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: Immigration Control Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Republican 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: July 4219
Description[?]:
| An act to provide for increased control of immigrant flows. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning immigration.
Old value:: Everyone is allowed to reside permanently in this nation.
Current: There are quotas based on nationality to determine how many foreigners may reside permanently in this nation.
Proposed: Quotas are based on individual applicant's qualifications.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:12:44, May 30, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | Surely it is common sense that prospective immigrants be evaluated on their individual merits? We do not seek to keep the world from our shores, far from it, in fact. We believe that a sustainable, beneficial flow of worthy immigrants is quite good for our economy and for our nation. However, we disagree with absolute freedom of movement into this country, for both security and economic reasons. This is a mainstream, common-sense proposal, and we hope to see it supported by the government. William J. Rodman Conservative Republican Spokesman for Internal Affairs |
| Date | 21:33:41, May 30, 2017 CET | From | United Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | "We understand where the Congressman is coming from, but some people may struggle to meet the quotas because of discrimination against immigrants" -Jess Young, UPB Congressional Leader. |
| Date | 22:25:16, May 30, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | These quotas are being set and administered by the government. Unless your administration plans to take discriminatory action against immigrants - as my party certainly hopes you will not - then there should be no issue. |
| Date | 15:26:17, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | I'm not sure I understand the government's vote, given the President's promise in Question Time to support an end to open borders and a move towards individual evaluation. |
| Date | 15:52:29, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, May we clarify for the CRP, which is a relatively new party to the political scene here in our great nation. As Mr Rodman may no, we possess the most left wing parties here and as a result, there will be opposition to most legislation proposed by the Conservative Republican Party. The income tax and budget spending plans can also be deemed invalid, as your party has no seats in Congress yet. But relating back to the President's promise in QT to support an end to open borders, President Frederickson means an end to our borders constantly being open, which can cause influx of immigrants into our nation, and as a result the possibility of wanted criminals, terrorists and other dangerous entities to enter, which, as a result can cause the nation to deal with catastrophes which we all want to avert. What you are proposing here is wha the UPB is against. They want people to come in, but not by setting a number like 80,000 or 90,000 so on and so forth, which effectively restricts people from entering. They feel that restricting people from entering will be discrimination towards certain groups. We in the PRRP also have concerns about these proposed quota laws. What the UPB presidency wants is security checks on everyone entering the nation, but still with open borders. This is a step down from the current law where everyone can enter without being scrutinised by immigration officials at ports and airports, which as we mentioned previously, can allow terrorists to enter in, if not everyone entering the nation has gone through a facial check. Also, by setting quotas, you are effectively allowing potential terrorists in without running them through a security check. Terrorists can fake their occupations, fake their names, fake their faces, hide explosives in somewhere where security monitors are not able to detect. And that is why the UPB is voting No against this, as what they want is security checks, not quotas, which we repeat again, can allow terrorists to enter if they fake their records and say that they are here for political or economical reasons. We hope that the CRP understands their stance and the stances of the other parties concerning immigration reform. What we want is not to discriminate, but to be open and accepting of all by implementing security checks, which will allow many more people to enter. We yield the floor. Dr Marlene Davidson A.S, M.Phil, A.P.S, B.A Shadow Spokesperson for Internal Affairs Former Speaker of National Congress Deputy Secretary of the Central Secretariat Iliathar PRRP Party Chief |
| Date | 17:26:32, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Allow me to respond to a few of the RRPP's comments. Firstly, we expect opposition to most of our policies. It is only natural, and causes us to feel no ill-will. Likewise, our budget/income tax proposals are meant to act as an alternative proposal, as a philosophical declaration. We're well aware that those fiscal priorities will only come to pass as the result of our being elected. If the UPB want to allow unrestricted immigration into our country, allowing only for minimal border security safeguards, than we will simply respectfully disagree with their policy. We're very pleased that so many parties have joined on with our bill to impose identity checks on the borders - a long-overdue measure. Our position is that we both must control how immigrants enter the country (identity checks, on which there appears to be a consensus) and on who enters the country (actual immigration reform, which is what we are pursuing here). "Open borders" most frequently refers not just to the nature of security at the border, but to the idea that anyone, from anywhere, can immigrate without any restriction. We disagree with that policy - we want a high-level of economically-beneficial immigration, but we do not believe in a free-for-all. "Also, by setting quotas, you are effectively allowing potential terrorists in without running them through a security check. " I don't think this is true. So long as the border security bill we proposed is also passed (as it looks likely to), then the quota-approved immigrants will still transit through the security check. On top of that, the "individual applicant's qualifications" this bill asks be considered would include the individual's potential to be a security risk. Right now, we are letting in everyone - that includes convicted criminals and the like. Even if we pass identity checks, that still does not change that everyone is allowed into the country unless this law changes. |
| Date | 17:32:55, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Say the scenario that border security bill is passed and this is passed. Quota-approved immigrants transit through security check. Include the individual's potential to be security risk. Again, what if a terrorist is smart enough to completely change their look and to hide explosives in places where border security can't even find? What if they change their names? What if they are one of the quota-approved immigrants and that there is a stamp on their passport: No security risk? Are we going to accept them? Did the CRP even read what we said about disguises? |
| Date | 17:47:40, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We continue to be puzzled by the PRRP's stance. We would never claim that perfect border security is possible. It is possible that some terrorists could evade our security net (which is why we'd like heavier security checks - the "law and order" option in that policy menu - but that appears to be politically impossible). What matters is the quota-system - which just means deciding to accept individuals or not based on their personal qualifications, instead of just letting everyone in - would serve to greatly strengthen our security. Under the current immigration law, known terrorists are free to stroll into our nation. Even with identity checks, there is no legal way to exclude known or suspected terrorists from our shores - after all, "everyone is allowed to permanently reside in the nation," right? We can't screen prospective applicants for their criminal histories, for ideological radicalism, for intelligence records, etc. This is a necessary first step to controlling who enters our nation. What the PRRP is defending is a system that would not even require terrorists to conceal their identities. I'd much rather run the risk of a few clever terrorists getting through our defenses than continue in the knowledge that there are no defense to even attempt to get through. |
| Date | 18:03:07, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, We are not defending a system that would not even require terrorists to conceal their identities. Everyone can stay in the country, as long as they are not a security risk and this is done by security checks. Before the CRP came onto the political stage, Beluzia has consistently done security checks on everyone in the nation and have found no terrorists. Why? Because we had everyone remove all disguises or what from their faces and stuff. Terrorists can evade our security net and we know that, but again did you even listen about what we said about social and economical reasons? What if you set a quota of 500 each year and 15% or 20% of them are terrorists? Would you say that's dangerous compared to just processing everyone through a security check, going through their bags and detecting for any explosives? That's more caring and non-discriminant. Setting quotas? What are we? Some white supremacist nation? 50% of our nation is composed of minorities and they are the backbone of our society. You know what. We don't want to argue with some party who doesn't have any idea about what they are talking about. We will do that during election debates. And this is pointless. We have other pressing issues to care about then some immigration policy that makes no complete sense whatsoever. Please study in school again. Stop being brainwashed by religion |
| Date | 19:11:18, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Immigration Control Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on the convoluted logic and frankly ridiculous assertions in the RPPR response above. It suffices to say that we believe immigrants should be let in on their individual abilities to contribute to our national life, that we ought to control the numbers and names of those who immigrate to our country, and that we need a slightly more stringent security system. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 296 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 389 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 65 |
| Random fact: Make sure to check out Particracy's wiki. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page |
| Random quote: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson |