NationStates Jolt Archive

Im against Diplomatic Immunity as a whole. I see it as just another excuse by other countries for their acts on foreign soil. This resolution says that the host country can take a diplomate to court, only for certain reasons itself, but then makes it almost impossible to make a case by keeping it that you can not search their property. This is just sending the message to diplomates to hide the gun or weapon they used, or the drugs their importing, in their homes, cars, or any other property. This makes diplomates the number one black market sellers. They have the perfect storage, their property, they have the perfect transport, their property, so Diplomatic Immunity is not something that most, if any country, would want. It allows to many complications. If you do not want other countries commiting felonies or supplying anti-government militias then you should vote against this resolution.

Actually, you can just not let any diplomats into your country.

Or, you can watch the diplomats 24/7 and arrest anyone who buys black-market stuff from them. And then deport the diplomat and shut down his corrupt embassy.

Or, you can READ THE THREAD THAT DEBATES THE PROPOSALS, WHERE YOUR QUESTION WAS ANSWERED DAYS AGO!

Thank you.

Oh wait, you did post in the debate thread, three minutes before copy-pasting it into this thread. Why do you consider your point needs a thread to itself?

Welcome to the forums, by the way.