[SUBMITTED] Immigration Numbers Neut

[SherpDaWerp]

Title: Immigration Numbers Neut

Description
While the vats push out new @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ one after another, the immigration rate has slowed to near zero. The reason? Citizens of @@NAME@@ must be de-sexed to prevent accidentally creating a child outside the government-sanctioned vats, and prospective immigrants are reluctant to undergo the procedure.
Validity
Has mandatory neutering (from 123.5 and maybe 358.5/6); Immigration; possibly Adult

Option 1
"Look, I want to be a citizen of @@NAME@@ as much as anyone," starts @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, one of many long-term international "tourists" living in @@CAPITAL@@. "But there's no way I'm letting you neuter me, it's insane! It's like you don't trust us - contraceptives and abstinence can work just as well to prevent births as neutering, and I know what I'd prefer. Once you waive that requirement from the citizenship process, I'm sure immigration will pick right back up again."
Validity
All
Effect
immigrant children excel in biology classes

Option 2
"C'mon now!" shouts a @@MAN_2@@ balancing on a tightrope outside your window. "If we're expecting them to lose something of themselves, we should give them something in return! What could be fairer? They lose their childbearing ability, but in return, a nice cash bonus! Not too much, mind you, but just enough to help them get settled in the @@TYPE@@. Money makes the world go around - these complaints will dry up soon enough with some @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to sweeten the pain."
Validity
All
Effect
cash-strapped immigrants get tied up in knots over government handouts

Option 3
"That's ridiculous!" argues straight-faced de-sexing official, @@RANDOMMALENAME_3@@, sitting with his legs neatly crossed. "No special treatment or monetary incentives - if @@HE_1@@ wants to become a citizen, @@HE_1@@'s gotta follow the rules, same as the rest of us! Any changes to the system and you'll have people pestering you to extend them to natural-born citizens within the hour! That said, it might be worth looking into less invasive methods of preventing childbirth - I'm sure there would be less complaints if the law stipulated compulsory contraceptives, rather than surgery."
Validity
All
Effect
new arrivals' bags are always filled with drugs

Option 4a
Exactly 59 minutes later, one of your older staffers stops you in the hallway. "What's this about stopping the neutering program?" @@HE_4@@ asks, making @@RANDOMMALENAME_3@@ sound oddly prophetic. "I hope you're keeping the vats - some people love not having to be pregnant - but my partner and I would love to have a kid naturally, the way evolution intended. If you could revoke the requirement for @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ to be de-sexed, it would be a dream! Although, you're gonna have to provide reversal surgery too. Violet knows this isn’t going to be cheap..." @@HE_3@@ looks forlornly at @@HIS@@ crotch.
Validity
Leaning atheistic
Effect
surgeons fix more tubes than the average plumber

Option 4b
Exactly 59 minutes later, one of your older staffers stops you in the hallway. "What's this about stopping the neutering program?" @@HE_4@@ asks, making @@RANDOMNAME_3@@ sound oddly prophetic. "I hope you're keeping the vats - some people love not having to be pregnant - but my partner and I would love to have a kid naturally, as Creation intended. If you could revoke the requirement for @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ to be de-sexed, it would be a dream! Although, you're gonna have to provide reversal surgery too. Violet knows this isn’t going to be cheap..." @@HE_3@@ looks forlornly at @@HIS@@ crotch.
Validity
Leaning religious
Effect
surgeons fix more tubes than the average plumber

Title: Immigration Numbers Neut

Description
While the vats push out new @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ one after another, the immigration rate has slowed to near zero. The reason? Citizens of @@NAME@@ must be de-sexed to prevent accidentally creating a child outside the government-sanctioned vats, and prospective immigrants are reluctant to undergo the procedure.
Validity
Chain to 123.5 and possibly 358.5/6 (see Information); Immigration; possibly Adult

Option 1
"Look, I want to be a citizen of @@NAME@@ as much as anyone," starts @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, one of many long-term international "tourists" living in @@CAPITAL@@. "But there's no way I'm letting you neuter me, it's insane! It's like you don't trust us - contraceptives and abstinence can work just as well to prevent births as neutering, and I know which one I'd prefer. Once you waive that requirement from the citizenship process, I'm sure immigration will pick right back up again."
Validity
All
Effect
vat-born children learn plenty of biology from their immigrant peers

Option 2
"Hey, we're just following your orders, @@LEADER@@!" argues straight-faced de-sexing official, @@RANDOMMALENAME_2@@, sitting with his legs neatly crossed. "If @@HE_1@@ wants to become a citizen, @@HE_1@@'s gotta follow the rules, same as the rest of us! If you agree to this, you'll have people pestering you to extend this to natural-born citizens within the hour! That said, it might be worth looking into less invasive methods of de-sexing - I'm sure there would be less complaints if pills were an option instead of surgery."
Validity
All
Effect
nearly every new arrival comes with a suitcase full of drugs

Option 3a
Exactly 59 minutes later, one of your older staffers stops you in the hallway. "What's this about stopping the neutering program?" @@HE_3@@ asks, making @@RANDOMMALENAME_2@@ sound oddly prophetic. "I hope you're keeping the vats - some people love not having to be pregnant - but my partner and I would love to have a kid naturally, the way evolution intended. If you could revoke the requirement for @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ to be de-sexed, it would be a dream! Although, you're gonna have to provide reversal surgery too. Violet knows this isn’t going to be cheap..." @@HE_3@@ looks forlornly at @@HIS@@ crotch.
Validity
Leaning atheistic
Effect
surgeons fix more tubes than the average plumber

Option 3b
Exactly 59 minutes later, one of your older staffers stops you in the hallway. "What's this about stopping the neutering program?" @@HE_3@@ asks, making @@RANDOMNAME_2@@ sound oddly prophetic. "I hope you're keeping the vats - some people love not having to be pregnant - but my partner and I would love to have a kid naturally, the way God intended. If you could revoke the requirement for @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ to be de-sexed, it would be a dream! Although, you're gonna have to provide reversal surgery too. Violet knows this isn’t going to be cheap..." @@HE_3@@ looks forlornly at @@HIS@@ crotch.
Validity
Leaning religious
Effect
surgeons fix more tubes than the average plumber

---

Information
The chaining and validity here is a bit dodgy. This issue is guaranteed to chain to 123.5; could possibly chain to 358.5/6, and probably won't chain to 486.5 or 1028.3. I've listed all those options here:

123.5 "That guy has no sense of vision." says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Demographics. "Why waste this invention on healthcare or cookery when so much more could be done! Sterilise everybody and grow new people in vats! Disease will be a thing of the past! When they break, just grow new parts! It adopts the industrial method to population management, something we've needed for a long time. And now that we finally have the right technology, I say we do it!"

358.5 "I have a better idea", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of 'Children 4 U' Inc. "How about we ban all forms of sexual conduct and have all newborns neutered? I know it's radical, but people will calm down once they learn that we can create their perfect child. This is the way of the future - Design Your Own Baby! And if the government gets involved, think of the money you'll make back off it. That's a great deal @@LEADER@@, trust me."

358.6 "I have a better idea," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a bitter and perpetually single minister. "How about we ban all forms of sexual conduct and have all newborns neutered? I know it’s radical, but people will calm down once they learn that we can create their perfect child. This is the way of the future - Design Your Own Citizens! The government can create a compliant population of Communist workers, rather than selfish capitalists and young women who always want to date rich businessmen rather than hard working ministers. Anyway... that’s a great deal @@LEADER@@, trust me."

486.5 "Or we could completely regear our population for total war and utopian health," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Alternative Solutions. "Vat technology and intensive psychological conditioning can promise a wonderful future devoid of weaklings who are vulnerable to disease. With enough government investment, I can promise a new generation of fearless, asexual grunts eager to die for the glory of @@LEADER@@."

1028.3 "Excuse me, some of us don’t want kids." cries well-known career-woman, @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@. "I’ve worked hard to get to where I am in my life right now, and I will not sacrifice my career and my ambitions to breed some snotty-nosed kids. Pregnancy is hard work too; who needs it? I hear that new vat-technology is doing wonders in other places. If you desperately need new grunts, why don’t you just grow some and leave us out of it?"

As you can see, 123.5 says "sterilise everybody", which clearly is relevant to this issue. 358.5/6 says "sterilise newborns", which might be relevant but it's an odd assumption that immigrants fall under "newborns". Finally; 486.5 and 1028.3 mention nothing at all about sterilisation, so it's an unlikely chain.

My intention was to explicitly make a path to "optional" no-biological-reproduction with vats (Option 3), in short because I'm sick of having "biological reproduction is prohibited" on my policies. 1340.4 also does that (thanks FJS!), but this issue has been in the works since before that was encountered, and I feel like this is still an interesting issue, once you get past the validity weirdness. As part of that, I'd like to make this as broadly applicable to Vat-Born Citizens nations as possible.

Yes, I'm aware that admin has to make the policy visible, but I figured with an issue to implement (and cancel - watch this space) such a policy of optionality, as well as the fact that optionality technically makes the wording of the current policy incorrect, would be enough for me to make a successful case. Ambitious? Yes. But ever since policies were added, the line has been "editors code them, so write a good issue and the policy gets added". I figure I might as well give this a shot.

[Australian rePublic]

This begs the question- what happens to tourists who give birth in nation?

[SherpDaWerp]

This begs the question- what happens to tourists who give birth in nation?

Tourists giving birth would be another angle by which I could approach this, however that's a lot closer to #1340 - people giving birth outside the vats, contrary to your instruction.

In Australia IRL, the child is only given citizenship if one of their parents also have citizenship or a work/student visa, otherwise the parents have to get a visa for the child.

In America IRL, the child is (I think) given citizenship, "provided the person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.". I think that means the parents have to be there on work visas, similar to Australia? Either way, America has also cracked down on "birth tourism" by restricting visas to pregnant tourists anyway.

It might be worth having a separate issue about birth tourism (if that doesn't exist...), and then adding an option for Vat People nations, but I don't think it's worth re-working this issue.

[Australian rePublic]

This begs the question- what happens to tourists who give birth in nation?

Tourists giving birth would be another angle by which I could approach this, however that's a lot closer to #1340 - people giving birth outside the vats, contrary to your instruction.

In Australia IRL, the child is only given citizenship if one of their parents also have citizenship or a work/student visa, otherwise the parents have to get a visa for the child.

In America IRL, the child is (I think) given citizenship, "provided the person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.". I think that means the parents have to be there on work visas, similar to Australia? Either way, America has also cracked down on "birth tourism" by restricting visas to pregnant tourists anyway.

It might be worth having a separate issue about birth tourism (if that doesn't exist...), and then adding an option for Vat People nations, but I don't think it's worth re-working this issue.

A lot of tourists have given birth in the USA, resulting in their children accidently obtaining USA citizenship, so, at least up until now, anyone born in anywhere in the USA is automaticslly a citizen, whether or not they actually wanna be (which kind of sucks, as American taxes apply to Americans living outside of the USA). Isn't that the fourteenth ammendment. RE Australia. I'm pretty sure that the child is automatically granted citizenship upon birth, (irrespective of the parents' citizenship status) if the child would other wise be stateless, but don't quote me on that

[Pythaga]

Yes, anyone born on US soil is a US citizen thanks to the 14th amendment, even if their parent(s) are here illegally. This is part of the reason why the immigration debate in the US is so complex: parent is here illegally, but child is a citizen, do you want to split them up? This sort of thing could make an interesting issue, assuming it hasn't already been done.

(which kind of sucks, as American taxes apply to Americans living outside of the USA)

Any US citizen can fully renounce their citizenship at any US consulate or embassy if they so desire.

In terms of the draft itself:

Citizens of @@NAME@@ must be de-sexed to prevent accidentally creating a child outside the government-sanctioned vats, and prospective immigrants are reluctant to undergo the procedure.

Does everyone receiving a long term work or study visa get neutered, or only naturalized citizens? If it's only for citizens, what's stopping a pair of international students from having a kid, and how would that kid be viewed by the government?

[SherpDaWerp]

A lot of tourists have given birth in the USA, resulting in their children accidently obtaining USA citizenship, so, at least up until now, anyone born in anywhere in the USA is automaticslly a citizen, whether or not they actually wanna be (which kind of sucks, as American taxes apply to Americans living outside of the USA). Isn't that the fourteenth ammendment. RE Australia. I'm pretty sure that the child is automatically granted citizenship upon birth, (irrespective of the parents' citizenship status) if the child would other wise be stateless, but don't quote me on that

*quotes the post*

Yes, anyone born on US soil is a US citizen thanks to the 14th amendment, even if their parent(s) are here illegally. This is part of the reason why the immigration debate in the US is so complex: parent is here illegally, but child is a citizen, do you want to split them up? This sort of thing could make an interesting issue, assuming it hasn't already been done.

(which kind of sucks, as American taxes apply to Americans living outside of the USA)

Any US citizen can fully renounce their citizenship at any US consulate or embassy if they so desire.

Interesting debate y'all, but birth tourism and how best to deal with that would be better as a whole issue, rather than working it into this one.

In terms of the draft itself:

Citizens of @@NAME@@ must be de-sexed to prevent accidentally creating a child outside the government-sanctioned vats, and prospective immigrants are reluctant to undergo the procedure.

Does everyone receiving a long term work or study visa get neutered, or only naturalized citizens? If it's only for citizens, what's stopping a pair of international students for having a kid, and how would that kid be viewed by the government?

Basically, my assumption is that the government decision in 123.5 means "All citizens must be neutered."

Avenues for new citizens to come to @@NAME@@ could be

1. newborn children of people who are already citizens
2. people gaining citizenship as immigrants from elsewhere
3. newborns born to visa-having parents

Framing around the first one is a non-issue, as newborns of citizens are (or should be) coming sterilised straight from the vats.
Framing around the second one would set up an issue, as adults from another country are old enough to have formed opinions on bodily autonomy and not want to be sterilised.
Finally, framing around the third would also be an issue, although I imagine there wouldn't be many people who have kids (who would then be citizens) in @@NAME@@ without any intention of gaining citizenship for themselves, which would fall under the second premise.

Basically, I've gone with the second premise because it's more broadly applicable. (no need to bring in birth tourism, or the possibility of accidentally having a kid while on student/work visas.)

[SherpDaWerp]

Bump from page 4.

Changes are underlined - basically, just making it more clear that Option 1 isn't advocating for immigrants to get substantially different treatment. They just have to obey the "no reproduction" rule without being neutered, while natural-born @@DEMONYM@@ obey the rule with neutering.

[The Free Joy State]

Interesting issue.


With the additional validities of immigration being allowed, automatic chaining would be a problem (as any issue automatically chained cannot have any validities that were not present on the previous issue). If the issue needs to be about immigration, however, that's something for IEs to figure out -- should it be picked up for editing.

I do like this issue.

Although, sterilising with pills seems to be... stretching things a little.

I think you need another option. One option to keep traditional sterilisation -- perhaps offset by a grant to help newcomers settle into @@NAME@@ ("you lose something, you get something -- what could be fairer"), and have this option to "investigate" kinder options ("perhaps we could do something with pills") as a less concrete option.

[SherpDaWerp]

With the additional validities of immigration being allowed, automatic chaining would be a problem (as any issue automatically chained cannot have any validities that were not present on the previous issue). If the issue needs to be about immigration, however, that's something for IEs to figure out -- should it be picked up for editing.

The way I envisioned it was a complete split up of the "Vat-Produced Infants" policy, which currently has sub-decisions like "mandatory neutering" or "no biological reproduction" that could just as easily be their own policies (if not visible gameside, then certainly trackable backstage). 123.5 could create a "mandatory neutering" policy, which this issue would be checked against (and possibly #1340 given it involves people having kids). Then the "no biological reproduction" policy would be introduced with most vat-people options, and removed by option 3 here and 1340.4.

Although, sterilising with pills seems to be... stretching things a little.

I think you need another option. One option to keep traditional sterilisation -- perhaps offset by a grant to help newcomers settle into @@NAME@@ ("you lose something, you get something -- what could be fairer"), and have this option to "investigate" kinder options ("perhaps we could do something with pills") as a less concrete option.

Plenty of drugs advise impotence as a side effect, and contraceptives are a well-known thing too. I had thought it would be a treatment-over-time thing, not a single "take this pill and never have kids again". That said, I'll still write a new option - it could tie into the current Option 2's argument about "no special treatment".

[The Free Joy State]

With the additional validities of immigration being allowed, automatic chaining would be a problem (as any issue automatically chained cannot have any validities that were not present on the previous issue). If the issue needs to be about immigration, however, that's something for IEs to figure out -- should it be picked up for editing.

The way I envisioned it was a complete split up of the "Vat-Produced Infants" policy, which currently has sub-decisions like "mandatory neutering" or "no biological reproduction" that could just as easily be their own policies (if not visible gameside, then certainly trackable backstage). 123.5 could create a "mandatory neutering" policy, which this issue would be checked against (and possibly #1340 given it involves people having kids). Then the "no biological reproduction" policy would be introduced with most vat-people options, and removed by option 3 here and 1340.4.

It's worth mentioning that any policies -- if it's felt they are needed -- are more likely to be backstage policies that are tracked for issue purposes than frontstage policies.

But please don't let that dissuade you.

Although, sterilising with pills seems to be... stretching things a little.

I think you need another option. One option to keep traditional sterilisation -- perhaps offset by a grant to help newcomers settle into @@NAME@@ ("you lose something, you get something -- what could be fairer"), and have this option to "investigate" kinder options ("perhaps we could do something with pills") as a less concrete option.

Plenty of drugs advise impotence as a side effect, and contraceptives are a well-known thing too. I had thought it would be a treatment-over-time thing, not a single "take this pill and never have kids again". That said, I'll still write a new option - it could tie into the current Option 2's argument about "no special treatment".

I discounted contraceptives, as the best are only 99% effective (so aren't technically forms of sterilisation). Another option to make this option more grounded would be to mandate contraception.

[-Astoria-]

"neut"?

[Honeydewistania]

"neut"?

Neut = Neutered (sterilized)

[SherpDaWerp]

It's worth mentioning that any policies -- if it's felt they are needed -- are more likely to be backstage policies that are tracked for issue purposes than frontstage policies.

But please don't let that dissuade you.

I intend to go bug the techies about making a frontstage policy once I've finished writing issues about this topic It'll take quite a bit of luck and probably a fair dash of convincing, but any chance is better than none. In any case, I quite like this issue - it's probably my best work so far, so I'd love to see it published regardless of policies. I've heavily self-edited before posting and the product is much better for it.

I discounted contraceptives, as the best are only 99% effective (so aren't technically forms of sterilisation). Another option to make this option more grounded would be to mandate contraception.

Right. There's potentially even more concerning methods of drugging people into sterilisation, but I think I'll go with mandatory contraception for the next draft. It sounds the best in my head, and it captures the essence I was originally thinking of - using existing drugs rather than inventing wholly new untested stuff.

---

"neut"?

Neut = Neutered (sterilized)

Well, to be incredibly pedantic, neut in this context means none (as in no immigrants) but the word is deliberately related to "neutered", given the topic of the issue.

[SherpDaWerp]

Draft 2!

New option per Joy's comments above, and formerly-option-2 is now advocating specifically mandatory contraceptives.

I'm unsure of new-option-2's effect line - my original version was "poverty-stricken immigrants happily give up their genitalia for cash" but I'm unsure of whether that's appropriate as an effect line, given class nations looking around the site might encounter it on other nations' pages. That said, there are other effect lines that tiptoe acceptability, so if someone can clarify whether that's ok or not I would be quite thankful.

[SherpDaWerp]

/bump

Just some word changes, although I'm still keen to find out whether my original idea for Effect 4 is allowable.

Absent any major overhauling, I'll aim for submission on the 1st of August.

[The Free Joy State]

/bump

Just some word changes, although I'm still keen to find out whether my original idea for Effect 4 is allowable.

Absent any major overhauling, I'll aim for submission on the 1st of August.

I wouldn't personally see any reason to block your Effect 4.

I clarify that I'm not speaking for the entire team, though.

[Minskiev]

Shouldn’t ‘as God intended’ be ‘as Violet intended’?

[SherpDaWerp]

Shouldn’t ‘as God intended’ be ‘as Violet intended’?

Hmmmm. I'm torn - on one hand, Violet isn't used 24/7 as a stand-in for God, so it could remain (and thematically, the vibe of that sentence is quite different with "Violet" vs God - Violet isn't typically implied to have had a hand in the evolutionary process), but on the other hand, the speaker goes on to say "Violet" later in the same option, which seems incongruous.

I'm of the opinion that using that joke twice in one option will be grating, so I've decided to reword it instead. Thanks for pointing that out.

/bump

Just some word changes, although I'm still keen to find out whether my original idea for Effect 4 is allowable.

Absent any major overhauling, I'll aim for submission on the 1st of August.

I wouldn't personally see any reason to block your Effect 4.

I clarify that I'm not speaking for the entire team, though.

Right. If it's not a clear-cut no, then I'll put it in my submission and let y'all debate.

[The Free Joy State]

Shouldn’t ‘as God intended’ be ‘as Violet intended’?

Handy hint: we generally use "the Creator" as a substitute for "God", in this particular sense.

[Minskiev]

Shouldn’t ‘as God intended’ be ‘as Violet intended’?

Handy hint: we generally use "the Creator" as a substitute for "God", in this particular sense.

Oh, good to know. Our Creator, then.

Yeah, as Creation intended sounds good.

[SherpDaWerp]

Last Call

Absent any major overhauling, I'll aim for submission on the 1st of August.

[The Free Joy State]

Last Call

Absent any major overhauling, I'll aim for submission on the 1st of August.

Effect two... mentioning genitals in an effect that will be seen by class nations may be tipping more to the border.

Also, no genital-chopping is involved in sterilisation.

I suggest this as a replacement:

cash-strapped immigrants get tied up in knots over government handouts

As sterilisation involves tubes being tied, there's a double meaning.

[SherpDaWerp]

Effect two... mentioning genitals in an effect that will be seen by class nations may be tipping more to the border.

Ah, it seems there's been a miscommunication. I had originally asked about an effect not from the draft, but your response must have been about the alternative that I had put in.

my original version was "poverty-stricken immigrants happily give up their genitalia for cash" but I'm unsure of whether that's appropriate as an effect line

I'm still keen to find out whether my original idea for Effect 4 is allowable.

Not that it matters, your suggestion is better anyway.

I've also re-worded the effects from options 1 and 3 to make them slightly more "punchy".

[Daarwyrth]

in biology class

It might just be me, but "in biology classes" sounds better.

sitting with his legs neatly crossed

Haha, I get what you're hinting at here, but I wonder if everyone will get it. In the context of the sentence, I think most will, but it's not impossible for men to sit with their legs neatly crossed, you know

As you can see, my two comments come down to nitpicking, which should signal that the issue draft is well-written! The issue subject is... interesting to consider, as I had not thought of the topic before reading this xD I don't have a nation that would fit for the validities this issue creates, but I bet it would be interesting to encounter it in the issue pool!

[SherpDaWerp]

It might just be me, but "in biology classes" sounds better.

They're both equally valid forms of the sentence, and I can't articulate the difference between them, but "classes" does sound ever so slightly better. Edited!

Haha, I get what you're hinting at here, but I wonder if everyone will get it. In the context of the sentence, I think most will, but it's not impossible for men to sit with their legs neatly crossed, you know

It's not impossible, no, but the most common argument for "man-spreading" is to get air down there, so it's obviously a thing that affects some dudes. Given that

no genital-chopping is involved in sterilisation

I wonder if it's worth keeping, but I think the joke is obvious and amusing enough that it should stay, despite it's potential factual inaccuracies.

As you can see, my two comments come down to nitpicking, which should signal that the issue draft is well-written! The issue subject is... interesting to consider, as I had not thought of the topic before reading this xD I don't have a nation that would fit for the validities this issue creates, but I bet it would be interesting to encounter it in the issue pool!

Thanks!