[Debate] Changes in Immigration policy
UNL Congress
Greetings, citizens of Netherlands,
the government has requested the following debate to be opened, based on the announced plan of the President to review and change the current immigration law. Below is presented a complete overhaul of the immigration policy, which would replace the current legislature. The major changes include removal of time limit for allied citizens, widening the immigration responsibilities to appropriate ministries and redefining the statute of emergency cases:
1. The government is responsible for reviewing all Dutch citizenship applications and posting all information gathered about the applicant in Congress, where Congress provides consultation to applications.
2. Applicants from allied countries can be accepted or rejected based on the decision of (vice)President or Minister of Home/Foreign Affairs.
3. Applicants from other countries can be accepted or rejected after a minimum of 24 hours based on the decision of (vice)President or Minister of Home/Foreign Affairs.
4. In case the application is accepted, Congress is obliged to provide citizenship to the applicant. Congress members can not accept citizenship requests without a decision of government.
5. Emergency cases might be accepted immediately without following the aforementioned procedures based on the decision of (vice)President and/or Minister of Home/Foreign Affairs. All emergency cases need to be explained in Congress immediately after the citizenship is granted.
6. Emergency cases include, but are not limited to, applications due to the needed usage of ghost boosters in allied wars, applications due to the inability to work in applicants factories because of existing war in its country, or applications due to the seeking temporary refuge from the wipe of applicants country.
Voting results
Yes:10
No: 10
Neutral:0
The proposal has been neutralized.
Janty F and Shawtyl0w
CoC Team
Comments
1. already not being done properly now.
2. i see no reason to remove the 24h minimum.
6. all of those things can easily wait 24 hours.
Waiting for a ghost booster pass with 24 hours? Stupid or what 🤷♂️ many of things listed for 24 hour emergency clearence cannot wait for 24 hours especially the fact if a ghost booster isnmeeded for a campaign it must be now or we will be partially at fault for preventing an important win
perhaps a booster can't, but they could easily go to a country with lax or no immigration controls for that.
all of the other things can easily wait 24 hours. We are not responsible for someone waiting till the last minute to ask for immigration.
Clearly showing the clones and their master still have no clue about how the game works...
Where to find the current rules? So we can compare changes?
This?
https://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/Security_Council_for_Immigrants
https://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/Lawbook_of_the_Netherlands
Includes a lot of babble that is not part. Only Protocol is.
Well.. as long as I know but I dont have time to check, it never was part of the Lawbook. Maybe that changed when you guys updated it? I am not in favor implementing new Lawtexts. We need less rules, not even more.
It was (and still is, and still will be) a legally binding document at all times, meaning not following it has the same results as not following the Law, despite not being part of the Lawbook (it is neither Chapter or Appendix, neither it is a "motion").
I think the only problem in the old law was the rigidity of 24h waiting period and sometimes the need to bypass that. We had a vague ''emergency'' clause defined, which already covers that, but by defining it better we can evade confusion and political bickering over migrants better, though. Granting citizenship states should not be thought of too easily, though, but there are clear cases where a swift acceptance can be approved.
2 and 3 need to be better defined
4 is bad policy
what distinguishes 2 from 5?
Agreed w NoTie112, better defining the emergency clause should resolve most conflicting opinions.
I am kinda curious, what is wrong with 4, given the fact that it is in current protocol as well.
Congress being obliged is no bueno. CM should always have the right to determine to not use their approval at their discretion. It's really an argument of theory and nothing to worry about in practice at this point, but yea. My approval is my approval. I will pledge to not abuse my privilege and use it without following protocol but you cannot force a CM to use their approval if they don't.
tl;dr it's really a matter of semantics
Well - it's there to make sure that the entire Congress suddenly does not halt immigration acceptance, just because they want to throw a hissy fit. In theory, members of government are usually members of Congress themselves, or they have close friends there, so doubt that would happen. And I also can't imagine a situation, where an individual CM would be put out of the crowd, and accused of "not accepting CS pass". That's why it says "Congress", to be more group-related, and not "Congress Members", which could be targeted more individualy.
That's the kind of semantics I would see behind it. Since the word "obliged" was already there before, and the spirit of the sepcific paragraph was determined to be kept, no change was probably suggested in that part in terms of wording.
Yes, I think obliged was there before. It's still poorly phrased or poor policy in my view. Congress at large should retain the right to halt immigration acceptance if they find reason, as they already do, as is given them by the game. Is there punitive measure legislated if they choose to do so? Individuals will always have the right to not use their approval. Inability to single out a bad actor or prove that accusation is precisely why it's poor policy. It's neither provable nor enforceable on individual basis.
Which is to say, I don't encourage it but if you had an entire Congress willing to halt immigration, I reckon you have much bigger internal problems happening.
That would ultimately lead to the theoretical conflict of: "Why do we have governmental immigration policy rules, if Congress can just... ignore them all and do its own."
The law sometimes consists of paragraphs, which cannot really be forced practically, but encapture the general meaning or spirit of the law. In this case meaning that Congress and government should not have two different immigration approaches, which would clash one with another, and that this protocol should be followed by both sides. And it is perfectly normal to oppose acceptation of some players by some CMs (even though some of those CMs could act a bit less racist while doing so), but if there is nothing objectively wrong with the applicant after governmental search, he should not be denied entry, just because... And if entire Congress thought the government is acting badly in immigration procedures, the entire Congress would be able to impeach the President and individual government members following other procedures, therefore solving the bigger internal problem in the fisr place. And if it would be unable to do so, it would also be unable to fully halt the immigration procedure anyway.
I'm sorry, I disagree with your first line. Congress are not ignoring them all. They agree to NOT use their approval to approve unauthorized applicants, the other part of obliging one to make an approval they're not in agreement with is just not necessary to include.
theoretically, if i'm a CM and i'm online and you are aware i have not used my approval, you could tell me to make an approval and if i refuse... what happens?
In that case, how do you suggest to write down that when applicant is given green light by the government, he is supposed to be accepted, and not accepting him would be against the procedure itself? Because such a basic rule needs to be put down. The smarter of us can imply it from existence of game mechanics (if someone is to be accepted, we as Congress need to press the button for it to happen), however I can imagine people, who would use the lack of this written rule to justify the fact that "not accepting successful applications is perfectly legal behavior". And we already have people here, who practice (atleast in general opinion) illegal things, however they justify them being legal, because "no law specifically talks about this issue". Would like to avoid the immigration procedure joining this category as well.
In your case - I do not remember that ever happening under the current procedure, because when someone is online, it does not necessarily mean he is in position to accept CS pass, and if someone refuses, there are others, who will do the actual job required by the law. Either way, there would be no way, in which you would be singled out, if the rule 4 was not fulfilled, because at that point, entire Congress would be responsible for non-acceptance, even those, who were not vocal about potential refusal.
TL😉R: If you can word it better without losing the spirit of the proposal, please do so.
[removed]
Removing the 24 hour wait time is a big no.
And most of those supposed emergency cases are not emergency cases. a wipe doesn't happen in a matter of minutes, neither does a war declaration that loses you access to factories.
I think letting congress vote on acceptance after government presents their found information after 24 hours would be better.
Also setting up a stipulation that immigrants are barred from using all gov programs for the first 3 months and not allowed to participate in politics for those months, might be a good idea.
The Constitution, Chapter II and III are in direct contradiction with your last suggestion towards Dutch citizens, meaning you are barking at the wrong tree.
Immigration procedure is (and should be) used only for the process of citizenship applications. After one becomes Dutch citizen, he is the same as me or you in the eyes of the Dutch law 🙂
Once 1 obtains Ditch CS heor she IS Dutch so banning a Dutch to participate in politics and gov programs are unacceptable.
Er zitten al restricties op sommige programma's van 2 tot 6 maanden.
Dit minimaal 3 maken voor alle programma's zou geen probleem moeten zijn.
Er zijn heel wat landen waar de restricties op politiek heel normaal zijn.
That 24 hour is the main issue for most "emergencies". Stating that is a clear no once again proofs I&W mostly has no clue...
Thing is you have to broaden your spectrum as to what an emergency is. Better to look into it as a swift way to help citizens from friendly regimes. As clearly explained already...
i agree, i would like to see how the determination of friendly regime is made better defined though.
i think forcing a 24 wait is punitive at this stage
That's where MoFA comes in, and why is he now one of those with "immigration powers".
Sadly we cannot determine our allies properly in our code of law due to the ever so changing nature of diplomacy. We can never know whether this ally will be an enemy the next month or an enemy seitched sides.
Luckily with the introduction of the MoFA for this area the MoFA can provide and define the details of the applicant and the notification in terms of a allied country.
Sadly the 24 hour rule for which I have disliked and in favour of which you do describe as punitive for which I agree would not be removed BUT with the better defined emergency powers, the most basic requests of ghost boosters, refuge from being wiped, the movement due to companies and work are all stated. These do not belong in the 24 hours period fornwhich this why we have made it more flexible under emergency procedure.
Please do not disregard this yet with the 24 hour rule remaining. This piece of legislation actually modernise our immigration protocol but also it opens it doors to future amendement and changes such as the possibility of removal of the 24 hour rule, works on much better definition and future proposals can makenthings much more clearer than clouded. This is only the start of it and it forms the basis of the start of a reform that will be W.I.P.