NationStates Jolt Archive

- NOTING the unfortunate frequency of armed conflict in our world,

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

- RECOGNISING AND CONDEMNING the increasing number of non-combatant refugees living their lives in deplorable camps,

- ALTHOUGH RECOGISING these factors, may it be noted that a nation may decline non-combatant refugees entry without reason, which also applies to requests of citizenship,

- KEEPING IN MIND the refugees rights as a sentient, once the said nation declines a request of entry and citizenship, they must start a process of finding a nation willing to take non-combatant refugees and arrange the deportation of the said refugee as soon as possible,

- IN THE UNLIKEY SCENARIO of a nation unwilling to grant the non-combatant refugee entry, the nation who holds the refugee MUST hold said sentient until a willing nation is found,

- In accordance with UN law, the nation holding a deportee MUST treat said sentient with care and respect, regardless of race, ethnicity, nation of origin or religion until a willing nation is found.

Tommy O’Bannon
President of The Dominion of The Irish Brotherhood

This is the first draught of my replacement proposal of reso. #65. I've taken bits from the original and from my earlier repeal. What I'm asking is if the original Refugee Protection Act is reapealed, this will take it's place. Views and criticisms wanted. Thanks.

After reading this, could you also list out in this thread the differences between this and the Xtraordinary Gentlemen's Refugee Protection Act (Resolution #65).

It seems to me that the main difference is that you are giving nations the right to move refugees on to other nations (when another home can be found):

IN THE UNLIKEY SCENARIO of a nation unwilling to grant the non-combatant refugee entry, the nation who holds the refugee MUST hold said sentient until a willing nation is found

While I do not have a problem with this ... in fact, it makes sense. If you are a refugee, you are better placed in a society that will welcome you. Nobody wants to go where they are unwanted.

However, I don't see the original Refugee Protection Act as prohibiting this. The reason I am saying this is because the original resolution did not "DEMANDS" or "REQUIRES" that nations accept refugees, but "STRONGLY ENCOURAGES" and "CALLS UPON" nations to find homes for refugees.

It is my suggestion that instead of focusing on a repeal that you actually work to __enhance__ Resolution #65.

I will help you if you like, but I think that we need to build upon the logic you presented above. Large numbers of refugees seeking shelter in another nation can actually be an unwelcomed burden in that nation. While we all agree that people should be given the right to find safety in the event of war, your main point is that we need to work together to moderate this.

My suggestion is that we actually keep the clause I quoted and use it as the main part of a *new* resolution on "Refugee Placement and Integration" or something of the like.

We could borrow from the real world and create a UN Commissioner on Refugees, who will coordinate with all UN members to seek which nations have the means to accept refugees and could also ask for humanitarian assistance from other nations to provide food supplies to nations that accept refugees.

Bottom-line, I think you have a point, but I think we do not need to repeal the previous resolution. I think it was one of the better resolutions, and was written in a way that there is enough wiggle room that we can improve it in the ways you've suggested.

- NOTING the unfortunate frequency of armed conflict in our world,

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

- RECOGNISING AND CONDEMNING the increasing number of non-combatant refugees living their lives in deplorable camps,

- ALTHOUGH RECOGISING these factors, may it be noted that a nation may decline non-combatant refugees entry without reason, which also applies to requests of citizenship,

- KEEPING IN MIND the refugees rights as a sentient, once the said nation declines a request of entry and citizenship, they must start a process of finding a nation willing to take non-combatant refugees and arrange the deportation of the said refugee as soon as possible,

- IN THE UNLIKEY SCENARIO of a nation unwilling to grant the non-combatant refugee entry, the nation who holds the refugee MUST hold said sentient until a willing nation is found,

- In accordance with UN law, the nation holding a deportee MUST treat said sentient with care and respect, regardless of race, ethnicity, nation of origin or religion until a willing nation is found.

Tommy O’Bannon
President of The Dominion of The Irish Brotherhood

This is the first draught of my replacement proposal of reso. #65. I've taken bits from the original and from my earlier repeal. What I'm asking is if the original Refugee Protection Act is reapealed, this will take it's place. Views and criticisms wanted. Thanks.

I like this. It shuts up the occasional critic of the resolution (which makes our lives a bit easier) while not being an illegal amendment. I'd say you've done a good job here.

I like this, although I would like it to include the rights of refugee's in both an unwilling country and in a willing country, i.e. the minimum requirements for camps (such as food, water, shelter, medicine and protection. For example)

While I appreciate all your views, only 3 people have given their views in 24 hours. It doesn't seem that alot of people are interested.

While I appreciate all your views, only 3 people have given their views in 24 hours. It doesn't seem that alot of people are interested.

For some reason the forums were slow yesterday ... as I expected more hits on my polls and endorsements on Groot Gouda's proposal as well.

It is OK to bump an idea ... I like to think for a proposal, a day is a good timeframe. But you can be creative when replying to your own post. Start working on what you'd like to say as a FAQ or find some real world articles that you feel would simply be "related" to the subject of refugees. You don't have to work them into the resolution idea, but resolutions are really supposed to be focused (and possibly roleplayed) debates about international issues.

Refugees are about as international as it can get, so the topic is good. :)

TIB: you have our support. this looks good