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: Return to Normalcy V1.1
Details
Submitted by[?]: Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
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: January 2067
Description[?]:
| We should have a fair and balanced refugee policy that protects our citizens as well as helps refugees. Do not confuse this policy with an immigration policy. Proposal and description of terms: *Refugees are welcome, but must enter through a legal, registered process. *The checking progress will be used to determine the veracity of the refugee's claims to the extent possible. *The procedure will be as quick as possible. *It will be managed by experts who have full access to international criminal files as well as policy and national security information. *The managers will determine the specific criteria needed to determine entry into the country. the criteria will be based only on national security and our economic ability to sustain refugees. *all refugees must maintain contact with the central refugee office for a maximum of one year of living in this country. *if refugees intend to stay they must seek naturalization. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The national refugee policy.
Old value:: All refugees are welcome, regardless of their reason, and given aid in integrating them into the country.
Current: All refugees are welcome, regardless of their reason, and given aid in integrating them into the country.
Proposed: Only refugees that are victims of extreme circumstances are welcome; no aid is given to them.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:59:25, June 06, 2005 CET | From |  Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Before some of you recklessly call this a racist attempt to exclude people from our country, we would like you to be able to answer these questions in a satisfaying way: if we let all refugees in, no matter what circumstances, 1.how do you propose to house them? 2. how do you propose to give them a job? 3. if they have families, how do you propose we support them? 4. if the number of refugees in our country is unlimited and we support them all, how do you propose we are able to pay for them? 5. how long must we pay for refugees to live in our country? 6. considering that all the money is coming from taxes to pay for this, how much of our budget should be extended to subsidize refugees? consider that we have to pay for all the artists in the country, a television and radio station, the army and a number of other things. Untill these questions can be satisfactorily answered, it is irresonsible of all members of the parliament to not have some policy regarding refugees that does not cripple us economically as well as infringe upon our national security. |
| Date | 21:41:49, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | The FRP is, in fact, a racist and xenophobic party, and their policies clearly show this. We can only imagine what despicable policies they will trot out next. To answer this futile checklist (futile because we know the FRP bases their decisions on ideology, not material reality): 1. How do we propose to house anyone? 2. How do we propose to give anyone a job? 3. How do we propose to support anyone's families? We parroted those three back at the FRP because they are, in fact, stupid questions. Our government does not currently guarantee housng, employment or family support to our own citizens, and there is nothing involved in our current refugee policy that suggests we guarantee those rights to refugees. Which is not to say we oppose those guarantees, but it's absurd to ask how we are going to do something we have no current obligation to do. We would give the FRP a quick lesson on how materialist economics work, and how these consumption problems aren't problems at all, but we have three more points to 'answer.' 4. What exactly are we paying for? Does the FRP mean the administrative costs? The aid we give them? Look at the costs as an investment; we pay a small cost to bring in new citizens, and they will, of course, work, pay taxes, and in general contribute to society. Chalking up a few billable hours of pencil pushing is a small price to pay. 5. We don't pay for them to live in our country at all. What we pay is 'aid,' which is, of course, a question of execution based on the current government policies. This aid can be, and should be, as simple as providing help finding a job (a service that should be available to our citizens regardless) and finding housing (again, a service that should already exist for citizens). What else is required to 'integrate' into the country? A job and a home is all one really needs. 6. Once again, we are not subsidizing refugees, we are merely extending servics available to our citizens to refugees as well. This is an investment; we are adding members to our labor force, and something that is oft overlooked is the fact that a large excess labor force helps increase investment for a variety of reasons (wages are kept at a real value, readily available workers, competitive conditions compared to our neighbors). The small cost we pay in helping refugees come to our country we will get back many times as they enter the workforce. And really, how many refugees are we looking at each year? If three hundred people arrived each day that would put us at a hundred thousand per year; if this shoulds low, then perhaps one should consider the following. From where are these refugees coming? What are they fleeing? Where are they arriving? Chances are we won't even see three hundred refugees per day, so what exactly are we worried about? Adding, liberally, fifty thousand new workers to our work force each year? Twenty or thirty thousand new students to our schools? If we were talking about births we'd be celebrating, as we'd recognize those new workers and students as a source of future wealth and innovation. But because they are from another country, we view them with suspicion and make them jump through hoops? That's why this policy is racist and xenophobic; it treats people from other countries, who are already victims of oppression and crimes aganst humanity, as second class when measured against our own citizens. We, at least, will not be commiting that kind of heinous injustice. |
| Date | 00:19:47, June 07, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Hear, hear! |
| Date | 10:37:37, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Once again, LevP chooses to mask a lack of good arguments with insults. It is not racist to ensure that our nation is secure from terrorists and threats to our way of life. It is not racist to make sure that we do not allow terrorists into our country. In our country, people support themselves. Do you honestly expect a refugee to come into our country with a job, a house and a school for his or her children? of course not! it is preposterous to think that. Therefore, if we are a good country, we should naturally provide aid in this way to refugees when they come into our country. If we have no checks on our refugees, what is to stop a standard immigrant from pretending to be a refugee and getting our support? He is cheating his way into the country at the expense of our citizens, other refugees and other immigrants who go through the legal process. as LevP argued, paying support for refugees is an investment. and levp is correct. but how many are we legitamitely able to pay for? consider that it will be a reality to provide housing, jobs and education to refugees. 300 a day? 100,000 a year, say levp. even if it is that amount, which is already very large, how do you propose we obtain funds for this? as for what one needs to integrate into the country, what about language? what about education? there are a number of things to consider. In summary, the FRP does not want to stop refugees from coming in to the country, we want to make as sure as possible that our national security remains intact and that that there is not illegal attempt to come into the country an easier way. |
| Date | 10:41:01, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | the questions that the levp asks: From where are these refugees coming? What are they fleeing? Where are they arriving? these are the questions that the FRP wants to find out too, we want to know in order to be able to help as well as be able to turn back people who are taking advantage of the system. The levp wants to pay for everyone as if there was that kind of money to throw around, we're sorry to say that there isn't and unfortunately that means being realistic and trying to come up with a suitable compromise. |
| Date | 20:05:38, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | FRP said"In our country, people support themselves." --actually they don't between the subsidies from the government and the work of their neighbor in the collectives more and more are being supported by fewer and fewer. |
| Date | 00:00:15, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | How typically fascist to claim security should trump human rights. Could the FRP show us this great terrorist threat that lies outside our bordes, waiting to spring in among the refugees and wreak havoc? We thought not. The bottom line is that the FRP wants to discriminate against people based on nationalitiy. Make your own conclusions. |
| Date | 10:31:17, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | if there is no security, how do you expect to protect our human rights? Are you honestly saying that its worth risking the loss of the government, or thousands of human lives if a terrorist walked into the parliamentary building or a stadium full of people and blew it up as long as we support refugees who we don't even verify as refugees? excuse me, but not only are you insane and absolutely irresponsible, but how do you expect us to remain an autonamous country if we do not protect ourselves? |
| Date | 10:35:45, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | the FRP is asking for reasonable measures of protection and verification to protect us as well as support refugees. |
| Date | 12:04:42, June 08, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | What is this foreign terrorist threat the FRP speaks of? And if we're to implement security measures, shouldn't they also protect us from any domestic threats that may arise? Why the xenophobia? |
| Date | 16:39:42, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | libcom, we thought you may have seen past the weak arguments of the LevP. nevertheless, we will explain again. threats can come from anyplace outside our own country, it is our duty as the government to protect against those threats for the survival and safety of our citizens. We are not saying they are imminent, we are not saying that we know of any. we are only saying that to pretend that terrorists don't exist and thus not protect ourselves is a mistake. Do you not wear seatbelt when you drive? Do you not wear a helmet when you get on your bicycle? you may not crash, but they are protective measures that are necessary. As for security measures to protect ourselves from internal threats, we completely agree, that is what the office of internal affairs manages, we have a police force as well as a secret service. those levels of security exist, but the way the current system is set up, we are not able to monitor entry into our own country. the wording of the bill is harsh, we know OOC: i say ignore the wording and look mostly at the proposals i put in the intro. IC: nevertheless, we are not outright rejecting refugees, we are merely pointing out that we must compromise between, security, financial responsibily and our moral imperative to help those in need. If the rich man who gave all his money to the beggar, only to become a beggar, what will have been achieved? a mere trade from one to the other, with no actual solution! If you disagree with the various arguments we have put forward, then please explain your problems and present a possible solution that allows us to balance all the issues. that way we can all support refugees and maintain our financial and national security. |
| Date | 23:56:26, June 08, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Monitoring entry into our country is a matter of border controls - it has nothing to do with our policy on refugees. And once inside the country, refugees are subject to exactly the same security measures as citizens. As for the economic argument, LevP's already covered that pretty thoroughly. Refugees benefit the country. There's no excuse for turning them away except xenophobia. |
| Date | 11:35:06, June 09, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Well, believe what you need to believe LIbCom, but the majority of refugees arrive into a country with just the clothes on their back and the skills they already have. In any case, that is irrelevant, letting in refugees is not the issue, so much as distinguishing who the real refugees are. the way the wording of the current law is, an immigrant could claim to be a refugee just to get a free ride. and as for the economics, LevP has not explained anything. LevP just assumes everything will be paid for. thats the great thing about communism, someone else always pays for it. well reality is much different. sorry to burst the bubble for you. |
| Date | 11:44:02, June 09, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Genuine refugees or not, immigration benefits the nation. We should be welcoming immigrants, not turning them away. An adult immigrant costs the country less than a new-born Malivian baby, and can start working and paying taxes immediately, or at worst within a few years. They subsidise us, not the other way round. |
| Date | 10:59:56, June 10, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | fair point, but an immigrant that pretends to be a refugee is a drain because they are fraudulently obtaining money, housing and other benefits. Would you not agree with that argument? this isn't about letting in refugees or immigrants, its about preventing criminals, fraudsters and threats to our national security from entering. legitimate refugees should be helped. this bill is designed to determine who is who, separate criminal from legitimate refugee. It is also designed to determine who is a legitimate refugee, obviously a major earthquake, tsunami etc, will be world news and we can work from there, but we must still have measures to ensure that we prevent criminals from entering the country. |
| Date | 14:21:58, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | The argument that we have to prevent 'fraud' is typical of the kind of inhumane acumen we see from the right wing. These instances of 'fraud,' be it from welfare, refugee status, healthcare etc, have only ever made up the smallest fraction of the total claims made, and are an absorbable loss. Let me repeat that: absorbable loss, like shoplifting. Modern businesses, rather than annoying customers with invasive security measures, just accept that the'yre going to lose a certain percent of total inventory to theft and plan for that loss in the bottom line. The price Malivia pays for being an open society is accepting some of this fraud. Just as a commitment to free speech requires we allow offensive speech, just as ensuring no one goes hungry means we'll give food to someone who could afford it anyway, just as protecting citizens against unncessary searches requires that sometimes criminals get off on technicalities, so too must we accept this 'fraud' as a consequence of being an open society. Nothing is 100% efficient, so it's a question of on which side you err. Do you choose to be inclusive, and let in a few 'fradusters' in an effort to ensure that no one is denied help that they need? Or do you choose to be exclusive and turn away people in need in an effort to root out fraud? We choose to be inclusive, end of story. The FRP, it seems, has no problem turning away people to save a few Pl, which is yet another symptom of the rotten fascist heart beating their blood through money clogged arteries. We'd rather save money than save lives. What a sentiment. |
| Date | 10:39:22, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Why be practical when you can be communist? |
| Date | 11:34:02, June 13, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | If 'practicality' means putting lives at risk to save a few Pliny, we'd rather not. |
| Date | 12:08:02, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | The Leviathan Party is neither communist nor socialist, details that would be quite obvious if the FRP had the literacy skills to read our party platform. Just ask the Labour or LibCom parties, we are not communists. |
| Date | 18:15:33, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | Not that we support this but when we open our nation to any refugee, it encourages attempts to leave their nation in various unsafe exit routes. OOC: the rafts of those leaving nations in the caribbean are notoriously unsafe with many dying in the crossing. A friend of mine is in the navy and has many stories on lives saved, and others where they where too late. So it can be said that allowing refugees entry we are in fact endangering lives since they are not leaving situations where they are in grave danger. |
| Date | 19:29:25, June 15, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.1 |
| Message | If they weren't in grave danger, why would they risk their lives to get here? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 7 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 70 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life fictional references (eg. Gandalf, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker). |
| Random quote: "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman." - Arnold Schwarzenegger |