NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support it, UN Delegates! :)



EMIGRATION RIGHTS:
In an effort to promote the human rights of all peoples, this resolution shall 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 the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; those under a subpoena to a court; or those interred (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict.

Accepts: that this resolution has no effect on the immigration policies of individual nations

Basically this proposal is to allow people to leave the country in which they reside, if they wish to do so. However, this doesn't mean you nation has to start opening its boarders to immigrants. It just means you cannot force people to stay in your country if they would like to move.


Any suggestions?

Yea, maybe you should add something about emigration during wartime, but Im not sure. On the one hand it might be a matter of national security not to allow people to leave the country while at war (also it would make draft dodging easier), on the other hand it might be unwise to allow countries to force people to stay in their country while they are at war. I dunno, just an idea.

At first reading, it sounds good to us. We have no problem with anyone departing our islands, just please leave the towels and complimentary robes.

I assume the category is human rights. What's the strength?

Not really. This proposal has everything in it to like and nothing for me to disagree with. The few nations who have a problem with this likely have a much bigger problem anyway.

Hm. I'd agree with it...If people COULD emigrate to a Moving mechanical island.

Just a stylistic note - it's generally considered poor form to include your nation name in the actual text of the proposal. You already have your name in the header, so you needn't have it in the text.

Just a stylistic note - it's generally considered poor form to include your nation name in the actual text of the proposal. You already have your name in the header, so you needn't have it in the text.
I've deleted Proposals for branding, so I'd say it's more than just a "stylistic note".

I've deleted Proposals for branding, so I'd say it's more than just a "stylistic note".
Rightio then, thanks for clearing that up. Listen to the mod, remove your nation name from the text of the proposal.

Seems good to me, apart from the branding and one or two bits of wording; for example I personally think that


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

Would be better phrased as such:

ACCEPTS that this resolution does is to have no effect on immigration policies of individual nations

Immigration being the opposite of emigration (which I'm sure most of youa are aware.

My other question is whether this is human rights (as it is a human right to leave your country) or free trade (as it free's up the movement of labour), and what strength it would be. Even way I'd say either mild or significant, but I'm not certain.

We don't oppose this, but it should be noted that - as written - persons detained under law can simply demand emigration rights. That includes but is not limited to: Persons held under suspicion of criminal activity.
Persons awaiting trial.
Persons convicted of crimes and awaiting sentence.
Persons sentenced and serving sentence.
Persons held as spies, saboteurs, and prisoners of war.This takes us back to the days of yore, when captured enemies were either killed on the spot or repatriated under "parole".

No, Ator People included a phrase specifically dealing with your concerns. 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.. That would pretty much cover all the groups you listed above.

Yes, I specifically added that in to avoid criminals from leaving the country on emigration right claims. I have fixed that "accepts" part as well. And I have removed my name from the proposal.

Yelda will approve this. When do you plan to submit it?

And I think I will put it under human rights, probably mild. Though possibly significant. Suggestions?

I will probably submit tonight or tomorrow.

No, Ator People included a phrase specifically dealing with your concerns. . That would pretty much cover all the groups you listed above.No, it would not cover prisoners of war. POW's are not criminals.

No, it would not cover prisoners of war.Nor would it cover persons arrested but not (yet) charged with any crime.

Further Declaring That: The only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are charged with, detained for, or serving a sentance for, a crime; as well as prisoners of war.


Hows that?

Make sure you tread carefully with PoWs - they are already covered by the Wolfish Convention, which I suggest you read. If you want to look at how detained people are treated before they are charged, carefully read Habeas Corpus. For those who have been charged, carefully read Definition of Fair Trial.

However, don't reference those resolutions in your proposal. That's known as a 'house of cards', which the mods don't like.

However, don't reference those resolutions in your proposal. That's known as a 'house of cards', which the mods don't like.
They can be referenced, it's just delicate. Simply make sure the Proposal can stand on it's own without the other Resolutions. Things like "RECALLING" or "REMEMBERING" are fine.

Does anyone think I should even include the POW clause? Is it really needed?

There are a lot of problems relating to the whole "criminal" clause. Personally, I would phrase it:
FURTHER DECLARING the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; those under a subpoena* to a court; or those interred (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict.

Wow, I like that! I think I will add that and submit it today.

Okay, proposal edited.

SUBMITTED :)

If you are a UN delegate, please support it! :D

Any other questions/comments on the resolution?

As I support retaining some power for national governments I could never support such a motion.

If a local government wants to controll its borders in or out then they should be allowed to do so.

Wang Chun endorses the resolution as written.

Ecopoeia will endorse this. Good work, all of you.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

a problem i see is that criminals and other deviants could flee thier current country and seek shelter in another comiting the same crimes over and over. Due to this i couldn't see this bill passing with my vote but if it were changed then maybe.

I'll support this proposal - however, if it fails and you re-submit - I'd recommend that you include a clause that allows for borders to be shut during times where the government may need to invoke Marshall Law (civil war - large scale terrorist attack etc).

I believe this would best be served as a "notwithstanding" clause

ie: Allowing for (or Notwithstanding) any nation's ability to suspend these rights during times of Marshall Law, or a national state of emergency, where the national interests outweight the rights of the individual.

Not bad. I approve of the general sentiment of the proposal, but not enough to make me vote FOR if it reached quorum. I would probably abstain.

Does anyone think I should even include the POW clause? Is it really needed?Absolutely! My people will be instructed to demand their right to emigrate if ever captured by another UN Member.

On the flip side, I'd hate to have to Gitmo someone else's people in a fight. <S>

a problem i see is that criminals and other deviants could flee thier current country and seek shelter in another comiting the same crimes over and over. Due to this i couldn't see this bill passing with my vote but if it were changed then maybe.
Um, how could this happen? Criminals are prohibited from leaving from the time the are first targeted in a criminal investigation, all through arrest and trial up until their sentence is complete. Only after they serve their sentence are they free to go...but this doesn't affect immigration policies, so they still have to find a new country to move to that is willing to take a known criminal.

What would you change to prevent criminals from changing countries in order to commit crimes? I mean, once they've served their sentence, aren't they free to commit another crime in their home country, even if they couldn't emigrate?