NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Political Rights of Expatriates

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

[DRAFT] Political Rights of Expatriates

Postby Boston Castle » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:34 pm

Hi everyone! Giving this whole authorship thing another go!

Check spoiler for some notes...

1. I am aware of the efforts to repeal "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance". If y'all collectively wish to repeal it, I'm not going to stand in the way of it-obviously enough people concur that there are issues with the resolution that it probably ought to be repealed anyways. That being said, I am reserving the right to work on another version of it for the future, though admittedly that replacing that res once repealed isn't a priority right now.

2. Do be aware that I will be going home in a couple of days and I don't have home internet, so do not flip out if I'm not super prompt in responding. For those of you in the WA Discord set up by IA, feel free to DM me with questions, comments, and concerns. My goal is to hopefully have this through drafting by January, but obviously, let the people of the Assembly decide when they think it's getting ready for a vote.

3. A request of sorts. PLEASE continue to do IC stuff, I know that's what we're here for. However, please be more direct in your critiques and what you would like addressed. I found it a little difficult to follow along with some stuff in the debate over "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance" and I want to make sure I'm addressing everyone's concerns/comments adequately. :)

4. Assistance in doing the fancy WA thing at the top rather than the standard box format would be fantastic. I am just not that fluent in BBCode.


Political Rights of Expatriates

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild


RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation,

UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of these communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law,

NOTICING that this deficiency in existing legislation could result in discrimination both legally-sanctioned and otherwise legally permitted, HEREBY:

  1. Defines the following terms for the purpose of this law;

    1. ’Expatriate’ as any person resident in a nation other than their birth nation provided they were i) not born in the nation they are resident in and ii) do not hold citizenship in the nation they are resident in,
    2. ’Community’ as any organization which represents, as their primary mission, a particular ethnic, religious, or linguistic group whose origin is outside of the member nation they headquarter in,
    3. ’Nation of origin’ as the nation where a person originates from;
  2. Requires member states to allow for the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying;

    1. Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,
    2. Member states may not require these political organizations laying claim to representation of specific communities to operate solely in their community of interest;
  3. Further requires that member states honor citizenship agreements as agreed upon by other member states in regards to dual citizenship, though clarifying;

    1. Member states may not deprive an expatriate of the right to citizenship in his home nation as a prerequisite for residency in the nation they plan to emigrate to; and
    2. Member states may impose differing standards for citizenship for children of expatriates and may require one parent obtain citizenship for a child born in their jurisdiction to automatically be a citizen of said member state;
  4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

    1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
    2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
    3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in.


Edit 3: Second "in regards" in Clause 4(a) changed to "relating".

Edits 2: "mandating" in Clause 3 changed to "clarifying".

Edits 1: Original 3(a) struck. New 3(b) added. "For the purposes of this law" struck from new 3(a).

Member states are required to enforce citizenship law requirements only on citizens or residents born in their nation.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Untecna
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 355
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Untecna » Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:08 pm

Boston Castle wrote:Hi everyone! Giving this whole authorship thing another go!

Check spoiler for some notes...

1. I am aware of the efforts to repeal "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance". If y'all collectively wish to repeal it, I'm not going to stand in the way of it-obviously enough people concur that there are issues with the resolution that it probably ought to be repealed anyways. That being said, I am reserving the right to work on another version of it for the future, though admittedly that replacing that res once repealed isn't a priority right now.

2. Do be aware that I will be going home in a couple of days and I don't have home internet, so do not flip out if I'm not super prompt in responding. For those of you in the WA Discord set up by IA, feel free to DM me with questions, comments, and concerns. My goal is to hopefully have this through drafting by January, but obviously, let the people of the Assembly decide when they think it's getting ready for a vote.

3. A request of sorts. PLEASE continue to do IC stuff, I know that's what we're here for. However, please be more direct in your critiques and what you would like addressed. I found it a little difficult to follow along with some stuff in the debate over "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance" and I want to make sure I'm addressing everyone's concerns/comments adequately. :)

4. Assistance in doing the fancy WA thing at the top rather than the standard box format would be fantastic. I am just not that fluent in BBCode.


RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation, Incorrect, plenty of nations block immigration and emigration.

UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of these communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law, -Cough Cough- Some nations may already do this, so don't make it necessarily apply to them.

NOTICING that this deficiency in existing legislation could result in discrimination both legally-sanctioned and otherwise legally permitted, HEREBY:

  1. Defines the following terms for the purpose of this law;

    1. ’Expatriate’ as any person resident in a nation other than their birth nation provided they were i) not born in the nation they are resident in and ii) do not hold citizenship in the nation they are resident in,
    2. ’Community’ as any organization which represents, as their primary mission, a particular ethnic, religious, or linguistic group whose origin is outside of the member nation they headquarter in,
    3. ’Nation of origin’ as the nation where a person originates from;
    That is an obvious fact.
  2. Requires member states to allow for the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying; The clarifications below contradict this statement.

    1. Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,
    2. Member states may not require these political organizations laying claim to representation of specific communities to operate solely in their community of interest;
  3. Further requires that member states honor citizenship agreements as agreed upon by other member states in regards to dual citizenship, though mandating;

    1. Member states are required to enforce citizenship law requirements only on citizens or residents born in their nation, So as long as the person in question wasn't born in their nation of current residency, the nation can defy all legislation previously passed covering citizenship law and can use it to their benefit?
    2. Member states may not, for the purposes of this law, deprive an expatriate of the right to citizenship in his home nation as a prerequisite for residency in the nation they plan to emigrate to;
  4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

    1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements in regards to their nation of origin,
    2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
    3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in. If they don't hold citizenship in the nation they live in, as referenced in the definition for "expatriates", why should they be able to vote or have full rights? They aren't a true citizen, they are more or less a resident alien. Also, see top marking.
Last edited by Untecna on Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pacifism, economic growth, capitalism, Trump, gay rights, abortion rights, birth control, stopping global warming, knowing Delaware is a real state, cheese
Buy my oil, it's quality oil
Biden, fake news, socialism/communism, constant war, old Sonic design, Nazism

News: King Alab Makda III rises to power, people are being more sarcastic, cheese is now being marketed as medicine.

Proclaimed doubleposter of AN Video Game: make an achievement

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15556
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:58 pm

Ambassador Bell looks over the Untecnan notes on his copy of the transcript before leaning forward to activate his microphone:

"The author may disregard almost all of the Untecnan commentary. I will review comments line by line.

Untecna wrote:RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation, Incorrect, plenty of nations block immigration and emigration.]


"It is not the case that nations may block emigration. Prior law protects the right to emigrate. To the extent that it deals with emigration, the author may disregard this claim."
UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of these communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law, -Cough Cough- Some nations may already do this, so don't make it necessarily apply to them.

"The author may disregard this comment, as it fails to comprehend the term 'necessarily'. Logically, it is sufficient, but not necessary, that some communities do not protect these rights. Ergo, the original source is logically correct, and the author may disregard this comment."

[*]’Nation of origin’ as the nation where a person originates from;[/list] That is an obvious fact.

"The author may disregard this comment as it fails to distinguish between surplusage and a definition for the purpose of clarity."
[*]Requires member states to allow for the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying; The clarifications below contradict this statement.

Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,

"The author may disregard this comment, as voluntary association is not segregation, and the comment fails to make any meaningful distinction between the two."
Member states are required to enforce citizenship law requirements only on citizens or residents born in their nation, So as long as the person in question wasn't born in their nation of current residency, the nation can defy all legislation previously passed covering citizenship law and can use it to their benefit?

"The author may disregard this comment as it confuses state actors with individuals."

[*]Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in. If they don't hold citizenship in the nation they live in, as referenced in the definition for "expatriates", why should they be able to vote or have full rights? They aren't a true citizen, they are more or less a resident alien. Also, see top marking.

"The author may disregard this comment, as it does not appear to correctly interpret the premise of 'dual citizenship' by equating nonresident citizens with resident aliens, a phrase with a logically opposite meaning.

"The C.D.S.P. has no official position on this draft, merely an official position on poor reasoning."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 305
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:37 pm

"Ambassador, we would like a little clarification, does this resolution mandate the legalization of duel citizenship?"

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:47 pm

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, we would like a little clarification, does this resolution mandate the legalization of duel citizenship?"

"It does not, though if you believe it does, I would be willing to change the wording of Clause 3.

The intention of Clause 3 (the original part, not 3(a) or 3(b) is to say that if a citizen of state A wishes to become a citizen of State B that if State A requires that the person give up their citizenship in order to become a citizen of State B that State B must honor that."

OOC: Thanks for bringing this up, I'm going to try to re-work clause 3.

Edit: Yeah, old 3(a) was perilously close to that line. Eliminated. Did think of a new 3(b) that might be salient though.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5078
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:38 am

OOC:
Since you mentioned wanting help with getting the code right for the fancy header; if you mean the dividing line for between the header and the resolution text, that's the done with these:
Code: Select all
[hr][/hr]

Don't put anything between them, and you do need both tags. It'll come out like this:

Sole exception is in factbooks, where, for some reason, the closing tag is extraneous.
To note; if you want the text after the line not to be spaced an extra line down, it needs to be on the same line as the tags when writing.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Military Oversight announces Doctrinal Reform Plan, upcoming military trials | Former Intelligence Director Taraen Vallir, additional operatives executed | 200 year old Varat destroyer found in Balder orbit at historic shipyard location, presumed malfunction of still-installed warp drive | Archive Systems, Hyperpulse Network briefly disabled following accidental release of experimental assistance program | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:34 am

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Since you mentioned wanting help with getting the code right for the fancy header; if you mean the dividing line for between the header and the resolution text, that's the done with these:
Code: Select all
[hr][/hr]

Don't put anything between them, and you do need both tags. It'll come out like this:

Sole exception is in factbooks, where, for some reason, the closing tag is extraneous.
To note; if you want the text after the line not to be spaced an extra line down, it needs to be on the same line as the tags when writing.

OOC: Thanks for the help! Think I've got it figured out now.
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2699
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:53 am

"Opposed. There is only one political party in Bananaistan and while people are generally free to form whatever associations they like, it would seem to be a bit pointless to form political organisations which are constitutionally prohibited from taking part in elections.

"If you were to strip that away, there is nothing here that is not already covered by the entire gamut of civil and political rights resolutions already on the books which apply to all residents of member nations regardless of their nationality."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:22 pm

Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed. There is only one political party in Bananaistan and while people are generally free to form whatever associations they like, it would seem to be a bit pointless to form political organisations which are constitutionally prohibited from taking part in elections.

"If you were to strip that away, there is nothing here that is not already covered by the entire gamut of civil and political rights resolutions already on the books which apply to all residents of member nations regardless of their nationality."

"Ambassador, I think you misunderstand clause 2(b), which says that if, for instance, a Bananaistanian(OOC: demonym?) organization were to form in Boston Castle-I could not force it to only operate among Bananaistanian expatriates, and clause 4(c), which says that I cannot stop Bananaistanian citizens from participating in your elections if you allow for voters abroad to participate in national elections."
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15317
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:18 pm

Boston Castle wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed. There is only one political party in Bananaistan and while people are generally free to form whatever associations they like, it would seem to be a bit pointless to form political organisations which are constitutionally prohibited from taking part in elections.

"If you were to strip that away, there is nothing here that is not already covered by the entire gamut of civil and political rights resolutions already on the books which apply to all residents of member nations regardless of their nationality."

"Ambassador, I think you misunderstand clause 2(b), which says that if, for instance, a Bananaistanian(OOC: demonym?) organization were to form in Boston Castle-I could not force it to only operate among Bananaistanian expatriates, and clause 4(c), which says that I cannot stop Bananaistanian citizens from participating in your elections if you allow for voters abroad to participate in national elections."

OOC: I think Banana's talking about BostCastlians (or whatever, cba check your nation page, sorry) forming a political organization in his country. After all, the "expatriate" (the definition should have an article if it's meant to be a noun instead of an adjective, by the way) refers to someone from another country living in yours. So why should foreigners be allowed to form political parties in a one-party or no-party (dictatorial) system? You can't mandate democracy without running into the Ideology Ban illegality.

IC: "And exactly why should nations give political "rights" to non-citizens when they do not give them to their own citizens? What's so special about foreigners who don't want to live in their own country?"

OOC: Could 4.b. have some controls on the organizations, because "claims to provide representation" sounds really dodgy. Could it be required to be a registered organization? Like any organization that provides representation of any people would normally need to be?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:43 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Boston Castle wrote:"Ambassador, I think you misunderstand clause 2(b), which says that if, for instance, a Bananaistanian(OOC: demonym?) organization were to form in Boston Castle-I could not force it to only operate among Bananaistanian expatriates, and clause 4(c), which says that I cannot stop Bananaistanian citizens from participating in your elections if you allow for voters abroad to participate in national elections."

OOC: I think Banana's talking about BostCastlians (or whatever, cba check your nation page, sorry) forming a political organization in his country. After all, the "expatriate" (the definition should have an article if it's meant to be a noun instead of an adjective, by the way) refers to someone from another country living in yours. So why should foreigners be allowed to form political parties in a one-party or no-party (dictatorial) system? You can't mandate democracy without running into the Ideology Ban illegality.

IC: "And exactly why should nations give political "rights" to non-citizens when they do not give them to their own citizens? What's so special about foreigners who don't want to live in their own country?"

OOC: Could 4.b. have some controls on the organizations, because "claims to provide representation" sounds really dodgy. Could it be required to be a registered organization? Like any organization that provides representation of any people would normally need to be?

1. OOC: I've never come up with a demonym. Castellians would work.

2. IC: "Ambassador, I see your point, striking "political" before organizations in 2(a) should hopefully ameliorate your concerns."

3. Yes, this is an OOC response, but I don't think I can make it IC: The purpose of this resolution isn't necessarily to grant them new rights so much as to shore up existing rights and codify them into law.

4. I suppose 4(b) could require registration, though I'm not entirely sure how that work unless it was something like registration of non-profit organizations (similar to 501(c)(3)s, etc. in the US), political parties (a la Elections Canada, the Federal Election Commission, etc.), or lobbying organizations (US, for instance, apparently requires registration with the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House). Anyways, I see your point and I'd be open to hearing suggestions for how to shore that up/fill the gap.

5. OOC: Also forgot to address it, Clause 1 covers all the definitions-including that of expatriate.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:04 pm

Not rushing anyone, but would like to work on this today or tomorrow before I leave school for home.

Bump.
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7388
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:07 pm

Boston Castle wrote:4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

  1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
  2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
  3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in.

Is this intended to be a complete/definitive or partial/indicative list of the "political and civil rights of expatriates" that "member states may not infringe on?"
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; current WA Delegate of Auctor; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:25 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Boston Castle wrote:4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

  1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
  2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
  3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in.

Is this intended to be a complete/definitive or partial/indicative list of the "political and civil rights of expatriates" that "member states may not infringe on?"

"Complete/definitive as these are not, to my knowledge, necessarily covered in regards to non-citizens in WA law. However, if the Ambassador wishes to see them expanded upon, I would be happy to hear their suggestions to make this list as exhaustive as he would like it to be."
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:03 pm

OOC: Bump again. Sorry for doing it so soon after my last, but I'm leaving uni tomorrow and I don't know if I'll be back on the forums until toward the end of the week.
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2176
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:04 pm

"Wouldn’t this proposal make more sense under the democracy category? Opposed, by the way."
Last edited by Honeydewistania on Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors
GA#521 Repeal "GMO International Trade Accord"

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet
SC#331 Commend Sierra Lyricalia

User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:18 am

Honeydewistania wrote:"Wouldn’t this proposal make more sense under the democracy category? Opposed, by the way."

"I suppose it could, Ambassador, but I wasn't entirely sure if Furtherment of Democracy would be the area to file this under. While I regret your opposition, I am curious, is there anything I could change that would win your support?"
Professional dissident.
Unrepentant liberal and Liberal.
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Blighted Author of GA #522


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ardiveds, Port Ember

Advertisement

Remove ads