People of the Pacific Region vs. Government of Atlasian [Withdrawn]
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 02:31:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  People of the Pacific Region vs. Government of Atlasian [Withdrawn]
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: People of the Pacific Region vs. Government of Atlasian [Withdrawn]  (Read 489 times)
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 28, 2015, 07:23:42 PM »
« edited: November 28, 2015, 08:58:55 PM by Ebowed »

The Secretary of State has notified Governors and the public of a refugee resettlement plan which establishes religious quotas and discriminates against Muslims.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

On behalf of the People of the Pacific Region, as their Chief Judicial Officer I am formally lodging suit against the religious quota system instated by the Secretary of State.  It is not within our interest to begin religious profiling and discrimination against Muslims, who are murdered in greater numbers by IS than any other religious group, on the basis of misinformation and/or bigotry.

Although the Secretary of State contends that Christians and other religious minorities are the "true" victims of IS terrorism, if this case is accepted, I intend to clearly demonstrate that this is neither accurate nor a constitutional basis on which to discriminate, nor legal in conjunction with our international obligations.



The first three clauses of Article VI of the Third Constitution state:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I maintain that all three clauses are relevant to my case and request the Court to suspend any executive order that establishes religious quotas in the manner outlined above.  I also invite representatives of other regions to join this lawsuit.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,094
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2015, 08:29:50 PM »

Now, obviously the Atlasian Refugee Act of 1980 vests all power in quotas for refugee handling exclusively in the executive branch - namely, in this case, the President - with the notion that refugees processed and accepted are admitted based on the definition of "any person who is outside any country of such person nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion".

Furthermore, since the definition of refugee excludes "any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on ... account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion", the refugee vetting process will handle any possibilities for organized discrimination of groups based on religion and will exclude anyone falling under this definition from qualifying for refugee status.

The White House is willing and looks forward to working with anyone and everyone on this matter in the coming days and weeks.  

Null, void, etc. Only I have the power to issue any binding declarations with regards to refugee resettlement programs via the Refugee Act of 1980 and I have not issued any such declarations or directives at this time.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2015, 08:42:28 PM »

Mr. CJO would it be better if the state department reviewed the plan to allow more people who aren't Christians into the country like splitting it 33,33,33?
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2015, 08:50:38 PM »

Mr. CJO would it be better if the state department reviewed the plan to allow more people who aren't Christians into the country like splitting it 33,33,33?

The nature of the crisis essentially means that any religious quota system that would likely be devised would end up discriminating against Muslims.  The majority of families affected by terrorism in the Middle East are Muslims by sheer virtue of the fact that the majority of people there are Muslim - and terrorists are indiscriminate in their targeting of innocent individuals.  If the terrorists are indiscriminate in their destruction, we must be indiscriminate in our compassion.  To do otherwise is to surrender to the goals of IS.  Regardless of the implications surrounding a potential surrender by the Atlasian government to IS, it is imperative that the Constitution is respected and the rights of all people, regardless of their religious persuasion, or lack thereof, are protected even in the midst of this refugee crisis.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2015, 08:57:17 PM »

You claim that an executive order was published while none were by the State Department or the President I just announced States proposal.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2015, 08:58:40 PM »

Having received confirmation from the President that the policy outlined above is NOT administration policy, I am happy to withdraw this lawsuit.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2015, 09:00:58 PM »

You claim that an executive order was published while none were by the State Department or the President I just announced States proposal.

I'm not sure what you mean here, I'm afraid.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2015, 09:04:49 PM »

You claim that an executive order was published while none were by the State Department or the President I just announced States proposal.

I'm not sure what you mean here, I'm afraid.
I read it wrong sorry Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 13 queries.