NationStates

This has reached queue.

Proposal's thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=468835



Rules broken: Category, Contradiction, (maybe Duplication and Strength)

In a real hurry (5 minutes and out the door), but there's no way "you have to let these people into the nation whether you want to or not" can be Political Stability. And the "risk of lacking cultural integration" is a random reductive category if I ever saw one, thus violating CoCR (especially as presumably such cultural thing would rely on ethnicity, religion, etc.).

Alternatively this is nothing but duplication or so largely covered by existing resolutions that it can't be Significant strength.

Will add more once back home.

EDIT: Others below pretty much posted what I meant to add. If I can think of something else once my brain has stopped being a melted puddle, I'll add later.

You'll be surprised to hear this one, Ara, but I actually agree with you, in part. The category is wrong, it should probably be Moral Decency if we operate on the presumption that entrance into a nation is a civil right, statistics affect populations, and removing the right to enter would lower civil rights. Under the Secretariat's current operating practice, which is of "one best category" (however that is adjudicated post hoc...), that'd meet the Category burden.

Clause 2-II is a duplication of CoCR, if one assumes that national security and cultural integration are compelling practical purpose. Alternatively, it would be contradiction, if one doesn’t assume this meets the standard. Either way, the proposal must be illegal for one of the two reasons.

Clause I is duplication of Refugee Protection GA#57, and Clause II is either duplication or contradiction of GA#35 Charter of Civil Rights.

Agreed about category.
Considering the other points raised.

Also, I'm dubious about whether "Demands that" is actually a valid operative clause given that it doesn't seem to be addressed to anybody: It looks like the author themselves demanding this of the GA, rather than something written -- as proposals are supposed to be -- from the GA's viewpoint.

EDIT: I've marked it as illegal on the basis of category, so the balance is currently 2:1 rather than 2:0.

Hmmm. On second thoughts the argument regarding contradiction with COCR (given GenSec precedent on that resolution) does look like an issue. I'll return to this with my full thoughts later.

Bananaistan wrote:Hmmm. On second thoughts the argument regarding contradiction with COCR (given GenSec precedent on that resolution) does look like an issue. I'll return to this with my full thoughts later.

What about the category? Full thoughts later is totally fine, though, as I'm about to head out into the possibly last day of heat to melt my brain at lakeside and in a lake (stupid airbreathing species that we are, the head needs to be mostly abovewater)...

Imperium Anglorum wrote:You'll be surprised to hear this one, Ara, but I actually agree with you, in part. The category is wrong, it should probably be Moral Decency if we operate on the presumption that entrance into a nation is a civil right, statistics affect populations, and removing the right to enter would lower civil rights. Under the Secretariat's current operating practice, which is of "one best category" (however that is adjudicated post hoc...), that'd meet the Category burden.

This is my reading, and I marked it illegal accordingly.

I have not reached the duplication issue. I will not be able to before this either makes or fails quorum.

For the author's reference, in case they eventually submit a revised proposal _

Approvals: 75 (Greater Austrian Danube, Grand Empire of Luxembourg, Ibenta, Integralists Of Brazil, The Greater Union of Man, Libearte, Fedele, Greater Elbia and Ostland, Smiley Bob, New Luciannova, Dragons of Power, The Land of Districts, Otaku Stratus, The Tomerlands, Holy Roman Empires2, Kakazagistan, Enlais, The Flyin, 7LM Powerhouse, Molson Iceland, Hypron, De-Voss, Harakaze, Kushrum, Gooutofhere, Sudablackt, Perelingo, Nrutasica, Falangalist Polovia, Tecalgia, Yanab, The Hanzanburg Union, Bettisia, Footscray, Hfhbsd, Dillonia, Omaha Utopia, Eastern-European Nations, Romanian-Slavia, Zombiedolphins, Altorthfnara, Boku no Pica, Beautiful Rhodesia, Etestein, Soyix, Palait, Refuge Isle, San Lumen, Republic Eden, The Dylanese, Independant Canada, Jew Man, Greater Serbian Provinces, Greater Germany, Arrstotzka, Neues Griechisches Reich, Austronta, Sweatika, Brazika, Stalins Russian Utopia, Royal Kingdom of Ni, RMSboatymcboatface, Hundredstar, Tibbsia, New Order Philippines, United Civil Republic, Deuctland, Kamchakta, Scardinius, Leranditale, Pontanova, New Legland, Imperial Majapahit, St Nevis And Kitts, Tylard)

Araraukar wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:Hmmm. On second thoughts the argument regarding contradiction with COCR (given GenSec precedent on that resolution) does look like an issue. I'll return to this with my full thoughts later.

What about the category? Full thoughts later is totally fine, though, as I'm about to head out into the possibly last day of heat to melt my brain at lakeside and in a lake (stupid airbreathing species that we are, the head needs to be mostly abovewater)...

Yeah, I agree with the rest of GenSec regarding the category also. I have marked illegal now as well including for contradiction of COCR.

If we act on the fact that migration being a human right then how will that show up statistally speaking?
This could have a drastic effect on a Country's population and increase a countries crime rate causing a nation to face more problems down the road.


PS: Yeah honestly I a new to Nationstates and I am a little lost when it comes to the server I have a basic concept of the rules and whatnot but there are a lot of Small functions I have yet to wrap my egg-headed brain around.
So plz help a noobie thankz.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:You'll be surprised to hear this one, Ara, but I actually agree with you, in part. The category is wrong, it should probably be Moral Decency if we operate on the presumption that entrance into a nation is a civil right, statistics affect populations, and removing the right to enter would lower civil rights. Under the Secretariat's current operating practice, which is of "one best category" (however that is adjudicated post hoc...), that'd meet the Category burden.

Looks like International Security/Mild to me.

Wayneactia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:You'll be surprised to hear this one, Ara, but I actually agree with you, in part. The category is wrong, it should probably be Moral Decency if we operate on the presumption that entrance into a nation is a civil right, statistics affect populations, and removing the right to enter would lower civil rights. Under the Secretariat's current operating practice, which is of "one best category" (however that is adjudicated post hoc...), that'd meet the Category burden.

Looks like International Security/Mild to me.

It's not increasing military spending

Marxist Germany wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:
Looks like International Security/Mild to me.

It's not increasing military spending

"Nations have the right to deny migrants access into its borders for the purpose of protecting its citizens and society from harm, therefore nations are allowed to deny entry into the nation to any non-legal migrant unless defined as a legal refugee; seeking asylum."

Increases law enforcement spending.