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: International Free Movement Policy
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front for State Prosperity
Status[?]: passed
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: January 2129
Description[?]:
| Immigration has proven beneficial to the economy. Past nations have risen to glory on the strength of allowing free immigration, and there is a great cultural and innovative benefit from having contact with many cultures and people. |
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:51:18, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | This is foolsih, the government must be able to maintain control over our borders, we simply cannot allow anyone to reside in our nation. |
| Date | 15:18:46, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | Response to the Nationalist Party: The government CAN maintain control of our borders, while STILL allowing the legal premise that anyone can reside permanently. Those who wish to reside in Likatonia in a constructive and socially acceptable (even profitable) fashion are a boon to Likatonian society... and those that do NOT wish to reside in Likatonia in a constructive fashion can be repulsed for the illegality of their non-constructive actions, can they not? |
| Date | 17:13:35, October 18, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | We feel that allowing any person to become a legal resident is not in our best interests. Some restrictions on the unemployable, criminal, and political undesirable applicants are still necessary in this imperfect world. |
| Date | 07:17:34, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | The politically undesirable will either not move in, or will be disgusted by the system and will leave again. The unemployable will not have the funds to leave their own welfare system, and those that manage it will have a hard time sponging off the system. We don't give aid to new arrivals. The criminal will still be banned. As the AAP pointed out, we will not relax control over that. Most immigrants are people who are leaving their own lands in search of a better life. I believe that Likatonia could be that better life, and I believe that Likatonia will benefit from the influx of hope and dreams. It'll vitalize our nation. I have no doubt it'll also bring with it an influx of innovation. It will provide a goodly amount of labor for our economy as well. |
| Date | 09:57:53, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | You don't need immigration to have contacts with other cultures. The first Telamon Restaurants were set up by Likatonian soldiers returning from wars in Telamon. |
| Date | 11:50:14, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | You're advocating war as something culturally beneficial? Boggling! |
| Date | 18:22:09, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | Response to the Radical Libertarians: Do you realise that the Radical Libertarian Party itself has, at various points, been 'politcally undesirable'? And that, if you allowed a law such as this one to pass, you might well find your own party ousted from the government AND the country? You cannot legislate residency on whether or not someone agrees with you. One also wonders what you mean by 'unemployable'... do you perhaps suggest we should disallow disabled immigrants? |
| Date | 20:43:35, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | Definitly. |
| Date | 20:54:56, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | To the AAP: - the term politically undesirable was meant to include those who advocate the violent overthrow of a legitimate government, not those who work within said government, no matter what their position may be. I would even let members of your party in.:) Unemployable was referring to those who lack either the basic skills or motivation to hold a job in our economy - many disabled persons, native born or immigrant are excellent productive members of society and no one should imply anything else. |
| Date | 21:25:27, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | Response to the RLP: The AAP sees where you are going with this, but sees your concerns as somewhat redundant... since 'residents' of Likatonia are not automatically granted any financial help (thus, they must work, or must QUALIFY for help)... and the kind of 'undesirable' politics you suggest are ALREADY illegal - when practised.... so such 'undesirables' would be removed, anyway. Also - one may SUPPORT the politics of violent revolution WITHOUT being a violent revolutionary... we should punish people for their ACTS, not for their BELIEFS. |
| Date | 21:51:06, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | Punishment should be for acts, not beliefs, we agree. However, entry into this country is a privilege, not a right, and denying that is not punishment. Why should we allow more people into the country if we can determine there is a high probability that they will need to qualify for help. Again, privilege, not a right. |
| Date | 22:10:57, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | We are not talking about citizenship here... just 'residency'... i.e. the legal right to remain in the country and claim Likatonian residency. Why SHOULD we allow an out-of-work drug-addict wife-beater to call himself 'resident' JUST because he was born here... but place stringent restrictions on someone who committed the unforgivable crime of being born the other side of our border? If, as you assert, residency IS privilege, not 'right'... why do we distribute it so unfairly? The AAP 'residency' team sees no evidence for the claim "there is a high probability that they will need to qualify for help"... in fact, statistics seem to bear out the assumption that new residents seem to be (on average) MORE productive than natives. |
| Date | 22:28:10, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | The current system is not unfair - it is decided on a case by case basis, "based on individual applicant's qualifications". What would be unfair would be not recognizing the difference between an out-of-work drug-addict wife-beater and a hard working, productive individual when both are seeking entry. Fair treatment and Equal treatment are not the same in our viewpoint, fair means allowing each case to procede on it's own merits. |
| Date | 22:32:48, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | The system IS unfair in that it allows a born-native a far superior position, even if that same native could NOT reach the entry criteria. |
| Date | 22:39:27, October 19, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the International Free Movement Policy |
| Message | Let the will of the people be done, but it will be going back into debate after the May elections, so we'll see how it pans out. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 254 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 246 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: You can inactivate yourself on your User Page. You will then lose all your seats but your party account won't be deleted, and your party's Visibility ratings will not diminish. Reactivation can be requested in the "Reactivation Requests" thread in the Game Moderation section of the Particracy Forum. |
| Random quote: "I've been against the death penalty since I was in law school in 1950. It's horrible, discriminatory, and undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system." - Ralph Nader |