Talk:The Nation of Promise Resolution, 652

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

The Nation of Promise Resolution, 652 Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/20/2023 12:23 PM

Tabled by Willard Magnus Ward, MGA, NUP, as an Independent Members Bill.

The Nation of Promise Resolution, 652 A resolution to expand the soft power and international standing of the Kodiak Republic.,_652 Proposed by Willard Magnus Ward, MGA, NUP Voting is presently set for 4 May 2023 The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Nation of Promise Resolution, 652 A resolution to expand the soft power and international standing of the Kodiak Republic. ACTIONED on ## MONTH ####, with ## Aye, ## Nay, and ## Abstain. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/20/2023 12:23 PM

@Assembly Member Discussion is now opened. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/20/2023 12:24 PM Willard? No wonder he goes by Magnus Louis von Hengstler [NUP] — 04/20/2023 12:25 PM Omg, is that what the W stands for? XD Isabella Esposito (KWP) — 04/20/2023 12:25 PM Yeah lol Honestly Magnus sounds funnier though Louis von Hengstler [NUP] — 04/20/2023 12:25 PM Ouch. Klaus Mikaelson


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 04/20/2023 12:29 PM

MrSandman — 04/20/2023 7:53 PM I'm wondering if article 2.2.3 should be elaborated on in a bit more detail. Is this a visa for family members of citizens, permanent residences or other visa holders? What would happen in the case of divorce/separation, or when dependant children no longer are under 18? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 8:15 PM A permanent resident is just that - permanent. It can only be removed in the case of serious criminality or the individual leaves Kodiak for an extended period of time (usually two years - therefore no longer 'residing'). The Visa is meant to be for relations of existing citizens. I will edit the line slightly to make that more clear. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 9:19 PM I want to note that this is the first of the style of policies you can expect to see from a National Unity Party government. The National Unity Party is all about exactly that - National Unity. Diversity is our strength, and people our greatest asset. We market ourselves to the world as a responsible modern democracy - one where people dream of being a part of. A land of milk and honey - and even more importantly - Jobs and Opportunity. The first step to building a better nation is in liberalising our immigration policies, shoring up our international reputation, and joining the world stage as a mature and modern state Mivod Hlaja [NUP] — 04/20/2023 9:22 PM International relations also would assist in our economy. Any good relation includes trade, and there is plenty of opportunities on our peninsula. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 04/20/2023 10:18 PM 1. Article 2.5.6 seems a bit inconvenient. Somebody could qualify for Kodiaker Citizenship the day after Kodiak Day, and have to wait an entire year for the benefits of citizenship that they would otherwise be entitled to. 2. The "or" in 2.5.2 is confusing, it doesn't clarify what the two alternatives are (2.5.1 and 2.5.2 vs. 2.5.3-6, or is it just 2.5.2 vs. 2.5.3?). 3. Why isn't the Refugee Visa mentioned in 2.2? 4. Colon should be added at the end of 3.4, and the colon should be swapped for a semicolon at the end of 3.4.1 5. In the amendment to the RJURA, "roll" should be changed to "role", and the same in the RJAN. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/20/2023 10:19 PM

I’m not sure the assembly floor is the best place for political campaigning, Mr. Ward. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 10:20 PM Your unsureness is noted, Mr. Mikaelson. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/20/2023 10:21 PM

I’m this moment, you can take the above post as a gentle nudge from the office of the President. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 10:24 PM I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that directly indicating a long-term purpose to a resolution with specific attention to how that policy fits within a wider policy framework in our political body was unacceptable. Are there any other arbitrary distinctions the President would like to make me aware of before I continue? Or is it only when a government of the President's Party declares a long-term interest or direction in policy that its acceptable? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 04/20/2023 10:31 PM I have one question specifically about the foreign service act in the act their is a ministry named the ministry of defense and foreign affairs would that be a renameing of the ministry of defense and immigration or is it a title the ministry has had but not often used W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 10:33 PM Regarding your questions: 1) While potentially inconvenient for the individual, it is my personal opinion that the idea of citizenship is one of attachment to the community and the nation. That tying citizenship to an important national holiday and making a state ceremony is about integration and that this is a feature of the process, not a mistake. 2) the OR is specific to 2.5.2 or 2.5.3 and this is meant to be indicated by the fact it is the only qualifier found in the list. All others are considered essential by the wording in 2.5 3) Because refugee visas are created by their own article in article three. The idea being that it would be less-clear if we establish the visa in two locations in the act. 4) Thank you for the notice, I'll adjust accordingly. 5) I will adjust accordingly, noting that the typo exists in the original as well, but this amendment would in fact repair that typo. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 10:35 PM You're right. it was a mild oversight. I will amend accordingly I might contend that given the expansion of the department it may be prudent to consider changing the department to Defence and Foreign Affairs at a later date. But that isn't in the purview of this act. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 04/20/2023 10:37 PM Thank you, that makes it much clearer! W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 10:42 PM This proposal is, i think (as well as my party), essential to our nation's continued progress, and therefore I am keenly prepared to engage in the questions and needs of the assembly. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/20/2023 10:54 PM

We also don’t need the dramatics, Mr. Ward. I look forward to posts from here out being about the proposal itself, not campaigning or dramatic readings worthy of the stage. Thank you, kindly. 🙂 I will be looking over the bill tomorrow and hope to have something worth stating at that time. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/20/2023 10:58 PM When I perpetuate the dramatic, I will be sure to keep that in mind. Until then, i will continue to support and defend my proposal and my party's long term goals and vision. Be sure to let me know when we get there. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/21/2023 6:51 AM Many civilized nations extend citizenship to foreign individuals who complete a term of service in the nation's armed forces. I wonder if this would be an appropriate addition to this bill? Perhaps something like: 2.5.7 Individuals who complete a term of service within the Kodiak Armed Forces shall be considered both a permanent resident and eligible for citizenship upon completion of their term of service. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/21/2023 6:53 AM I would strongly suggest the wording be changed on 5.2 and 5.3. While I understand what Mr. Ward means by the usage of the 'OR', but the interpretation could be confusing. I would merge them into a single sentence, thusly: 2.5.2 speak a national language of Kodiak with a certified proficiency of at least (B2) according to the URA Framework of Reference for Languages, or holds a certificate of completion for any Associates or higher tertiary classification from a Kodiaker institution; Additionally, what is meant by "integrity" check? And why is there a "character" check? Those two things seem like arbitrary metrics that could be used to easily discriminate against individuals. Criminal check is at least a measurable metric; character and integrity are not. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/21/2023 8:08 AM They are not as arbitrary as you make them out to be. A criminal check can only check those things which are crimes in the location of the check. Therefore it is conceivable that a criminal check is not a proper and complete view of an immigrant's history. Therefore a character test is also required. This test is to provide evidence of the general character of the individual and obligates them to provide references of character from important individuals or other Kodiaker citizens as well as legally obliges them to disclose non-criminal actions (such as misdemeanours). While it may not always be possible to as a government check every case on these specific claims, it provides the government a legal opportunity to retroactively remove a visa from an individual subsequently found to have failed this assessment (Such as a DUI, Domestic Abuse, or other antisocial behaviour which may be felonies in Kodiak but are not in their nation of origin). Then, they must also pass an integrity check. That is that the information they provided has been real and fair. This means providing evidence that the provision of the visa is the proper response. If you marry a Kodiaker citizen, but that relationship is not in fact true (live in different houses, can't answer simple questions about the spouse) or if you request a job visa (the company cannot prove they have a long-standing employment history in Kodiak) the integrity check is essential to determine integrity of the application

These three checks are not specified in detail as it is my view that their specific existence is enough to cover the necessary bases, and otherwise it is up to the minister and the department more widely to determine the specifics of their procedures based on the needs of the clients and the department. It also allows the department greater opportunity to make justifiable decisions for visa determinations such as overlooking a crime (such as atheism in a theocracy, or a crime of treason in an autocracy) as they would fail a criminal check but still pass a character check. So to clarify in dot point Criminal Checks can only check for crimes in the nation of origin of the check Character Checks exist to fill the blanks of an applicant's history that a criminal check may not. Integrity Checks exist to ensure the application is not fraudulent. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/21/2023 8:10 AM It also allows the department greater opportunity to make justifiable decisions for visa determinations such as overlooking a crime (such as atheism in a theocracy, or a crime of treason in an autocracy) as they would fail a criminal check but still pass a character check. Considering the wording says "and", that's not really the case, is it. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/21/2023 8:11 AM passing a criminal check does not obligate you to have no crimes. it obligates you to have no serious kodiaker crimes. The three checks work together to build the picture to the benefit of the applicant and the nation. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/21/2023 8:12 AM Again, I understand the intent of making the wording open to interpretation, but considering there is an ability to interpret them differently than you intend, there should be at least some level of description of what "pass" means in this context. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/21/2023 8:13 AM I disagree because then we find problems where the legislation may slowly drift away from subsequent legislation or government policies. It needs to be up to interpretation because immigration is not a black and white question. It is one of as many difficult questions as there are citizens in the world By leaving the application to interpretation and policy by the department, it also provides the rights to challenge those interpretations in arbitration and in the court of law. To define what is a pass or is not removes those opportunities. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/21/2023 8:18 AM But it also opens the process up to open discrimination. I'm all for a flexible interpretation of the law, but never in the direction of possible discrimination. And this system does just that. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/21/2023 8:20 AM It is a process of the republic to ensure its Ministers and the officers its appoints are of good character. And it is up to the judiciary to interpret and defend our existing anti-discrimination laws. I don't believe that every law must be written to also be thusly so encompassing. The immigration process is one to determine how applications are processed. I would argue just as heavily that by determining today what is or is not proper, also creates discrimination - only its one the judiciary cannot overturn as it will be set in legal stone. I believe the best process to ensure maximal effect is one where there are clear people of responsibility and a way to appeal those people's decisions. I don't believe that the best process is to attempt to enshrine all possible circumstances in legislation and then subsequently discover we missed a bunch and we are now legally obligated to harm what would otherwise be fair immigrants due to our own missteps. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/21/2023 9:16 AM I argue simply for a more sophisticated process, not an exhaustive one. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 04/22/2023 1:19 AM We don't need more immigrants We struggle to find employment for our own people We should encourage our citizens to take jobs overseas and bring back remittance first and then use the remittance to fund local development W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/22/2023 1:33 AM I struggle to understand in what way the member believes we can both 1) encourage citizens to work in a foreign state while supporting our own sovereignty and also 2) somehow demand they send us free money for work they performed on behalf of and within a foreign state. Nor how enacting a policy of exploitation and extraction from foreign nations would in any way increase our standing in the international community. Antonin Artaud — 04/22/2023 8:26 PM Why do we need immigrants? We should focus on the internal development and progress of our own society. Kurdipam-akrobait-CKA — 04/22/2023 9:30 PM we can let only the immigrants whos life is in danger like if there country is in a war or something W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/22/2023 9:33 PM The development and progress of our own state obligates us to be good stewards of the globe. That means participating in porous borders and fair and just immigration standards. I note that nothing in the bill allows just random people to immigrate to our nation. The entire point is that only those with a specific purpose or tie to our land are allowed. People with skills and job offers. Non-elderly people related to our own citizens as parents or spouses. The only additional type is specifically the visa for refugees which does not obligate a tie to Kodiak but instead a danger in their home nation. I also remind the members present that the bill does have four active clauses, not only regularising our immigration policies to be more in line with international standards Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/22/2023 10:51 PM Those are "refugees", not immigrants. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/22/2023 10:53 PM Ah, yes, the well-known political and economic strategy of attempting to grow an economy without allowing for the largest source of new buyers and producers. Oh wait... Kurdipam-akrobait-CKA — 04/22/2023 11:26 PM We should let immigrants who are coming to search for a job or something and people that could build the country not any someone like maybe lets say a hooker Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 04/23/2023 12:03 AM That's what this bill does... Kurdipam-akrobait-CKA — 04/23/2023 12:03 AM ? Yes i am having a problem where i say something wrong but after seconds i realize its wrong but ethier i am too lazy to correct it or i correct it Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 04/23/2023 12:05 AM Oh understandable Kurdipam-akrobait-CKA — 04/23/2023 12:06 AM Wait did i just say that we should allow hoookers to immgrate Or the other way around Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 04/23/2023 12:07 AM What I'm trying to say is that the only people that will be let into Kodiak are either refugees or those with a family attachment to Kodiak or someone who has secured 3+ years employment in the country Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 04/23/2023 12:07 AM No, you said that hookers should not be allowed to immigrate Kurdipam-akrobait-CKA — 04/23/2023 12:08 AM Yes good I said that we should allow refugees Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/24/2023 8:20 AM

any other discussion? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/24/2023 8:59 PM I'd say that there hasn't really been any significant and principled opposition, and that most of the conversation was mostly about specifics in one section of one amendment - I'd motion for the proposal to be taken to a vote Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 04/24/2023 8:59 PM Seconded Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/24/2023 9:18 PM I support the broad aspects of the bill but disagree with a number of specific points. The author is unwilling to compromise on them, thus the main opposition is moot. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/25/2023 9:38 AM

I'll leave this open until this afternoon, if there has been no other significant discussion by that point, we will proceed to the vote Richard Havtjer / D&P — 04/25/2023 11:12 AM @Assembly President I believe there's nothing much to discuss in here, should we proceed with the vote? Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/25/2023 12:39 PM

Agreed EasyPoll BOT

— 04/25/2023 12:40 PM

Question Do you support the Nation of Promise Resolution of 652?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [17 • 65%] 🇧 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 15%] 🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [5 • 19%] 26 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (3 days ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice
lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 94ad288c Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/25/2023 12:40 PM

@Assembly Member Voting is now opened Kurdipam-akrobait-CKA — 04/25/2023 6:09 PM What is aye nay abstain ? Louis von Hengstler [NUP] — 04/25/2023 6:13 PM Aye - you're for it Nay - you're again it Abstain is self explanatory Spiritualandia — 04/26/2023 8:50 PM Abstain is basically don't care Or neither Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/26/2023 9:23 PM Abstain is basically not doing your job. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 04/26/2023 9:31 PM That’s not at all what an abstain vote is… it means that your viewpoints are neutral. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 04/26/2023 9:31 PM Please discuss this in ⁠🔆|lobby All conversation is meant to end once vote begins Luke Rodriguez (DODO) — 04/26/2023 9:31 PM I agree with aaron Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/26/2023 9:40 PM

Yeah, the first explanation was sufficient, no other discussion was necessary nor will it be tolerated after this post Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 04/29/2023 1:48 PM

With 17 votes in favor, 4 against and 5 abstentions, this bill is declared passed and will be archived after 24 hours

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.