NationStates

Due to the ongoing wars in neighboring countries, a recent rash of illegal immigrants have been caught at the borders of @@NAME@@, prompting many citizens to call for tighter immigration laws.

1. -> "These illegal aliens are just an eyesore with their strange customs and funny languages. Uneducated immigrants like these only worsen crime and steal valuable jobs! I say we should boot them all out on their ears and put a big fence around the country!"

2. -> We must welcome these refugees from any nation into our open arms, they are fleeing one oppressive dictatorial regime in the only way they know, we must not let them think they're jumping from the frying pan into the fire!"

3. -> "We don't have to take either extreme, all we have to do is make a TV game show out of it! We put deadly obstacles on the border and monitor it with television cameras! Those that make it across win freedom and citizenship, and those who don't, well, lets just say that our buzzards won't starve. We could call it 'Who Wants to be an Immigrant?'!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the hell would option one create the policy "No Immigration"? There's a difference between

1. Illegal immigrants
2. Legal refugees
3. Legal immigrants

Just because I don't want any old uncultured subhuman Bigtopian in my country doesn't mean I don't want Bigtopia's best and brightest coming here through the proper channels. This is an outrage. The hit my stats have taken are unacceptable. Is there no justice and reason at NationStates?

EDIT:

Guess it was already thought out, or at least amended in the past. The next issue you get after this one is No. 1167, where an earthquake breaks part of the wall, and you have the following option:

“Perhaps we could ease up on the immigration law just a bit?” advocates Zeke Fox, a long-time advisor who has a knack of creating compromises. “Instead of ‘wall’ or ‘no wall’, why don’t we turn this newly acquired gap into an official border crossing? Then any foreigner who wishes to come to our great @@TYPE@@ can go through the proper channels – controlled immigration: no riff-raff, just the cream of the crop. It will also make vacations to our eastern neighbors easier, I hear they have a great water festival this time of the year.”

This repeals "No Immigration", and as far as I can tell, reverts the stats identically.

That's kind of the point, issues are intended to have exaggerated and unexpected side effects. Like how that one issue about public library funding where if you choose to increase funding for them says that libraries now come equipped with jacuzzis.

It's sort of how the game is supposed to work.

Gandoor wrote:That's kind of the point, issues are intended to have exaggerated and unexpected side effects. Like how that one issue about public library funding where if you choose to increase funding for them says that libraries now come equipped with jacuzzis.

It's sort of how the game is supposed to work.

That's a lovable and almost agreeable exaggeration though. The other exaggerations and jokes are also fine, like "Convicted criminals are given free limo rides to jail".

But this enacting a policy in a way that makes no sense is a bit too much. Most of the issues I came across where it becomes policy have been pretty clear cut and accurate. You know it's a big enough issue, and you won't mind the policy coming from it. Here, in no way does my decision mean that I don't want immigration of any kind.

From what I can say, option 1 doesn't allow immigrants based on intelligence. It's just that the person falsely saying all immigrants are uneducated, and the policy being enacted "I say we should boot them all out on their ears and put a big fence around the country!" means that all immigrants will get out and none will get in, even if they're bright and have a lot of potential.

Also ⬇️ below

I think this is the wrong forum.