NationStates Jolt Archive

"deer delagate plese emdorse my propposal." LOL

If you don't I'm going to keep submitting it until I get a vote. End the Pain now. :)

Its good, except for a little misuse of adverbs, can't amend it like a post.

It provides the following attributes.

It guarantees the well-being of Immigrants looking for citizenship.
It strengthens the military of a nation.
It provides a reason why immigrants should be sought after by a nation.
It salves the feelings of "natural citizens," concerning the sacrifices made by their ancestors for the benefits they receive as citizens of a nation. No more "bunch of leeches," arguments.

Thank you.

"deer delagate plese emdorse my propposal." LOL

If you don't I'm going to keep submitting it until I get a vote. End the Pain now. :)

Its good, except for a little misuse of adverbs, can't amend it like a post.

It provides the following attributes.

It guarantees the well-being of Immigrants looking for citizenship.
It strengthens the military of a nation.
It provides a reason why immigrants should be sought after by a nation.
It salves the feelings of "natural citizens," concerning the sacrifices made by their ancestors for the benefits they receive as citizens of a nation. No more "bunch of leeches," arguments.

Thank you.


Once is enough, :roll:

With the quality of the proposals we've had to endure lately, I'd bet that this one doesn't actually do everything you say. Suppose you could post the text of the proposal here for us to review?

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

Its around page 10 on the "list proposals," url.

Selective Service Immigration

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: SilveryMinnow
Description: Whereas a Democratic Nation is a nation built on the foundation of sacrifice by the blood and risk of its citizens.

Whereas the defense of a Democratic nation is dependant upon the military service of its citizens to maintain a free society.

That immigrant applicants be willing to share in the responsibilty of the defense of a Democratic Nation, by automatic registration of all non-invalid male and female applicants between the ages of 18-45 be into the armed forces with approval of citizenship.

That consideration of the capabilities as regards invalid applicants, be applied to the defense of a nation.

That citizenship shall not be awarded to immigrants that have entered a nation illegally, but will be drafted into service for no less than 3 years. Upon successful completion of time in service, validity for citizenship will be reviewed by the arresting nation for the illegal immigrant. Citizenship will be automatically awarded to the immediate family of a immigrant (legal or illegal,) that has died in the service of his or her nation.

That those immigrants who are conscientious objectors, be excluded from the process.

Approvals: 6

Status: Lacking Support (requires 136 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Jan 23 2004

=...Description: Whereas a Democratic Nation is a nation built on the foundation of sacrifice by the blood and risk of its citizens.

Whereas the defense of a Democratic nation is dependant upon the military service of its citizens to maintain a free society.

That immigrant applicants be willing to share in the responsibilty of the defense of a Democratic Nation, by automatic registration of all non-invalid male and female applicants between the ages of 18-45 be into the armed forces with approval of citizenship.

That consideration of the capabilities as regards invalid applicants, be applied to the defense of a nation.

That citizenship shall not be awarded to immigrants that have entered a nation illegally, but will be drafted into service for no less than 3 years. Upon successful completion of time in service, validity for citizenship will be reviewed by the arresting nation for the illegal immigrant. Citizenship will be automatically awarded to the immediate family of a immigrant (legal or illegal,) that has died in the service of his or her nation...


Well according to the wording of this motion it should only affect democratic nations. Not only that but the last paragraph is a little confusing. :? But basically from what im getting out of this is that for any one to immigrate to a certain nation they would have to join the army for a couple of years. This would be all and good but what about the nations that do not have army's? Is the UN going to tell those peace loving nations to make armies? The UN is here to protect peace, liberty, and justice throught our world. I cant see ourselves doing our prime goals by adding more military into the world as a whole. We have a hard time trying to keep nations to not be to antaganistic towards each other. I cant imagine how many problems it would cause if these nation's army doubled. I am sorry but my nation shall not be supporting this and I hope that this resolution does not get the required delegate votes.

You say that you will keep putting it up until you do get the required votes. Well im not sure what that will do im sure the delegates wont have a hard time ignoring it as they do now. :lol:






Carl Toodubleu
UN Ambassador
Holy Empire of the Muad'Dib

=...Description:... Carl Toodubleu
Hey Carl - I didn't say it, I only copied it. No offense, but I don't want my name associated that closely with this proposal.

:P

Last line, conscientous objectors will not be considered. If your nation has no army then you are automatically exempt from the outline of this proposal. At the same time immigrants that refuse the ultimate sacrifice for nations with military's will not be considered. I wrote this resolution with the idea that not all nations would have the same considerations for what "service," may be. Included also is a bylaw for invalids.

Only Democratic Nations allow for Citizenship. Citizen being the defining term for a peer.

You say that you will keep putting it up until you do get the required votes. Well im not sure what that will do im sure the delegates wont have a hard time ignoring it as they do now.

Thats a petty response from someone who rides the big worms.

Edited by me. So what?

Lesser Kermitia does not require its citizens to sacrifice their lives in the defense of its borders. We hire mercenaries from a variety of reliable suppliers for that purpose, and only employ a small number of volunteer citizens in defense operations, mainly in policy-related positions.

This proposal usurps our right to control our borders and seeks to interfere with our desire to protect our citizens from the risks and danger of military service. Furthermore, three years of forced labor for the minor crime of crossing our borders without authorization would be wholly unconscionable under our law and utterly without precedent. (We normally deport such individuals in a timely manner.) Nor do we allow criminals to serve in our defense forces, which this proposal would require.

Lesser Kermitia is appalled at these suggestions and stands now in steadfast opposition.

The Lady Protector Kalicia
for The Dominion of Lesser Kermitia

Do I want my countries armies to be made up of primarily of people who have NOT attended school in Pinthazar and may not have the same basic values as we try to teach our children?

That may not even speak Pintha?

Do I think the right way to receive people who are leaving countries of violence and despair is to give them guns? (refugees are flocking to Pinthazar's borders, you know)

Do I even believe in drafting ANYONE for military service?

And, quite frankly, do I think it's any of your business or the UN's business who I let into my country or who serves in my army?

That's 5 times NO on this proposal....

*EDIT: Once again, I forget to change login. I am Pinthazar - Onevoice is a puppet. Sorry :-(*

For various reasons previously cited by other ambassadors, The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint cannot support this proposal.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

Lesser Kermitia does not require its citizens to sacrifice their lives in the defense of its borders. We hire mercenaries from a variety of reliable suppliers for that purpose, and only employ a small number of volunteer citizens in defense operations, mainly in policy-related positions.

Must be very expensive and dangerous allowing mercenarys to guard your country on terms of goodwill with their employers. Saddam Hussein's job was the protection of Iraq.

This proposal usurps our right to control our borders and seeks to interfere with our desire to protect our citizens from the risks and danger of military service. Furthermore, three years of forced labor for the minor crime of crossing our borders without authorization would be wholly unconscionable under our law and utterly without precedent. (We normally deport such individuals in a timely manner.) Nor do we allow criminals to serve in our defense forces, which this proposal would require. Apprehension and deportation of illegals is a drain on the resources of a nations citizens. Illegally entering a country therefore is not a "victimless crime." This resolution addresses that some form of retribution should be made by the illegal. First for the act of crime, then for the return of expenditures. Service would strengthen the Defense of the Military now employed for the job it was intended to do, "Guard the nations borders." The military justice system is capable of handling any criminal acts committed by the drafted illegal, and would give a hosting nation time to review the character of the future applicant.

Lesser Kermitia is appalled at these suggestions and stands now in steadfast opposition.

The Lady Protector Kalicia
for The Dominion of Lesser Kermitia

Do I want my countries armies to be made up of primarily of people who have NOT attended school in Pinthazar and may not have the same basic values as we try to teach our children?

Most nations military's require their soldiers to be educated in order for them to perform "sophisticated duties." I am certain that any Nation that seeks to defend its borders from possible threats, would endevor to educate and instill values.

That may not even speak Pintha?

It is vital that commands be understood by the soldier, as in a battlefield situation orders can mean the difference between life and death.

Do I think the right way to receive people who are leaving countries of violence and despair is to give them guns? (refugees are flocking to Pinthazar's borders, you know)

Indoctrination into the military does not automatically "give someone a gun." They must first be trained, then qualified.

Do I even believe in drafting ANYONE for military service?

Selective Service Immigration does not put Immigrants who have legally applied for citizenship directly into the military. They are simply entered into the process should a draft be called upon by the Nation. Only Illegals are required to pay a debt to society.

And, quite frankly, do I think it's any of your business or the UN's business who I let into my country or who serves in my army?

That's 5 times NO on this proposal....

Then you intended to vote no regardless of the qualities of this bill.

*EDIT: Once again, I forget to change login. I am Pinthazar - Onevoice is a puppet. Sorry :-(*

Your only puppet?

For various reasons previously cited by other ambassadors, The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint cannot support this proposal.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

The Delegate of the Republic of SilveryMinnow thanks you for your consideration and hopes that the Rogue Nation of Greenspoint will consider future resolutions from the Republic of SilveryMinnow.

The Delegate of the Republic of SilveryMinnow thanks you for your consideration and hopes that the Rogue Nation of Greenspoint will consider future resolutions from the Republic of SilveryMinnow.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint considers EVERY proposal, owing to the fact that any proposal may become a U.N. resolution that would be binding on our nation and citizens.

We would encourage SilveryMinnow to continue submitting proposals on whatever subject that nation sees a need for U.N. involvement.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal as we allow all immigrants into our nation regardless.

Considering that people can be an important member of society without joining the military and that most of our population is supportive of immigrants we have no need for such a proposal. We would never make an immigrant do something that a ‘native’ would not be willing to do.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

A ridiculous attempt to insinuate your citizens into my military in order to overthrow our People's Republic.

-Eli Beardsley
Head of the Bureau of Law and Order
The People's Rpublic of James Beardsley

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal as we allow all immigrants into our nation regardless.

This proposal does not seek to undermine the Immigration procedures of other nations. It only enhances the Police and Military status of those nations with a Selective service. Catholic Europe would fall under the Category "Conscientious Objectors."

Considering that people can be an important member of society without joining the military and that most of our population is supportive of immigrants we have no need for such a proposal. We would never make an immigrant do something that a ‘native’ would not be willing to do.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

Errr... The first two lines of the proposal point out that Immigrants should be required to fufill all the duties of a native citizen. It is those who violate the laws of a nation that would be required to perform military service.

A ridiculous attempt to insinuate your citizens into my military in order to overthrow our People's Republic.

-Eli Beardsley
Head of the Bureau of Law and Order
The People's Rpublic of James Beardsley

It only applies to nations that are willing to allow their citizens to immigrate or accepts immigrants.

Alsanchia holds that no person is 'illegal', and that all free peoples have an inherent right to live and work where they see fit. Thus, no one should be restricted from entering or leaving any other state.

Further, the idea of compulsory military service is abhorrent - it is little more than slavery, and it would be unthinkable to subject another person to such an injustice.

Therefore, Alsanchia rejects such a resolution in the strongest terms possible.

Errr... The first two lines of the proposal point out that Immigrants should be required to fufill all the duties of a native citizen. It is those who violate the laws of a nation that would be required to perform military service
‘The duty of a native citizen’ nice. You’ll find that that is a relative term dear, some of my citizens think protesting about war and the government making people do things against there will is their duty. The vast majority of our people and our government don’t really care about immigrants, to quote our Queen:
“Who regulates weather a person is considered an immigrant, illegal immigrant or a native. Does it rely on how many years they have been here, what generation they are, or what passport they hold? Actually who cares, they are people and will be treated like anyone else.”

My point about not making immigrants (even illegal) do what we would not expect our citizens to do still stands. If one of our ‘natives’ breaks a law we wouldn’t make them join the forces.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World (mongrel nation and proud)

This proposal does not seek to undermine the Immigration procedures of other nations. It only enhances the Police and Military status of those nations with a Selective service. Catholic Europe would fall under the Category "Conscientious Objectors."

But still, this proposal is not needed for us and, I think, essentially undermine Catholic Europe's immigration process and that is why we are not supporting it.

If nations do not have to participate in this proposal (such as dictatorships, nations without an army, and objectors) we have begun to wonder what the point of this proposal is. If people wanted to operate a similar system in there own country they could without a law passed in the UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

If nations do not have to participate in this proposal (such as dictatorships, nations without an army, and objectors) we have begun to wonder what the point of this proposal is.

That is a very good point. The point of the UN is that all member nations follow the same laws. If a proposal allows certain nations not to be affected then what is the point in that proposal?

If nations do not have to participate in this proposal (such as dictatorships, nations without an army, and objectors) we have begun to wonder what the point of this proposal is.

That is a very good point. The point of the UN is that all member nations follow the same laws. If a proposal allows certain nations not to be affected then what is the point in that proposal?

OOC: Isn’t it also against game mechanics? The compliance ministry can’t tell the difference.

OOC: Isn’t it also against game mechanics? The compliance ministry can’t tell the difference.

I don't know. I suppose it is in a way.

OOC: I’m probably just nitpicking.

Alsanchia holds that no person is 'illegal', and that all free peoples have an inherent right to live and work where they see fit. Thus, no one should be restricted from entering or leaving any other state.
You are right to oppose this Resolution then, because it directly addresses the "open borders," proposed by nations attempting to reduce their own social problems by moving those problems to another nation.

Further, the idea of compulsory military service is abhorrent - it is little more than slavery, and it would be unthinkable to subject another person to such an injustice.
The real injustice is dealt to the citizen that must sacrifice property, life, and liberty. (Patriot Act,) for the inclusion of another that is not obligated to similar terms.

Therefore, Alsanchia rejects such a resolution in the strongest terms possible.
Glad you showed up. Helps me to define the Resolution.

The Black New World wrote:
If nations do not have to participate in this proposal (such as dictatorships, nations without an army, and objectors) we have begun to wonder what the point of this proposal is.


Catholic Europe wrote: That is a very good point. The point of the UN is that all member nations follow the same laws. If a proposal allows certain nations not to be affected then what is the point in that proposal?

Do I really need to bring in the real U.N. manifesto and show how this Resolution fits all the guidelines? Harmonizing does not specify "all at once." Harmonizing can also be done gradually. The resolution does not seek to address all nations as that is impossible by any standard. The resolution is specifically directed towards nations with similar laws and governments.

How many resolutions past and present have actually fit the manifesto? Ordered compliance over sovereign laws of nations is tyranny and seems to be the base of most other resolutions. At least my resolution attempts to reconcile with those nations opposing.

Or does that matter?

Errr... The first two lines of the proposal point out that Immigrants should be required to fufill all the duties of a native citizen. It is those who violate the laws of a nation that would be required to perform military service
‘The duty of a native citizen’ nice. You’ll find that that is a relative term dear, some of my citizens think protesting about war and the government making people do things against there will is their duty. The vast majority of our people and our government don’t really care about immigrants, to quote our Queen:
“Who regulates weather a person is considered an immigrant, illegal immigrant or a native. Does it rely on how many years they have been here, what generation they are, or what passport they hold? Actually who cares, they are people and will be treated like anyone else.”

My point about not making immigrants (even illegal) do what we would not expect our citizens to do still stands. If one of our ‘natives’ breaks a law we wouldn’t make them join the forces.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World (mongrel nation and proud)

A good definition of Immigrant would be someone who is not a citizen. Everything else depends on the sovereign laws of your nation. This resolution addresses those nations with both a military, and a form of draft. If you impose upon your own citizens in the form of treasure, blood, and property, thats basically your business, and is not a forced compliance by the Resolution.

Do I really need to bring in the real U.N. manifesto and show how this Resolution fits all the guidelines?

OOC: If this was the real UN, this is game UN. Like I said before the compliance ministry makes it effect everyone

IC:

The resolution is specifically directed towards nations with similar laws and governments

If they have similar laws why bother with this one?

A good definition of Immigrant would be someone who is not a citizen.
Okay then, define citizen and put the two definitions in your proposal.
Just because you put it in the forum doesn’t mean it effects the proposal.

The real injustice is dealt to the citizen that must sacrifice property, life, and liberty. (Patriot Act,) for the inclusion of another that is not obligated to similar terms.

How can anyone measure what makes a good citizen? In my opinion it is more then just paying taxes and joining the army, it is what you do everyday like educating your community and helping people. I still don’t see why we should force immigrants to be a ‘good citizens’ when we don’t make our ‘natives’.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

[quote=SilveryMinnow] Do I really need to bring in the real U.N. manifesto and show how this Resolution fits all the guidelines?

OOC: If this was the real UN, this is game UN. Like I said before the compliance ministry makes it effect everyone

If the "compliance ministry," makes the resolution affect all nations then what is the purpose of "sovereignty?" Also how does this affect your nation in a negative way if it strengthens defense? The argument lies in the wording, and that is what the delegate of SilveryMinnow is addressing.

IC:

The resolution is specifically directed towards nations with similar laws and governments

If they have similar laws why bother with this one?

Because if passed it becomes a Uniform law, that would allow similar nations to cooperate more effectively.

A good definition of Immigrant would be someone who is not a citizen.

Okay then, define citizen and put the two definitions in your proposal.
Just because you put it in the forum doesn’t mean it effects the proposal.

I think the definition of Immigrant is more efficient description.

The real injustice is dealt to the citizen that must sacrifice property, life, and liberty. (Patriot Act,) for the inclusion of another that is not obligated to similar terms.

How can anyone measure what makes a good citizen? In my opinion it is more then just paying taxes and joining the army, it is what you do everyday like educating your community and helping people. I still don’t see why we should force immigrants to be a ‘good citizens’ when we don’t make our ‘natives’.

You have just stated the reason yourself. A libertarian Republic, the Nation of SilveryMinnow relies on the ability of its citizens to be self governing. We do not force our citizens to impose themselves on others. We do not differentiate because of "race, nationality or ideology," but we do expect our citizens to be responsible for their actions. We are a nation of laws regarding the rights and responsibilities of our nations citizens. We believe in limited government, but not Anarchy.

I think the definition of Immigrant is more efficient description.
1) Your definition of immigrant is dependant on how you define citizen.
2) I think that you should put them into the proposal.

Because if passed it becomes a Uniform law, that would allow similar nations to cooperate more effectively.

Can you please explain how?

If the "compliance ministry," makes the resolution affect all nations then what is the purpose of "sovereignty?"

To stop the UN resolutions passing because they affect issues that would be better dealt with at a ‘lower’ level not in choosing what rules to follow.

Also how does this affect your nation in a negative way if it strengthens defence?

Because you are forcing people to join the armed forces against there will.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

1) Your definition of immigrant is dependant on how you define citizen.
No it isn't. CITIZEN is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people. IMMIGRANT a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence. The resolution deals with Immigration, not citizenship.
2) I think that you should put them into the proposal.
The definitions are in the dictionary.

Can you please explain how?
It allows those nations to recognize each other through the support of the Resolution.

To stop the UN resolutions passing because they affect issues that would be better dealt with at a ‘lower’ level not in choosing what rules to follow.
Welfare of the nations in the U.N. is the highest priority for the members. This nation believes that the Resolution would be beneficial for those nations.

Because you are forcing people to join the armed forces against there will.
The resolution does not force "citizens into the armed forces, or legal immigrants. They are simply required to apply in case a nations government requires a draft. Only those that violate the laws of Immigration are required to serve, for reasons already discussed.

cit•i•zen (s t -z n) n.
1) A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
2) A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
3) A civilian.
4)A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place
You already have my endorsement but I wanted this bump not to be obvious.

im•mi•grant ( m -gr nt) n.
1)A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
2)A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.


The world has lots of dictionaries, you need to put the definitions you intended in the proposal to avoid ambiguity (or you may end up drafting plants).

The resolution does not force "citizens into the armed forces, or legal immigrants. They are simply required to apply in case a nations government requires a draft.


In which case they will have to join the armed forces.

Just to repeat myself I am against this proposal for three reasons:
1) My nation have no need for such a proposal not because we don’t have illegal immigrants, we just don’t care that we do.
2) It has so many loopholes it readers the motion meaningless to every country that does not have similar laws already.
3) We really don’t see the point of making people who have broken the law serve in the forces.


Thank you for the interesting debate,
Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World