NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted this proposal for the safety of ALL the nations citizens. I think its fair and significant and its not even controversial. Obviously it doesn't apply to certain nations who have closed their borders to refugees but it's just incase that IF a nation does, this will be applied. The proposal is on the second last page. Please give your support. Thank you.

REFUGEE TESTING
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Irish Brotherhood

Description: All refugees who wish to reside in another country must get tested for deadly and contaiges diseases before being admitted fully into that particular nation.

There have been many reports that refugees are being admitted into certain nations without being screen tested. Some of these people have brought with diseases not present in that nation and are passing these epidemics. One of these is AIDS/HIV. This proposal aims to stop this with thorough testing.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 145 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 18 2005

I can't really support the shutting out of citizens due to the fact that they have HIV or AIDS.
Is that what your proposal is advocating, or have I misread as I usually tend to?

Well it would be up to that particular nation. What im proposing is that they at least get tested. Then the country can do what it wants. The problem is that alot of these refugees do not know that they have these diseases until its too late. At least if they get tested before entering, that country at least knows about it. Then they can act on what they think is best.

I looked. I object. It's divisive, inhumane and dangerous, not to mention immoral.

Mandatory testing? No thanks, we'll do without that.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: nice to see such a speedy response to the British Conservative Party's latest nefarious scheme...

OOC: I object to be called a British Conservative, especially when I'm an Irishman. It's a low blow.

Anyway, how is it Immoral? It's a must. These people (generally) carry all sorts of diseases that can be passed on by many different methods. It's a proposal which protects the health and safety of your citizens. What is immoral about that? I would like a more detailed response Til Enca.

OOC: Did I say you were a British Conservative? I merely noted the similarities.

OOC: Ok, keep your thong on.

It's too much a violation of our human rights charter. We would never support mandatory testing; we are not going to discriminate against the ill.

It's too much a violation of our human rights charter. We would never support mandatory testing; we are not going to discriminate against the ill.

Its not discriminating against the sick. Read the damn thing! All it's doing is protecting YOUR citizens from deadly and contaiges diseases. I'm NOT suggesting that because they are sick they cannot enter. That will be up to that particular nation. All this proposal is asking is that everyone be tested for health reasons. Its a simple and reasonable proposal.

Its not discriminating against the sick. Read the damn thing! All it's doing is protecting YOUR citizens from deadly and contaiges diseases. I'm NOT suggesting that because they are sick they cannot enter. That will be up to that particular nation. All this proposal is asking is that everyone be tested for health reasons. Its a simple and reasonable proposal.

It is pointless for us to be forced to test them when we will not use that information for anything. We will not divert money to this ridiculous cause, which is currently illegal in our nation. We educate our refugees on diseases and treat them as we treat our own citizens. Education is far more effective than futile testing.

Whats illegal in your country? Protecting your citizens? I didn't say that the information would not be used for anything. I said it was up to that nation whether or not to use it. A nation has every right to know if an epidemic is entering the country or not. You might want that problem within your nation. But I dont.

While I agree that people should be tested before entering a different country, I disagree that it should only be for refugees and that it is limited to HIV/Aids.

I would be more concerned with an illness that is spread through the air, or by basic contact - such as Hep C.

I think that if they are sick in a way that can only spread through blood contact, sexual contact, or they just have a disease that does not spread, they should still be allowed into the country.

Proper protocals should be set up for the testing of such illnesses, and proper treatment provided if possible.

It is unfair to just kick them back out and say Sorry, your diseased.

Courtney

OOC: I object to be called a British Conservative, especially when I'm an Irishman. It's a low blow.

Anyway, how is it Immoral? It's a must. These people (generally) carry all sorts of diseases that can be passed on by many different methods. It's a proposal which protects the health and safety of your citizens. What is immoral about that? I would like a more detailed response Til Enca.

These people, as you so politely put it, are on the run for their lives, and generally in fear of being rejected because they will be killed in all sorts of horrible ways. We should welcome them and try to help them, rather than accusing them of bringing disease in to our nation and imprisoning them before they are deamed "clean" (because even though you don't mention it, you would have to quarrantine them to test them, which equates to imprisonment).

Further - if you were really serious about protecting the health of the citizens you would require mandatory testing for every citizen of every nation. Including those who come back from holiday in another nation. But you are only doing it to "foreigners" which implies discrimation and not a little xenophobia in the proposal.

Whats illegal in your country? Protecting your citizens?

Violating the right to privacy and the right to not have to subject yourself to medical treatment of any kind. Our laws extend rights to non-citizens as well.

I didn't say that the information would not be used for anything. I said it was up to that nation whether or not to use it. A nation has every right to know if an epidemic is entering the country or not.

You are exaggerating and creating a problem where there is none. If you want to do this - do it. Don't drag us into this.

You might want that problem within your nation. But I dont.

Then do with them as you please. Why try to force us to go along with your futility and xenophobia?

OOC: Ok, keep your thong on.
Oh, I will, don't worry. Unless I get a good offer.

While I agree that people should be tested before entering a different country, I disagree that it should only be for refugees and that it is limited to HIV/Aids.

I would be more concerned with an illness that is spread through the air, or by basic contact - such as Hep C.

I think that if they are sick in a way that can only spread through blood contact, sexual contact, or they just have a disease that does not spread, they should still be allowed into the country.

Proper protocals should be set up for the testing of such illnesses, and proper treatment provided if possible.

It is unfair to just kick them back out and say Sorry, your diseased.

Courtney

Im going to get a brain tumor if I have to repeat this again. I didn't say they couldn't enter that country if they do have a contaiges disease. I said it was UP TO THAT PARTICULAR NATION. The whole point of it is that the country should have a right to know of what is entering their borders. Secondly, I didnt restrict it to HIV/AIDS. That was only an example.

The whole point of it is that the country should have a right to know of what is entering their borders.

A right nations already have, and which ours refuses to be part of. What you are doing is trying to force us, and that's our beef with this.

You want to test refugees to your country? Do so. Leave us out of it.

These people, as you so politely put it, are on the run for their lives, and generally in fear of being rejected because they will be killed in all sorts of horrible ways. We should welcome them and try to help them, rather than accusing them of bringing disease in to our nation and imprisoning them before they are deamed "clean" (because even though you don't mention it, you would have to quarrantine them to test them, which equates to imprisonment).

Further - if you were really serious about protecting the health of the citizens you would require mandatory testing for every citizen of every nation. Including those who come back from holiday in another nation. But you are only doing it to "foreigners" which implies discrimation and not a little xenophobia in the proposal.

First of all, we already have mandatory testing in my nation. everyone is tested once a year for diseases. This is why I proposed this. Secondly our nation will gladly treat the refugees. We just want to test them first. Our borders are open to anyone (within reason) who accepts our laws. And this is one of them.

A right nations already have, and which ours refuses to be part of. What you are doing is trying to force us, and that's our beef with this.

You want to test refugees to your country? Do so. Leave us out of it.

There's 2 words for that....TWO-FACED! I get forced proposals on me every week.

There's 2 words for that....TWO-FACED! I get forced proposals on me every week.

And they usually have some sort of international importance.

Yours, as so many of your other proposals, has no raison d'être on an international level, and you constantly fail to give arguments for why it should have. Had this been a fortification of the rights of a nation to test refugees if they so choose, then it would have been of international importance. As it looks now, it is but some sort of ego tripping wish of yours that we do as you do.

And, no, while that is completely allowed, it is nowhere near a reason for anyone to support this wretched proposal.

I believe I have given my argument very clearly. You just choose not to take it into consideration. Liberals, like you, usually do that.

I believe I have given my argument very clearly. You just choose not to take it into consideration. Liberals, like you, usually do that.

"The whole point of it is that the country should have a right to know of what is entering their borders."

A right nations already have. Your proposal has nothing to do with this, and you have so far not come with anything substantial as to why anyone should support this futility. All your proposals so far have have been poorly written, and your argumentation for them has been even more pathetic.

Oh, and we pride ourselves in our status as a liberal country. If you think that you calling us that is anything but a compliment, you are gravely mistaken.

First of all, we already have mandatory testing in my nation. everyone is tested once a year for diseases. This is why I proposed this. Secondly our nation will gladly treat the refugees. We just want to test them first. Our borders are open to anyone (within reason) who accepts our laws. And this is one of them.

Yes - but the proposal doesn't indicate that. The proposal just says you have to test foreigners. Not people from your nation who go on holiday, or people who work in hospitals, but foreigners.

How is this not discriminatory at best, and xenaphobic at worst?

Im going to get a brain tumor if I have to repeat this again. I didn't say they couldn't enter that country if they do have a contaiges disease. I said it was UP TO THAT PARTICULAR NATION. The whole point of it is that the country should have a right to know of what is entering their borders. Secondly, I didnt restrict it to HIV/AIDS. That was only an example.

Obviously if you had to explain it, than it isn't properly done in your proposal. I will not support a poorly written proposal that leaves gaps in information or wide loop holes.

I will go through your resolution point by point and show you the errors you need to fix in order to please the people of Jeianga:

Description: All refugees who wish to reside in another country must get tested for deadly and contaiges diseases before being admitted fully into that particular nation.

Contagious is spelt wrong. Big loop hole, considering this is your main topic.

I don't like how this proposal is limited to refugees. A refugee is defined as:

- an exile who flees for safety

- a person who is forced to leave his or her home and seek safety outside of his or her own country

- A person who flees to a foreign country to avoid persecution in his/her own country or area. See also: environmental refugee.

What about immigrants? Just because they plan to move to your country without leaving their origional country out of fear does not reduce the risk of contagious diseases.

In this initial description you are forcing this resolution on people, and in your reply you have told me that this is an option for nation's to adopt. Which is it and Why bother trying to pass a resolution if it is optional?

There have been many reports that refugees are being admitted into certain nations without being screen tested.

What reports? On what nations? Screen tested for what diseases? I still can't understand why anybody would write a report that refugees aren't being tested ~ each nation would know what their current laws regarding that matter are - so, I will just assume that this is a load of crap.

Some of these people have brought with diseases not present in that nation and are passing these epidemics. One of these is AIDS/HIV. This proposal aims to stop this with thorough testing.

If AIDS/HIV is only an example, than you just threw it in as a scare tactic. I don't like those, and generally ignore a proposal when they resort to scare tactics to "prove" a point.

I would like to know what epidemics have been spread in NationStates, in what nations, and how it was proved to be a refugee and not a tourist or just another immigrant.

Hard facts, please, don't just make them up - especially for one that would force a person to submit to an examination, or blood test.

I'd like to see what you plan to do about it. What happens to the person after we screen him? What are we screening for? What precautions do you suggest? How will this be funded? What if the persons religious beliefs contradict your forced screening? Will any health care be provided to these people should they have a disease? If so, where will the money come for this?

Whats the problem....you only want to know whats coming in to your country so you can treat it....or eliminate it .....

If that was the case then it would not be just foreigners.

You can catch things on holiday, but if you are a citizen you apparently don't need to be tested to come back in to your own country. Despite the fact you might be spreading disease.

This proposal is biggoted, xenaphobic and (depending on what nation you live in) racist to the extreme.

If it was truly an attempt to stop people bringing diseases in to the nation then it would require tourists to be tested, it would require anyone who leaves the country and comes back to be tested.

But no - it doesn't. And you have to ask yourself what the proposal is really seeking to achieve if it doesn't even address those basic points.

If AIDS/HIV is only an example, than you just threw it in as a scare tactic. I don't like those, and generally ignore a proposal when they resort to scare tactics to "prove" a point.


I am surprised that it doesn't like HIV/AIDS to terrorism as well.

I think it needs reworking before it can even be considered as a serious proposal. That said, I hate it and will do my best to gun it down like that boatload of refugees that Irish Brotherhood's navy sank. Yeah. He picked that response. Don't believe me? Go look him up. Irish, that's xenophobia you're showing there. If you hate outsiders and the UN resolutions that much, maybe you should withdraw from the UN.

I said it was UP TO THAT PARTICULAR NATION. The whole point of it is that the country should have a right to know of what is entering their borders.
My nation does have this right! and we do check! This is not a matter for the UN, it is for individual governments to do. Opposed

Secondly, I didnt restrict it to HIV/AIDS. That was only an example.

True you did not, but you singled it out! Your example adds nothing to the proposal so why did you put it in?

I believe I have given my argument very clearly. You just choose not to take it into consideration. Liberals, like you, usually do that.
Please refrain from insults.
It's just a proposal, it would be a bit sad if this escalated into a flamewar.

OOC: Considering this is what they do with SARS, I don't see much of a difference, although I agree that targeting just refugees is wrong.

OOC: SARS is in the real world, not NationStates - which is why I want to see some *NationStates* proof of the spread of contagious diseases and how it was connected to only refugees. That is pretty specific question, unlikely to have an answer.

IC: the idea of this proposal is good, the specifics are not.

Oh, I will, don't worry. Unless I get a good offer.


Good is subjective, please clarify! :)

OOC: SARS is in the real world, not NationStates - which is why I want to see some *NationStates* proof of the spread of contagious diseases and how it was connected to only refugees. That is pretty specific question, unlikely to have an answer.

IC: the idea of this proposal is good, the specifics are not.

I'm aware of that- I put that in OOC. I was just pointing out that what this proposal suggests shouldn't be all that foreign to everyone.

"I think it needs reworking before it can even be considered as a serious proposal. That said, I hate it and will do my best to gun it down like that boatload of refugees that Irish Brotherhood's navy sank. Yeah. He picked that response. Don't believe me? Go look him up. Irish, that's xenophobia you're showing there. If you hate outsiders and the UN resolutions that much, maybe you should withdraw from the UN."

First of all, If my nation happens to sink a ship that enters our waters AND refuses to turn around after many calls, then that is not our problem. Secondly if that ship happens to have hundreds of refugees on board....so what. They ignored calls to turn their ship around. How did the Irish Brotherhood know that the ship was friendly or enemy? It could have been a trick. You don't know. If you ignore the warnings, you die. Simple as that. Also, I never said once that I hated the UN resolutions. I actually defended the UN when the argument arose about national sovereignty. My beef is at you lot who think the sun shines out of your arse. You go on about how my proposals are not of international concern. Yet I can name many of NSUN Proposals that have nothing to do with international concern. For example:

Resolution #3 - Education For All
Resolution #28 - Free Education
Resolution #43 - Legalise Euthanasia
Resolution #59 - The 40 Hour Work Week
Resolution #61 - Abortion Rights

This is only a snippet of what I found in the archives. All of which should should have been determined by each nation. Its got nothing to do with whether or not its an international issue or not. You are not voting on these issues with you heads. Your voting with your heart and your political views. I do the same. But at least I can admit to that. So please don't make up pathetic excuses about 'international issues'. We all know its got nothing to do with that. We're just politically different.


"A right nations already have. Your proposal has nothing to do with this, and you have so far not come with anything substantial as to why anyone should support this futility. All your proposals so far have have been poorly written, and your argumentation for them has been even more pathetic."

And Fass, if my proposals are so 'pathetic' how did Resolution #36 - Freedom of Humor slip through the net? Is that what you call a serious proposal? An 'international issue'? Not in my books its not. You just don't like me and my nation because of our political views. Instead of consulting me and giving me tips on how I could rework our proposals, you make snide remarks, trying to make others feel lower than yourself. It doesn't work.

Thank you very much for listening,

Tommy Ó Maoléagain, President of The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood

The fact I dislike this proposal is nothing to do with it being not of international concern. It is because it is clearly discriminatory and xenaphobic.

Good is subjective, please clarify! :)
Absolutely; I shan't know until I've received an offer that... interests me.

Goodness, isn't it hot in here?