NationStates Jolt Archive

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
(A) NOTING that a person who is a national of a state with membership of the United Nations, henceforth known as the UN, is a national of that Member State and not a 'citizen of the UN'.

(B) NOTING that a state may have more lenient immigration and foreign labour policies, and this document merely sets a minimum standard and article (G) can be waived if wished.

(C) RESPECTING the impact immigration has upon a nation's social and economic system, and attempting to limit said impact to a minimum.

(D) DEFINING a worker as a person who is employed by another for a minimum of 25 hours per week, and given financial remuneration.

(E DEFINING establishment to be when a self-employed person resides and sets up their own business in another state and a service to be any activity that is offered by another for remuneration, i.e. services of industrial character, commercial character (including tourism), craftsmen or professionals.

(F) AFFIRMING that any person who is a national of a UN State, fulfils the terms outlined below and has a valid passport has the right to reside in another UN State for employment, to offer services from another UN State, or to travel to another UN state to receive a service.

(G) ANY person intending to take advantage of this regulation and intending to reside:
(i) Must acquire a residence permit for the relevant State, which will last at least 5 years if permanent or the duration of temporary work.
(ii) If the State has no arrangements for providing free health care to non-nationals, must have health insurance.
(iii) If a worker, must have proof of employment awaiting them, unless a reasonable period to find work is permitted.
(iv) If seeking establishment, must have an independently reviewed 5 year business plan.

(H) ANY person wishing to provide services:
(i) Must be based within another UN State.
(ii) Must have qualifications equivalent to or greater than those mandated by the State where the services are to be offered.
(iii) If the State has no arrangements for providing free health care to non-nationals, should have health insurance.

(I) AFFIRMING that full time education qualifies as work.
(i) Instead of (G)(i), a student must apply for an Education Residence Permit, lasting the duration of the course.
(ii) Extension terms are set by the relevant authority.

(J) MANDATING that an employer must treat all UN applicants as equal and assume qualifications from different UN institutions as equivalent unless they can procure evidence to the contrary.

(K) RECOMMENDING UN states relax visa rules between each other.

(L) MANDATING residence for a worker or established person's life partner and dependants.

(M) RECOMMENDING the granting of permanent residence to a worker or established person, their life partner and dependants if after 10 years they retire within the state concerned.

(N) PERMITTING a state to refuse applications to provide a service for reasons of public policy or morality, unless said service is already provided by nationals of that state.

(O) PERMITTING a state to refuse entry and permits to reside on the basis of an applicant's character for reasons of public policy or morality, unless they have taken no action against their own nationals.

(P) PERMITTING expulsion of persons from an enemy state at times of war, provided they are given safe passage to a neutral state.

(Q) EXCLUDING any occupations connected to governing the state and its security i.e. political positions, the armed forces, high level civil servants.

__________________________________________
I'm not too good on the proposal format...
Well, it's written, rip it to shreds if you wish.

ooc: Yes, I borrowed heavily from the EU treaties and ECJ cases...but it's one way to revise EU law isn't it?

(B) RESPECTING the impact immigration has upon a nation's social and economic system, and attempting to limit said impact to a minimum.
(H) MANDATING that any citizen intending to take advantage of this regulation and intending to reside:
(i) Must apply for a residence permit from the embassy of the state they intend to work in. This must be renewed every 5 years.
(L) MANDATING that an employer must treat work applicants from throughout the UN as equal and assume qualifications from different UN institutions as equivalent unless they can procure evidence to the contrary.
(N) RECOMMENDING a 6 month period of residence for citizens to look for work.
(P) RECOMMENDING the granting of a permit for permanent residence to a worker or established person, their life partner and dependants if after 10 years they retire within the state concerned.

Where is there respect in this if you MANDATE that we set the time to 5 years as we set it to a single year. Then you MANDATE that we look all over for workers rather than within our own citizenship..

Since outsiders don't complete National Service in our nation they are not allowed to become citizens of our nation thus can't hold jobs here unless they go through a three year program plus a year of military training to get them up to date to meet our requirements to do so.. Thus if anyone wants to go throught this then they can apply and if they are found suitable can come do the three years.

Also to apply for citizenship here they can not hold citizenship in another nation and ours also.. They also must complete National Services training of three years before they become a citizen plus the year military training.

We don't base citizenship on one just being born here or coming here and living for a given period of time they must earn it. Those born here serve for six years in National Service before the are full citizens with all Titles and Honors that go with that. This means once they finish National Service at age 16 they are productive workers in our nation providing all the services we need to funcition.

Also we do not issue passports but to those who travel outside our national borders into nations we don't have active travel treaties with.. that one is not reguired to travel betweent them and our nation. We do require them for entry of persons not a citizen of our nation.. Citizens of our nation carry special identification that allows them to go and come.. only inside our borders and those nations we consider open to them in the three regions we trade with. Since most of those nations are not in the UN we have separate treaties with them on travel between nations.. also on allowing them to work in our national/regional borders. Thus again this proposal would hinder our current relations with nations outside the UN that we have dealt with for centries in peace.

I didn't say citizenship, they remain citizens of their own state. It was also only a recommendation to allow those who reach retiring age to continue to recide. It's a little unfair to say 'sorry, you don't work any more, go back to where you belong.'
The whole point is to say that you don't have to be a citizen of State A to work in State A, and the decision between persons X & Y isn't based on whether Y lives in State B, but is Y as qualified for the job?
Are you saying, every single person living in Zeldon is a Zeldonian citizen? That's isolationasism in the extreme, makes me wonder why you choose to be working in what is essentially a co-operative international body.

To continue on this line, you do not have to actively seek citizens from other UN states, this measure should only concern you if a non-Zeldonian citizen chooses to apply.

On the 'respecting', well I could have said they are entitled to all the welfare benefits etc of the new state. Having people working for you, buying your products, raising taxes for you etc seems to me a good trade off for allowing them to live and work.

The fact you currently require renewel every year is irrelevant, if this ever became more than a draft you would have to change it to every 5 years. That is what would happen with any resolution, if your laws contradict the resolution takes precedence.
However, would 'every year for the first 5 years, and every 5 years thereafter' be more to your taste? If they've been fine for 5 years, there's no reason to suspect they'd be a problem in the next 5.
Of course I didn't say it couldn't be renewed before 5 years expired, just at least every 5 years. So I wouldn't complain about loopholes unless you want them closed.

Does that answer all your questions/quibbles?

Hmm, re-reading I just realised I forgot to put in anything about the grounds for refusal of a residence permit. I could of course omit it, and leave another nice loophole.

Edit: saves another post.
Also we do not issue passports but to those who travel outside our national borders into nations we don't have active travel treaties with.. that one is not reguired to travel betweent them and our nation. We do require them for entry of persons not a citizen of our nation.. Citizens of our nation carry special identification that allows them to go and come.. only inside our borders and those nations we consider open to them in the three regions we trade with. Since most of those nations are not in the UN we have separate treaties with them on travel between nations.. also on allowing them to work in our national/regional borders. Thus again this proposal would hinder our current relations with nations outside the UN that we have dealt with for centries in peace.
I fail to see the relevance or problems.
How would this affect your relations with non-UN nations at all?
To enter your nation, non-Zendonians require passports. Fine. I have said anyone using Article...(G) I think...has to have a passport.
I believe you do not have trade treaties with majority of UN nations, so Zendonian citizens wanting to work or receive services there would need a passport, which you would issue them with anyway. It is only the UN nations which you have trade treaties with that would be affected.

You need to put in some allowed exceptions for wartime, and maybe for other 'national security' matters...

This doesn't mean we have to let foreigners in, does it?

If they're better than a Grueby at the job they have applied for, I'm afraid so.
Or if they want to come as tourists and receive the services of hotels, restaurants etc.

Ah...did I forget to say services includes those to tourists?:p

And thank you to the St Edmundian representative, I knew I'd forgotten something.

ooc: btw, is not 'St Edmund' and 'pimp' one of the most contradictory combinations?

This doesn't mean we have to let foreigners in, does it?

(G) AFFIRMING that any citizen that fulfils the terms outlined below has the right to reside in another UN state for the purpose of employment, or to offer 'services' from another UN State, or to travel to another UN state to receive a 'service'.

EDIT: You know, after reading over everything again. I'm not really sure what it does...

Er...it's a human rights issue, what do all HR regulations do?
A person can work anywhere he likes in the UN basically, and if he thinks he's been passed over because he's a different nationality or got a degree in say Compadria instead of Xenoland, he can sue the Xenolandian company for discrimination. Or he can set up his own business in Xenoland. Or he lives in perhaps Gruenberg and runs a metalworking company. He can set up a branch in and take orders from Xenoland, while being in the main in Gruenberg.
Or even simpler Xenoland has a good surgery reputation and a person from one of your neighbours can't afford his own country's private care so he travels to Xenoland and has your cheaper private healthcare.

I like the idea. Just a few thoughts:

Strength : Strong (?)
I'd say Significant.

(H) MANDATING that any citizen intending to take advantage of this regulation and intending to reside:
(i) Must apply for a residence permit from the embassy of the state they intend to work in. This must be renewed every 5 years.
Could the renewal time not be left to states to determine?

(iv) For the purpose of establishment, must have a 5 year business plan that has been independantly reviewed.
Why the need for a business plan? Oh, and it's 'independently'.

(J) ANY citizen wishing to travel to receive services from another UN state must pay for any services they receive.
I think you need to be careful here. Perhaps this needs to state more generally that the worker is not treated any more favourably than a citizen of the host nation?

(K) AGREEING that full time education qualifies as work, despite being unpaid.
(ii) Extensions due to changes of course must be applied for within 3 months of being aware of a change in situation.
Again, shouldn't the timing be up to the host nation?

Couple more thoughts - I think you should emphasise that nations can choose to adopt softer conditions. Ecopoeia, for instance, will let anyone in pretty much regardless of intentions. It's corporations that we shut the door on. Also, could you explain what you mean by 'health insurance', please? I think I'm confusing myself with the terminology.

(D) DEFINING a worker as a person who is employed by another for a minimum of 16hrs, and given financial renumeration.
Clarification needed here. I presume you mean per week.
Under the current definition, I'm an employee of my neighbours as a result of babysitting a few years ago.,

Unless I'm missing something, I don't like this. It seems like it could completely swamp a rich country with immigrants, leaving poor countries barren wastelands. Nations have to be able to decide how many and who they let across their borders, not just for their sovereignity, but because there are so many variables that cannot be addressed at the UN level, like economic condition, rate of influx of immigrants, population growth rate, etc..

And thank you to the St Edmundian representative, I knew I'd forgotten something.

There's no "i" in it, the term's just "St Edmundan".

ooc: But of course we only get to choose the names, not (except by limiting our numbers of posts) the Jolt-applied labels... I did consider switching to another of my nations for posting before crossing that threshold, but then forgot to do so in time...

Sigh. The old NS forum names were so much less demeaning than the 'leet' drivel on Jolt.

Sigh. The old NS forum names were so much less demeaning than the 'leet' drivel on Jolt.Trust me. I bitched about that before the move when we were still beta testing things. We'd change it if we could but... well... getting the bloody thing to work is difficult enough, it seems.

Ahem.

Trust me. I bitched about that before the move when we were still beta testing things. We'd change it if we could but... well... getting the bloody thing to work is difficult enough, it seems.

Ahem.
Oh, I believe you. I could forgive the car crash aesthetics of this godforskan forum if it functioned properly, but... ugh. I'm no fan of emoticons at the best of times, but Jolt's leave me wishing I had the designers' addresses...

IC: Darsomir could never accept this as an unnecessary risk to our population.

OOC: Looks mainly alright. Depending on what happens with various quorumed resolutions, you may well not have to deal with Darsomir's objections.

Edmundan. I apologise if I have caused offence.

I have made a few changes from your recommendations, hoping they satisfy you.

Why the need for a business plan? Oh, and it's 'independently'.It's to prove that the applicant knows what he is doing. A good entrepreneur should have one any way.

I think you need to be careful here. Perhaps this needs to state more generally that the worker is not treated any more favourably than a citizen of the host nation? It's to stop 'health tourists' getting free operations basically. Amended it slightly:(J) ANY citizen wishing to travel to receive services from another UN state that would be free under that state's welfare scheme must pay for any services they receive. to makes it obvious its a welfare issue. If someone wants to give say free oranges on the beach the tourist does not have to pay.

Also, could you explain what you mean by 'health insurance', please? I think I'm confusing myself with the terminology. If a worker migrates to State B where they have free health care but reserves it only for nationals the worker can afford to pay. It is safer to require it as a standard than to make it change from state to state.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't like this. It seems like it could completely swamp a rich country with immigrants, leaving poor countries barren wastelands. Nations have to be able to decide how many and who they let across their borders, not just for their sovereignity, but because there are so many variables that cannot be addressed at the UN level, like economic condition, rate of influx of immigrants, population growth rate, etc.. It shouldn't, and richer nations tend to need migrant workers for the lower end jobs nationals prefer not to do. It also gives them a chance at studying at better universities and returning home to improve their state. Additionally workers need to find the job first.

(A) NOTING that a person who is a national of a state with membership of the United Nations, henceforth known as the UN, is a citizen of that member state and not a 'citizen of the UN'.

The term "citizen" is often seen as implying more rights than the term "national" does, and there are definitely nations within the NSUN where not all of the local "nationals" are actually recognised as being "citizens": I'd suggest changing that clause to the following version _

A. NOTING that a person who is a national of a state with membership of the United Nations, henceforth known as the UN, is still only a national of that member state and not a 'citizen of the UN'.

I think what I'm trying to say is that room should be allowed for hosts to be more generous with the terms if they so wish. Ecopoeia should be allowed to overlook the absence of a business plan, for instance.

(H) MANDATING that any citizen intending to take advantage of this regulation and intending to reside, unless a State chooses to waive such necessities:
I believe that change helps that set of conditions. Point out any others you want loosening.

It should be noted however, that this gives a right if those conditions are met, if they do not meet the conditions but as a nation you wish to give them the right anyway there's nothing to stop you.

and changed with the St Edmund's suggestion.

Thanks. It's shaping up nicely.

ooc: I have to er...really really *cough*start to*cough* revise for my exams, and, as I'm not a delegate anyway, if someone would like to take control they're welcome to. If you see me online feel free to shout at me.

ic: I'm afraid I've been called away to help draft some national legislation. Hope to speak to you soon.

Bringing Up My Proposal...
I guess no-one's interested?
I rearranged the new clauses into a logical order.

Available for Adoption.
One month old proposal.
Black and white, long worded.
Well trained and laid out.
Suitable for delegates.
Prefers non-isolationist nations.
Can you offer this proposal a new parent?

We do not need extra workers right now. Following the prediction that by 2040 all work can be replaced by robotics we are adjusting to a post-scarcity society. We have made social choices about what work will be done by robotics and what will be done by people. We currently do not need free passage of extra workers into our society. This legislation will cause more problems than it fixes for us. We have already had to send back many extra workers to their homelands because many types of labor they were performing were replaced by robotics and technicians.

With the 25 hour requirement combined with Guaranteed Basic Income in our society more people will cross the border taking advantage of our advanced medicine and educational systems. The 25 hour requirement is a problem. Many societies have a 40 hour work week. We would be seeking advanced technical workers of all backgrounds not general businesses like what is proposed here. We would like greater control of the type of worker which we need to enter our society-- engineers, teachers, advanced degree holders, etc.

If it is a robot v human candidate and the robot wins on abilities the robot wins on abilities. You just can't prevent a sentient robot from another state applying!

We would be seeking advanced technical workers of all backgrounds not general businesses like what is proposed here. That is not what is proposed. Any job except those in government and national security is subject to this. So you would have to consider applicants for engineering, plumbing, roadsweeping, teaching, gardening, receptionist etc positions.

If you don't offer jobs with 25hr schedules, no-one can apply for them. You don't have to create them.:rolleyes:

This isn't a 'they want to come here, you have to offer them a job' proposal.
This is a 'you have a job position lying empty. If they apply for it you have to consider them. If they are then offered a job they can apply for a residence permit that can only be turned down for exceptional reasons.'

With the 25 hour requirement combined with Guaranteed Basic Income in our society more people will cross the border taking advantage of our advanced medicine and educational systems.
(ii) If the state charges non-nationals for health services, must have health insurance.
On the education...it doesn't say your education has to be provided free, just that they are permitted to study there. Nice loophole for ye.

Bringing Up My Proposal...
I guess no-one's interested?
I rearranged the new clauses into a logical order.

Available for Adoption.
One month old proposal.
Black and white, long worded.
Well trained and laid out.
Suitable for delegates.
Prefers non-isolationist nations.
Can you offer this proposal a new parent?


I'm too busy: Maybe somebody in the 'Reclamation' forum might be interested, especially if you post it there?

*goes hunting for this mythical forum*
Never heard of it before...how long has it been around?

*goes hunting for this mythical forum*
Never heard of it before...how long has it been around?

A few weeks, I think: Ausserland founded it, so there should be a link from their ambassador's sig...

A few weeks, I think: Ausserland founded it, so there should be a link from their ambassador's sig...
Actually, Waterana founded it. It was founded around the beginning of March; IIRC.

A person can work anywhere he likes in the UN basically, and if he thinks he's been passed over because he's a different nationality or got a degree in say Compadria instead of Xenoland, he can sue the Xenolandian company for discrimination.

I doubt this would ever happen. Compadrian degrees are recognised for their rigour and the committment required, no one would ever be rejected if he/she possessed one. Ever! :p

On a more serious note:

(J) ANY citizen wishing to provide services:
(i) Must be based within another UN state.
(ii) Must have qualifications equivalent to or greather than those mandated by the state where the services are to be offered.
(iii) Must apply for permission to the state to perform said service, unless it is emergency care as a health practitioner.
(iv) Should have health insurance.

Could sub-clause iv be said to describe something akin to an RL E-111 system, where a foreign national is allowed to seek treatment based on a medical card, common to the national health-care system of his/her country and the country he resides in (if he resides abroad)? Also, in countries like Compadria, where health-insurance isn't required (due to a single payer system in healthcare) is this clause still applicable?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It is a 'should' clause so if it is unnecessary they needn't obtain insurance.
I'll rewrite it to match the other one however, just make things easier.

ooc: funnily enough, while I've had an E-111 and know it provides me with free health-care I'm not sure how they work.
I think that's really something for a whole new proposal, as it isn't just anyone working or offering/claming services, it's anyone who sets foot in their country.

Edit: the changed phrase: (iv) If the state charges non-nationals for health services and has no other arrangement for providing health care to non-nationals, should have health insurance.
As opposed to the 'must' version for the workers and establishment.

*goes hunting for this mythical forum*
Never heard of it before...how long has it been around?

Reclamation was founded by Waterana and opened to the public in February. Here's a link for your convenience. You'd be most welcome.

Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thanks Randomea and to answer your question about E-111's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E111_%28health_form%29

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Actually, Waterana founded it.


OOC: Oops!

I didn't say citizenship, they remain citizens of their own state.Then explain this section below to me as see it does say citizen:
(O) RECOMMENDING a 6 month period of residence for citizens to look for work.
Here CITIZENS don't have to wait six months or live here six months to find work. They have been here since age five at least and finished basic education in our schools. Then at age ten start National Service for six years where they train for the military and for a trade that will lead to them taking a job when they finish or they enter military or police or medical servies which come under our national defense system at age sixteen. At the time they enter national service they have limited rights of citizenship -- such as own land/property and get married as well as vote for officers of state -- and when they complete national service they have full rights of citizenship -- can run for office as officer of state along with some others--. Believe you need to change the term 'citizens' to visitors or immigrants or something else.

As we look at a citizen being from our nation those who come into it are either visitors or immigrants thus come under different laws than citizens when it comes to what they might do in our nation.. I know you define citizen but it not complete and made to fit this proposal only where believe it may have been defined some place else before this. Thus having a problem with your use of the term citizen in certain sections.. like above..

(D) DEFINING a citizen for the purpose of this regulation as any person declared a national of an UN member state and owning a current passport issued by the Government of said state.My concern here is that even if you so state this is only for this proposal it will become the set definition of 'a citizen' in the UN.. As didn't find another resolution to define it and even repealed Citizen Rule R8 left a definition out of it. As I have a problem you using the word citizen in certain lines in your proposal like one noted about as could be missread later. As one might question what a 'national' is later since it not defined here.. thus adding to the propems of this setting a bad definition of 'a citizen' or incomplete definition of one.

On the five year part believe that if we do it every year we are complying with the five years as it simply says do it every five years but doesn't say we can't do it in the four year between that. Just pick which years are the ones to apply under the proposal.

Also the part about insurance may be a problem as what if the company that issues if won't pay for the services given then who does. As can see no insurance agency signing up a person to go get treatment for a known health problem thus it would only be on accidents. Thus they can find reasons for not paying full cost. Thus you end up with a legal issue across national borders to collect payments.

Then explain this section below to me as see it does say citizen:

Here CITIZENS don't have to wait six months or live here six months to find work. They have been here since age five at least and finished basic education in our schools. Then at age ten start National Service for six years where they train for the military and for a trade that will lead to them taking a job when they finish or they enter military or police or medical servies which come under our national defense system at age sixteen. At the time they enter national service they have limited rights of citizenship -- such as own land/property and get married as well as vote for officers of state -- and when they complete national service they have full rights of citizenship -- can run for office as officer of state along with some others--. Believe you need to change the term 'citizens' to visitors or immigrants or something else.

As we look at a citizen being from our nation those who come into it are either visitors or immigrants thus come under different laws than citizens when it comes to what they might do in our nation.. I know you define citizen but it not complete and made to fit this proposal only where believe it may have been defined some place else before this. Thus having a problem with your use of the term citizen in certain sections.. like above..

My concern here is that even if you so state this is only for this proposal it will become the set definition of 'a citizen' in the UN.. As didn't find another resolution to define it and even repealed Citizen Rule R8 left a definition out of it. As I have a problem you using the word citizen in certain lines in your proposal like one noted about as could be missread later. As one might question what a 'national' is later since it not defined here.. thus adding to the propems of this setting a bad definition of 'a citizen' or incomplete definition of one.
*sighs* It doesn't matter how you define a citizen of Zeldon outside this proposal. That is a question of national legislation. The reason I defined citizen as it is, is that without a passport this proposal would be useless in most countries. Surely it is obvious what a 'national' is?
Your issue is with the permits...well if they are nationals of Zeldon they're hardly going to need permits to reside in their own nation. I'm not using 'immigrants' because it has to be emphasise this is only for those who are nationals of a UN country. Those residing in a UN state who are from a 3rd party state do not get the benefit of the proposal.

On the five year part believe that if we do it every year we are complying with the five years as it simply says do it every five years but doesn't say we can't do it in the four year between that. Just pick which years are the ones to apply under the proposal. I've said this already! If you want it annually you can have it annually. It is a recommending clause. If you want me to make it 'no earlier than every 5 years' you're going the right way about it.

Also the part about insurance may be a problem as what if the company that issues if won't pay for the services given then who does. As can see no insurance agency signing up a person to go get treatment for a known health problem thus it would only be on accidents. Thus they can find reasons for not paying full cost. Thus you end up with a legal issue across national borders to collect payments.
...do you not have the concept of Health insurance in Zeldon? I suggest you do some reasearch before you make sweeping generalisations like that. There are several forms of insurance. There's insurance against accidents. There's long term insurance which allows you to claim up to a certain amount of money annually for surgery, dental, optical and similar healthcare. There's also insurance for the dangerously ill, where after a few years the companies will pay lump sums for every year you live. Not normally offered to anyone other than the terminally ill it is a gamble some companies think is worth taking.

And I can't afford to add any more clauses. It's already 200 words over with the ones I've added.

Rearrange, snip and tuck.
3485 characters including spaces.

As 'citizen' was bugging Zeldon so much I cut it.
Added temporary work permits.

Hope I didn't lose any clarifiers.

We stand firmly against this. We shudder to think what would happen to our wonderful land should it be overrun with dumb Kennyites looking for work.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

To use your terminology...
If the 'dumb Kennyites' are unable to find work after a 'reasonable' length of time you're more than welcome to expel them. It is not even a requirement but a recommendation that you allow them to stay for a 'reasonable' length of time to find work.

If they find a job where they are better qualified than a Cluichistani citizen then that simply means the Cluichistani is even dumber and the Kennyite was the better person for the job.

To use your terminology...
If the 'dumb Kennyites' are unable to find work after a 'reasonable' length of time you're more than welcome to expel them. It is not even a requirement but a recommendation that you allow them to stay for a 'reasonable' length of time to find work.

If they find a job where they are better qualified than a Cluichistani citizen then that simply means the Cluichistani is even dumber and the Kennyite was the better person for the job.

There is no fear that they would supplant Cluichstani workers, just that they would be in our nation at all. *shudder*

The problem here is the people of Zeldon consider this our 'home' and want to decide on our own who comes in and visits us or does the washing, cooking, windows, floors, and whatever needs to be done. Thus for the UN to say we need to let outsiders in or consider them is a violation of our home. We have laws set up for citizenship as well as for visitors and imigrants and don't need the UN to tell us how we should apply them.

We also believe that one takes care of their own family first then deals with the rest of the world. As we educate our citizens to be effective and productive we have no need for outsiders to come in and clean our toilets and windows.

Also on education, we believe that each nation needs to spend funds on their own education system so that their citizens don't need to use our system for one. The same goes for working places as if your nation has factories for them to work in they don't need to come looking here for work. Also one health care in any nation if your government builds hospitals and staffs them then there is no need for people to come here when they can get it at their 'home'.

While we spend funds on education they use funds for weapons systems and such that we feel threatened by, so remove those and have all spend funds on education and health issue. I know weapons factory means jobs but those working in them need the other things so balance things and give them those also. Don't make my nation a welfare state so some other nation can have a stronger military force because they won't spend funds on education and health.

Perhaps you should think it a compliment that people would want to attend your universities, as they'll be paying for their education I'm not sure what's to complain about.
Concerning establishment and services, if your nation is so racist that they dislike all foreigners all they have to do is not go to that particular plumber, doctor etc. If it's not economically viable they'll go home.
The only one that could therefore annoy you is workers' rights. All you have to do then is make sure you have better candidates from Zeldon. If you don't, hard luck.


You know this piece of legislation has no advantages for my state, it's 100% tax, so no corp. would want to come, free health, free education, and lots of tourism. So I'll have plenty of freeloaders. But it's the principle that matters.

I support this idea. I stand behind it one 100%. and i urge all of my fellow members of the United Nations body to help push this draft to the floor for a vote. because every last hard working person in all nations need alot of support right now....

if your nation is so racist that they dislike all foreigners


This nation is not racist. What we want it first to see people finding what they need where they live so that they don't come disturb us for it. This idea of send them over there because things are screwed up here means things get screwed up over there. Thus those who work hard to make things better over here face problems when others come to take what they work for and pay nothing for it. This opens the door to so call freeloaders thus we want the ability to keep them out before them come in and are a problem not after they are here and we have problems.

Let me see if can make this simple... I build a house and put in all the things I want to make my life better. Along comes somebody who has not worked a day in their life or had things but lost them due to their own neglect. Why should I let them in my house to use my hot tub, toilet, watch the TV? All individuals (in this case nations) have the same things presented to them that allows them to make choices that provide things their citizens want and need. Thus if an individual makes the wrong choices why should I have to let him come in and abuse me because I made the right ones and have what they want or had and lost.

Here we see them taking what we work for and using it only until it broken then they move on and we end up losing in the end.. Make them fix the reason they need to come over so they don't have to come over and abuse us and what we have. We select where we live because we can and don't want to deal with certain groups of people and issues.. This is why we don't have one government for all. Individuals want individual things so they go out and get them and then work to protect them from those who would abuse them.


Cape Cod.. I'd look hard at this one as it will only mean your workers have to compete with others for their jobs.. also pay extra because of laws that will need to be put into place to deal with others coming in and creating more problems. Example now your schools will have to teach more than one language because of all the outsiders coming in. Thus your workers will pay more in eduction taxes, and companies will need to hire people who can speak more than one language.. So who wins here.

The only way to help workers in one place it to provide jobs for them there that are equal to ones some other place. Also provide them with education and health care at home so they stay home and work there. Letting them move where they want only moves the problem and causes a breakdown in the system at the new site. So when it broken they move on and on and on leaving a mess behind them. Fix the problem give them no reason to move all over to find jobs, education, or health care.

I don't see how your analogy really works...but I'll try and give it a go.

I'm using a hotel as opposed to house as it fits better.
You get your hotel. Inside it you have things as you like it to be.
Outside your neighbours decide they like your hotel too and knock on the door. They offer to help clean etc and you pay them for it. They then pay you to rent a room. They also pay you for the use of the tv - unless you offer its use for free.
You have a daughter who used to get pocket money for helping around the hotel. She doesn't have this job any more now the neighbours have moved in. She could either throw a tantrum, which will just be annoying, or go and learn how to cook to show how she's better at helping than the neighbours.
Then there's the neighbours who knock on the door and offer a gardening service. They won't be there all the time but often enough. Nor are they based in your hotel. They don't expect anything other than money.

There'll be more competition, but competition tends to raise standards. I can't work establishment into this analogy though. Unless they bought out a few shares in the hotel.

Regardless of house, hotel, or nation. If the things one needs are provided where one lives then they have no need to go elsewhere to get them. Education and Health Care need to be provided in all nations not just a few and at the same level. Thus citizens of each nation are given equal rights to them and don't have to go looking for some place to find them. Don't break something and just leave it then go take it from somebody else. Make the individual fix it or do without don't make the person who works hard and takes care of things pay for anothers faults or neglect.

Letting outsiders into a nation means that nation has to adjust to meet the needs of these outsiders in some ways. They also have to consider the health issues of their own people due to the possiblilty of a virus being spread by outsiders into the people. Then there is housing needs and other needs. Also consider dietary needs of outsiders compared to natives. Do you want canibals to bring their lunches with them or get it in your nations resturants? You don't just let outsiders come into your house, hotel, or nation. They have to meet some standards you set and you don't have to change those as long as you apply them the same across all who come in. Thus if you say want to smoke MJ then don't come into my house, hotel, or nation.. go some place it legal to do it. If you want to carry a weapon and don't check with us then you can go do time in our prisons. If you can't understand our language then don't try to use that as an excuse when you get caught with drugs or a weapon. Thus there is more to imigrating between two nations than just having a passport.

Also the best way to end them doing this is give them what they want where they are. Thus they don't crowd others out trying to get what they want. If one can do it then all can if they just work at it not look for somebody to take it from. As this only ends in breaking the system so that nobody can use it.


Also you already show faults here as citizens/daughter lose their job. Then your brother/citizen has lost the gardening job. So now they have to go to another neighbor to find work.. thus pushing more out to move on. thus a cycle is started. I would consider that a person say builds a hotel and hires family because that is what they wanted to do thus they would not hire outside help unless it something family could not do. Educate the family/citizens to do the job keep them working and thus paying taxes. Don't drive them out. As outsiders are visitors and the reason one builds a hotel and expects visitors to be just that and pay big bucks to walk around nude chewing on a human arm firing their 45s. Not weeding the garden or cleaning toilets or washing windows; as you have family/citizens doing that and getting paid a part of those big bucks that will end up in taxes.

When citizens of my nation visit your nation they put to work your citizens.. thus build your tax base by putting it to work. When they imigrate into my nation they are moving to become a citizen in that they will be paying taxes based on work they do here. They are not visitors who will leave when it gets to cold to run around nude and no more meat on that bone and they run out of ammo. Same for my citizens who visit your nation, they come home.. Imigrants for the most part end up staying and mixing into your population as citizens, thus are no longer citizens of my nation they left now yours. As for the eduction system, if your nation hasn't established a good education system it needs to do so thus your citizens will have the skills to do what is needed to be done in your nation. The best way to insure they know how to do it right is make sure the education system teaches it as you want it taught. Thus sending them outside means you have to take what somebody else deals out. Even if it's considered the best in the area you desire it may teach things you don't want. Thus you run the risk of them learning to much and not wanting to come home so you just lost your worker or they come home and think because they went off to school they can now run things or get paid more than anyone else.

I sense big phobia.

No-one lost the gardening job. There was no-one else doing it. The daughter improved herself and either got her job back or just worked alongside but in a more advanced capacity.

Of course anyone in your state has to abide by your laws. That's a ridiculous argument and I can't believe you brought it up.

No-one's suggesting anything's broken. In fact it could be the other way around. There could be a huge gap in Zeldon's market for say...laundry baskets. Obviously your hotel needs laundry baskets. Your neighbour's hotel already has a big surplus of laundry baskets and one of the neighbours decides to move into your hotel with his laundry baskets. He fills a gap, and everyone profits accordingly.

Why would there be any health risks? The fact people move around is independant to this unless you deny tourists too. Any health issues would be of your own making - bad housing, sanitation, over crowding etc. If the immigrants had any sense they'd stay away from you. And there's one simple point - if there isn't any work, no-one will go.

Cultural exchange...ever thought people don't study out side their own state for the level of education but for the culture, to learn the language more easily, the experience?
ooc: I can illustrate this myself. I've done 6mths in a high school in America. Did I need to? No, I had my qualifications already. I'll be spending one year in a university in Sweden. Will it be a better university? I really doubt it.

So please stop clutching at straws. Economically this will be better for you. Culturally it will be better. How far it affects your welfare system is up to you.

Why would there be any health risks?So no nation has healt problems thus the issue of them coming to my nation for treatment of health problems is mute. I believe one of the reasons you consider as a reason for travel is to recieve treatment for a healt problem. Thus would it not be better to provide the health care closer to the problem than spread it..

The fact people move around is independant to this unless you deny tourists too.We don't deny tourists that have money and want to spend it to put our citizens to work. Those that come here to work and take jobs from our citizens thus resulting in them having to look some place else we don't call tourist we call imigrants. Tourist come to spend money and put people to work.. Imgrants come to earn money and work. If they have skills we need then they are welcome provided they meet the standards we set to hold those jobs and all other rules imposed on workers in our nation.

Any health issues would be of your own making - bad housing, sanitation, over crowding etc.Not allowing others to come in and creating just this type problem would be the duty of national governments. As not restricting imigrants and controling tourist or visitors would create just what you say it does. Thus even our own citizens would be leaving for greener pastures.
If the immigrants had any sense they'd stay away from you. And there's one simple point - if there isn't any work, no-one will go.And as stated above our own would leave also .. if there was no work.. or problems in the nation. Thus why move others in to a bad deal instead fix it. Provide Jobs, Education, and Health Care in your nation so your citizens stay home. Not come looking for it here creating problems here. You keep making a mess of things you will run out of clean places to go unless you start cleaning up the messes.

If one nation can have a stable work force then any nation can. Same with a health care system and education system. Why should one; because they work hard to have what they need and want have to give up things to others who can work also and have the same things.

As far as workers from outside coming in we see that as a need and deal with it as the issue comes up. Thus hired labor is brought in to do certain jobs and paid then they leave. While they are here they are respected and treaded as we would any citizen.. as long as they respect us and our laws.


OOC: As far as a phobia. This is role play so I enjoy playing devils-advocate sometimes and may seem what I'm not in real life. I may like a proposal fully but in game take an oppisition to it.