2452
Details
Submitted by[?]: Fanatical Libertarian Council
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: October 2452
Description[?]:
The FLC moves again to change border regulations. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Travel by nationals to foreign nations
Old value:: The nation issues passports to nationals after a cursory security check.
Current: The nation issues passports to nationals after a cursory security check.
Proposed: The nation issues passports on demand for any reason to its nationals
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning immigration.
Old value:: Quotas are based on individual applicant's qualifications.
Current: Everyone is allowed to reside permanently in this nation.
Proposed: Everyone is allowed to reside permanently in this nation.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Travel by foreigners to the nation.
Old value:: The nation imposes minimal border controls on visitors, with cursory security checks, to confirm visitor identities.
Current: The nation imposes strict border control on visitors, with intensive security checks, to maintain law and order.
Proposed: The nation imposes no border controls on visitors.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 00:04:19, September 08, 2007 CET | From | Fanatical Libertarian Council | To | Debating the Open Boarders Bill of 2452 |
Message | oops spelled borders wrong, sorry |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 112 | |||
no | Total Seats: 150 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 17 |
Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640 |
Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights |