Advertisement
by Voltzenkrad » Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:58 am
by The Distributed Republic of Papoon » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:21 am
Abacathea wrote:It's the primary reason I've been ignoring the desperate attempts by these authors to circumvent this act, the reality is if they're that desperate to circumvent this, they should just opt for non compliance really. So far the "loopholes" here are all covered under existing legislation as you've been pointing out.
by Voltzenkrad » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:41 am
The Distributed Republic of Papoon wrote:Abacathea wrote:It's the primary reason I've been ignoring the desperate attempts by these authors to circumvent this act, the reality is if they're that desperate to circumvent this, they should just opt for non compliance really. So far the "loopholes" here are all covered under existing legislation as you've been pointing out.
Papoon's Delegate for International Bullshit would like to point out that the problems with the proposal as written are hardly due to character limitations.
Abacathea's proposal presumes a fair and just criminal system that is not dominated by state concerns. Obviously, nations with such systems are very unlikely to prohibit emigration. Those that do not have such systems can easily find a way to use this resolution's many loopholes to prevent their citizens from emigrating.
This is why Papoon's Delegate considers this to be a bullshit resolution. The bullshit is made even more fragrant and plushy by the fact that the two main problems facing the world today, in the field of migration, are nations that:
A) Prohibit or seriously restrict IMMIGRATION; and...
B) Conduct forced migration, expellin long-term residents beyond their borders.
The fact that Abacathea proposes a resolution that might have had some logic 50 years ago, at the height of totalitarianism, but which doesn't even begin to address the two main problems faced by the world today is what makes Abacathea a "bullshit speaker" in the eyes of Papoon's Delegate. Abacathea is obviously proposing this resolution to gain political brownie points, not because it really addresses some sort of huge global problem. Even if emigration bans were a huge global problem, this resolution certainly wouldn't do anything to resolve them.
But, as Papoon's delegate's job-description clearly statess, it is indeed her job to talk bullshit with foreigners. Even if it means she misses half of the albino dwarf lesbian mud-wrestling championships.
Sigh.
by Deterria » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:08 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:59 pm
by Voltzenkrad » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:02 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:The number of nations voicing their oppressive policies and intentions shocks me. How can it possibly benefit any nation incapable of true totalitarian policies thanks to the work of the WA to keep dissident citizens within your borders? Would it not be simpler to be compliant and let the undesirables leave?
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:04 pm
Voltzenkrad wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:The number of nations voicing their oppressive policies and intentions shocks me. How can it possibly benefit any nation incapable of true totalitarian policies thanks to the work of the WA to keep dissident citizens within your borders? Would it not be simpler to be compliant and let the undesirables leave?
I am not one of those oppressive nations. I simply do not wish for my citizens to be allowed to jump from 22 kilometers in the sky as we do not promote suicide here.
by Deterria » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:31 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:The number of nations voicing their oppressive policies and intentions shocks me. How can it possibly benefit any nation incapable of true totalitarian policies thanks to the work of the WA to keep dissident citizens within your borders? Would it not be simpler to be compliant and let the undesirables leave?
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:33 pm
Deterria wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:The number of nations voicing their oppressive policies and intentions shocks me. How can it possibly benefit any nation incapable of true totalitarian policies thanks to the work of the WA to keep dissident citizens within your borders? Would it not be simpler to be compliant and let the undesirables leave?
If we let them leave they could form terror groups and underground railroads.
And anyway, the undesireables are put in concentration camps to work for the good of the state. Just letting them leave would undermine our largest forced-labour division. Moreover, the slaves we use as a form of currency have to come from somewhere.
by Deterria » Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:15 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ambassador, you do realize that slavery is as against international law as detainment for reasons of race, political standing, gender, etc., correct? And that, technically, overt noncompliance is impossible?
by HEU 1 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:07 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:The number of nations voicing their oppressive policies and intentions shocks me. How can it possibly benefit any nation incapable of true totalitarian policies thanks to the work of the WA to keep dissident citizens within your borders? Would it not be simpler to be compliant and let the undesirables leave?
by The Republic of Lanos » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:48 pm
by Luveria » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:24 pm
by The Republic of Lanos » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:25 pm
Luveria wrote:I have a question for those specialized in WA law.
If I sell, lets say a 500 meter length of land just before the border entirely around the country to a private megacorporation like LuvCorp, then because it is now LuvCorp's property, the state can contract LuvCorp to build a barbed wire fence and concrete wall on that land they purchased and if anyone attempts to cross it they can be detained by LuvCorp's security personnel for trespassing and charged with trespassing on private property. Is this a sound solution for legally stopping border runners?
by Luveria » Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:33 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Luveria wrote:I have a question for those specialized in WA law.
If I sell, lets say a 500 meter length of land just before the border entirely around the country to a private megacorporation like LuvCorp, then because it is now LuvCorp's property, the state can contract LuvCorp to build a barbed wire fence and concrete wall on that land they purchased and if anyone attempts to cross it they can be detained by LuvCorp's security personnel for trespassing and charged with trespassing on private property. Is this a sound solution for legally stopping border runners?
Couldn't the state do the policing instead and contract LuvCorp to build the wall instead?
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:08 pm
Luveria wrote:The Republic of Lanos wrote:Couldn't the state do the policing instead and contract LuvCorp to build the wall instead?
Yes, that's even better, and it is well within the expectations of a public police service to protect the rights of private property owners, which in this case means stopping and apprehending citizens illegally trespassing onto LuvCorp's property that entirely encircles the nation. In addition to that, in the vast majority of nations corporations do have the right to have their own private security personnel for detaining trespassers until the police arrive to take them away.
Having gone through the WA laws, if I'm not mistaken, this method of preventing people from crossing the border is entirely legal. As for citizens trying to cross over LuvCorp's property through airspace, there are no proposals prohibiting making the entire a country a no-fly zone for civilian aircraft.
Unless someone can point out any flaws with the above methods of entirely preventing emigration indirectly while emigration is still technically legal if impossible to achieve, then authoritarian regimes have nothing to worry about from this proposal.
by Luveria » Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:56 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Luveria wrote:
Yes, that's even better, and it is well within the expectations of a public police service to protect the rights of private property owners, which in this case means stopping and apprehending citizens illegally trespassing onto LuvCorp's property that entirely encircles the nation. In addition to that, in the vast majority of nations corporations do have the right to have their own private security personnel for detaining trespassers until the police arrive to take them away.
Having gone through the WA laws, if I'm not mistaken, this method of preventing people from crossing the border is entirely legal. As for citizens trying to cross over LuvCorp's property through airspace, there are no proposals prohibiting making the entire a country a no-fly zone for civilian aircraft.
Unless someone can point out any flaws with the above methods of entirely preventing emigration indirectly while emigration is still technically legal if impossible to achieve, then authoritarian regimes have nothing to worry about from this proposal.
Good luck with that, because your civilian merchant air-fleet will be screwed. Not to mention tourism, but I somehow doubt that you rely terribly heavily on that...
by Oaledonia » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:08 pm
The lovable PMT nation of hugs and chibi! Now with 75% more Hanyū!
Oaledonian wiki | Decoli Defense | Embassy | OAF Military InfoUnder construction
*POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS STATEMENTS INTENSIFY*
by Luveria » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:12 pm
Oaledonia wrote:The only reason I'm in the WA anymore is for regional control. Still, have fun with this clusterfuck. Not that I'll be following it... as usual...
by Voltzenkrad » Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:23 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Voltzenkrad wrote:
I am not one of those oppressive nations. I simply do not wish for my citizens to be allowed to jump from 22 kilometers in the sky as we do not promote suicide here.
I suppose, that being your concern, you also allow air traffic to take your citizens safely from your airspace to another nation? Or is that heavily restricted for safety, as well?
by Voltzenkrad » Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:26 pm
HEU 1 wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:The number of nations voicing their oppressive policies and intentions shocks me. How can it possibly benefit any nation incapable of true totalitarian policies thanks to the work of the WA to keep dissident citizens within your borders? Would it not be simpler to be compliant and let the undesirables leave?
There are very few dissidents, at least within HEU 1. The Overseer is against this resolution in an effort to both maintain the safety of our citizens (many of whom are unaware an outside world exists, let alone know of its dangers) and to preserve the one true purpose of this habitat: the Grand Experiment. That one purpose relies on a controlled environment and population. Without those two vital things, the entire 200 year history of the station has been for naught.
by The Flood » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:05 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:24 am
The Flood wrote:Breathing is now a criminal offence in the Flood, the punishment for which is not being allowed to leave the Flood.
by Bananaistan » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:59 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement