NationStates Jolt Archive

In an effort to promote the human rights of all peoples, Ator People hereby proposes a resolution to mandate global emigration rights.

Deeply Disturbed: that many people are treated inhumanely in the nation in which they reside,

Recognizing: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" resolution and its promotion of the freedom of choice.

Also Recognizing: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" act does not cover an individual's freedom to chose a country to reside in.

Observing: that families and relationships are split up when people are not allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.

Emphasizing: that people should be allowed to pursue residence in another nation than the one in which they currently reside.

Declaring: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they reside and this right shall not be obstructed by any nation.


Now Mandating: that all people shall be allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.

Further Declaring That: The only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are charged with, or serving a sentence for, a criminal offense.

Accepts: that this resolution does not mandate that nations allow emigrated peoples into their country.


Now Submitted! The last "accepts" part i wasn't sure about. Also, this is my first resolution ive written for the UN so it may not be that great. But i put a lot of work into it. I took out the orders part that some people objected to. And i changed that part bout criminals. edited the declaring part(thanks Kelssek). Also changed the emphasizing clause a tiny bit.

Nope, can't suport this one.

The first bit describes people moving to what ever nation they please, with all their family if they like. And where do you think the poor or jobless people from nations without a socially minded government? To the nations like mine, who provides welfare. Grreat...

Then we have this bit thrown in at the end:

Orders: all nations to construct a speedy and just process for individuals to emigrate from the nation.

Accepts: that this resolution does not mandate that nations allow emigrated peoples into their country.

Which totally contridicts your origional proposal, so much so that now it is pointless to approve of.

My suggestion: work on the laws of IMMIGRATION. Emigration covers the people leaving a nation, but immigration covers the people that arrive at a nation.

Answer these questions:
WHO can immigrate. Will he be just anybody? Somebody with a skilled profession? A refugee? A criminal or somebody without a criminal record? Somebody with a clean bill of health? How many people from a family can come with him/her?
WHEN can they immigrate. Is there a time limit on the process?
WHY they can immigrate. Can they run away from an oppresive government? Can they immigrate for school purposes?
WHAT is the immigration process. Background checks? A simple form? Inspections?
WHAT can they bring with them. Clothes? Food? Furniture? Animals? Drugs?

Just to name a few.

Otherwise, just leave it up to the individual nations.

The first bit describes people moving to what ever nation they please, with all their family if they like. And where do you think the poor or jobless people from nations without a socially minded government? To the nations like mine, who provides welfare. Grreat...

It is an emigration law not an immigration one. You can not let people in your country, as that is your nation's right. However, the point of this proposal is to let people leave oppressive countries. Some countries in the world do not let people leave they're country and block their borders from those trying to escape an oppressive rule. This resolution (though its only a draft and i admit it needs better wording) would allow people to escape oppressive governments. Other countries that accept immigrants can accept them. Or countries can close they're countries to immigrants.






Which totally contridicts your origional proposal, so much so that now it is pointless to approve of.
My origional proposal, maybe it was a bit confusing, allows only emigration, not immigration.

My suggestion: work on the laws of IMMIGRATION. Emigration covers the people leaving a nation, but immigration covers the people that arrive at a nation.

Answer these questions:
WHO can immigrate. Will he be just anybody? Somebody with a skilled profession? A refugee? A criminal or somebody without a criminal record? Somebody with a clean bill of health? How many people from a family can come with him/her?
WHEN can they immigrate. Is there a time limit on the process?
WHY they can immigrate. Can they run away from an oppresive government? Can they immigrate for school purposes?
WHAT is the immigration process. Background checks? A simple form? Inspections?
WHAT can they bring with them. Clothes? Food? Furniture? Animals? Drugs?


I don't like that idea because it deals with immigration which i feel should be left up to the individual nation.

I don't like that idea because it deals with immigration which i feel should be left up to the individual nation.

Good idea.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, the way I read the resolution I thought it would allow people just to pick a nation and move there.

Orders: all nations to construct a speedy and just process for individuals to emigrate from the nation.


This is unnecessary and could in fact be an impediment to your aims. Emigration is people leaving. You usually don't need a permit or visa to leave your own country, neither do you have to go to a tribunal to testify that you're going to Paris because really want to see the Eiffel Tower. The other clauses mandating that people must be allowed to leave freely are good enough.

This is unnecessary and could in fact be an impediment to your aims. Emigration is people leaving. You usually don't need a permit or visa to leave your own country, neither do you have to go to a tribunal to testify that you're going to Paris because really want to see the Eiffel Tower. The other clauses mandating that people must be allowed to leave freely are good enough.

But isn't there a difference between going on holiday and leaving for good? (I guess you could lie and say you were going on holiday, and just not come back....)

But isn't there a difference between going on holiday and leaving for good? (I guess you could lie and say you were going on holiday, and just not come back....)

Well, I know that Australian emigration involves asking the person leaving Australia the purpose/s of their traveling. Purposes can include business, holiday, education and full emigration.

...but it's not like they detain you if they don't want you to emigrate.

Anyway, I was just pointing out that promoting the freedom of emigration by making people go through a legal process to leave in the first place seems kind of counter-productive, not to mention needless. If they've got the right to leave anyway, what's the point?

good idea people. Thanks for the input. I think i will take out the part about the "ordering..." Cause if people want to leave they should just be able to leave.

As for some countries not detaining emigrants; most countries will allow people to leave freely im sure, however, there are many countries that do not allow people to leave the country if the people don't like the government, etc. This law will allow people to freely leave a country they do not like or are being oppresssed in. It will allow families to reunite and give people the choice to leave oppressed nations.

Takes Note That: all people who are fugitives of the law, serving a sentance for a crime, scheduled to be indicted for a crime, or involved in an investigation/trial for a crime shall forfeit their right to emigration until such circumstances are over.


Two ideas:

This nation would like to see more clarification about the meaning of the clause "[when] such circumstances are over." If this clause is not sufficiently clarified, your proposal could be subject to a quite large loophole (i.e., since criminal law is largely defined by the member states, a member state could legitamately circumvent this proposal by claiming that such "circumstances are not [yet] over.").

Second, the introductory clause "Takes note that" would seem to suggest that this whole paragraph is nonbinding. If this is the case, then you've just tipped off member states who would most likely have policies you are trying to prevent on how they can evade the proposal altogether (simply claim there are some legal "issues" remaining to be resolved). I think you want something stronger than "Takes note that."

i agree...i will think of a way to clarify that clause.

i think ive clarified the confusing parts. Any other suggestions or comments?

I believe I'm satisfied with the reivision of the criminal clause. Thank you for revising it -- I believe it will make the ultimate proposal stronger.

Will the NSUN gnomes impose any costs on us if this passes?

I will officially propose this soon. Should it be significant, mild, or strong human rights?

Suggestion - add something to this...

Declaring: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they were born.

To make it this:

Declaring: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they were born and this right shall not be obstructed by any country.

This is probably under "mild" since most nations already recognise this right.

Strike the part about being born, too.

Declaring: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they reside.

I would like to see a new copy of the proposal now that it has been revised from the original I read. Reply below please.

The proposal on the origional thread is the current one because i made all changes in that post by just editing.

Okay, I think you have clarified a few things.

If I am correct, this act declares that:

People not be not be prevented from leaving a country, unless they are a convicted criminal.

That, resolution is not an immigration law, and does not permit other nations to allow Asylum seekers into their country.

If my intepretation be deemed correct, then I agree with the resolution in principle. After all, anybody remember the Third Reich?

Okay, I think you have clarified a few things.

If I am correct, this act declares that:

People not be not be prevented from leaving a country, unless they are a convicted criminal.

That, resolution is not an immigration law, and does not permit other nations to allow Asylum seekers into their country.

If my intepretation be deemed correct, then I agree with the resolution in principle. After all, anybody remember the Third Reich?
Doh! Bad form, that.
I suppose Godwin's Law comes into effect now.

I think that people should be allowed to leave the country. It is a persons right to make decisions. If you want to leave your country then leave. Many people come to america to make a better life for themselves and for their families who tragicly stay behind in poverty. If the country allows people to leave, there are still people who cannot because they dont have enough money. They find themselves taking risks, like floating on a raft through shark infested waters. If the country does not let people leave then that may be the only way they can make it out. I think that if the person want to leave they must have good credit, they must leave on plane, pay to leave on a boat (not a raft or a canoe), or must own a car. Thank you for reading my opinion.

KRAZIE

The Republic of Krazie

I think that people should be allowed to leave the country. It is a persons right to make decisions. If you want to leave your country then leave. Many people come to america to make a better life for themselves and for their families who tragicly stay behind in poverty. If the country allows people to leave, there are still people who cannot because they dont have enough money. They find themselves taking risks, like floating on a raft through shark infested waters. If the country does not let people leave then that may be the only way they can make it out. I think that if the person want to leave they must have good credit, they must leave on plane, pay to leave on a boat (not a raft or a canoe), or must own a car. Thank you for reading my opinion.

KRAZIE

The Republic of Krazie

I am willing to let anyone who wants to leave my nation, but I am not going to pay them to do so. If they want to risk their lives to escape my nation, that is their choice. I won't stop them, but I am not going to help them either (unless they get in to difficulties, then I guess the coast guard could rescue them)

That, resolution is not an immigration law, and does not permit other nations to allow Asylum seekers into their country.


No, you can still allow them in, but no one is forced to. And immigrants are not necessarily asylum-seekers.

It is now submitted and I ask all UN Delegates to consider approving it.