Talk:Amendment to The Immigration Act, 645

Patrick Barber — 02/09/2022
@Assembly Member
Tabled for consideration to the assembly:
Amendment to The Immigration Act, 645
PROPOSED to amend The Immigration Act
https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Amendment_to_The_Immigration_Act,_645
Proposed by Chancellor Oskar Luchens, NUP
Written by Minister for Defense Mr. Heimdallr, MGA, PPK
Voting is currently set for 22 October 2022
---
as an MGA, I did just want to ask the honourable Mr. @Tobias Virstürm (PPK) is the deletion of Refugee Rights a policy your party would normally suggest to the assembly?
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 02/09/2022
I’d just like to say that the bill I originally had did not include such things about refugees I still had that refugees could enter the country the add ons were edited by a NUP i still think that the other stuff in the bill are good for long term but I would have to say my ideal situation for this bill would it to have a renewal clause or be amended after the war to allow refugees to enter the country
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 03/09/2022
In that case, I would like to invite the NUP to give reasoning for the complete reversal of refugee policy. As it appears there is some disagreement in terms of the proposed act at least in Refugee Policy.

I'd like to also invite Mr Heimdallr to share his views on what alternative he might see as more prudent.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 03/09/2022
My opinion on the subject as a waring nation I don’t think it would be appropriate time to accept any refugee applications though that doesn’t mean we should just turn our current refugee policy on its head when we are at peace we would not need such restrictions so I don’t see practically deleting our current refugee policy as any part of a good plan
jmariii — 03/09/2022
Wait are we warring?
Bruh I’m literally a pacifist country 💀💀💀
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 03/09/2022
This is relative to the Mock Gov portion of the discord. Not the NationStates portion
jmariii — 03/09/2022
Oh ok epic
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 03/09/2022
So perhaps the amendment should call for a pause whilst we are at war, rather than removal of the policy?
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 03/09/2022
That would be the ideal solution in my eyes
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 03/09/2022
I think something we should also consider is that we are expending money to maintain a program for refugees, however what is the benefit for Kodiak? Given our current situation even pre-war, Kodiak is not a state that would be desirable to anyone fleeing a war torn location. From the purview of the NUP we are spending an extra 20 million florins per quarter on a program that is not being utilized.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 03/09/2022
Then a pause would seem the appropriate solution at least for the current time as we are not ready for any refugees a pause would be the correct solution of course this would only last for a time of the war and maybe reconstruction a pause would seem to provide the most benefits
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 03/09/2022
My argument is that the benefit of the program is still not worth the cost. Taking conflict out of the equation, we are again paying money for a program that is not being utilized due to a lack of desirability for Kodiak as a site for resettlement.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 04/09/2022
So let’s say we get rid of our refugee policy and our department for such were just not going to allow refugees in ever again in my eyes the best solution is we put the whole department on pause no funding no applications until the time the war is over and we are reconstructed
John Edwards [KWP] — 04/09/2022
I understand the concerns of the chancellor, and, as Revenue Minister, the cost of an underutilised program. However, to abandon a program altogether and thus abandon humanitarian obligations regardless of current current predicaments speaks poorly of us as a nation. Let us pause the program during this conflict and revise it to better reflect the actual costs being incured rather than abandon it altogether.
Patrick Barber — 04/09/2022
As a member, I don't see any significant need for this bill at all. While I can see some use in increasing funding for the border guards, overall, I see no reason to mess with the refugee policy just to say we did something.
Refugees aren't an inherent security threat because they are already highly vetted before being granted any visas, and they can't perform any hostile acts while in containment for processing. It seems like an excuse to target minorities without really targeting any meaningful problems.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 04/09/2022
The problem is waste. Given the level of refugees we are taking in, compared to the cost we are expending, those are funds we could be expending into more critical programs that would serve a purpose here and now.

Kodiak is not in a position to accept refugees. In the future, given a stable and prosperous Kodiak, this program would be more worthwhile. But to spend the money just because it’s the “moral responsibility” to do so, that’s not a sound strategy.
Patrick Barber — 04/09/2022
the money spent on refugee resettlement and verification is minimal compared to the budget overall. Not even a tenth of a percent. The real waste is debating it here when we could have a more useful bill on the docket.
doubly so when its only function is to target the already poorly treated
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 04/09/2022
Given the status of the economy, every aspect of the existing budget is being examined for these types of wasteful spending projects. We can not continue to spend on moral projects that offer no tangible benefits to the country as a whole. That 20million per quarter will be better allocated into Education and Labor Reform packages.
Patrick Barber — 04/09/2022
I would have been more likely to believe that argument if it were included with an education reform package. As it stands, it smacks of punching down.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 05/09/2022
Since these bills can only encompass one Title of the Law Code, it has been diverged into a separate resolution. The Labor and Education Resolutions remain in draft at this time
Klaus Mikaelson — 07/09/2022
we must accept any and all refugees that we can. It barely effects the budget and it is the morally right thing to do.
if we are to so quickly and easily abandon our morals, I honestly don't know what we're doing here.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 07/09/2022
I would agree if we weren’t in a situation of war currently a pause on all applications and funding would be more appropriate
Klaus Mikaelson — 08/09/2022
war or not. We have a duty to set an example that our morals and our sense of what is right and what is wrong do not go out the window every time there's something wrong. To stand by our beliefs and refuse to be less is what Kodiak is meant to stand for. Anything less, and we've already lost.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 08/09/2022
No that would be if I was asking for a complete ban I’m not I’m asking for a pause we’re not throwing away our morals by not being able to house refugees that probably don’t even want to come here
Klaus Mikaelson — 08/09/2022
how do you know what others want? A refugee is looking for help, for a better place to live where they can sleep through the night and not have to worry about waking up scared. We can provide that. We should feel duty-bound to provide that
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 08/09/2022
Why would a refugee want to go to another country were they would fear for there lives anyway if diplomacy falls through we would be at war even now we would not be best abled to handle many refugees
Klaus Mikaelson — 08/09/2022
sometimes the short term answer is all a refugee can ask for. If a place welcomes them in and that place isn't currently being bombed, that's a good start. We cannot alter our morals and what we are meant to be based on what could happen, possibly, one day.
Nor would a refugee turn down a warm welcome, a safe bed and food because that country might go to war at some point.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 08/09/2022
Listen just because we pause on refugees coming to the country doesn’t mean we are so called turning our backs on our morals the fact is we are not equipped to handle more refugees then we have at the moment many places are still in the process of rebuilding after numerous bombings by TGN I fully have plans to reinstate these policies when we are able but now is not the time to allow refugees in to the country the fact is we have to think about our own citizens and in fact the rest of the refugees we all ready have
Klaus Mikaelson — 08/09/2022
Have you heard of punctuation? 😛 "Thinking about our own citizens" while ignoring the plight of others that we can help is not conducive to being a member of the modern world. If people need help, regardless of what made up border they were born within, they should receive help.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
I would totally agree if we could help them the fact is we can’t we are barely building back after the bombings many people are with out home and we have to set up camps for our citizens because they lost their homes to the war and granted we are still at war were just in ceasefire for now so no we are not equipped to handle refugees
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
I have made some edits to the bill the new clause in the bill says that on the repeal of the war resolution or the ceasefire were to exceed 10 years (like two or three months I don’t know if that’s exactly to Kodiak time but I wouldn’t want it to be like a couple of weeks) in the event of either one of these the bill will be automatically repealed
Klaus Mikaelson — 09/09/2022
I personally cannot support or vote in favor of any legislation that cuts back on helping other human beings.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
I understand and respect your opinion but we all have to think about this reasonably we are a nation at war but currently in cease fire for now most of the Darrent is occupied by the great north most of the citizens their lost their homes we are still rebuilding after the bombings and we currently have to set up camps for our citizens because they lost their homes in the war can you in reason say we would be equipped to support and house refugees at this time I am not asking for a ban I am asking for pause until we are in a situation wear we can at least for now
Patrick Barber — 09/09/2022
I just want to note that as you've written the resolution "3.5" indicates that once the war ends, the entire immigration act will be repealed, which I don't believe was your intention.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
At this point I’m seeing this bill as temporary Do think it would be a benefit to create another bill with those things in the event of a repeal
Patrick Barber — 09/09/2022
The immigration act already exists - your resolution here as presented amends the existing bill. article 3 section 5 if passed would repeal the entire immigration act at the end of hostilities.
I am unsure, but I don't believe it was your intention to repeal the entire immigration act upon the cessation of war with TGN
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
(Yep definitely Did not mean to do that I’ll edit it so it would only repeal this amend to the immigration bill)
(The wordings fixed)
Patrick Barber — 09/09/2022
Great. Thank you for clarifying.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
That could have been a costly mistake
Patrick Barber — 09/09/2022
One second question I have is: your amendment to the border patrol, article 1 section 4 enables biometric data recording but does not specify what sorts of biometrics it will record.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
Oh ok it would record when the person enters the border how long they would be staying and if they returned to their country of origin after the visit also taking down such information as name and a photo or description
Patrick Barber — 09/09/2022
those aren't biometric data
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
One sec
Patrick Barber — 09/09/2022
biometric data are things like fingerprints, retina scans, facial recognition data, iris recognition, palm imprints, etc
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/09/2022
Yeah sorry about that but now knowing more then I just did I would most likely say it would collect facial recognition or finger prints
Patrick Barber — 10/09/2022
I think as a member, I cannot support this bill - and would encourage others to vote against when the time comes. I simply don't believe we can remove our legal protections for refugees, while also generating them ourselves. It is, in my opinion, greed and harm masked as 'policy'
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 13/09/2022
I cannot support this bill, and I concur with President Barber on this matter.
John Edwards [KWP] — 13/09/2022
Whilst i understand the chancellors concerns over cost and funding an underutilised service, I can't help but think that it is this very service whose resources, experience, provedures and infrastructure will be utilised to reaccomodate our own refugees out of the Darrent. To shut it down when we could use them the most seems very short sighted.
Klaus Mikaelson — 17/09/2022
we can help ours and others. There's no need to pick one group of those in need over another.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 17/09/2022
i would like to say that I'm officially with drawing my support from this bill and will be abstaining from the vote wale i did write a good majority of the bill i think it's gone too far from what it was intended it's not something that i would support otherwise so i cannot support it though i will be soon drafting another bill for the same purpose with some Policys from this bill but said bill would not include anything about refugees
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 17/09/2022
Maybe it’s best to throw this bill out now. It’s clearly not gonna pass the vote and even one of the authors is backing out.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 17/09/2022
Maybe
Patrick Barber — 17/09/2022
I do believe democracy would be better served with a vote, even negative. I accept the motion to vote, if there are no objections I will begin the poll tomorrow
Klaus Mikaelson — 19/09/2022
was there a motion?
Patrick Barber — 23/09/2022
It is my understanding that the @Ministers of the @Chancellor's government have a replacement bill and I await their confirmation and if they would like to replace this specific piece with that piece.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 23/09/2022
There is indeed a replacement for the current piece that will be introduced by Minister Edwards once he feels it is ready
Patrick Barber — 23/09/2022
I will recess the debate until such time
John Edwards [KWP] — 23/09/2022
I was not aware I was making a replacement bill. I'll have a look.
Klaus Mikaelson — 23/09/2022
That's interesting. The Chancellor doesn't seem to be on the same page or even the same book as his cabinet.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 23/09/2022
@John Edwards [KWP] mistaken for the other Jonn in the cabinet. I read your comment on the amendments and forgot who the original author was
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 24/09/2022
The new bill drafted by me is kind of under review but I expect to introduce soon
Klaus Mikaelson — 27/09/2022
I move to table this bill.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 27/09/2022
Seeing as the new replacement bill is introduced to the president I second the motion
Tobias Virstürm (PPK) — 03/10/2022
@Assembly President I also favor the motion
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 05/10/2022
I favor the motion as well.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 05/10/2022
I also favour the motion
Patrick Barber — 08/10/2022
The original document has been amended to reflect the requested changes
@Assembly Member
https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Amendment_to_The_Immigration_Act,_645
I will reopen the floor to debate
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 10/10/2022
I have no qualms with this, and so support it.
Tobias Virstürm (PPK) — 19/10/2022
I am also in support of this resolution. Especially due to changes made through this amendment.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 19/10/2022
I'd like to motion to begin a vote. {Did I do that right?}
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 19/10/2022
I second the motion
Tobias Virstürm (PPK) — 20/10/2022
Seeing the motion I will put this up for vote tomorrow
EasyPoll
BOT

— 21/10/2022

Question
Do you support the amendment?

Choices
🇦 Aye
🇧 Nay
🇨 Abstain

Final Result
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [10 • 71%]
🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 14%]
🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 14%]
14 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (20 days ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member
Poll ID: TfpuVSiWR4
Tobias Virstürm (PPK) — 21/10/2022
@Assembly Member the proposed Amendment is now under vote and will continue for 72 hours. Further discussion is now prohibited.
Tobias Virstürm (PPK) — 24/10/2022
@Assembly Member the resolution has passed. I will be archiving the channel and updating the website in 24 hours.
Patrick Barber — Today at 16:55
Archiving now