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 Immigration Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical 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 2102
Description[?]:
| The Federal Parliament of the Federated States of Rutania Observing the historical trend that immigration makes the immigrant nation stronger; Further observing that the current restrictions on immigrations will not prevent those with malicious intent from entering; Believing the current immigration restrictions to be discriminatory and unduly limiting to those who want to make their home in our Great Nation; Believing that the national security of Rutania must be safeguarded against foreign elements that mean ill; Establishes the Open Immigration Act, which shall have the purpose of establishing open immigration, while monitoring the flow of people carefully for the purpose of security. 1. a. All persons shall be allowed to reside permanently in the Federated States of Rutania, notwithstanding the possibility of expulsion. (clause 2) b. Anyone without a criminal record shall be able to claim the Rutanian nationality after having lived in Rutania for a period of five (5) years. 2. a. The Rutanian Immigration Agency shall be reformed, and charged with monitoring immigration in cooperation with the minister of Justice and the Rutanian Intelligence Agency. b. The Minister of Justice shall be authorised, with great prudence, to exercise the authority to expel immigrants from the Federated States of Rutania if the Rutanian Intelligence Agency and the Rutanian Immigration Agency concur that this step is needed. c. The Federal Parliament shall draw up procedures for expulsion. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning granting nationality (national of this state without implication of having citizenship rights).
Old value:: Anyone receives nationality but immigrants must pass a test to gain nationality.
Current: Anyone receives nationality but immigrants must pass a test to gain nationality.
Proposed: Anyone is able to claim nationality.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:21:12, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Against. This is silly and naive, and will allow any number of people who may or may not have skills needed by the Rutanian marketplace into the nation without any ability of us to stop them by law, and the checks proposed are completely unenforceable as we have no way of proving one way or another if someone has a criminal record. This is dangerous and unnecessary. |
| Date | 15:44:20, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | First of all, I tend to think that we should be proud of those choosing to live in our great nation. Immigrants are not a threat. They enrich our nation in many ways. This has to be recognised. I do not believe that the Federal government is the appropriate party to determine which people have a chance in the marketplace and which people do not.. I'd like to leave that to the marketplace, and I would expect a supposedly liberal party to support that. Nevertheless, I would not be opposed to a clause detailing that immigrants should be able to support themselves during their immigration period. We do not feel such a clause to be an overt restriction, as long as the principle of open immigration applies. However, for the government to judge an individual applicant's qualifications is bureaucratic, and inefficient as governments are not good at deciding who gets jobs. Let people decide that for themselves. The second objection of the LIP dealt with checks. Perhaps the LIP could suggest how the current system (no checks, just an application form that tests education and other qualities) does the job of protecting Rutania. The system makes immigration more open AND more secure. I am however happy to incorporate suggestions from the LIP or any other party on how to improve security checks. |
| Date | 16:13:52, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Against. |
| Date | 16:20:01, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | The comments of the Liberty Party are welcome but we accept none of them. Now, although it may be in the LIP's interests to paint us as evil immigrant-hating fascists, it is not true. Immigrants add to our economy, which is why we propose they be allowed in based on their economic potential. Immigrants, like any other group of people, however, will contain undesirable individuals who will not add anything to Rutanian society. We therefore support the current legislation (which we ourselves proposed) to allow immigrants in (and the attached risks) only where we believe that they can actually add something to society. This is not unreasonable. |
| Date | 16:35:26, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | The Rt Hon GRP Member would also like to know how having absolutely no limits, checks or regulations in our immigration system will prevent those with malicious intent entering our great country. |
| Date | 16:46:22, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Perhaps we can come to some sort of discussion here what constitutes an 'undesireable' immigrant. An immigrant which, as I propose, has a source of income and which s not a danger to national security is surely not undesirable? I'd like to point the Rt. Hon. member of the GRP to provisions with regards to monitoring immigration and acting where needed. The proposed legislation refers explicitly to these checks, so I'd advice the Republican member to simply read the proposed legislation again. |
| Date | 16:50:16, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | So you believe that there will not be a single immigrant who does not find a job, and there will be not a single immigrant who ever commits a crime? Of course there are risks that come attached to immigrants and that si why we should only allow in immigrants we believe will provide the greatest benefit to our economy. That way, on average, immigration will be beneficial to the nation. |
| Date | 16:55:19, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | (interrupton microphone comment) Mr Speaker, (ooc: he he is here :P) will the Rt. Hon. member of the LIP please answer the question instead of asking a counterquestion? I asked him what constitutes an 'undesireable' immigrant, in his opinion, because I do not believe our proposed policy will lead to undesirable immigrants. |
| Date | 16:56:23, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | ((OOC: that was supposed to be "OOC: if he is here.")) |
| Date | 17:07:02, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Garret Philips, GRP MP and Minister for Justice And I would like the Honourable LP member to cease criticising the GRP over a lack of reading skills, and actually answer my question instead. Your proposal merely suggests at security measures: "The Minister of Justice shall be authorised, with great prudence, to exercise the authority to expel immigrants from the Federated States of Rutania if the Rutanian Intelligence Agency and the Rutanian Immigration Agency concur that this step is needed." A longer and more detailed definition of this would be needed before any criticism should be taken, which is what the GRP is calling for. As Minister for Justice, I am already able to take these actions you have listed against immigrants. |
| Date | 17:24:40, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | We are open to any definition suggested by the GRP, although we would gladly leave this to the ministry of Justice as well. ((OOC: if you already have that power .. hmmm... depends. This struck me as a rather libertarianesque state where ministers only have powers accorded to them in bills. Unless this issue was previously passed and granted to the minister of justice you would not have that power. I admit I have not read the entire legislative record yet. .)) |
| Date | 19:09:54, August 23, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | The Rutania Social Democrat Party supports this Act in its entirety, although we would support a clause authorising the Ministry of Health and Social Services to set up a programme to inform immigrants and new Rutanians about the structure of the State and other things a citizen should at least vaguely understand. |
| Date | 19:14:48, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I move that the question was rhetorical and request that you ask the Rt Hon member from the Liberty Movement to cease hiding behind pedantics. |
| Date | 19:15:15, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | [OOC: Not that you actually have any Rt Hon members ;-)] |
| Date | 19:25:56, August 23, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: Have we got a Speaker? |
| Date | 19:47:37, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | [OOC: Every Parliament, Congress and Assembly in real life does. Someone has to keep order.] |
| Date | 19:49:22, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: Well, as I see it (have not cleared this with Wegason) because we are a movement that basically split off from the Freedom Party we'd have a minister and perhaps a few sympathisers in the parliament as well. However, for obvious reasons, such sympathisers are still bound by the party whip so we have 0 votes. That is why I changed my name to "liberty movement" which reflects us basically being a faction of the Freedom Party. When there are elections, we will stand seperately and of course at that point expect to be treated as a seperate party. Right now, just dissenting Freedom Party types voicing their minds. If Wegason does not object. It is certainly less annoying then me standing outside parliament building with stupid signs, shouting ;) I think having a speaker would be nice. Either an abstracted one, or we could actually elect a speaker for RP niftyness. |
| Date | 19:50:28, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | IC: Mr Speaker, can the Rt Hon member *please* answer the question? |
| Date | 20:32:31, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, the question has been answered. Could you please ask the Liberty Movement representative to get on with the debate? |
| Date | 20:41:33, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: Now, you see, I really don't like this. This essentially gives the Freedom Party TWO parties within Rutania, and thats an unfair advantage. If you're nearly the same as Freedom (And you admit you come from his party) then I will protest at this unfair advantage. |
| Date | 20:53:49, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: I am a different player with, I can assure you, very different views, both IRL and IC. I just thought that this would be a cool backstory. I'm centrist economically, and way more socially liberal. I guess you could consider me left-wing in the Rutanian context. Split-offs happen IRL, and you can be assured that Wegason and myself are not the same. Besides, having two identical parties is not rewarded by the game anymore. IC: Mr. Speaker, please, The Rt. Hon. member has still not told this House what constitutes an 'undesireable' immigrant, in his opinion. In the current proposal all immigrants will have to secure a source of income and they cannot be a danger to national security. How is an immigrant with a job who is not a threat an undesirable immigrant? This is not a rhetorical question at all. If the Rt. Hon. representative of the LIP refuses again to tell this House what his party considers to be an undesirable immigrant, I will resign that no answer has been given and ask that it be put in the notes as such. I personally agree with the suggestion of the social democrats about integration, but in the interest of this bill I will promise you to put a seperate proposal forward regarding integration, should this bill pass. Lastly, I would like to humbly ask if His Excellency the Minister of Justice wishes to state his views on what kind of longer and more detailed definition he would like to see. |
| Date | 20:55:47, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | The Minister for Justice I would like to see a more detailed definition of how the country shall be defended from unwated, malicious and dangerous immigrants if this country has open borders. |
| Date | 21:02:00, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | (laughing) Well, as you are the minister of Justice responsible for defending the country from unwated, malicious and dangerous immigrants we would appreciate any suggestions you might have, your Excellency. We feel that our own bill is detailed enough, but are willing to add more content if MinJust desires this. However, we are not sure what exactly it is MinJust wants. |
| Date | 21:18:13, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: MinJust...? Heh... IC: As Minister for Justice, my task is a formidable one, defending this country from illegal immigrants and malicious and dangerous individuals as well. Your bill states that, "The Minister of Justice shall be authorised, with great prudence, to exercise the authority to expel immigrants from the Federated States of Rutania if the Rutanian Intelligence Agency and the Rutanian Immigration Agency concur that this step is needed." Must I remind the honourable member that I already have these powers (Clapping), and have no need for a reminder of them? (Laughter) I should also remind the honourable member that the two agencies already have these powers, and utilise them to defend our country. If your policy continues, anyone may freely stroll into this country with malicious intent, and your policy will do absoutely (thumps the podium) nothing to stop them! Yes, most who come in will be harmless, but will not be tested to see if they can actually contribute - or even work - in this country; but those who ARE malicious and dangerous will not be stopped at all. I therefore ask the honourable member what his party intends to do about trying to stop these people just wandering in from the border with your policy? (Boos) The quota system in place at present means that we can deal with so many people per month, and place more assets on each individual and try and ensure they are not a danger. With your policy in place, we will be flooded by immigrants every day, and we will be unable to create even basic checks; such numbers will mean even the RIA will be unable to process and check each person. |
| Date | 21:50:14, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | [OOC: Yeah... can you please actually read my reply and you will find I answered your question. It was ok at first but this silly question the speeker thing has gone on a little long and we arent having a real debate.] |
| Date | 22:33:41, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: Sorry, but I really don't see your answer to my question, if I missed it could you point me to it? Or perhaps TG? :/ Reply to minister forthcoming ;) |
| Date | 00:12:24, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | [OOC: "So you believe that there will not be a single immigrant who does not find a job, and there will be not a single immigrant who ever commits a crime? Of course there are risks that come attached to immigrants and that si why we should only allow in immigrants we believe will provide the greatest benefit to our economy. That way, on average, immigration will be beneficial to the nation." Can you really not work it out... *sigh*] |
| Date | 15:15:04, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: Technically not an answer but an assumption about what we believe. But I'll let it rest. :) IC: Please forgive me, your Excellency, but this proposal hardly abolishes border checks. It merely absolishes the discriminatory practices in our immigration policy with regards to certain workers being allowed and other workers not being allowed - even if they have a source of income. The proposal does therefore not affect your ability to keep dangers to Rutania out, rather the bill explicitly reaffirms these powers. Furthermore, I wonder where the minister gets the idea that reducing immigration bureaucracy will lead to hordes of immigrants as the minister suggests. Reducing the bureaucracy should increase the capability of Immigration to handle greater numbers and track security risks, if anything. |
| Date | 15:41:51, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | We believe that we should discriminate against workers who will add nothing to society in terms of allowing people into the country. We dont care (despite the assumptions of the Liberty Movement) about HOW MANY immigrants there are - we care about how useful they are. |
| Date | 17:51:04, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | This act states that the immigrant should have a source of income, so this objection by the Imperialists is void. |
| Date | 11:13:51, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Immigrants, by definition, wont have a source of income until they enter the country at which point it's too late. This act is just silly and the safeguards are ineffective. |
| Date | 18:07:07, August 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Do you really believe all immigrants that come to Rutania are from a poor country and are completely unprepared. An immigrant can also be someone whose company has a branch in our country and moves here for his or her job. |
| Date | 20:38:15, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Civic Democratic Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | OOC: Maybe you should actually figure out who is your Speaker before you start invoking his name so that arguements like this can be calmed? ;-) IC: The Civic Democratic Party stands with the Liberal Imperialist Party in stating that letting everyone into Rutania would be a choice that greatly increases the strain on the government as well as makes Rutania open to the ability of terrorists, murders, thieves, and killers crossing our boarders with ease. While we agree that every person once inside Rutania should have the right to citizenship we should be selective in those we choose to bring into this great nation of ours. To try and combat of the arguments made by the proponents of this bill I believe the current system would more easily allow people to move into Rutania who have family currently living here or who have skills that you be beneficiary to the Rutanian economy I believe that the current quota system would probably take those factors into account when selecting who may be allowed residence in Rutania. I may also believe in the issue of coming to a resonable compromise that the authors of this bill from the Liberty Movement should strike Article I from this bill and leave the issue of immigration to a later date. I believe that the naturalization aspect of this legislation is much less inflamatory towards the parties at hand and the striking of Article I would allow it to be more likely that we will reach some sort of compromise on the current issue at hand. |
| Date | 07:24:06, August 26, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | "as well as makes Rutania open to the ability of terrorists, murders, thieves, and killers crossing our boarders with ease." Those would be detained and extradited. And I believe we must not fear terrorist attacks, only one terrorist attack ever occured in Rutania, over 40 years ago I think. |
| Date | 00:06:18, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | the Rutania Social Democrat Party has rightly made points in defence of this act. I am severtely dissapointed that parties have chosen fearmongering and immigrant-bashing over the exchange of reasonable arguments. I am not impressed by the deliberate distortions by the Civic Democratic Party, and feel that such deliberate fearmongering lessens their chances of cooperating with us on this issue. We will therefore bring this bill to vote now so parties have to state their opinions on the record, and intend to revisit this issue when the Freedom Party gets back on its feet. |
| Date | 00:17:14, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | The Liberty Movement has decided to ignore our actual arguments and attempt to smear us as Nazis in order to win an argument. This is not only pathetic, but it is in deeply insulting. |
| Date | 00:20:19, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Do you withdraw your false and insulting statements about immigrants then? |
| Date | 00:28:49, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | It is impossible to withdraw statements which have not been made, my Rt Hon friend. |
| Date | 04:59:28, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Civic Democratic Party | To | Debating the Open Immigration Act |
| Message | Well the Civic Democrats did not have any intention to fearmonger. We want to raise issues that we had with the bill as it stands. We feel that the risks of such actions would outweigh any improvements to the Rutanian immigration system and the Rutanian economy in general. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 138 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 393 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 68 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato |