[ABANDONED] Repeal: "Minimum Standard of Living Act"

[Makko Oko]

IC: "You know it surprises me that this resolution is called the minimum standard of living act when it should be called the useless standard and homeless living act. We in the Makko Okoan Government hereby call for the repeal of GAR#344, 'Minimum Standard of Living Act'." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

REPEAL OF MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING ACT

The World Assembly,

Noting the good-natured intentions of the [resolution=GAR#344]Minimum Standard of Living Act[/resolution];

Realizing that repealing the [resolution=GAR#344]Minimum Standard of Living Act[/resolution] can lead to a better resolution being enacted on these regards;

The World Assembly hereby finds these reasons sufficient to warrant its repeal:

1. Instead of authorizing financial assistance from the World Assembly, the resolution created section 5 which allowed member nations who, declared a national emergency or couldn't under any circumstances guarantee a full minimum standard of living without economic hardship, to provide only minimal and less-than standards of living, which only sought to increase poverty and homelessness rates. This provision could've been easily abused by member nations by declaring a national emergency for the sole reason of avoiding the providing of, a full minimum standard of living, and since the national emergency had been declared, would've fallen under section 5, subsection A.
   
   
2. Calls forth upon for the discrimination of foreign nationals and non-citizens by way of section 4, subsection A. Under this subsection, member nations had not been required to provide a full minimum standard of living, or even a less-than standard of living, to any foreign national, legal or illegal, which only sought to harm the international market and harmed productivity in the way of foreign authorized workers not being given a minimum standard of living, including through things such as the lack of an established minimum wage, which would be brought down into slavery territory.
   
   
3. Might find itself upon a conflict within its own foundations, through the establishment of section 2, which specified that all inhabitants of member states shall receive and be guaranteed the full minimum standard of living, and which heretofore, section 4, subsection A, clearly violates.

Therefore, we repeal the [resolution=GAR#344]Minimum Standard of Living Act[/resolution];

OOC: You can thank Hulldom and his Ideas for General Assembly Proposals thread for this repeal. I agree with it at least.

[Makko Oko]

Draft History:

This august assembly,

While fully understanding the good-natured intentions of the [resolution=GAR#344]Minimum Standard of Living Act[/resolution], but notwithstanding the flaws that this resolution has, enough so to warrant its repeal.

This repeal finds as follows:

1. Instead of authorizing financial assistance from the World Assembly, the resolution created section 5 which allowed member nations who, declared a national emergency or couldn't under any circumstances guarantee a full minimum standard of living without economic hardship, to provide only minimal and less-than standards of living, which only sought to increase poverty and homelessness rates. This provision could've been easily abused by member nations by declaring a national emergency for the sole reason of avoiding the providing of, a full minimum standard of living, and since the national emergency had been declared, would've fallen under section 5, subsection A.
   
   
2. Calls forth upon for the discrimination of foreign nationals and non-citizens by way of section 4, subsection A. Under this subsection, member nations had not been required to provide a full minimum standard of living, or even a less-than standard of living, to any foreign national, legal or illegal, which only sought to harm the international market and harmed productivity in the way of foreign authorized workers not being given a minimum standard of living, including through things such as the lack of an established minimum wage, which would be brought down into slavery territory.
   
   
3. Might find itself upon a conflict within its own foundations, through the establishment of section 2, which specified that all inhabitants of member states shall receive and be guaranteed the full minimum standard of living, and which heretofore, section 4, subsection A, clearly violates.
   
   Therefore, we repeal the [resolution=GAR#344]Minimum Standard of Living Act[/resolution]

[/box]

[Comfed]

I think this violates the rule about being written from a WA perspective.

[Fachumonn]

I think this violates the rule about being written from a WA perspective.

That's an SC rule I'm pretty sure. Don't get them mixed up next time.

[Separatist Peoples]

I think this violates the rule about being written from a WA perspective.

That's an SC rule I'm pretty sure. Don't get them mixed up next time.

Ooc: that's a rule here, too. This isn't a particular problem coming from you, so please take this in the spirit it's offered, which is gentle encouragement: please don't offer advice about the rules if you haven't checked the rules or aren't sure of them.

[Fachumonn]

That's an SC rule I'm pretty sure. Don't get them mixed up next time.

Ooc: that's a rule here, too. This isn't a particular problem coming from you, so please take this in the spirit it's offered, which is gentle encouragement: please don't offer advice about the rules if you haven't checked the rules or aren't sure of them.

Sorry. Just more versed in the SC community and rules. My memory is precarious at best.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: that's a rule here, too. This isn't a particular problem coming from you, so please take this in the spirit it's offered, which is gentle encouragement: please don't offer advice about the rules if you haven't checked the rules or aren't sure of them.

Sorry. Just more versed in the SC community and rules. My memory is precarious at best.

Ooc: we're human, which is why I tried to make it clear that I wasn't snapping or yelling. Now you know.

[Makko Oko]

So, help me out here. If it's a rule, may somebody please explain it to me and explain how I can fix it within this repeal? I'd hate to have this shot down due to breaching a rule

[Comfed]

So, help me out here. If it's a rule, may somebody please explain it to me and explain how I can fix it within this repeal? I'd hate to have this shot down due to breaching a rule

You can write it something like:

The World Assembly,

Noting that the target resolution is bad;

Hereby repeals the target resolution.

Or:

The World Assembly hereby finds that this is why the target is bad:

• Reason 1
• Reason 2

The World Assembly therefore repeals the target.

Alternatively, you could look at the formats of past repeals.

[Makko Oko]

So, help me out here. If it's a rule, may somebody please explain it to me and explain how I can fix it within this repeal? I'd hate to have this shot down due to breaching a rule

You can write it something like:

The World Assembly,

Noting that the target resolution is bad;

Hereby repeals the target resolution.

Or:

The World Assembly hereby finds that this is why the target is bad:

• Reason 1
• Reason 2

The World Assembly therefore repeals the target.

Alternatively, you could look at the formats of past repeals.

Ohhhhhhhhhh I see what you mean now, thanks so much! I can do a quick little second draft, I don't see why not. Then we can get to the actual reasoning and if people support it or not.

[Makko Oko]

Bump. Anybody have feedback? I may submit it within a few days if I don't hear anything

[Honeydewistania]

What's the rush to submit? Given your two strongest arguments address the fact that this doesn't do much, yet you have no replacement, this is guaranteed to fail.

-Benji

[Makko Oko]

What's the rush to submit? Given your two strongest arguments address the fact that this doesn't do much, yet you have no replacement, this is guaranteed to fail.

-Benji

"No rush Ambassador Benji, simply, nobody has really commented anything other than the mismentioning of the WA which we fixed. I assure you, if we get more feedback, we will implement it. Also, in terms of your 'guaranteed to fail' message, we think not. It is not the job of the Ambassador proposing the repeal to propose a replacement, regardless of what the Assembly may tell you. If we wish to propose a replacement, we will, but we choose to leave it up to the veterans or other people who may know better on this than us, to propose it." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

[Honeydewistania]

What's the rush to submit? Given your two strongest arguments address the fact that this doesn't do much, yet you have no replacement, this is guaranteed to fail.

-Benji

"No rush Ambassador Benji, simply, nobody has really commented anything other than the mismentioning of the WA which we fixed. I assure you, if we get more feedback, we will implement it. Also, in terms of your 'guaranteed to fail' message, we think not. It is not the job of the Ambassador proposing the repeal to propose a replacement, regardless of what the Assembly may tell you. If we wish to propose a replacement, we will, but we choose to leave it up to the veterans or other people who may know better on this than us, to propose it." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

That is true, but then I don't see why you would want to submit this. A repeal would not solve the problems you have outlined. A repeal will only further strip away minimum standard of living for everyone. There is no compelling reason to repeal this as quickly as possible without waiting for a well-formed replacement.

-Benji

[Makko Oko]

"No rush Ambassador Benji, simply, nobody has really commented anything other than the mismentioning of the WA which we fixed. I assure you, if we get more feedback, we will implement it. Also, in terms of your 'guaranteed to fail' message, we think not. It is not the job of the Ambassador proposing the repeal to propose a replacement, regardless of what the Assembly may tell you. If we wish to propose a replacement, we will, but we choose to leave it up to the veterans or other people who may know better on this than us, to propose it." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

That is true, but then I don't see why you would want to submit this. A repeal would not solve the problems you have outlined. A repeal will only further strip away minimum standard of living for everyone. There is no compelling reason to repeal this as quickly as possible without waiting for a well-formed replacement.

-Benji

"We're open to writing a replacement if we have some assistance. We feel that we don't have the support internally to know how to write a proposal in this field. Please inform if you'd be willing and we may discuss it through more private channels. Besides, some issues aren't international issues and don't need replacements, this may be one of them, and we are not claiming it is, but we're saying consider all possibilities, Ambassador Benji." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why should a nation provide a minimum standard of living for tourists? If they don't have money, don't move here.

[Makko Oko]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why should a nation provide a minimum standard of living for tourists? If they don't have money, don't move here.

"You seem to be missing the point of that specific reasoning Deputy Minister Obama. You see, if a tourist wants to get a job in a nation via a work visa, without permanent residency, and intends to move to that nation in the future (by for instance obtaining permanent residency), then therefore, they should be entitled to all of the protections of any other citizen, including the right to a minimum wage, basic universal income (potentially, this we would not recommend to give to non-citizens), among other things." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

[*] Calls forth upon for the discrimination of foreign nationals and non-citizens by way of section 4, subsection A. Under this subsection, member nations had not been required to provide a full minimum standard of living, or even a less-than standard of living, to any foreign national, legal or illegal, which only sought to harm the international market and harmed productivity in the way of foreign authorized workers not being given a minimum standard of living, including through things such as the lack of an established minimum wage, which would be brought down into slavery territory.

“Ambassador, this is the only argument that troubles me. I get why it’s bad to let legal immigrants have a bad living quality, but why would it be bad to do that to illegal immigrants? If they’re illegal immigrants, you should not treat them well for not properly going through the immigrant approval process yet still making it into the nation. Heck, if an illegal immigrant shows up, you might as well deport him/her back to the original nation.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Makko Oko]

[*] Calls forth upon for the discrimination of foreign nationals and non-citizens by way of section 4, subsection A. Under this subsection, member nations had not been required to provide a full minimum standard of living, or even a less-than standard of living, to any foreign national, legal or illegal, which only sought to harm the international market and harmed productivity in the way of foreign authorized workers not being given a minimum standard of living, including through things such as the lack of an established minimum wage, which would be brought down into slavery territory.

“Ambassador, this is the only argument that troubles me. I get why it’s bad to let legal immigrants have a bad living quality, but why would it be bad to do that to illegal immigrants? If they’re illegal immigrants, you should not treat them well for not properly going through the immigrant approval process yet still making it into the nation. Heck, if an illegal immigrant shows up, you might as well deport him/her back to the original nation.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"That's a wild interpretation you have there Ambassador Schafer. Personally, we agree with your idea of deporting illegal immigrants and actively take such measures in our border control, however, this doesn't trump our argument of discrimination of foreign nationals. We never specifically and expressly mentioned illegal immigrants, we were getting at legal immigrants, with work visas, without permanent residency, with whom can legally be discriminated against under this resolution." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why should a nation provide a minimum standard of living for tourists? If they don't have money, don't move here.

"You seem to be missing the point of that specific reasoning Deputy Minister Obama. You see, if a tourist wants to get a job in a nation via a work visa, without permanent residency, and intends to move to that nation in the future (by for instance obtaining permanent residency), then therefore, they should be entitled to all of the protections of any other citizen, including the right to a minimum wage, basic universal income (potentially, this we would not recommend to give to non-citizens), among other things." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: We require citizenship tests to ensure that these 'tourists' aren't giving us a run for our money and so that they pledge their loyalty to our nation. We should not support them, especially if they are already citizens of other nations.

[Makko Oko]

Submitted. You can check it out here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1656301031

[Bananaistan]

OOC: There's two HM issues here. Particularly the second argument. Legal permanent residents and "legal" foreign nationals are not mutually exclusive. The claim in the repeal that member nations are not required to provide the required standard of living to "any foreign national, legal or illegal" is false.

The first argument that claims that member states could declare a national emergency solely to avoid the requirements is also problematic IMO. Member states are required to implement international law in good faith and the words "national emergency" have meaning. Furthermore, the compliance mechanisms and avenues for residents/citizens to pursue delinquent member states provided for in other resolutions suggest that it's not as easy as simply declaring this "national emergency" to exist without any evidence for same.

[Makko Oko]

OOC: There's two HM issues here. Particularly the second argument. Legal permanent residents and "legal" foreign nationals are not mutually exclusive. The claim in the repeal that member nations are not required to provide the required standard of living to "any foreign national, legal or illegal" is false.

The first argument that claims that member states could declare a national emergency solely to avoid the requirements is also problematic IMO. Member states are required to implement international law in good faith and the words "national emergency" have meaning. Furthermore, the compliance mechanisms and avenues for residents/citizens to pursue delinquent member states provided for in other resolutions suggest that it's not as easy as simply declaring this "national emergency" to exist without any evidence for same.

OOC: Can you suggest anything I can do to fix these issues while still being a viable repeal? I think I may know how to fix issue number one, but how about number two

[Attempted Socialism]

I won't get into the substance, but I would suggest going through the style, grammar, and punctuation if you redraft. The first argumentative clause has out-of-place commas that combine with weird sentence structure to make it very hard to read, the second clause starts with "Calls forth upon for the discrimination of foreign nationals and non-citizens" which I don't think means anything, and clause 3 is entirely off the rails. Your second introductory clause ends with "can lead to a better resolution being enacted on these regards;" which... I think I know what is supposed to mean, but I might be wrong. And lastly, you end the whole resolution with a semi-comma which is not illegal in the GA, but would earn you scorn from some English teachers.
You also change style twice, going from the run-on sentence to the three numbered reasons, and back to the run-on sentence. To show you why this is a mess, I'll put it together.

The World Assembly, Noting the good-natured intentions of the Minimum Standard of Living Act; Realizing that repealing the Minimum Standard of Living Act can lead to a better resolution being enacted on these regards; The World Assembly hereby finds these reasons sufficient to warrant its repeal:

You have the WA twice, where once would suffice. Then follows your numbered clauses, which are supposed to be read following the above line. So we get these three:

The World Assembly hereby finds [this] reason sufficient to warrant its repeal: Instead of authorizing financial assistance from the World Assembly, the resolution created section 5 which allowed member nations who, (...)

The World Assembly hereby finds [this] reason sufficient to warrant its repeal: Calls forth upon for the discrimination of foreign nationals and non-citizens by way of section 4, subsection A. (...)

The World Assembly hereby finds [this] reason sufficient to warrant its repeal: Might find itself upon a conflict within its own foundations, through the establishment of section 2, (...)

Only the first actually flows somewhat organically from the line introducing your arguments, but the next two are real beauties.
Then comes your finisher. I'll connect it to your preamble here just to show why it is off.

The World Assembly, Noting the good-natured intentions of the Minimum Standard of Living Act; Realizing that repealing the Minimum Standard of Living Act can lead to a better resolution being enacted on these regards; The World Assembly hereby finds these reasons sufficient to warrant its repeal: [Reasons] Therefore, we repeal the Minimum Standard of Living Act

To clean up, if you want both your numbered clauses and the style of the run-on sentence, you could do something like this:

The World Assembly,
Noting the good-natured intentions of the Minimum Standard of Living Act,
Realising a repeal can lead to a better resolution,
Finding these reasons sufficient to warrant a repeal;
<clauses 1, 2, 3....>
Hereby repeals the Minimum Standard of Living Act

I don't have a strong preference for any particular style, but whatever you pick, you have to follow through on. And don't puff up the language to seem more profound than you can pull off.