End McCarthyism Once and For All Act of 2014 (Law'd)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator TNF

[Prince of Salem]

This bill has my full support.

[TNF]

I was shocked to find these are (technically) still on the books, by nature of them not being repealed in Atlasia. Figured we ought to correct that.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The Immigration and Nationality Act should stay for the purpose of national security. We need responsible immigration laws.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

[TNF]

What is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there a legitimate need for such? For instance if a foreign national engaged in inciting, or encouraging terrorist activity, would we still be able to deport them without that law?

[TNF]

Is there a legitimate need for such? For instance if a foreign national engaged in inciting, or encouraging terrorist activity, would we still be able to deport them without that law?

I'm not sure, but either way, I don't think that we should deport someone on the grounds that they're 'inciting' anything, given the sh**tty record of the US government insofar as deporting radicals with even the faintest relation to another country.

See: The First Red Scare

[Lumine]

Not to defend communism and other forms of totalitarism, but some of these mentioned bills do reflect an era of paranoia that we no longer live on, so repealing the Communist Control Act makes a lot of sense to me. Like Yankee and JCL, I'm not entirely sure in the Immigration and Nationality Act, since that one might still be relevant to today's world and the threats we face.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't think there's really any debate to be had here. These bills are reflective of a time that that portrays our country poorly, and they should be removed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there a legitimate need for such? For instance if a foreign national engaged in inciting, or encouraging terrorist activity, would we still be able to deport them without that law?

I'm not sure, but either way, I don't think that we should deport someone on the grounds that they're 'inciting' anything, given the sh**tty record of the US government insofar as deporting radicals with even the faintest relation to another country.

See: The First Red Scare

This is not the US, though. Last I check, we run this place, not Wilson and Palmer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think there's really any debate to be had here. These bills are reflective of a time that that portrays our country poorly, and they should be removed.

What is the point in us bringing it up if there is not any debate to be had about it? It is not like the policy can actually be implemented or the effects actually felt in a virtual world. The only benefit to us, is that discussion which we derive from its being brought up.

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to offer this amendment. I support getting rid of the Internal Security Act and the Communist Control Act, but I'm not yet convinced that the Immigration and Nationality act should be repealed without a clear view of the effects the repeal would have.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support the amendment.

[TNF]

I object to the amendment. It is clear that the only thing that repealing that Act would do is ending the ability of the government to deport radicals for saying things that they don't like.

[windjammer]

Senators, you have 24 hours to discuss about this amendement before I start a vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Natural freedom ends where it seeks to remove those of another. A person calling for the death and destruction of another is not exercising free speech. And considering especially that this is Atlasia and not the US and and is run by DemPGH and Snowstalker, not Wilson and Palmer, I feel comfortable at least retaining the government's ability to deport a foreign national who has come here merely to call for violent activities to be perpetuated here.

[windjammer]

Well,
I go to bed
But tomorrow,
I will make some search on this law.
Best,
WJ

[TNF]

Natural freedom ends where it seeks to remove those of another. A person calling for the death and destruction of another is not exercising free speech. And considering especially that this is Atlasia and not the US and and is run by DemPGH and Snowstalker, not Wilson and Palmer, I feel comfortable at least retaining the government's ability to deport a foreign national who has come here merely to call for violent activities to be perpetuated here.

Speech matters less than who is speaking and the position of that person in society. I can guarantee you that if a member of the bourgeoisie bought a media outlet and pumped loads of cash into putting out some nonsense about how we need to destroy Iraq or something, he wouldn't be deported. But a radical feminist agitator on the streets? Can't say the same. The problem with your ideology is that it does not recognize the very real power differentials that exist in society.

[windjammer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
Please senators, read that before voting.
That explains well the law I guess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Natural freedom ends where it seeks to remove those of another. A person calling for the death and destruction of another is not exercising free speech. And considering especially that this is Atlasia and not the US and and is run by DemPGH and Snowstalker, not Wilson and Palmer, I feel comfortable at least retaining the government's ability to deport a foreign national who has come here merely to call for violent activities to be perpetuated here.

Speech matters less than who is speaking and the position of that person in society. I can guarantee you that if a member of the bourgeoisie bought a media outlet and pumped loads of cash into putting out some nonsense about how we need to destroy Iraq or something, he wouldn't be deported. But a radical feminist agitator on the streets? Can't say the same. The problem with your ideology is that it does not recognize the very real power differentials that exist in society.

On the contrary a person calling for a war with a foreign country is calling for a specific foreign policy option and thus would be part of the debate, a serious debate but a debate none the less. If someone bought a lot of airtime to go on TV and call for civic violence or the elimination of a specific group through genocide, I would think that example would be more apples to apples. Nor on the flip side is a radical feminist advocating for violence unless they call for bombing opponents of their views or something.

The probelm with your approach not even ideology is that it always presumes the worst in motivations for that which you disagree with and thus leads often to similar such false equvalencies.

[TNF]

Your position is nonsensical. News at 11.

I request a vote on the amendment that I deemed unfriendly.

[windjammer]

Sorry for the delay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A vote on Lumine's amendment is now open.
Please senators, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[TNF]

NAY

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Nay.