NationStates Jolt Archive

The world is a deeply divided place. In the N.S.U.N., nations and their leaders have vastly different ideas of how to manage a government, economic policy, and what kinds of rights their people have. Even within nations, there are sharp lines drawn between people of different ideologies.

If a citizen happens to be born into a specific nation, whose government has policies with which the person wholeheartedly disagrees with, that citizen should have the right to denounce his/her citizenship and emigrate to another nation that is more suitable or favorable to the person's desires and beliefs.

I.Under the Universal Immigration Law, citizens of ANY nation shall have the right to emigrate to any another nation, and shall have the right to apply for citizenship in his/her new nation.

II.Exceptions: National Governments, however, have the right to deny immigration on the following grounds:
(Note: Immigrant nation refers to the nation that the person is going to. Emigrant nation refers to the nation that the person is leaving.)

II.a.Criminal Background: If the immigrant has been convicted of a felony crime in any other nation
II.b.Suspected Criminal Background: If the government has reasonable evidence to suspect that the immigrant has engaged in a felony crime
II.c International Hostilities: If the immigrant and emigrant nations are in open hostilities, the immigrant nation may deny immigrants from the other nation.
II.d Activities Against Immigrant Nation: If the immigrant has been known to have a history of commiting acts against the immigrant nation.

III.Exceptions: National Governments have the right to deny emigration on the following grounds:

III.a. Knowledge of Government Secrets and Prior History of Releasing Such Secrets: If the person has knowledge of classified government information, and has been proven to have a past occurences of leaking such government secrest to unauthorized sources.

IV.Exceptions: National Governments must grant citizenship to immigrant citizens who apply for it, except under the following circumstances:

IV.a Naturalization Period: The immigrant must have been a resident of the immigrant nation for a specific "Naturalization Period" to be defined by each individual nation. This period is not to exceed 20 years.
IV.b History of Treasonous Activities: If the immigrant has been proven to have a history of treasonous activities against the immigrant nation, whether while a resident of the nation or another nation
IV.c Criminal Background: If the immigrant has been convicted of a felony crime in any other nation

Anybody else have ideas for exceptions?

So is this a proposal you've already written and plan to submit, or just a few thoughts about a possible proposal? If the former, it would be really, incredibly, fantastically, wonderfully, amazingly kind of you to post it.

I think that's the draft, Tex. Pretty impressive so far.
[K, gtg, but will be back later to add exceptions to the rule (such as criminal background, etc.]
In future, it's probably a good idea to have your whole idea ready before posting. This kind of thing just gets you ridiculed.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania has no real Immigration Law; all immigrants are free to enter and become members of the Republic, with all it's liberties, freedoms and responsibilities...

Yeah, sorry about that... i'm in school right now and i had to go right in the middle of the post...

Also posted this up top for new readers

The world is a deeply divided place. In the N.S.U.N., nations and their leaders have vastly different ideas of how to manage a government, economic policy, and what kinds of rights their people have. Even within nations, there are sharp lines drawn between people of different ideologies.

If a citizen happens to be born into a specific nation, whose government has policies with which the person wholeheartedly disagrees with, that citizen should have the right to denounce his/her citizenship and emigrate to another nation that is more suitable or favorable to the person's desires and beliefs.

I.Under the Universal Immigration Law, citizens of ANY nation shall have the right to emigrate to any another nation, and shall have the right to apply for citizenship in his/her new nation.

II.Exceptions: National Governments, however, have the right to deny immigration on the following grounds:
(Note: Immigrant nation refers to the nation that the person is going to. Emigrant nation refers to the nation that the person is leaving.)

II.a.Criminal Background: If the immigrant has been convicted of a felony crime in any other nation
II.b.Suspected Criminal Background: If the government has reasonable evidence to suspect that the immigrant has engaged in a felony crime
II.c International Hostilities: If the immigrant and emigrant nations are in open hostilities, the immigrant nation may deny immigrants from the other nation.
II.d Activities Against Immigrant Nation: If the immigrant has been known to have a history of commiting acts against the immigrant nation.

III.Exceptions: National Governments have the right to deny emigration on the following grounds:

III.a. Knowledge of Government Secrets and Prior History of Releasing Such Secrets: If the person has knowledge of classified government information, and has been proven to have a past occurences of leaking such government secrest to unauthorized sources.

IV.Exceptions: National Governments must grant citizenship to immigrant citizens who apply for it, except under the following circumstances:

IV.a Naturalization Period: The immigrant must have been a resident of the immigrant nation for a specific "Naturalization Period" to be defined by each individual nation. This period is not to exceed 20 years.
IV.b History of Treasonous Activities: If the immigrant has been proven to have a history of treasonous activities against the immigrant nation, whether while a resident of the nation or another nation
IV.c Criminal Background: If the immigrant has been convicted of a felony crime in any other nation

Anybody else have ideas for exceptions?

Yeah, sorry about that... i'm in school right now and i had to go right in the middle of the post...

Also posted this up top for new readers

The world is a deeply divided place. In the N.S.U.N., nations and their leaders have vastly different ideas of how to manage a government, economic policy, and what kinds of rights their people have. Even within nations, there are sharp lines drawn between people of different ideologies.

If a citizen happens to be born into a specific nation, whose government has policies with which the person wholeheartedly disagrees with, that citizen should have the right to denounce his/her citizenship and emigrate to another nation that is more suitable or favorable to the person's desires and beliefs.

I.Under the Universal Immigration Law, citizens of ANY nation shall have the right to emigrate to any another nation, and shall have the right to apply for citizenship in his/her new nation.

II.Exceptions: National Governments, however, have the right to deny immigration on the following grounds:
(Note: Immigrant nation refers to the nation that the person is going to. Emigrant nation refers to the nation that the person is leaving.)

II.a.Criminal Background: If the immigrant has been convicted of a felony crime in any other nation
II.b.Suspected Criminal Background: If the government has reasonable evidence to suspect that the immigrant has engaged in a felony crime
II.c International Hostilities: If the immigrant and emigrant nations are in open hostilities, the immigrant nation may deny immigrants from the other nation.
II.d Activities Against Immigrant Nation: If the immigrant has been known to have a history of commiting acts against the immigrant nation.

III.Exceptions: National Governments have the right to deny emigration on the following grounds:

III.a. Knowledge of Government Secrets and Prior History of Releasing Such Secrets: If the person has knowledge of classified government information, and has been proven to have a past occurences of leaking such government secrest to unauthorized sources.

IV.Exceptions: National Governments must grant citizenship to immigrant citizens who apply for it, except under the following circumstances:

IV.a Naturalization Period: The immigrant must have been a resident of the immigrant nation for a specific "Naturalization Period" to be defined by each individual nation. This period is not to exceed 20 years.
IV.b History of Treasonous Activities: If the immigrant has been proven to have a history of treasonous activities against the immigrant nation, whether while a resident of the nation or another nation
IV.c Criminal Background: If the immigrant has been convicted of a felony crime in any other nation

Anybody else have ideas for exceptions?

Just one question really. If someone wants to come in to TilEnca, for whatever reason, but has a criminal background or one of your other exceptions for not granting it, does it mean we can't let him in? Or can we chose to let him in, even if he has been a criminal? (I am just thinking that what some states define as a criminal is not what TilEnca would define as a criminal, and I would hate to keep him out because someone else doesn't like him)

Also

If we don't let him in, and we have reason to believe he is wanted for a crime in another nation, are we required to hold him before we turn him over? Cause I am not willing to do that (see above for criminal/non criminal issues).

that citizen should have the right to denounce his/her citizenship and emigrate to another nation that is more suitable or favorable to the person's desires and beliefs.
Yep. And one of the things that would make that nation more suitable would be that nation's willingness to accept migrants and refugees. We're not one of those nations.

I'm gonna play the National Sovereignty card face-up on this one. Our borders aren't open to one and all. We decide who we want and need in our country based on a lot of different factors, and I doubt seriously that a single set of international laws will provide for that. While this proposal covers a lot of ground, it leaves hundreds or thousands of unforseen holes that can be exploited. Why must we tie our hands with a single set of rules, when only we know who we want and why?

Living and working in Frisbeeteria is a privilege, not a right. We'll pick who crosses our borders to suit our needs, not to satisfy some idealist's goal of what we should be.

I'm with Fris on this one. If I want you in, you get a military escort. If I don't, you get about 400+ ships firing on you with weapons that can take out an aircraft carrier in one shot, plus at least one orbital platform armed with multiple disruptor cannons, four ion cannons, and soon to be armed with a plasma cannon. And all of that assumes you get past the mine field I'm about to install and manage to navigate in a place where something prevents all known form of mapmaking besides memorized directions worthless. Then, of course, you have to watch out for the pirates, ion storms that sometime reach enough power to blow up Mars, still-active derelicts that makes my weapons look like pea shooters, and the occasional exploration attempt that got turned into a ship of maddened marauders by how long they have been wandering around lost.

So, no, you are not welcome unless I wish you to be.

Well, in my nation y'all are welcome to come by anytime and visit with us a while. *tips hat*

Just one question really. If someone wants to come in to TilEnca, for whatever reason, but has a criminal background or one of your other exceptions for not granting it, does it mean we can't let him in? Or can we chose to let him in, even if he has been a criminal?

"II.Exceptions: National Governments, however, have the right to deny immigration on the following grounds:"
^- i made sure that it was that Nations have the right to deny immigration, but you're free to admit the person if you'd like.

You could admit him if you'd like. The planned law is to require nations to accept all new immigrants, unless an exception is present. If there's an exception, it becomes the nation's choice, and they have the right to either grant or deny.

If we don't let him in, and we have reason to believe he is wanted for a crime in another nation, are we required to hold him before we turn him over? Cause I am not willing to do that (see above for criminal/non criminal issues).

Well i guess this law doesn't really cover that... If you suspect the person of a crime, you'd just turn him back at the border, and he wouldn't be able to come into your country, and still be on the emigrant country's side of the border. Not your land, not your problem.

Hrrm wel Frisbeeteria and DemondLordEnigma... i've been thinking about that... This law is basically about giving people the freedom to live whereever they want to live. So, if you aspired to be an self-made capitalist entrepeneur but had the misfortune of being born into a communistic utopia that forced you to give up all excess profits, wouldn't you want the right to move to another nation that supported capitalism and would thus be more suited to your goals and the kind of lifestyle you want to live?

That's my philosophy, and the reason i'd like this law...

I'd understand that you wouldn't want a bunch of the "wrong" kind of people coming into your nation. If you were running an all-corporate, all-government, business-first nation, you obviously wouldn't want a whole bloc of zealous missionary immigrants moving in and trying to reform your society that you created. That's where the "II.d Activities Against Immigrant Nation" comes in. If the immigrant coming in has been shown to want to overthrow/radically change your government system, you could reject the immigrant based on exception II.d.

This also doesn't limit the things that you could do to new immigrants either. If you'd like to discourage immigrants from just coming on in and taking advantage of your resources, you could go ahead and place 2X taxes on immigrants' incomes for the first five years or something.

I guess we could also add in a clause that would require immigrants to swear allegiance to the new immigrant nation.

Anyone have other suggestions for exceptions i might need to add?

Actually, this does sound pretty good.

Hrrm wel Frisbeeteria and DemondLordEnigma... i've been thinking about that... This law is basically about giving people the freedom to live whereever they want to live. So, if you aspired to be an self-made capitalist entrepeneur but had the misfortune of being born into a communistic utopia that forced you to give up all excess profits, wouldn't you want the right to move to another nation that supported capitalism and would thus be more suited to your goals and the kind of lifestyle you want to live?

The thing is, if you were a 'self-made capitalist entrepeneur', then an ultra-capitalistic nation would probably already want you as a citizen, and thus allow you to immigrate. Likewise, a communist utopia would probably be fairly sympathetic to extreme left-wing members of other nations who wanted citizenship. Where you'd currently have trouble though, is an extreme capitalist who wants to go to a socalist nation because he thinks the market might be 'soft' enough for him to take over, or a libertarian who wants to go into another nation to undermine what he sees as a currently oppressive government.

That's where the "II.d Activities Against Immigrant Nation" comes in. If the immigrant coming in has been shown to want to overthrow/radically change your government system, you could reject the immigrant based on exception II.d.

Currently, 'II.d' states:
Activities Against Immigrant Nation: If the immigrant has been known to have a history of commiting acts against the immigrant nation.

Which seems to me to apply only to immigrant's who have actually 'commited acts against the nation'. Being a capitalist in a capitalist nation could not exactly be construed as an 'act against' a socalist nation.

The way I see it, this resolution can either be diluted to the point where it allows an individual nation the ability to excercise it's own discresion when allowing immigration (at which it becomes practically worthless, as that state exists already), or else it needlessly restricts the ability of a nation to determine it's criteria for citizenship.

For instance, a small, socalist nation with extensive social programs might be capable of functioning because it has a small, industrious, isolated population. If they were forced to allow any person who met the criteria of this resolution to immigrate, then all the people who were unable to make it into the upper class of the absolute capitalist society next door, or the fuedal monarchy on the other side, would come flooding in and put a massive strain on the social system, possibly leading to the collapse of that government.

These immigrants also need to have a good knowledge and application of the nation's language that they wish to move to. We ourselves will not oblige any foriegn national entering our country without them at least prescribing to our national language.

So, if you aspired to be an self-made capitalist entrepeneur but had the misfortune of being born into a communistic utopia that forced you to give up all excess profits, wouldn't you want the right to move to another nation that supported capitalism and would thus be more suited to your goals and the kind of lifestyle you want to live?
Sure. Fine. Just not Frisbeeteria.

Our immigration policy is simplicity itself. Nobody gets in without an invitation and a certified job waiting for them. We send scouts and recruiters all over the world, looking for talent that meets our corporate needs. We vet them, we test them, and if they pass our requirements, we hire them. They don't cross our borders until that contract is signed.

What you want us to do is create a whole new bureaucracy to handle the people we don't want. We'll have to come up with reasons, make changes to our tax code, whatever it takes to work around this silly resolution that we didn't want. The people who have to do this idiotic work to comply with this regulation will not be performing productive work in the service of our national needs and requirements - they'll be UN paperwork drones. Parasites on the body politic, as it were.

If you haven't categorized this one yet, you better make it Social Justice ("A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."). Because from our perspective, all you're doing is taking productive funds directly from our pockets and handing it to 'the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free'. Well, you put 'em up. We don't want them.

I'd understand that you wouldn't want a bunch of the "wrong" kind of people coming into your nation. If you were running an all-corporate, all-government, business-first nation, you obviously wouldn't want a whole bloc of zealous missionary immigrants moving in and trying to reform your society that you created. That's where the "II.d Activities Against Immigrant Nation" comes in. If the immigrant coming in has been shown to want to overthrow/radically change your government system, you could reject the immigrant based on exception II.d.
I realized you're missing my primary point.

Let's say you're running a business, and you need more staff. Would you hire every applicant that passed the background check, regardless of their fitness, skills, or knowledge? Are you obliged to hire them, feed them, house them, and educate their children ... just because they saw the ad in the newspaper?

That's what you're asking us to do as nations. The choice belongs to the random person, not the nation footing the bills. In case you hadn't looked lately, it's mighty expensive to support a citizen in this UN-mandated world. If we're to provide all these required services (and we do, ususally without whimpering too loudly), we're going to get a national return on investment from them. That's how Corporate States do business in our neck of the woods.

Hrrmm... I get your arguments... I guess you're right in that this law DOES have flaws...there's no surefire, "Golden Rule" that will weed out the people that are trying to bring down the system...

But then again, wouldn't the national laws of the states cover that? If you ran a communist state, and didn't want to hear any talk about allowing capitalism from either immigrants OR your own citizens, you would probably already have enacted a law limiting the free speech of residents on capitalism.

Simply put, immigrants aren't anything more special than the average citizen already residing in your nation. So if you're afraid that a "foreign" citizen might destroy or radically change your government, then theoretically, since you're governing all residents with the same laws, your "natural" citizen would have just as much capability to destroy or change your government as the immigrant.

So on that front, I would argue it won't cause any more of a problem than would potentially already exist in your nation.

But then i guess... this isn't going to fly with most people... Should I try to propose it anyway?

Hrmm... well now i'm starting to think about a proposal involving only the emigration part. So if a citizen wants out, the emigrant country has to let him leave the country. And then it's up to that emigrant to find a nation that'll take him in.

Let's say you're running a business, and you need more staff. Would you hire every applicant that passed the background check, regardless of their fitness, skills, or knowledge? Are you obliged to hire them, feed them, house them, and educate their children ... just because they saw the ad in the newspaper?

Heh... that's an excellent analogy... i see your point of view... I guess i'm more from the socialist side... i'd like to give an equal chance to all the poorer people... But your capitalist side of the argument makes a lot of sense.


The way I see it, this resolution can either be diluted to the point where it allows an individual nation the ability to excercise it's own discresion when allowing immigration (at which it becomes practically worthless, as that state exists already), or else it needlessly restricts the ability of a nation to determine it's criteria for citizenship.

That's a really good analyzation of the proposal too... I have a feeling that you're right, Tyrollia... I'm trying to think of a way for it to be useful, admitting all immigrants who have a desire to become a productive member of the immigrant country's society, but without necessarily the government picking and choosing who it wants and doesn't...

Well anyhow going to be gone for the next week or so, so i thought i might as well put it up there and see what kind of response it gets... Maybe later on i'll just do the "Universal Emigration Law" that focuses only on letting people leave.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Hrrm wel Frisbeeteria and DemondLordEnigma... i've been thinking about that... This law is basically about giving people the freedom to live whereever they want to live. So, if you aspired to be an self-made capitalist entrepeneur but had the misfortune of being born into a communistic utopia that forced you to give up all excess profits, wouldn't you want the right to move to another nation that supported capitalism and would thus be more suited to your goals and the kind of lifestyle you want to live?

If you were a capitalist dictatorial nation that has to survive in a region hostile to all forms of life and that has destroyed ships much more advanced than anything around today (yes, even more advanced than temporal tech), wouldn't you only want people who can contribute to your society and help advance it?

That's my philosophy, and the reason i'd like this law...

I'd understand that you wouldn't want a bunch of the "wrong" kind of people coming into your nation. If you were running an all-corporate, all-government, business-first nation, you obviously wouldn't want a whole bloc of zealous missionary immigrants moving in and trying to reform your society that you created. That's where the "II.d Activities Against Immigrant Nation" comes in. If the immigrant coming in has been shown to want to overthrow/radically change your government system, you could reject the immigrant based on exception II.d.

It doesn't cover the difficulties of teaching them an entire language and getting them used to the fact that they'll be living in a culture where they are always going to be the alien outsider, no matter their legal status, and where they cannot marry and have children, can only get so far in their job due to those limitations, and being looked down upon for being different. Top it all off, they are very likely to not be adaptive enough to keep up with the pace of technological advance my nation enjoys or the lack of internal social structure combined with unspoken in many areas that some cultures struggle with for centuries to define.

The fact of the matter is that I have to transport them nearly 2000 lightyears just so I can waste a bunch of money trying to adapt them to a culture that will never fully accept them and toss them in a job market that requires a rate of adaption that is simply beyond humans and hope they survive. My problem is me being forced to let them in humans on a regular basis and declare them citizens is the same as the US being forced to give voting rights to chimpanzees. And, yes, at best any humans brought in would be treated more as pets than as sentient beings.

This also doesn't limit the things that you could do to new immigrants either. If you'd like to discourage immigrants from just coming on in and taking advantage of your resources, you could go ahead and place 2X taxes on immigrants' incomes for the first five years or something.

Or just shoot them down on sight and send out hunting parties to kill them and bring back their head. If they survive on Terran, away from the civilized areas, for two years, I'll grant citizenship. Nevermind the fact that most of Terran is infirtile rock and the parts that aren't are also all part of civilization.

My problem is simple: It's a waste of time, money, and resources.

Okay... I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and true to your screenname you are an enigma, to say the least.

So, to respond to what i perceive is your objection... this proposal doesn't REQUIRE you to do anything out of the ordinary for letting an immigrant come into your nation. They show up at your border, and you let them in. You wouldn't have to go out and help them come to your nation.

As for adapting to a new nation's customs, and failing and then becoming a burden to society, i would say that it shouldn't really be a problem. Living in San Francisco, where our homeless problem is rampant, i can attest to pretty much all the homeless on our streets to being natural-born citizens who are just too lazy to go out there and get a job. In my experience, immigrants are some of the most hard-working people, because they're so desperate to thrive and usually, coming from a less fortunate environment, work hard and don't take things for granted as many natural citizens do.

But then again, that's my own view, and the policy for my own nation. The more i talk about this, the more i'm sorta coming around to your viewpoint, Friseteeria... I guess it really wouldn't be right to force people to change their immigration policies like that... Seems sensible to socialist states but contradicts the ideologies of capitalist states, I guess.

Tejasdom, you do realize my borders happen to be in space, right? Though it isn't up to date, read my factbook. The URL is provided in my sig.

Pretty much the only way you can get to my nation on purpose is if you devote thousands of ships and decades to finding it or if I guide you in.

Oh, and adapting is a problem. The best translation program I have ever heard of for an FT nation was once put to my people's language and it could only get one word out of ten with the meaning of results being lost in translation. Imagine how difficult Egyptian was before the Rosetta Stone, except in this case the language isn't dead. Then there are certain biological factors, mental factors, etc. that play into this.

Heya... sorry to bring this thread up again... been away for the last week. Does anybody know how my proposal did? Or is there any way i can check?

There is no way you can check unless someone saved a copy. It failed, so no worries.

raWR... did anyone happen to see how many it had before it closed?