NationStates Jolt Archive

How can you still be voting for it! It does nothing! It provides no information on what this passport should contain. Why are you voting for it!!??!

Amen

Passport harmonisation
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Significant Proposed by: Stormymilkshake
Description: As the peoples of the world learn more of other nations the urge to travel and broaden cultural horizons has naturally increased. Border formalities are hampered customs officials finding themselves increasingly baffled by the variety of personal identification each nation requires. A UN standardisation initiative would see world citizens issued with documentation which presents personal information in a single format, easing stress and delays at Customs and Immigration facilities. Tourism generates significant revenues alongside the cutural benefits and UN intervention would stimulate growth in this area of each nation's economy.

Each nation would be able to present its travel documentation in a manner and design which reflects its own culture and traditions as long as it contained the standard information.

Votes For: 10549

Votes Against: 1933

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Mon Feb 9 2004



I see no harm with this proposal, what don't you like about it?

Innapropriate category, unecessary bureaucracy and vague wording amount to a poorly designed bill. This is a Free Trade matter, not a matter of democratic freedom. The structure of the passport should be listed to simplify confusion. The strength of this is infinitely less than significant and the wording of it is so vague that nothing will be done as a result.

Poor construction should not be accepted just because people vote yes out of habit.

How can you still be voting for it! It does nothing! It provides no information on what this passport should contain. Why are you voting for it!!??!

I AGREE, IT JUST SHOWS YOU HOW STUPID AND UN-WARE SOME NATIONS ARE.

I agree to that. THis resolution is stoopid. It should be reformed.

Y'know what irritates me? When people think beratement and insults will move me to action.

It does, but typically, the action I take involves bringing the credibility of the nations in question. Example:

Republican Iberia: I AGREE, IT JUST SHOWS YOU HOW STUPID AND UN-WARE SOME NATIONS ARE.

First off, no need to scream, though your Republican roots lend you to the side of speaking unnecessarily long and loud about nothing in particular. Deny your flawed heritage. Secondly, what is "un-ware?"

Now, I agree, the proposal has no standards.. I voted FOR it because it's something that helps out, and the standards can be worked out later. No big deal.

In closing, you should listen to your cableman.

I see I'm not alone...how many others of you have looked at this and said, "What the heck?"

*shrugs lightly* We are aware of the lack of ability to properly declare himself on the part of our brother. However, this does not mean he is wrong. While this legislation may help, it is poorly adjudicated, aimed at the wrong sector and needs to be rewritten and represented rather than pushed through as is.

Don't do what will help if it can be done better and more thoroughly. Shoddy workmanship is never acceptable.

GLOBAL I.D. CARDS ARE YOU KIDDING ME AAAAAACCCCKKKKK HEAD EXPLODING HEAD EXPLODING HEAD EXPLODING YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS.

Secondly, what is "un-ware?"

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint believes that un-ware is the line of plastic storage containers, et. al, made by the Tupper company, for use by all U.N. member nation Ambassadors.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

GLOBAL I.D. CARDS ARE YOU KIDDING ME AAAAAACCCCKKKKK HEAD EXPLODING HEAD EXPLODING HEAD EXPLODING YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS.

No need to scream. Global I.D. cards are a great idea, it could swiped through a reader at a border checkpoint and see if the cardholder is allowed to leave the country or not. Also it could be used as a like a credit card or a library card, it could be inserted into special kisoks and bring menus and allow them to handle their day-to-day affairs. This is a great idea.

I voted against it as it would facilitate the easy movement of Terrorists.

Lollerberries. I'll go make sure I voted for it. If the kind of people who oppose it are people who label everyone else idiots and can't type in coherent lower case letters, it must be good.

Cheerio kids :-)

These "Global ID Cards" sound very similar to passports. We've coped with them for some time, haven't we? And they are among the top level of officially recognised forms of identification, along with birth certificates and driver's licences.

dude, it stoopid to vote for it, i dint vote againts or for, because either way, its just a waste of a mouse click, everyone already has passports, by putting this crap out there it just gives the UN more crap to deal with, and we already have passports any way, and with a passport u can do background check anyways, so whats the point!!! dont vote for this thing, it doesnt matter if it is harmless, if something isnt needed you shouldnt vote for it.

I strongly recommend voting against this policy because it would require a global organization to manage this type of documentation and the resulting database of information provides a nucleus for global oversight that would too easily foster development of variations on "big brother" due to the inevitable realization that global policing could use just such a system.


I encourage nations to give thought to how vital expediency truly is to social progress and quality of life.

Experience suggests that most people have absolutely nothing against some processes taking a bit more time if the wait preserves cultural character and individual's independance.

Additionally, there is no data to support the proposal that "convenience" will ultimately be a true benefit to individual citizens as much as it will be a benefit to bureaucratic and policing efforts. Such agencies have a rather bad record for preserving the privacy and civil liberties of their respective citizenry unless those citizens are ensconsed in the halls of power and wealth. Such agencies have an even worse record for creating additional levels of bureaucracy that more than eat up the time they save being "efficient".

How can you still be voting for it! It does nothing! It provides no information on what this passport should contain. Why are you voting for it!!??!Just for that I'm voting yes :D

i meen wat the hek I dont want anyone just walking into my country and spreading dangerous ideas we have the htought police for a reason

Greetings to All and Sundry,

My feelings on the current Resolution are mixed. Yes, given the sheer weight of Nations in the World, there is definitely a need for some standardization in the ease of border crossings. However, standardization of passports leads to several dangers for those using them. If a member of the military was forced to have their occupation on their passport or just the fact that they are retired military on their passport, their travel will be severely restricted in the World. They may face detention in the more suspicious Nations, who see them as probable spies, or be targeted by groups seeking to get even for military actions by the Nation of the traveler. In cases of Nations where military service is compulsory, there would be no way for a citizen to claim they have not been in the military, unless they had a special provision that allowed them not to serve. Given the lack of specifics in what is and isn’t to be included in this standardization, one can hardly support it, for fear of the likely abuses that would be forced upon the unwilling Nations of the World.

(In my own personal experience, I was warned about refering to my NATO military experience/employment in any way on my passport to keep from being targeted by foreign governments when traveling.)

Grande Elector Bruce

The Green and Pleasant Dominion of The Bruce

Just because a person has a UN card, that doesn't mean that everyone owning such a card MUST be allowed into a country.

by standard information, I think this means whatever is normal on a passport from your country.

Now, I agree, the proposal has no standards.. I voted FOR it because it's something that helps out, and the standards can be worked out later.But this isn't the point. Proposals should have the standards within them. Otherwise we could get proposals like:

"Something should be done about nuclear weapons. We will work out what should be done once the proposal is passed."

As you can see, this does no "harm" either, it does nothing.
Proposals such as this just waste time. It can't be assumed that proposals will be clarrified after they are passed. Clarrification should take place in the proposal itself.

Yngwie Malmsteen
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

The Prortectorate of the Deathseekers must formaly object to this proposal. Such a government agency while "sounding good, and doing no harm" will indeed do great harm. Not only fiscally, but it will give every Terrorist/Rogue Nation/Enemy easy if not full access to ANY UN Allied nation. Even if the UN isn't a large military alliance, giving unfettered access to startegic points in any country is never a good idea.

Especially for an isolated country like the Deathseekers. Our region's geography is our main defense, this proposal will subvert our entire defnese, by allowing enemies within the walls of the very fortresses that were build to keep them out.

And how are the IDs to be enforced? We of the Deathseekers have no technology for such cards. A typical Rokugani would be afraid of a standard card reader, and label it "black magic" or worse, maho "blood magic". The governemnt might face a revolt.

If this proposal is not rethought, and stricter standards imposed, the Deathseekers will CERTAINLY LEAVE THE UN rather than face a Peasant Revolt. It has happend once in our history, during the Struggle of the Four Winds, and we shall not be divided again, not over something as trivial as this. Not while our enemy, Iuichiban the Heartless roams free. We cannot allow his bloodspeakers into our lands, UN passports or not. Something must be done.

-Defense Minister Nimuro
Clan Champion of the Lion Clan, Servant of Emperor Hantei XXXIV

Thought for the Day: The Lion's borders are strong. We cannot be broken. No ninja, kolat, or sugenja can penetrate our defenses. We are the steel wall of the Empire. We cannot break.

Deathseekers - no problem.

Just because the cards exist dosn't mean you have to let people into your territory. You also arn't required to check them. You'd only have problems if any of your citizens were to leave your country for other places (however if they are as afraid of technology as you say, they arn't likely to travel anyways so it's no problem)

My first reaction to this was to vote 'for' but after seeing some comments (especially The Bruce's comment) I have withdrawn my vote for and voted against.

It is just as I said earlier. Passports do not lead to the furtherment of democracy. Let me illustrate this with a dialouge.

Cool, Passports. Man, I love passports. I voin' for this
Yeah. Dude, Passports are so cool.

After the issue passes, and Political Freedoms increase as democracy is furthered.
Hey, My political freedoms went up. What's with that.
Yeah, dude this site is messed up. I'm practically a democracy
Well guys, don't say I didn't want you. :lol:

I will be voting against the "Passport harmonisation" resolution. I've read all the arguments of this resolution in the UN forum http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121443 and a very compelling argument against in this thread - http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121543.

I think the proposal is poorly written, unclear, administratively costly for large nations, and I seriously question its benefits. It also sets a dangerous precedent for a worldwide big brother database which would contain every single person in the world. Potentially scary, IMO.

I strongly urge those who voted for it to re-read the resolution, and reconsider.

The concerns about lack of clarity are only important in light of military work mentioned by The Bruce.

However, I do not think that is enough to make this a bad idea. First, the example where military service is compulsory. If *everyone* has been in the military in, say, Singapore, then other nations already know that everyone from Singapore is military and should have their travel restricted.

Second, I would be highly surprised if there weren't exceptions. Diplomatic passports are the best example of exceptions in the current system, and since the resolution uses current langauge ("passports") there is no reason to suppose that this would change.

All this proposal is calling for is a standardization of format. This is incredibly important because currently different nations have different standards of what they need to know before they let people in. Passports not always having this information leads to confusion, delays, and some people needlessly being denied entry when traveling.

Obviously exactly what information is needed will have to be hashed out, but that will happen through more voting and I doubt that either the people who want so much information as to be intrusive or those who want hardly anything will win.

A few notes for specific conerns raised in this discussion:

1. These aren't global ID cards issued by a central agency that knows everything. These are *passports* issued by the nation of which the holder is a citizen. They simply follow the same format. There is no need for a central information center, and since the resolution does not specifically suggest one we must assume that there won't be one. There is no "big brother" here.

2. Terrorists. This facilitates the *easier* movement of *everyone.* Voting against it because of terrorists is essentially giving in to paranoia and massively inconviencing the vast majority of people who aren't terrorists. Furthermore, I would point out that it's not like the current system stops terrorists. Terrorists are stopped by specific investigations, police intervention, etc. If anything this might make it easier to stop terrorists since they might have more information on their passports, but I doubt it would make a difference. Finally, fake passports are no easier or harder to get than under the status quo.

3. You can still have a boarder patrol under this policy! Just because all nations' passports share a format doesn't mean you must accept them all! Is this clear?

4. Concerns about lack of technology. These *passports* (not *ID cards*) use the same technology as current passports. If you don't have the technology for a passport after this passes, it means you didn't have it before either, and you don't have passports. In that case this resolution does not effect you, since it does not require that all nations issue passports. It only requires that all nations that do issue passports use a standard format.

This resolution has no harms, clear benefits, and while it's a little unclear it is not unacceptably so. I encourage everyone to support it.

No harms? Did you not read my earlier comment?

No harms? Did you not read my earlier comment?

No, I did not see a post by yourself in this thread that clearly stated any harms. Although there was an attempt at humor.

Ok, first off, I like lemonade, gummy bears, and chocolate. Secondly, "stoopid" is not a word. If you're going to try and make a fool of someone else, at least learn to spell "stupid" you idiot.
Thirdly, If the United Nations is wacked up in the head enough to legalize prostitution, than what difference does it make if we vote this through? It's not hurting anyone and has vast opportunity to do some good, unlike most other garbage proposals we have running through.
Finally, if you don't like what I have to say, get over it. It's a freakin simulation people. Anyone dumb enough to get this in depth on a country they are "running" that doesn't exist, obviously you are egotistical, self involved, lonely losers who have to create their own world because they aren't accepted in the real one.
-Sir Zing

No harms? Did you not read my earlier comment?

No, I did not see a post by yourself in this thread that clearly stated any harms. Although there was an attempt at humor.
Look the effect come from the class of the proposal. In this case the proposal futhers democracy. According to the text, however, the proposal is supposed to revamp and standarize passport laws. Passport standards do not cause the furtherment of democracy. This was the gist of my previous post. You just didn't comprehend it.

No harms? Did you not read my earlier comment?

No, I did not see a post by yourself in this thread that clearly stated any harms. Although there was an attempt at humor.
Look the effect come from the class of the proposal. In this case the proposal futhers democracy. According to the text, however, the proposal is supposed to revamp and standarize passport laws. Passport standards do not cause the furtherment of democracy. This was the gist of my previous post. You just didn't comprehend it.

Alright, now that you're speaking like an adult in a diplomatic setting I'm happy to respond.

We can quibble about exact wordings all day, but there are two important facts.

1. This proposal does in fact increase the ease of free travel, which I believe is a democratic value, even if it doesn't create democratic governments.

2. This is an important proposal, and the UN has the authority to implement it. I don't see why it shouldn't.

1. This proposal does in fact increase the ease of free travel, which I believe is a democratic value, even if it doesn't create democratic governments.

2. This is an important proposal, and the UN has the authority to implement it. I don't see why it shouldn't.
How does this proposal increase the ease of free travel?

You're correct, we can "quibble about exact wordings all day," but the bottom line is this:
The proposal states that there should be a form of passport containing standard information. The proposal does not state any standards that this information must meet. Therefore the proposal is impossible to implement. Therefore, the proposal does nothing.

Yngwie Malmsteen
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

This resolution has no harms, clear benefits, and while it's a little unclear it is not unacceptably so. I encourage everyone to support it.

1. These aren't global ID cards issued by a central agency that knows everything. These are *passports* issued by the nation of which the holder is a citizen. They simply follow the same format. There is no need for a central information center, and since the resolution does not specifically suggest one we must assume that there won't be one. There is no "big brother" here.

I disagree - it's lack of clarity makes it absolutely unacceptable. It leaves a lot open for potentially harmful interpretation. A resolution should always state what is in and out of scope in a clear, concise manner. Otherwise it will be likely to cause unintended (or sinister intended) effects.

Example: the resolution states that "A UN standardisation initiative would see world citizens issued with documentation" but who tracks and provides the data and documentation? The individual countries, which submit it to the UN? Or a global database system? The resolution doesn't specify. Big Brother has wide open potential in this initiative.

Universal passports wouldn't make it easier for terrorists to get into country, it would make it HARDER it said right on the proposal, the people working the checkpoints are often confused by all the different types of passports. With one form, all workers will be able to spot errors, omissions and spot fakes.

I like the idea, but will have to vote against the resolution because we have no idea what sort of information it will contain and that could violate privacy. Suppose some nations insist that religion be included? That would only facilitate discrimination. Or suppose some nations allow corporations to sell the information to marketers or other people we don't want our personal information to be sent out to? We dont know what info will be on it, and there are no privacy protections built in. I will have to vote no. I suggest the author rewrite it and submit a better version. (No offense.)

But this isn't the point. Proposals should have the standards within them.

Valid point.. but can you honestly say that we would have come up with this problem for solving?

Valid point.. but can you honestly say that we would have come up with this problem for solving?
If what you're saying is what I think you're saying, you're claiming that this UN could not have come up with adequate standards. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A brief search through recent topics of discussion (as recorded here in the UN Forums of Record) would reveal that multiple sets of standards were proposed quite soon after it became apparent that this proposal would indeed reach quorum.

The Resolution was not offered to UN committees for suggestions or editing prior to being submitted, or it would most certainly have have these multiple flaws pointed out in advance.

Valid point.. but can you honestly say that we would have come up with this problem for solving?
If what you're saying is what I think you're saying, you're claiming that this UN could not have come up with adequate standards. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A brief search through recent topics of discussion (as recorded here in the UN Forums of Record) would reveal that multiple sets of standards were proposed quite soon after it became apparent that this proposal would indeed reach quorum.

The Resolution was not offered to UN committees for suggestions or editing prior to being submitted, or it would most certainly have have these multiple flaws pointed out in advance.

An error that we will no longer permit. When we see a potential bill with strong standing and glarin flaws, we will comment directly to the creator in the form of friendly amendments.

(Assuming I actually have the time for that BS. ^^)

Joccia proposes the following amendments to this proposal, which will be sent to the proposer by telegrammic message as wise Kokablel suggests.

As Follows:

The Document shall contain the following information

1 Political Orientation
2 Sexual Orientation
3 Terrorist Links
4 Communicable Diseases
5 Parentage
6 Criminal Record
7 War crimes
8 Knowlege of War Crimes, Criminals, or having witnessed the same.
9 General attitude to trouble-making,
10 General PC awareness

Joccia would find these items of great use in deciding entry to her borders

Innapropriate category, unecessary bureaucracy and vague wording amount to a poorly designed bill. This is a Free Trade matter, not a matter of democratic freedom. The structure of the passport should be listed to simplify confusion. The strength of this is infinitely less than significant and the wording of it is so vague that nothing will be done as a result.

Poor construction should not be accepted just because people vote yes out of habit.

I agree with poor construction (ICly that is). It means the Government can go about abusing the populace at will without actually violating anything.