NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear delegates,
Please give this fair consideration. If you read it, it is not as radical or fascist as most of my other proposals which you are used to (lol!!). Please give it your honest opinion and feedback.

Thank you


Description: UN Resolution #65: Refugee Protection Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: A repeal allowing a nation the right to deport a non-combatant refugee without reason:

1/ ALTHOUGH RECOGNIZING the increasing frequency of armed conflict among nations, to inforce refugees upon a nation is against it's right of sovereignty.

2/ URGING that a nation may decline non-combatant refugees entry into said nation without reason, which also applies to requests of citizenship.

3/ KEEPING IN MIND the refugees rights as a human being, once declining a request of entry and citizenship, the said nation must find a nation willing to take non-combatant refugees and deport them to that nation as soon as possible.

4/ IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT of a nation unwilling to grant the non-combatant refugee entry, the nation who holds him MUST keep him until a willing nation is found.

Padraig O'Bannon
Irish Brotherhood, Foreign Minister




Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 149 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Apr 10 2005

THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.


Refugee Protection Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Xtraordinary gentlemen

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the unfortunate frequency of armed conflict in our world,

NOTING ALSO that the cost of such conflict is not limited to lives lost, but includes also the destruction of homes and property, resulting in frequent displacement of native populations,

DEPLORING the rapidly increasing number of humans living their lives in inadequate refugee camps,

RECOGNIZING the need of these displaced non-combatants to continue living their lives as they see fit,

RECOGNIZING ALSO the need for increased humanitarian aid in the above outlined situation,

ACTING in accordance with the United Nations Charter,

1. REMINDS all member nations of our leadership role in the world and our according responsibilities;

2. FULLY ACCEPTS responsibility for the well-being of non-combatant refugees displaced from their homes during time of war;

3. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees safe passage through the individual nation if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of the refugee's race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion;

4. CALLS UPON all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees citizenship rights, so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation, if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of the refugee's race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion.

Votes For: 10,174
Votes Against: 5,009

Implemented: Sat Jul 10 2004

Something wrong with my proposal or what? Not good enough to have a discussion about?

Something wrong with my proposal or what? Not good enough to have a discussion about?

The Xtraodrinary Gentlemen was a founder of the International Democratic Union as well as a respected North Pacific nation, so you'll likely find that a number of nations appreciate their resolution. Mine does.

Despite the fact that Mikitivity will vote against an attempt to repeal this resolution, I do have some constructive advice:

1/ ALTHOUGH RECOGNIZING the increasing frequency of armed conflict among nations, to inforce refugees upon a nation is against it's right of sovereignty.

I believe that the phrase might be better worded as:

1. REGRETTING the increasing frequency of armed conflict among nations, and the burden of accepting refugees placed upon other nations;

I believe this says the same thing, but in a slightly different way. First, if I was reading your arguement correctly, you were trying to suggest that more conflict generates more refugees, which place greater and greater stresses on the nations that accept these refugees.

If that wasn't what you were trying to say, my apologies (though "inforce" should be "enforce").

I still disagree with this logic, but I think that was what you might have been attempting to say. You don't really need to mention sovereignty in the repeal. While you may win some votes doing so, many other nations will correctly counter, "international refugees are an international problem, and as an international organization, the UN has a legal right to legislate their treatment". In other words, many pro-UN members might not accept sovereignty as an arguement in and of itself.

I wish your nation well, however, I strongly urge you reconsider your repeal. This resolution happens to be one of the ones that the Confederated City States most appreciates and we'd hate to find ourselves opposite your fine nation in a debate. :)

Dear delegates,
Please give this fair consideration. If you read it, it is not as radical or fascist as most of my other proposals which you are used to (lol!!). Please give it your honest opinion and feedback.


I think you've done a whole lot better with your presentation of arguments then many who wish for the repeal of that resolution, or many others. Not that I'm convinced to vote yea or to talk my delegate into approving it, but I think your arangement of arguments is at least somewhat effective.

If it fails, I don't think you should worry. I like to think (perhaps a bit too optimistically) that we've moved past the old days when of repeals or talk of replacement being taboo. I think that your point of view is valuable, and that you might think abotu bringing up a discussion in the UN forum of problems you feel are in this resolution. If there ends up being a general consensus to replace the resolution with a more updated document (or at least a half-way plan/aptitude to do so) then I think perhaps drafting could take place. Then, hopefully with the help of Xtraordinary Gentlemen (perhaps he submiting the replacement document or you both with recognition as co-authors or contributors), you could propose a repeal, a replacement, and give us what you argue to be a more sensible law in the area.

I mean, I don't think there should be any apprehension in trying to change a previous resolution which made mistakes (through repeal and anew submission of course). In fact, at some point I want to replace both my Nucla Terra and Literacy Initiative. There are things which I missed or got wrong. If the repeal fails, there still can be progress made by a discussion being created.

Either way you go, I hope you have Good Luck.

whilst we would readily accept refugees, we are also admiring TIB's point of view. the only problem is the rule about amendments, which this could be seen as. the important thing we see is the fact that you have included the provision that whilst a nation can refuse refugees, they have to seek out a nation willing to accept them before the matter is deemed finished for the nation

Dear delegates,
Please give this fair consideration. If you read it, it is not as radical or fascist as most of my other proposals which you are used to (lol!!). Please give it your honest opinion and feedback.

Hey! We like radical and fascist! It's what we use for barbeques.

Description: UN Resolution #65: Refugee Protection Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

I corrected the color throughout the document. Mainly because I'm boring like that. Besides, it probably won't appear in the proposal itself as such.

Argument: A repeal allowing a nation the right to deport a non-combatant refugee without reason:

1/ ALTHOUGH RECOGNIZING the increasing frequency of armed conflict among nations, to inforce refugees upon a nation is against it's right of sovereignty.

I would advise dropping this issue. National sovereignity is not given that much respect to begin with. Instead, make a note about possible abuse resulting from refugees being forced into nations that are not set up to be able to help them. Play the heart-strings.

2/ URGING that a nation may decline non-combatant refugees entry into said nation without reason, which also applies to requests of citizenship.

Keep this one. It's not that bad.

3/ KEEPING IN MIND the refugees rights as a human being, once declining a request of entry and citizenship, the said nation must find a nation willing to take non-combatant refugees and deport them to that nation as soon as possible.

I would advise changing "human" to "sentient". This is to prevent any possible arguement about nonhumans. Also, I'm not too clear on this. Is this supposed to be an arguement against the resolution or an amendment to/replacement for it?

4/ IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT of a nation unwilling to grant the non-combatant refugee entry, the nation who holds him MUST keep him until a willing nation is found.

See end of #3.

If it fails, I don't think you should worry. I like to think (perhaps a bit too optimistically) that we've moved past the old days when of repeals or talk of replacement being taboo. I think that your point of view is valuable, and that you might think abotu bringing up a discussion in the UN forum of problems you feel are in this resolution. If there ends up being a general consensus to replace the resolution with a more updated document (or at least a half-way plan/aptitude to do so) then I think perhaps drafting could take place. Then, hopefully with the help of Xtraordinary Gentlemen (perhaps he submiting the replacement document or you both with recognition as co-authors or contributors), you could propose a repeal, a replacement, and give us what you argue to be a more sensible law in the area.

I believe history has proven that repeals can be used to improve upon a good idea. The repeal the Global Library debates at least sounded that way to me. And as the author of the repeal of the Legalize Prostitution resolution, I don't think I need to cover that one. ;)

However, unlike the Global Library, the Xtraordinary Gentlemen is no longer a nation. :( That said, if anybody feels that the basic idea behind encouraging nations to accept refugees can be improved upon, I think I can talk a number of nations into participating in those discussions in the place and spirit of what the Xtraordinary Gentlemen has originally intended.

OOC: I'm still holding out hope that this summer XG might return, but at present the outlook is not good.

my suggestion here, is to create your 'replacement proposal' then put that in your forum argument for repealing this saying 'if this resolution is repealed, then we would submit this proposal to replace it'

Thanks guys, for once I didn't get slandered! Your advice has been most helpful and I will submit a 'replacement proposal' in the near future. If anyone else has any advice or remarks on this issue please feel free to put forward your ideas/views.

Thanks guys, for once I didn't get slandered! Your advice has been most helpful and I will submit a 'replacement proposal' in the near future. If anyone else has any advice or remarks on this issue please feel free to put forward your ideas/views.

To be honest, I'm doubting it will pass at this time, but I'm not calling it a certainty. For one thing, you have the basis of a good arguement so far and can draft one that requires a lengthy effort to fight against. The only reason I have my doubts is the title you'll be forced to use, which will be used by a few as a basis for arguing against you and trying to get people to bandwagon. However, you can probably draft up a repeal attempt good enough to make those few look foolish. And give the rest of us some work to do. Besides, the fact you are thinking of writing a draft for a new issue has silenced my one complaint.

Im currently writing it. To be honest I doubt it will pass either. I havn't got a good record with proposals. But, no harm in trying. I'll get one passed some day. :cool: