NationStates Jolt Archive

Title: Freedom of Emigration
Category: Human Rights
(Alternative -- Furthering Democracy)
Strength: Mild (?)


OBSERVING THAT various groups of individuals within nations will hold belief systems or interests that are incompatible to their government's policies;

SEEING THAT it is in the interests of individuals to seek out national environments that are compatible with their beliefs and their needs;

AND UNDERSTANDING that the goal of the UN is to further the rights of individuals and promote stable international relations;

THE RIGHT of an individual or group of individuals to willfully emigrate to another nation for political, social, or religious reasons shall not be infringed upon by a government.

SEEING THE need to maintain the sovereignty of individual NATIONS, a person may be restricted from emigration if,

1) The individual committed an act of violence and is incarcerated for that act.
2) The individual committed an act of theft, infringing upon the rights of another citizen or group of citizens within the nation.

IN ORDER to prevent abuses, a small oversight board will be established, funds delegated by vote of UN assembly. This board will manage disputes between nations and citizens wishing to emigrate FROM a nation to another.

=========>>
About the resolution
=========>>
This resolution will have no effect on whether any nation is to ACCEPT the request to emigrate by an individual. Rather, it merely mandates that an individual have the right to leave his or her home nation to find a (potentially) better life elsewhere.

I'm accepting suggestions if I've missed some extenuating circumstances to forbidding an individual to emigrate. Also, since the proposal covers a very narrow focus, the funds would be _miniscule_ compared to recently passed proposals. (Likely less than .1% of the education or blood bank proposal at most. I don't recall reading a UN court resolution anywhere, but this would nullify this concern as there would already be a mediating body.)

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds

Ah, the freedom to, as our Minister of Internal Affairs put it ever so eloquently, "Get the f*#@ out of your country when things go downhill." Yes, yes, Sophista will support this proposal. Bring on the debate, ladies and gentlemen.

First off, we like the general aim of this proposal. We firmly believe that there's no reason why anyone should be permanently committed to a country simply by accident of birth. However, it has a few troubling implications.

We'd assume that "political, social or religious" reasons would include economic. Not that we object, just that this would mean a pretty hefty departure from previous methods. Not sure if that implies 'stable international relations' or not.

This really, really needs a safeguard against tax evasion en masse. (That said, just 'cause you're allowed to leave the country doesn't mean you're allowed to take anything with you...)

Also, the mention of incarceration made me think; surely any prisoner who hasn't committed theft or a violent crime could just exercise their Right To Emigrate and dodge their sentence. We'd like this changed to anybody under arrest, under a charge, or undergoing any sentence for any crime, as well as PoWs. Somebody who's doing community service for perjury shouldn't be able to dodge this by fleeing the country any more than somebody in the clink for theft.

For obvious security reasons, nations should be able to close their borders in times of war as well, we think.

The PRoGG supports the principles of this resolution.

A few questions though:

1. What kind of abuse do you expect that requires an oversight board?

2. Why 'emigration'? To be technical, freedom of emigration means that we also need freedom of immigration. Perhaps it is better worded as "freedom of travel" or "freedom of migration".

3. On the restrictions: couldn't that simply be
"SEEING THE need to maintain the sovereignty of individual NATIONS, a person may be restricted from emigration if that person is being held in prison or being charged with criminal offences".

What we don't want is all sorts of criminals travelling freely to whatever country might be preferable at that time. Which makes me think about a resolution concerning international criminals and how to deal with them if another country wants them in prison. But that's a different thing altogether.

Regards,

UN ambassador PRoGG.

Why 'emigration'? To be technical, freedom of emigration means that we also need freedom of immigration. Perhaps it is better worded as "freedom of travel" or "freedom of migration".

Well, no. What this says is you can leave your country, but nobody's forced to accept you. If there was freedom of immigration as well as emigration, countries with a high standard of living would be instantly swamped by a horde of economic migrants, the distinction between nations would become effectively irrelevant, and you'd have one-world anarchy.

On the consideration that this might create an army of nationless wanderers in airport lounges and no-man's-lands, it might be worth considering that one must be accepted by another nation before leaving one's own.

one-world anarchy.


Can you get me a visa to go?

Nothing against one-world anarchy per se, you understand, but a few nations may feel it would do a little damage to their sovereignty.

If this proposal is amended as suggested above by Rehochipe et al, then we will happily lend our support.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

Nothing against one-world anarchy per se, you understand, but a few nations may feel it would do a little damage to their sovereignty.

I have heard this a few times now, and I think that can never be an argument. The UN is all about giving up a bit of national sovereignity. If a nation values their sovereignity so much, than they shouldn't be a UN member.

Regards,

UN ambassador of the PRoGG

This really, really needs a safeguard against tax evasion en masse. (That said, just 'cause you're allowed to leave the country doesn't mean you're allowed to take anything with you...)

Perhaps, but there could simply be a stipulation that back taxes owed to one's primary nation will still apply, and that authorities would still have the power to extract dues owed. As for tax evasion, this shouldn't be an issue. One's personal possessions should be considered the property of the person. (Material goods rented would still be the property of the the owner within the original nation.) Tax evasion wouldn't be an issue. Once you emigrate to a new country, you are subject to new tax laws. You wouldn't be evading the former country's tax laws as you would not be using their social services.


Also, the mention of incarceration made me think; surely any prisoner who hasn't committed theft or a violent crime could just exercise their Right To Emigrate and dodge their sentence. We'd like this changed to anybody under arrest, under a charge, or undergoing any sentence for any crime, as well as PoWs. Somebody who's doing community service for perjury shouldn't be able to dodge this by fleeing the country any more than somebody in the clink for theft.


Well, this is a delicate issue and again, I'm looking for suggestions on the wording. Consider violent dictatorships. If a country wanted to forbid citizens for emigrating for political purposes, then all they would have to do is make it a crime to hold a different political ideal than the ruling regime. As a result, this would make the treaty useless as citizens wishing to make a home in a nation that could serve their interests, could then be arrested for NO CRIME, and be forbidden to emigrate. I take your point on the crime issue though, it needs to be broadened in some more-effective way. My lame ass attempt to get around writing 50 pages of detailed rules was to have a board to mediate disputes on issues such as this, between citizens, new country, and former country.


For obvious security reasons, nations should be able to close their borders in times of war as well, we think.
I don't think one's boarder should be closed to exodus. If people are leaving, there must be some inherent flaw to the country. For simplicity's sake, I was assuming that to EMIGRATE to another country, one had to be ADMITTED to that country FIRST. However, this should probably be stated explicitly in the resolution.

1. What kind of abuse do you expect that requires an oversight board?

Any dispute between individual and a former government or between governments on imigration issues. (The UN really needs an international court to deal with these sorts of issues effectively, though perhaps this oversight board could be a very limited first step.


2. Why 'emigration'? To be technical, freedom of emigration means that we also need freedom of immigration. Perhaps it is better worded as "freedom of travel" or "freedom of migration".

This is intentional. The idea of the resolution is to increase the freedom of individuals, while at the same time maintaining the ability of nations to control their influx of population. They can't control flight from their countries, but they can control influx population. Granted, people may only emigrate if another country admits them! Thus, the rate of emigration would always be rather limited.

Consider this:
When a country is unsuccessful in the eyes of their people, more people will move to more successful countries. Thus, countries that the people like, will attract more people. Countries that are failing will lose viability and be forced to change. This will help to stabilize the global polity by decreasing the viability of reckless and dangerous regimes that do not care for their people or are violently repressive.


3. On the restrictions: couldn't that simply be
"SEEING THE need to maintain the sovereignty of individual NATIONS, a person may be restricted from emigration if that person is being held in prison or being charged with criminal offences".

No. Consider this:
An individual in Country A wants to move to Country B. Country B accepts this individual. However, country A makes a law that anyone who seems suspisious and unpatriotic in any way may be placed under arrest for political reasons. The individual would then be forced to live a life of incarceration or worse in Country B.
(If there's a resolution banning incarceration for political or religious beliefs, I apologize for wasting discussion space.)


What we don't want is all sorts of criminals travelling freely to whatever country might be preferable at that time. Which makes me think about a resolution concerning international criminals and how to deal with them if another country wants them in prison. But that's a different thing altogether.

Indeed, this is the reason for the oversight board.

Lovely concept.... We shall discuss it with the nations in our region to see whether or not endorsing it would be prudent.

"I have heard this a few times now, and I think that can it can never be an argument. The UN is all about giving up a bit of national sovereignity. If a nation values their sovereignity so much, than they shouldn't be a UN member." Groot Gouda

With respect to our colleagues from Groot Gouda, it is actually the above that should never be an argument. I've heard these reverse sovereignty arguments and they simply don't wash with regards to extent in which they are usually taken. In fact, in the above argument, the phrase "a bit of national sovereignty" is key. Of course we give up some to be members of the UN. However, the extent to which that sovereignty is given up should be constantly monitored and protected. Dunlend is a sovereign nation first, and a UN member second--not the other way around. I'm reasonably sure that the mission and goal of the UN is definitely NOT to become an oppressive, big brother sort of entity.

Having said that, I don't view this resolution as overtly threatening to one's national sovereignty.

I would like a clarification from the lead sponsor on the following situation and how the resolution would view it:

a citizen is tried and conviced of treason (say, leaking information of vital national interests). As part of the sentence, upon release, the citizen is not allowed to leave the country (or have contact with any foreign nationals)--as they still possess information vital to national security.

Would the resolution prevent this blocking of emigration?

Dunlend

I let this thread stray from the topic of the resolution:

Since most posters seem to like the idea of this proposal I've redrafted it.


Matters of discussion:
Passability -- Do we need feel-goody phrases or some sort of brief explanation that tells everyone in very plain language how this resolution is good for all their peoples.

Viability -- Please critique points and structure. I've removed some lines and added a lot of minutiae. It hasn't been fully integrated because I'm feeling slightly lazy.

*** Alterations from original. I would appreciate critique on resolution structure, phrasing, and ordering.



Freedom of Emigration V. 0.2

Title: Freedom of Emigration
Category: Human Rights
***(Alternative -- Furthering Democracy)
***Strength: Mild (?)


OBSERVING THAT various groups of individuals within nations will hold belief systems or interests that are incompatible to their government's policies;

SEEING THAT it is in the interests of individuals to seek out national environments that are compatible with their beliefs and their needs;

AND UNDERSTANDING that the goal of the UN is to further the rights of individuals and promote stable international relations;

***THE RIGHT of an individual or group of individuals to willfully emigrate to from one nation to another, provided their new chosen nation accepts them, shall not be infringed upon by the individuals' initial nation.

***IN ORDER to prevent abuses on the part of individuals or states, a limited oversight board will be established, funds delegated by vote of UN assembly. This board will manage disputes between nations and citizens wishing to emigrate FROM a nation to another. This board will have the authority to bar an individual from emigration.

TO MAINTAIN the viability of all nations, all dues owed by an individual or group of individuals to a nation or to parties within a nation will remain accountable regardless of citizenship.

***1) Oversight Board Details
-
-Issues -- Criminal attempts to emigrate. Recalling criminals to home country to face punishment.
--Political expression protected under UN oversight-board framework.
--Consciencious objectors in a time of war, are protected as a form of political expression.
-Structure
--Hierarchical with a escalation process for precedent setting cases requiring the most stringent legal and diplomatic expertise.
--Recourses for Nations
--Members chosen by vote of UN assembly. Based on merits of knowledge of international law by nation and by region.
-Costs
--To maintain a program to manage international emigration disputes in the long run, the need to keep costs at minimum to effectively manage disputes is regognized.
--Excess funding will be recycled back into the general UN budget and disbursed to nations at the end of each budget cycle.

a citizen is tried and conviced of treason (say, leaking information of vital national interests). As part of the sentence, upon release, the citizen is not allowed to leave the country (or have contact with any foreign nationals)--as they still possess information vital to national security.

Would the resolution prevent this blocking of emigration?


Heh...Good question. :) Anyone else want to answer? *looks around, resignedly* Fine, make me think. *sigh*

This brings up a very important point. One that would likely require an international judiciary panel to deal with.

The peoples of the Jovian worlds believe that all people must be allowed to access all information publically (this is only through libraries and does not deal with media-ownership and copyright). Uninhibited dissemination of information increases accountability. As such, this issue is a moot point for our nation, but we can see where this may cause other nations difficulty.

There is a workaround, however. At the passing of this resolution, nations with so-called "vital national security information," would have to implement policies where there is a contract between that individual and the nation that they may not choose to take on a 2nd citizenship and emigrate after signing. In which case, should a person violate their agreements, the matter is purely between them and their initial government.

Passability -- Do we need feel-goody phrases or some sort of brief explanation that tells everyone in very plain language how this resolution is good for all their peoples.

I think the current wording is feel-good enough. I'll only comment on the bits I think could be improved or clarified.

***IN ORDER to prevent abuses on the part of individuals or states, a limited oversight board will be established, funds delegated by vote of UN assembly. This board will manage disputes between nations and citizens wishing to emigrate FROM a nation to another. This board will have the authority to bar an individual from emigration.

But, will it have the authority to enforce emigration (if the other nation accepts the individual, of course). In other words, can it prevent a nation from unlawfully withholding an individual based on false charges?

The idea of this proposal we agree with. But it is very difficult to find a wording that stops criminals from constantly trying to 'emigrate' and appeal to the board, and yet respects a nations right to imprison and charge people based on their law.

Perhaps we should just assume that no nation will attempt to imprison people who want to emigrate (after all, good riddance if all opposition leaves the country)? In that case, this proposal needs no further amending.

Regards,

PRoGG Ambassador

***IN ORDER to prevent abuses on the part of individuals or states, a limited oversight board will be established, funds delegated by vote of UN assembly. This board will manage disputes between nations and citizens wishing to emigrate FROM a nation to another. This board will have the authority to bar an individual from emigration.

But, will it have the authority to enforce emigration (if the other nation accepts the individual, of course). In other words, can it prevent a nation from unlawfully withholding an individual based on false charges?


I should add a new statement that specifies that "The UN oversight board has the authority to allow an individual to emigrate."


The idea of this proposal we agree with. But it is very difficult to find a wording that stops criminals from constantly trying to 'emigrate' and appeal to the board, and yet respects a nations right to imprison and charge people based on their law.

Perhaps we should just assume that no nation will attempt to imprison people who want to emigrate (after all, good riddance if all opposition leaves the country)? In that case, this proposal needs no further amending.


I don't think this assumption is wise (if we wish to keep good policy as a goal).

Hello,

I'd like to bring this up for review again.

I'm mainly fishing to see if anyone has any suggestions on more efficient ways of administering the oversight board. Perhaps major regional delegates could vote (in poll form) on handling of specific issues that have cropped up at the oversight board? Perhaps these issues could be disputed and policies upgraded on a bi-annual confrence?

Is there significant interest for this type of freedom-increasing resolution?

g.e.
Speaker for the Future Peoples of the Jovian Worlds

His Holiness the Governor-General is pleased by this proposed legislation, which will afford the Right for any individual to leave his homeland if, and only if, he willingly chooses to do so.

It is considered the most Sacred of Rights by the principles of Good Governence to afford each citizen Free Will over their own destiny.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

Effect of proposal: Mild, significant? Otherwise? What are your suggestions? I'm all ears to suggestions.

There are many structural restraints that a repressive individual _society_ might impose on a population. Such as severe economic restraints on those that might attempt to emigrate.

Would it be too much UN intrusion to restrict nations from restricting an individual's right to emigrate through harsh economic disincentives against that individual (ie. no material posessions or funds may be brought to new country)?