NationStates Jolt Archive

The Free Travel Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: significant
Proprosed by: Darvainia

Description:
Recgognizing that in many nations today the living conditions are unbearable due to conditions in: politics, health, social structure, climate, economic condititions, or various other problems.

Noting that in these nations, particularly in the case of corrupt governments, and poor political structure, citizens are not allowed to leave, prevented by structures, laws, or armed forces.

Therefore declaring that every family, every individual, every group, organizational or cultural, has the right to leave their nation and change citizenship to another for any reason, or for no reason given at all.

Further reaffirming these people's right to travel in and out of countries as they please, for business or pleasure purposes without the restriction or obstruction of any government's political, diplomatic, or military forces.

Also stating that anyone may travel how they wish, whether by land, sea or air, by foot or by vehicle or animal.

Asking and urging all nations to open up their borders slightly and releax travelling laws
and sanctions for the sake of civil and human rights everywhere.

Ok I'm fairly new at this but I felt this may be a necessary proposal. I need help though, has it been done before? Are there any problems? Is this proposable acceptable by U.N standards, and what can be done either to improve it, or make it passable?

Sometimes national governments have legitimate reasons for denying people the freedom to leave the nation. I would hope that this would be taken into account within the proposal text.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I am sure some experienced UN delegate will help you word the proposal, but I would like to say a couple of things.

First, do some countries actually prevent their citizens from travelling international? This seems to be the assumption behind the proposal. Never heard of this though, although it may be possible. But I also feel that the UN member nations would have enough freedom in their country for people to travel abroad, if not in some areas within the country which may be high security zones or other places of importance.

Second, you cannot expect member nations to open up their borders slightly and to relax travelling laws. It's a matter of security. What's with the slighty?? Anyway, almost all countries invite foreigners with open hands as long as these people pass the VISA formalities. Member nations cannot be expected to relax this. It's there to prevent unwanted people to enter based on certain policies. So as long as the people travelling are good and worthy, they can always enter.

The Free Travel Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: significant
Proprosed by: Darvainia

Description:
Recgognizing that in many nations today the living conditions are unbearable due to conditions in: politics, health, social structure, climate, economic condititions, or various other problems.

Noting that in these nations, particularly in the case of corrupt governments, and poor political structure, citizens are not allowed to leave, prevented by structures, laws, or armed forces.

By structures, you mean like a "physical barrier"?

Therefore declaring that every family, every individual, every group, organizational or cultural,

change that to "every individual whether alone or part of a larger group"

has the right to leave their nation and change citizenship to another for any reason, or for no reason given at all.

End here, you have an emigration rights act - which I can and will supprt (with a bit of editing for some issues I'm about to bring up)

Further reaffirming these people's right to travel in and out of countries as they please, for business or pleasure purposes without the restriction or obstruction of any government's political, diplomatic, or military forces.

Unless, of course, they are axe murderors, terrorists, people that are contageous with some deadly disease,.....etc

Also stating that anyone may travel how they wish, whether by land, sea or air, by foot or by vehicle or animal.

Alright, I'll ride an ICBM to get home tonight. What about people who want to fly an aircraft but don't have a pilot's license? What about people who are driving and don't have a driver's license?

Asking and urging all nations to open up their borders slightly and releax travelling laws
and sanctions for the sake of civil and human rights everywhere.

Regardless of security issues that they may be concerned with

Ok I'm fairly new at this but I felt this may be a necessary proposal. I need help though, has it been done before? Are there any problems? Is this proposable acceptable by U.N standards, and what can be done either to improve it, or make it passable?

Round 1, done

I think that this is more Free Trade than Human rights (although they're is good argument for both)


But tourism can be BIG business, and for the most part, the largest share of traveling.

First, do some countries actually prevent their citizens from travelling international? This seems to be the assumption behind the proposal. Never heard of this though, although it may be possible. But I also feel that the UN member nations would have enough freedom in their country for people to travel abroad, if not in some areas within the country which may be high security zones or other places of importance.

In many RL dictatorships, you need special permission just to travel to the other side of the nation. Leaving the nation would be even more difficult. I doubt there are many non-government officials who get to leave North Korea

In many RL dictatorships, you need special permission just to travel to the other side of the nation. Leaving the nation would be even more difficult. I doubt there are many non-government officials who get to leave North Korea
OOC: Its illegal to leave North Korea if you're just a citizen yes. A direct violation of the UN Charter of Human Rights I do believe.

IC: The Free Land of CTerryland believes heavily in economic immigration and asylum, seeing them as highly beneficial to our nation, but this resolution seems to imply that there should be no, or at least practically no restrictions on travel. We agree with the honourable delegate of Forgottenlands on his point that certain people are not fully conducive to a secure and happy nation and must be filtered out of the system. The Free Land of CTerryland does not wish to become a base for terrorists or organised crime.

In many RL dictatorships, you need special permission just to travel to the other side of the nation. Leaving the nation would be even more difficult. I doubt there are many non-government officials who get to leave North Korea


Why would you ever go back? "These freedoms scary me...were is Big Brother?"


No. I think this proposal should tackle it more like Cuba, where you can visit a country under diplomatic guise, but it's up the the Individual country to allow their people to travel abroad.

To have it the other way could infringe on judicial sovereignty.

The Free Travel Act

Therefore declaring that every family, every individual, every group, organizational or cultural, has the right to leave their nation and change citizenship to another for any reason, or for no reason given at all.

I dont neccesarily want undesireables just wandering into my country and throwing their weight around. I need to retain a measure of control so that international terrorists can be prevented from landing and causing explosions.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary.

What about immigration laws? I mean, sometimes governments have legitimate reason to deny immigration of a foreigner - security and economic reasons for example..

And what if the suspect is a terrorist? Should he be allowed to just "change citizenship"?

Immigration is not dealt with here. Emmigration is.

Immigration is not dealt with here. Emmigration is.

But one country "emmigration" is another country's immmigration. It still doesnt solve the problem of my country's soveriegnity being threatened by having god knows who calling themselves citizens of my country if i dont want them to be citizens of my country.

Law Chancellor to the Ambassador Plenipontiary.

Oh, no. You are not required to accept them. Hell, if there's an issue of no country being willing to accept them, they can just set up a micronation somewhere (I can't remember which resolution that was). The thing is that they need the right to leave any country they choose. Whether a different country will let them enter is not dealt with by this resolution, so your right to refuse entry is still permitted.

The Free Travel Act

Therefore declaring that every family, every individual, every group, organizational or cultural, has the right to leave their nation and change citizenship to another for any reason, or for no reason given at all.



It states they can change citizenship to that of another nation, if i were to deny them citizenship then there would be grounds for the UN to overrule my exclusion order and force my nation to allow these people to become citizens of my nation. This is because this proposal allows anybody to become citizen of anywhere without prejudice. There are no grounds for denying a person a right to enter the country.

Law Chancellor.

Further reaffirming these people's right to travel in and out of countries as they please, for business or pleasure purposes without the restriction or obstruction of any government's political, diplomatic, or military forces.

HAHAHAHA!!!
no.

Not even a little.

Let me portray a fun little example of this idea in "all" of its glory.
"Nazi-Land" (home of the Nazi's) feel like traveling to the "Non Nazi-Land" (home of the people who are non-Nazi's im being sarcastic here kids..catch up), set up an encampment (business) and proceed to create arms and recruit militia in order to overthrow the country. Doesnt that work for you?

Or how about... A group of "infected" people (diseases, STD's etc) leave their country because they are oppressed, settle down in your country and by right of this proposal begin to transmit all those wonderful diseases into your nation because well... they have a piece of paper which allows them free reign outside of that nations jurisdiction.

Or even... A mass group of starving millions swim over to your country and begin crime waves on your country in order to feed themselves and perhaps take some of your industry back to wherever it is they choose to leave to next, thereby destroying your economy and overwhelming your police forces.

In our country people have the ability to travel, but only after all the military and medical tests have been passed by the recipients. failure to do so results in immediate "ejection" out of the country. Im sorry but I feel that no country should have to deal with risk of "flag-burning" aids patients with severe criminal records.

Asking and urging all nations to open up their borders slightly and releax travelling laws
and sanctions for the sake of civil and human rights everywhere.

No thank you. If this even gets put on the board I'll be happy to urge the correct people into making sure this one gets shut down.

I'm not wild about this proposal either, but I am curious about a couple of your comments.



Canada (aka Nazi's) feel like traveling to the United States, <snip>

You feel that Canadians are Nazi's? In what way? Please explain.

No thank you. If this even gets put on the board I'll be happy to urge the correct people into making sure this one gets shut down.

Who are these people and how exactly would they "shut it down"?

I'm not wild about this proposal either, but I am curious about a couple of your comments.

You feel that Canadians are Nazi's? In what way? Please explain.

Who are these people and how exactly would they "shut it down"?

No the Canadian thing was just a sarcastic joke. I was "in-charcter". Thereby giving an example of relating Canadian to Nazi's. Im sorry for the min-understanding. In character any country's name could be homre" for any type of peoples. Hence Mexico could be a strictly Asain country, Cuba could have outlawed the pass of any Latin people et cetera.

The "people" I refer to are the UN Delegates that help and support the "Communist Manifesto" and the Socialist view of life. Both of those parties would easily be reached and vote "against" this policy with little to no second guesing.

Just for future reference, if you read a post of mine they are always in character unless otherwise noted by either "OOC:" or by me saying "Out of Character:. I in no way would expect to "physically" bring any harm to any individual who opposes my views in any way. That is the type of mentality I would expect of terrorists and people that have mental handicap's. (thus not being able to tell the difference between reality and role-play).

Thank you for your time Yeldan. Hopefully "we" wont have such mishaps in the future.

No the Canadian thing was just a sarcastic joke. I was "in-charcter". Thereby giving an example of relating Canadian to Nazi's. Im sorry for the min-understanding. In character any country's name could be homre" for any type of peoples. Hence Mexico could be a strictly Asain country, Cuba could have outlawed the pass of any Latin people et cetera.

The "people" I refer to are the UN Delegates that help and support the "Communist Manifesto" and the Socialist view of life. Both of those parties would easily be reached and vote "against" this policy with little to no second guesing.

Just for future reference, if you read a post of mine they are always in character unless otherwise noted by either "OOC:" or by me saying "Out of Character:. I in no way would expect to "physically" bring any harm to any individual who opposes my views in any way. That is the type of mentality I would expect of terrorists and people that have mental handicap's. (thus not being able to tell the difference between reality and role-play).

Thank you for your time Yeldan. Hopefully "we" wont have such mishaps in the future.

The gigantic region of Canada (and therefore, the only place where it would be able to be called Canadian) would likely take great insult at the insinuation that they are Nazis - though I admit, I can't speak on their behalf. The representative of Canada6, on the other hand, may be more interested in noting his opinion, or the opinion of his region - especially since his nation is far from Nazi in nature.

OOC: You post some nationalities that are RL, the assumption will always default to OOC.

OOC:

Your right Forgotten. I was a bit quick about it, and now I'd feel silly if I called one Nazi-Land home of the Nazi's and the other Non-Nazi Land, home of people who arent Nazi's.

But hey thats what an edit button is for why not. :p

The "people" I refer to are the UN Delegates that help and support the "Communist Manifesto" and the Socialist view of life. Both of those parties would easily be reached and vote "against" this policy with little to no second guesing.
So you feel that all Socialists would automatically oppose a free travel proposal? Interesting.

Thank you for your time Yeldan. Hopefully "we" wont have such mishaps in the future.
Indeed. Hopefully "We" will not.

We would support a proposal which guaranteed the right of people to emigrate. But the right to immigrate is something else entirely. That people might want to leave their homeland to seek a better life elsewhere is understandable, and should be allowed. However, we would oppose any proposal stating that they have the right to enter any nation they choose. It should be up to the nation in question whether to accept them or not.