NationStates Jolt Archive

WORLD PASSPORT ACT 2004

SUMMARY: The United Nations recognizes that a World Passport with global standardized security features shall bolster global security, while preserving the freedom of movement among all UN member nation-states and regions. This is the first stage in global security standards.

SECTION 1. TITLE
This Act may be cited as the “World Passport & Identification Integrity Act of 2004.”


SECTION 2. STANDARDIZED SECURITY FEATURES

Standardized Security Features will include all the following:
• Digitized photograph
• Optically variable security ink
• Digitized signature
• Electronic chip containing personal information
• Biometric information: Fingerprint
• Passport Security Identification Code
• Ghost Photograph
Standards for photographs:
• Color
• White background
• Photograph must have been taken in the past 12 months, with exception to children under the age of 15.
• Full frontal view of the head and shoulders
• No sunglasses
• No disguises, except for cosmetic purposes
• A hat or other head covering is not acceptable, except for religious faiths that prohibit the removal of head covering. The full face must still be visible.


SECTION 3. WORLD PASSPORT AUTHORITY

The United Nations will establish the World Passport Authority (WPA). The WPA will be responsible for creating, distributing and regulating the World Passport. The WPA will have numerous branches in each member nation-state.
The World Passport shall replace all current national passports effective immediately from the date of enactment of this Act. The WPA shall replace all member nation-state national passport authorities. The World Passport is mandatory for all UN member nation-states. The acceptance of any other form of identification while traveling to another nation-state or region is prohibited.
Applicants for World Passports will go through extensive security background checks conducted solely by the World Passport Authority. All member nation-states and applicants will comply with the investigations.

Holders of World Passports will no longer need visas to travel to other UN member nation-states and regions. This does not include work visas or long stay visas.


SECTION 5. CULTURAL INTEGRITY

The World Passport will have both the UN symbol and respective national symbol.

The World Passport will be in both English and the respective national language.

I could almost go for a world passport.
Almost.
The nationalist in me won't let me. It can be construed as an attempt to subvert a nation's sovereignty, by taking a nation's right to issue it's owm passport..

Remember not to confuse passport with visa. Passport is just another way of issuing an ID for the traveler, the nationality is objectively irrelevant. So this is not a bad idea... however it is useless and very un-efficient if you dont find a good mechanism to analize, organize and control of all the data, and if you cant issue them fast after the request.

Involving multi-national insitutions just means a much bigger bureocracy, wich means more taxpayers money going to waste, wich means bad for the economy.

However my opinion on this issue is irrelevant as I am no longer part of the UN.

Where's section 4?

Bob Flibble
UN Rep. Rogue Nation of Flibbleites
Regional Delegate of Final Fantasy

good idea, but it has been done before with the "Passport harmonisation" resolution.

Had a lot of debate on what would be included, and some of the things you listed there were not getting a lot of support.

Secondly, not keen on a WPA to spend more taxes on.

Actually Hirota, the "Passport Harmonisation" resolution never specified what the information the passports would contain, so this resolution could be considered an amendment to the previous one.

I still would like to know where section 4 is though.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep. Rogue Nation of Flibbleites
Regional Delegate of Final Fantasy

Actually Hirota, the "Passport Harmonisation" resolution never specified what the information the passports would contain, so this resolution could be considered an amendment to the previous one.

No, but the discussions into it did. I was quite involved in the whole debate, and I remember there were some areas which were having trouble getting support...

What's the use of an international passport. Every country has the right to make an outline of it's own passport. In the end it will be stadardised by itself. The act just wants a kind of free travelling around the world which as nothing to do with a ID-card. I think that I still have the right to refuse my fellow citizen to move where ever they want to protect them against subversive influences. :tantrum:

F1amez is still considered by many to be "backward" (meaning, in most parts of the country, we still use the barter system, using goats and chickens to buy things at the market) I seriously doubt that we could afford things like "computers" in order to upgrade our passport systems for this.

The only way we could make it, would be if the UN itself would fund this project.

WORLD PASSPORT ACT 2004

SECTION 3. WORLD PASSPORT AUTHORITY

Holders of World Passports will no longer need visas to travel to other UN member nation-states and regions. This does not include work visas or long stay visas.


My nation will vote against any proposal that FORCES us to change our domestic policy. Simply put, you have no authority, much less justification to unilaterally force nations to do away with travel visas.

Why not? Many of us are not on friendly terms. There are a number of agressor states present, whos citizens must check with my government before they are permitted travel through the Confederated City States.

This is not just a matter of internal security, but also political influence.

As it is primarily the wealthy that travel, it will become clear to wealthy businessmen from agressive states that their own government's policies are such that their government is making them unwelcomed in other countries.

While this is a hardline position, please remove this illegal clause or explain why it is necessary for international peace and security that our nations simply hand over to the UN its sovereign powers.

10kMichael

I think that a global passprot is a good idea and will help improve global security.
However in order for this global passport to work there must be a good system in place in order to deal with the requests of a global passport. These requests must be dealt with quickley and efficiently. Also this programme will face oppostion from people not willing to pay for the global passport so the UN must stump up the funding for this programme in order to gain support for the idea.

The argument that national soverinty will be lost is a joke as the new global passports will be included with the nations official stamp on it. This is not an issue.

Why are all these security measures needed by the way?

The most common arguement for these features in RL is that they will help make the nation more secure against terrorist threats. But this cannot be, since the Nation will no longer be able to stop people entering the country (unless terrorists are exceptionally honest or dumb and say that they a traveling abroad for work purposes). And the rigorous background checks arguement will not cut it, because suicide bombers don't tend to be repeat offenders and generally keep their past clean or know how to make it seems that way.

A hat or other head covering is not acceptable, except for religious faiths that prohibit the removal of head covering. The full face must still be visible

Yep, this also seems like a secure way to handle international security.

You have failed to say how this will bolster security. Or justified the cost for all the new technology used on the passport or the machines needed to check these new measures. Especially when existing passports are performing their roles well enough.

The argument that national soverinty will be lost is a joke as the new global passports will be included with the nations official stamp on it. This is not an issue.



The passports aren't the issue. The issue is that the author is sneaking a requirement that all nations MUST issue "travelers" visas to anybody holding a passport.

That is a serious issue and I've yet to see a single reason why this is necessary.

Passports are travel papers. Standardization of the information in them is a good idea. In fact, it was so good, we did it back in Feb. (Please look at the completed resolutions.)

Going in and defining what should be standardized in our travel papers is also a good idea. This really wasn't done before, and I've not raised an objection to that (yet).



However ...

A travel visa is essentially a bi-lateral agreement that states use to grant favours upon one and another. My nation will not grant travelers visas, not because we really wish to keep criminals out (though naturally we do), but because we simply refuse to bestow favoured nation status on hostile regiemes that simply put, refuse to respect the rights of other nations.

The author should explain why it is in the interest of international security and not a domestic right, that we should even be talking about removing travel visas.

With fewer peaceful political tools, nations will be forced to resort to other means to effect change in one another. Mark my words, removing the sovereign right to work on bilateral (not unilateral) travel visa agreements will HAMPER international peace.

10kMichael
(edited out a few lines)

Claiming that a UN Passport would make nations more secure is as false as claiming my children are safe from kidnappers because their fingerprints are on file with the police. My kids have no magic shield around them just because an ink impression of their fingertips is on a card in a drawer at the local precinct house, and our nations will not be suddenly safe from terrorism just because the terrorists will have one more piece of paper they'll need to forge.

Passports are official identification issued by a nation to its citizens. Since we have no other planets for our citizens to travel to, we don't need a global passport.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

Claiming that a UN Passport would make nations more secure is as false as claiming my children are safe from kidnappers because their fingerprints are on file with the police. My kids have no magic shield around them just because an ink impression of their fingertips is on a card in a drawer at the local precinct house, and our nations will not be suddenly safe from terrorism just because the terrorists will have one more piece of paper they'll need to forge.

Passports are official identification issued by a nation to its citizens. Since we have no other planets for our citizens to travel to, we don't need a global passport.

Though I stand firmly against this proposal, as it does promise more security than it really will deliver, at the expense of national freedoms and peaceful diplomatic tools (the travel visa), ...

There is some truth IMHO to the statement that a standardized passport with information may lead to some increased security. For example, if my nation had information on a known terrorist, it would be happy to share that information with any nation. And perhaps these other nations could identify that individual on entry.

But here is where the proposal promises more than it offers ... the travel visas are not only a political tool, but they are used to place priority on nations that need additional checking because of security problems. If we do away with travel visas, states that sponsort terrorism are given a chance to send terrorists into our nations and by withholding information or forging it, the chances of spotting one who means to cause death and harm may be considerably harder.

It is my nation's opinion that this proposal does more harm than good. It creates a backdoor and takes away our ability to not only control who enters our nations, but ties our hands when it comes to expressing concern with a government.

I think the reference to travel visas should be removed.

10kMichael

wow, i must say im impressed with all the responses. although i disagree with some, all were excellent replies.

i will work on the resolution that will answer ALL the questions and concerns raised. afterall, resolutions only get passed with compromise, and so i will ADJUST some things. nothing will be "sneaked" like someone had siad i was trying to do. remember, we all run the UN, no one nation-state. i gain nothing more or less than anyone else from this resolution.

just for anyone to know, there is a World Passport in real life, founded in the 70s. currently 300,000 own one. including me. almost all nations in the world have accepted the World Passport on a random basis, including the U.S.

expect to see a new resolution soon.

wow, i must say im impressed with all the responses. although i disagree with some, all were excellent replies.

i will work on the resolution that will answer ALL the questions and concerns raised. afterall, resolutions only get passed with compromise, and so i will ADJUST some things. nothing will be "sneaked" like someone had siad i was trying to do. remember, we all run the UN, no one nation-state. i gain nothing more or less than anyone else from this resolution.

just for anyone to know, there is a World Passport in real life, founded in the 70s. currently 300,000 own one. including me. almost all nations in the world have accepted the World Passport on a random basis, including the U.S.

expect to see a new resolution soon.

just for anyone to know, there is a World Passport in real life, founded in the 70s. currently 300,000 own one. including me. almost all nations in the world have accepted the World Passport on a random basis, including the U.S.


OOC: If you want to model a real world system, it was already done for Nation States. In Feb. Did you look at that prior resolution?

Second, in the real world there are nations that are UN members and follow the "real world" standard format of passports, yet nations like the United States do not allow travelers visas to *without* prior approval.

http://www.unitedstatesvisas.gov/

Please pay attention to the following:


There is no entitlement to a visa. You will not be granted a visa if, in the judgment of the consular officer, you have not met all of the necessary criteria.


Why do you think the US government has done this? Seriously?

To be big fat jerks? Of course not! The US government uses visas to control who has entry into the United States (a check beyond just a standard customs port of entry) and also as something of a bilateral political tool (though you will not see a web page talking about that).

I will add that I found the page pretty poorly designed.

With about 15 minutes of reading US policy you'll find:

http://travel.state.gov/getting_vistors_visa.html

Please look at the following:


Millions of foreign visitors travel to the United States each year for business or pleasure. They come as tourists or to visit family and friends. Others come for specific purposes, such as business, scientific, educational, or professional conferences/conventions, training, or consulting with business associates. Other foreign visitors come for diverse reasons, as examples, including medical treatment, for voluntary programs conducted by charitable organizations, as visiting ministers, or personal/domestic employees, under certain conditions. Some foreign athletes and sports teams may come to the U.S. with visitors visas. Most of these visitors need B-1/B-2 visitor visas to enter the United States. Foreign visitors add greatly to our nation's cultural, education and economic life. We welcome them.


You have been advocating a visa waiver program. You've not directly said this, but this is what you've been advocating:

http://travel.state.gov/vwp.html

Please look at the countries that the US grants these waivers to, as it is small. Basically it is northern Europe and a few first world Asian nations. Canada and Mexico are granted special privledges as we share a border.

99% of the time there is a reason I take a position with an issue. Hopefully it will be clear exactly why I've taken this position. It is not random at all. In fact, it is modeled after the same real-world that you are using to justify your resolution. The only difference is that I've provided links to specific real-world policies.

10kMichael