NationStates Jolt Archive

Forced Banishment Ban

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Waterana

Description: Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens from their home nation as punishment for various crimes/actions.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these criminals. This forces those receiving nations to put their own people at risk, and to deal with the problems that the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid, whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation’s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing a punishment that forces both dangerous and non-dangerous criminals to seek refuge in other states is grossly unfair and unjust to the international community.

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Any native born, dual or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile from their home nation if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home nation.

Votes For: 27

Votes Against: 15

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Fri Dec 16 2005

Thought I'd start a new thread on this resolution now its up for vote, as the draft thread has the wrong name and is a bit of a mess.

It can be found here...

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455308)

My nation is small and simple. We have systems in place to deal with our criminals already. If this preposal passes then we will be forced to introduce the death penalty because we do not have the required resources to completely reform our penal system. We do not believe that this is the right course of action. This is the High Councils final say on the matter.

The Elder of The High Council of The Allied States of The Older Capitalists.

I have to ask, The Older Capitalists, but what kind of a justice system do you have which has banishment as such a common enough punishment that its banning would result in you needing to overhaul your entire system?

I have to ask, The Older Capitalists, but what kind of a justice system do you have which has banishment as such a common enough punishment that its banning would result in you needing to overhaul your entire system?


If this preposal passes then we will be forced to introduce the death penalty because we do not have the required resources to completely reform our penal system



I can't speak for them, but at the moment we banish people for high crimes (treason, terrorism with bloodshed and so forth). Almost no one has been banished, but if we are not permitted to do this anymore, we have to find another way to deal with it.

Holding someone in prison (who the majority of people despise with a passion) means extra protection and extra security. Further it would mean holding them until they die in prison, as the above crimes have no forgiveness clause in them (hence the banishment).

Since we would almost certainly be unable to afford all of this, we would have no alternative but to execute them - which goes against EVERYTHING we believe in.

Further more - if someone has betrayed our country, why should we be required to feed, clothe, house and take care of them? Why should they be allowed to live in this country that they care so little for anyway?

Ah, Pallatium, but The Older Capitalists claimed they would have to completely reform their system. If banishment is only used for a small number of crimes in your nation, then that would hardly count as a complete overhaul, would it?

I'm trying not to be facetious here, but I really don't think I can support the opinion of a nation that banishes people for a wide range of crimes.

I'm going to say straight from the outset that I will not be made to feel guilty by the emotional arguement of "if we can't banish them, then we'll have to execute them".

What you do to them within your own borders is your own business, I neither care or want to know about it. Kill them if you want, jail them if you want, let them go if you want, its your choice. Just don't inflict your criminal problems on the rest of us.

Further more - if someone has betrayed our country, why should we be required to feed, clothe, house and take care of them? Why should they be allowed to live in this country that they care so little for anyway?

Why should we?

They are your problem, not ours. Why the heck should we have to care for your criminals, and one nation or another will have to. These people won't just drop off the edge of the earth, they will have to end up somewhere.

This resolution is simply telling nations to deal with their own problems within their own borders and stop foisting them off on the rest of the international community.

The point is though that you wouldn't have to imprison them. They would go off and form a nation in a different region. Our nation is simply for people who want to be the best they can be, but they must abide to certain rules. Any rule breaking and they leave. We are a fairly new nation and most of my citizens are 'immigrants' because they used to live in the various capitalist states that combined to form the Allied States. They were not all automatically given citizenship, but over the next century we will have far more native citizens and we do not believe in the prison system. Other countries do and have far more secure systems in place to deal with these criminals.

So, just out of curiousity - if I revoke everyone's citizenship, and grant them all temporary visas, then redefine all hospitals as extra-national buildings (meaning that no one who is born in a hospital is native born) and extend that to cover any house or other building in which someone is born, but only for the duration of the birthing process, then pretty much no one (except me) will be covered by the restrictions of this proposal.

And I know what you are going to say - that clause 4 forbids such actions as these, so I can't.

Well - Clause 4 doesn't come in to effect until this proposal passes, so if I can pass all these laws in the next 24 hours (which should not be an issue), then I won't have changed any laws or any statuses while the resolution was in effect.


(ooc - I have resigned from the UN and plan to stop playing, but I figured if I could find loopholes before I go, I might as well try)

The point is though that you wouldn't have to imprison them. They would go off and form a nation in a different region. Our nation is simply for people who want to be the best they can be, but they must abide to certain rules. Any rule breaking and they leave. We are a fairly new nation and most of my citizens are 'immigrants' because they used to live in the various capitalist states that combined to form the Allied States. They were not all automatically given citizenship, but over the next century we will have far more native citizens and we do not believe in the prison system. Other countries do and have far more secure systems in place to deal with these criminals.

This resolution doesn't cover immigrants. You are perfectly within your rights to deport any non-citizens you want to, whenever you want to, for whatever reason you want to.

The point remains that those that are your citizens and break your laws are your criminals, and should be dealt with within the borders of your nation. I don't know of any empty land in the NS world, so if these people are setting up a new nation of criminals and malcontents, which nation is giving up their real estate for it? Yours I hope.

I accept you don't like the prison system, neither do we. We don't, and never have used external banishment however. Like you Waterana has no prisons. We solved the problem by using rehabilitation, education and opportunities, a good welfare system and in extreme cases, an island off our coastline, but still within our territorial waters. This keeps our worst criminals segragated from our community, but still within our jurisdiction.

I'm afraid I just can't accept any excuse for a nation to wipe its hands of its problems and send them merrily on their way into an unsuspecting international community. How can you be sure all your criminals will go to this new nation and not sneak, slip or lie their way into another nation and just start their criminal careers off again.

So, just out of curiousity - if I revoke everyone's citizenship, and grant them all temporary visas, then redefine all hospitals as extra-national buildings (meaning that no one who is born in a hospital is native born) and extend that to cover any house or other building in which someone is born, but only for the duration of the birthing process, then pretty much no one (except me) will be covered by the restrictions of this proposal.

And I know what you are going to say - that clause 4 forbids such actions as these, so I can't.

Well - Clause 4 doesn't come in to effect until this proposal passes, so if I can pass all these laws in the next 24 hours (which should not be an issue), then I won't have changed any laws or any statuses while the resolution was in effect.


(ooc - I have resigned from the UN and plan to stop playing, but I figured if I could find loopholes before I go, I might as well try)

Go for it. Like you said, clause 4 won't come into effect until and if the resolution passes, in fact, none of the resolution comes into effect until then so you can banish every person in your nation right now if you want to I guess.

(OOC, shame about you planning to stop playing. I know we haven't agreed very often, but I've enjoyed the few debates we have had.)

I realize now I meant to make a comment in the draft thread about the possibility of allowing bilateral negotiation: if a country's really willing to take banished people, then let 'em. Too late now, though, and I suspect that runs against the grain of the resolution anyway. Still mild support.

(OOC: Pallatium: please don't go. It was just getting interesting.)

I realize now I meant to make a comment in the draft thread about the possibility of allowing bilateral negotiation: if a country's really willing to take banished people, then let 'em. Too late now, though, and I suspect that runs against the grain of the resolution anyway. Still mild support.

(OOC: Pallatium: please don't go. It was just getting interesting.)


Actually - would that be banishment? If (say) Hyrule agrees that anyone I no longer want in my nation will be accepted in to theirs, and we can some how word it so that, while they are not banned from re-entering Pallatium, they are not actually permitted to leave Hyrule ever again, would that be in violation of this proposal?

Go for it. Like you said, clause 4 won't come into effect until and if the resolution passes, in fact, none of the resolution comes into effect until then so you can banish every person in your nation right now if you want to I guess.

(OOC, shame about you planning to stop playing. I know we haven't agreed very often, but I've enjoyed the few debates we have had.)

(grin) If I banish everyone in my nation then who is going to make my dinner? (And I think my partner might get just a tad annoyed if I banish her - but hey - now that we can all divorce it might not be all that bad!)

Our nation of Farroth was forged in the fires of revolution, the anarchists and socialists who reside in our borders and run the nation have expressed that they refuse to allow members of the capitalist class to endanger the wellbeing of the people. We all agree that the execution of these capitalists may be called for, but it is simply bad form. And so it is that we expell these pigs, and we refuse the curtailing of our right to do so.

The Soverign Nation of North Duke officially stands OPPOSED to this resolution, because it provides no provision for persons who are citizens of a nation, then become naturalized in another. North Duke does not feel that this resolution fully takes into account the importance of the citizenship issue from a security standpoint.

I am appalled at this blatent attempt to circumvent the legal systems and punishments of Sovereign Nations. This law forces Nations to change it's punishments for crimes it deems neccesary. If this passes we will begin to see a push to make execution illegal.

It is not the place of the United Nations to tell Nations how to punish thier criminals and miscreants.

The only way I would ever consider passing a law like this is to allow nations to send these criminals only to countries that agree to take the citizen. But not allowing a country to determine it's own punishments that are humane is wrong in a very big way.

The people of Cluichstan believe the representative from Naviblah misunderstands the purpose of this proposal. It is, as I read it, attempting to prevent nations from simply shipping their criminals outside their own borders to become another nation's problem. How a nation deals with its criminals internally is still up to that nation.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

i agree with naviblah, this is an issue of national sovereignty. the UN has NO jurisdiction on issues such as these, nor should it have such powers. these are internal matters, NOT international concerns.

the UN can not tell governments what appropriate penalties are for speeding, shoplifting, not going to church, failure to be loyal to a government, etc.

further, this resolution, aside from being wrong-headed and inconsistent with UN scope of concerns, is a bit puzzling and contradictory. does the UN state that governments can not slap people into jails for breaking laws? does it ban capital punishment among its members? then why should it be able to dictate governmental policy in this area?

if this passes, then could governments simply provide life-sentences or death-sentences to such people instead of exiling them? it seems that the UN, in an ill conceived attempt to "help people" (as though people suddenly lose their rights when they are a group or in the majority) may encourage governments to resort to even more draconian measures.

protect national sovereignty and common sense. please vote on for this resolution.

The people of Cluichstan believe the representative from Naviblah misunderstands the purpose of this proposal. It is, as I read it, attempting to prevent nations from simply shipping their criminals outside their own borders to become another nation's problem. How a nation deals with its criminals internally is still up to that nation.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala


As I read this proposal I take it as the removal of the right to exile citizens from a nation. In the basic format yes it's wrong, but the proposal needs to be changed if this is going to work. The nation should only be allowed to exile a citizen as long as it has another nation willing to take this person.

As I read this proposal I take it as the removal of the right to exile citizens from a nation. In the basic format yes it's wrong, but the proposal needs to be changed if this is going to work. The nation should only be allowed to exile a citizen as long as it has another nation willing to take this person.

A very good point actually.

The Empire of Kirisubo votes against this proposal.

After a lot of thought and some consultation we decided to adopt this position. The alternative for most nations if they can't exile a traitor is to put them against a wall and shoot them.

Is this really what our proposer wants to happen. At a stroke of a pen the execution rate in a lot of countries will shoot up.

Nation sovereignty is a secondary consideraton to us as far as this vote is concerned. The proposal dosen't stop justice being carried out inside a nations borders but it will force a lot of nations down a road they don't want to take.


Kaigan Miromuta, UN Ambassador from Kirisubo

So far I count seven nations in this thread claiming that banishment is a major form of punishment in their nation (well, Pallatium says it's rarely used, but the rest). Some of them claim that if this passes, the execution rate will skyrocket. Where are all these banished persons going?

And to those of you who want to lecture on the subject of National Sovereignty: This resolution protects my sovereignty. My sovereign right not to have to deal with your criminals. They are your criminals, deal with them within your borders. You have no more sovereign right to dump criminals in another nation than you have to dump raw sewage or industrial waste.

The Holy Republic of the Setting Moons has voted AGAINST this resolution and hopes that others will also vote against it based on the following reasons:

1. If voluntary banishment can occur with an agreement with a foreign nation, then why shouldn't the same apply to involuntary banishment?

2. This resolution attempts to define citizenship as a right given at birth. Citizenship is not a right, it is a priviledge. As such, citizenship should be able to be revoked at any time by the government, if the conditions for citizenship of that nation are not met.

We believe that this resolution once again infringes upon the rights of individual nations to punish crimes as they see fit. This is an internal matter (or a matter decided between two nations) that should not fall under UN jurisdiction.

And to those of you who want to lecture on the subject of National Sovereignty: This resolution protects my sovereignty. My sovereign right not to have to deal with your criminals. They are your criminals, deal with them within your borders. You have no more sovereign right to dump criminals in another nation than you have to dump raw sewage or industrial waste.

Agreed. Furthermore, I would add that it is possible to "get rid" of a criminal, as long as he and the receiving nation give their consent. I would argue that most criminals convicted for treason would prefer to serve their sentences abroad, rather than face the hostility of fellow inmates and guards. So there, make a traitors exchange programme with your neighbour.

Forced Banishment Ban

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Waterana

Description: Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens from their home nation as punishment for various crimes/actions.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these criminals. This forces those receiving nations to put their own people at risk, and to deal with the problems that the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid, whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation’s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing a punishment that forces both dangerous and non-dangerous criminals to seek refuge in other states is grossly unfair and unjust to the international community.

We agree with most of the preambles, particularly those concerning "criminal dumping", i.e. dumping large numbers of undesirables upon other nations. Our liberal immigration laws have meant some nations have, in the past and now, tried to slip large numbers of criminals into our country under the guise of legal immigrants. We try background checks, but there's only so many you can implement and a few always get through, pushing up our crime rate more often than not.

Our one point of concern is the final preamble, which, whilse stating that inhumane punishments that force criminals to seek refuge are unfair (which we are in complete concordance with). However, if there exists no mechanism to ensure that such punishments are restricted if not banned, then how is this to be enforced?

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

Whilst personally, I would have difficulty respecting the rights of traitors to retain their citizenship, I will respect this clause and accept it.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

I'm somewhat confused by 'deceptive means', mainly by the examples given, which seem anything but deceptive. This part is rather vague in my opinion and I would prefer to see a more watertight definition of 'deceptive means' before agreeing to this clause.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Any native born, dual or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntarily go into permanent or temporary exile from their home nation if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home nation.

If the individual in question renages on any promises gauranteeing his voluntary exile and asylum, what will be the procedure for repatriation, assuming it becomes necessary?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

As I read this proposal I take it as the removal of the right to exile citizens from a nation. In the basic format yes it's wrong, but the proposal needs to be changed if this is going to work. The nation should only be allowed to exile a citizen as long as it has another nation willing to take this person.

Upon reflection, the people of Cluichstan like the exception brought up by the esteemed representative from Naviblah. This needed to be included in the proposal.

Repectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The nation should only be allowed to exile a citizen as long as it has another nation willing to take this person.
Upon reflection, the people of Cluichstan like the exception brought up by the esteemed representative from Naviblah. This needed to be included in the proposal.
The final operative clause:
In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home nation.

The ideals that the United Nations stands for; the limit to which the sovereignty of nations should/ can be violated; the peaceful cooperative process that should characterize UN resolutions -- all these are opposed by this resolution in content, in language, and in spirit.

The Republic of OSAGYEFO appeals to all nations to NULLIFY this good-intentioned, yet ultimately disastrous resolution (which is also a risk to our individual national security)

Respectfully,

His Excellency, President of the Republic of Osagyefo: Sangu J. Delle


Forced Banishment Ban

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Waterana

Description: Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens from their home nation as punishment for various crimes/actions.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these criminals. This forces those receiving nations to put their own people at risk, and to deal with the problems that the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid, whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation’s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing a punishment that forces both dangerous and non-dangerous criminals to seek refuge in other states is grossly unfair and unjust to the international community.

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Any native born, dual or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile from their home nation if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home nation.

Votes For: 27

Votes Against: 15

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Fri Dec 16 2005

The final operative clause:

But that clause only applies if the criminal voluntarily accepts exile. Plus, it alternately refers to the individual in question as both "criminal" and "victim."

Frankly, there are some crimes that can be committed that are purely against-state, which banishment is very effective for. I'm not talking about banishing someone for murder, and leaving another country in jeopardy.

For some crimes, banishment is the simplest action. Rather than putting someone in jail for committing a crime against-state, when they would be perfectly acceptable somewhere else.

I stand against.

I have only recently become Eldar of my people, however, that does not make me shortsighted. If this proposal becomes law then it is inevitable that the UN will strive to gain greater control over our nations, which is the exact opposite of why it was created. I am glad to see that the vote currently goes our way.

The Eldar of the Allied States of The Older Capitalists wishes you good luck and wisdom in this issue

This is the first UN resolution I've ever liked, one that actually discusses our powers in foreign affairs rather then infringing upon our rights of national sovereignty on civil issues. Banning a criminal from your country is immoral, it gives the burden of that criminal to another government and puts more people at risk in whatever country he's deported to. The only moral solution to high crimes is instant execution upon prosecution, and that's why I've finally found a resolution I voted for. THIS is what a UN resolution is supposed to be, not some horseshit civil issue that should only be discussed at a federal level. I urge everyone to vote for this resolution.

We are happy to announce that even though we oppose this resolution, as it infringes upon our right to deport troublemakers, bargain with other nations to take them in exchange for Fine Kennyite Mike and Ike™ Candies or what have you, or revoke the citizenship of naturalized troublemakers, we have for months now been actively pursuing a policy to circumvent this legislation: by simply designating deportees as "envoys" and sending them off to take up "embassy assignments" far-off lands. Dozens of such individuals have already "established diplomatic relations" with foreign nations under this policy, and in that vein, we are pleased to designate our new "envoy" to Waterana: one Thor Eliot, who was arrested six months ago after setting a record for most convenience-store clerks shot in a single week. When authorities finally caught up with him, he was totally delusional, curled up in the fetal position on a motel room floor, shrieking incoherently about Martha Stewart being after him, and how she wanted his soul. Fortunately, you don't really have to be crazy to be convinced that Martha Stewart wants your soul, so Mr. Eliot was unable to plead insanity.

Wateranan officials need not be alarmed at the prospect of such an animal residing inside their borders, however: Mr. Eliot is actually a rather lucid and charming fellow, when properly medicated. Hocked Up on Goofballs, Inc. has already promised to send a shipment of all the antipsychotics (http://www.alphalungtransplant-info.cityslide.com/i/Lungs/Medications.jpg) he will require; that should last you about a week. To refill your prescriptions, please contact Dr. Zimmermann, who is actually on vacation until August of next year, but if you leave an urgent message with his secretary, she will eventually get around to checking the office voicemail and inform someone about your situation.

And yes, we also plan to up our number of executions to make up for the number of persons we will no longer be able to deport under this law.

[For more information about our ongoing efforts to exile troublemakers to embassies abroad, please visit out embassy-exchange thread. It's around here somewhere ...]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/clip_image008.jpg
Mr. Eliot

But that clause only applies if the criminal voluntarily accepts exile.
The resolution does not allow involuntary exile. So yeah, it only applies to voluntary ones.
Plus, it alternately refers to the individual in question as both "criminal" and "victim."
In the context it's presented in it, I can see that it refers to the same individual. It could have been worded differently though.

The resolution does not allow involuntary exile. So yeah, it only applies to voluntary ones.

Right, but as I understood it, the purpose of the proposal was to prevent countries from simply dumping their criminals on other nations. Surely, there should be an exception if a nation willingly accepts an exile from another nation.

Surely, there should be an exception if a nation willingly accepts an exile from another nation.Agreed. We likely would be voting in favor were such an exemption included in this bill.

I am glad to see that the vote currently goes our way.Dude, don't jinx it! :p

Right, but as I understood it, the purpose of the proposal was to prevent countries from simply dumping their criminals on other nations. Surely, there should be an exception if a nation willingly accepts an exile from another nation.
I would have supported it if Waterana had included a provision for involuntary exiles. I can still support it without one though. I honestly don't care what problems people have dealing with their criminals. As written, this keeps their problems from potentially becoming my problems.

As I read this proposal I take it as the removal of the right to exile citizens from a nation. In the basic format yes it's wrong, but the proposal needs to be changed if this is going to work. The nation should only be allowed to exile a citizen as long as it has another nation willing to take this person.

I disagree. There is no reason whatsoever any nation should have to accept an exiled criminal into their midst. There is no reason they should be forced to do this. That said, I'm against the proposal.

Forgive my ignorance, but that's the primary argument against exile, right? The "we don't want your trash either" argument? Now, it seems to me that there's not one thing preventing one nation from stopping another nation's garbage at the door, and sending it on its merry way. After all, when you're exiling someone, you're not giving them a ticket. You're saying, "Get the Hell out of my country or I'm going to put a bullet in your head." Sorry for my crudeness, "You are banished from this land under pain of death." Better? What I mean to say is, punishment of exile doesn't give them a destination other than "elsewhere."

Now, it's quite possible that some folk will forget that their borders should be protected and/or monitored, but that's hardly the rest of the world's issue, isn't it?

There's been a lot of wailing about sovereignty here, and I think it's uncalled for. As I said, there's no reason a country should have to take in a criminal it doesn't want. See to your country, and let the criminal figure out things for his or herself.

If this proposal becomes law then it is inevitable that the UN will strive to gain greater control over our nations, which is the exact opposite of why it was created.

Uh? So, let me get this straight. The UN was created in order to lessen its own, previously non-existent, control over nations? Bad move, man, bad move...

OOC: I am geting very, very tired of all the mind-readers telling us why Max Barry created the UN. The only things we have to go by are
a) the collective will of member nations,
b) the following quotes from NS:

The UN is the world's governing body.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

Since the rise of civilization (November 13, 2002), the members of the United Nations have been working tirelessly to improve the standard of the world. That, or trying to force other nations to be more like them. But that's just semantics.

I would have supported it if Waterana had included a provision for involuntary exiles. I can still support it without one though. I honestly don't care what problems people have dealing with their criminals. As written, this keeps their problems from potentially becoming my problems.

Though a rather selfish way of looking at it, you make a very good point, my Yeldan friend.

(Can I get some of that fine cheese now? ;) )

(Can I get some of that fine cheese now? ;) )
Have you not gotten any cheeses?!! Or have you just run out?

<sends Cluichstan a case of Fine Yeldan Cheeses™ and as an added bonus a sample case of Fine Yeldan Ales™, including our new Special Export Yeldan Brown Ale™.>

THIS is what a UN resolution is supposed to be...At this statement, Gorgias stood and applauded before beginning an impassioned speech of his own.

"Fellow UN Representatives, I'm hearing several comments about how this resolution violates national sovereignty. Now don't get me wrong, national sovereignty is something that The-Republic holds in high regard; we were rather disappointed that the previous resolution at vote passed, not because we disagreed with the rights it presented, but rather due to the principle of good ol' NatSov.

But I digress. Many nations here have contrasting views regarding national sovereignty. Some hold fast to their right to exercise power as they see fit in all aspects of governance; some willingly concede several governmental powers to the UN. Personally, for the purposes of this debate, I don't give a damn what your view of national sovereignty is, as long as you concede these two powers to the UN:
The UN has jurisdiction over international matters.
The UN has jurisdiction over human rights matters.
Now, you may believe that this body should have greater powers than this, but that is irrelevant. So hush! Anyway, this resolution deals with nothing else but these two issues, issues that this representative believes are certainly within the jurisdiction of the UN. Why shouldn't this body be able to legislate on matters that affect more than one nation? I'd attest that it has not only the right, but the duty to do so! This resolution protects nations that might otherwise be subject to an influx in criminals from bordering lands. Several nations reserve the punishment of exile for only the most serious of crimes, meaning that bordering nations are forced to receive the most serious of criminals. I for one applaud a resolution that seeks to end such an injustice.

As such, The-Republic will be supporting this resolution, and will petition our regional delegate to do the same.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']...Why shouldn't this body be able to legislate on matters that affect more than one nation? I'd attest that it has not only the right, but the duty to do so!

I agree wholeheartedly! But is this really a matter that affects more than one nation? Isn't it a nation's duty to keep the unwanted outside its borders? This line of thinking could easily lead to the prohibition of war altogether, and who really wants that?

But in all seriousness, it is the responsibility of the sovereign nation to protect its borders; not the UN.

Uh? So, let me get this straight. The UN was created in order to lessen its own, previously non-existent, control over nations? Bad move, man, bad move...

OOC: I am geting very, very tired of all the mind-readers telling us why Max Barry created the UN. The only things we have to go by are
a) the collective will of member nations,
b) the following quotes from NS:

OK, We're sorry for the confusion, I only meant that that is why we decided to join the UN. We decided that it was vital to stop the UN's growth into our neighboring countries, just in case legislation was past that would cause us hasstle.

Have you not gotten any cheeses?!! Or have you just run out?

<sends Cluichstan a case of Fine Yeldan Cheeses™ and as an added bonus a sample case of Fine Yeldan Ales™, including our new Special Export Yeldan Brown Ale™.>

Thank you, my friend! We have indeed gotten cheeses, but they are so delicious that they disappear rather quickly.

It is the position of the Armed Republic of Cantarch that banishment is neither an effective punishment, nor a responsible one. Dumping your criminals on your neighbors is not the act of a friendly nation, and deporting traitors is no punishment at all.

The Armed Republic practices a form of imprisonment we call "Internal Banishment", involving the confining of criminals to a habitable, but unimproved area as an alternative to standard sentencing.

In the case of voluntary banishment, the Armed Republic will consider accepting criminals from other nations. However, this will be conducted on a case by case basis.

Geoffrey Artan, Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations for the Armed Republic of Cantarch

I agree wholeheartedly! But is this really a matter that affects more than one nation? Isn't it a nation's duty to keep the unwanted outside its borders? This line of thinking could easily lead to the prohibition of war altogether, and who really wants that?

But in all seriousness, it is the responsibility of the sovereign nation to protect its borders; not the UN.
Personally, I think it slightly arrogant to assume that all nations have the resources necessary to establish watertight border control. Many poorer nations simply don't have the capabilities to keep tabs on everyone entering their nation, and I feel it is the UN's duty to protect the rights of those nations who lack the capability to do so for themselves.

The-Republic']Personally, I think it slightly arrogant to assume that all nations have the resources necessary to establish watertight border control. Many poorer nations simply don't have the capabilities to keep tabs on everyone entering their nation, and I feel it is the UN's duty to protect the rights of those nations who lack the capability to do so for themselves.

While I sympathize with such a situation, it's hardly an excuse. If, say, an unwelcome exile finds his way into your country, and builds a home and a life... Then he's an illegal immigrant, and can be dealt with as such.

If you don't like this, then commit resources to helping those underfunded nations reinforce their national borders, instead of limiting the legislative abilities of other nations.

I am appalled at this blatent attempt to circumvent the legal systems and punishments of Sovereign Nations. This law forces Nations to change it's punishments for crimes it deems neccesary. If this passes we will begin to see a push to make execution illegal.

It is not the place of the United Nations to tell Nations how to punish thier criminals and miscreants.

The only way I would ever consider passing a law like this is to allow nations to send these criminals only to countries that agree to take the citizen. But not allowing a country to determine it's own punishments that are humane is wrong in a very big way.

It is the place of the UN when your punishments cross your borders, which banishment does. If you don't want the UN to interfere, keep your justice system, and your criminals, to yourself.

i agree with naviblah, this is an issue of national sovereignty. the UN has NO jurisdiction on issues such as these, nor should it have such powers. these are internal matters, NOT international concerns.

the UN can not tell governments what appropriate penalties are for speeding, shoplifting, not going to church, failure to be loyal to a government, etc.

further, this resolution, aside from being wrong-headed and inconsistent with UN scope of concerns, is a bit puzzling and contradictory. does the UN state that governments can not slap people into jails for breaking laws? does it ban capital punishment among its members? then why should it be able to dictate governmental policy in this area?

if this passes, then could governments simply provide life-sentences or death-sentences to such people instead of exiling them? it seems that the UN, in an ill conceived attempt to "help people" (as though people suddenly lose their rights when they are a group or in the majority) may encourage governments to resort to even more draconian measures.

protect national sovereignty and common sense. please vote on for this resolution.

So your own nat sov is sacrosanct, but stuff everyone elses?

What you do with your criminals within your nation is your own business, and as I said earlier, emotional appeals of "if we can't banish them, well have to execute them" won't wash with me. I don't care what you do with them as long as you do it within your borders.

I almost included a clause in this resolution that recoginised a nations right to run its justice system, within its own borders, any way it saw fit, but couldn't come up with a way to word it properly so ended up dropping the idea. That would have protected capital punishment, and any other punishment that didn't cross your border.

I disagree. There is no reason whatsoever any nation should have to accept an exiled criminal into their midst. There is no reason they should be forced to do this. That said, I'm against the proposal.

Forgive my ignorance, but that's the primary argument against exile, right? The "we don't want your trash either" argument? Now, it seems to me that there's not one thing preventing one nation from stopping another nation's garbage at the door, and sending it on its merry way. After all, when you're exiling someone, you're not giving them a ticket. You're saying, "Get the Hell out of my country or I'm going to put a bullet in your head." Sorry for my crudeness, "You are banished from this land under pain of death." Better? What I mean to say is, punishment of exile doesn't give them a destination other than "elsewhere."

Now, it's quite possible that some folk will forget that their borders should be protected and/or monitored, but that's hardly the rest of the world's issue, isn't it?

There's been a lot of wailing about sovereignty here, and I think it's uncalled for. As I said, there's no reason a country should have to take in a criminal it doesn't want. See to your country, and let the criminal figure out things for his or herself.

If no nation has to take them, where do they go?

Is there a black hole for these people to disappear into?

Of course they end up in other nations. They have to pass through other nations. They will eventually settle in another nation. Have you thought about them committing crimes on the way to this place they conviently just vanish off the face of the earth. How else are they going to eat. No nation should have to deal with another nations garbage. End of story.

While I sympathize with such a situation, it's hardly an excuse. If, say, an unwelcome exile finds his way into your country, and builds a home and a life... Then he's an illegal immigrant, and can be dealt with as such.

If you don't like this, then commit resources to helping those underfunded nations reinforce their national borders, instead of limiting the legislative abilities of other nations.

I've got a better idea. You keep your criminals to yourself, and then there won't be a need for underfunded nations to reinforce their borders just to protect themselves from your problems.

Votes For: 1,265

Votes Against: 1,340

This is going to be a close one...

This is going to be a close one...

Yes I agree.

It seems there are a lot of selfish nations out there who are only thinking of themselves and don't care about the impact banishment has on other nations.

Yes I agree.

It seems there are a lot of selfish nations out there who are only thinking of themselves and don't care about the impact banishment has on other nations.

Or perhaps we just don't like the UN infringing even moreso on our national sovereignty.

EDIT: Knew that was spelled wrong.

(ooc - I have resigned from the UN and plan to stop playing, but I figured if I could find loopholes before I go, I might as well try)

OOC: That is a shame for us that you'll be quiting the game. :/

Or perhaps we just don't like the UN infringing even moreso on our national sovereignty.

EDIT: Knew that was spelled wrong.

But its perfectly ok for your justice system to infringe on the soverignty of other nations? Interesting.

Don't worry about the spelling, I can't spell either :).

But its perfectly ok for your justice system to infringe on the soverignty of other nations? Interesting.It is not an infringement on sovereignty if nations agree to take in deportees from other nations (much like what Cyprus and other nations did when Israel decided to exile Palestinian militants a few years back), but strangely this resolution makes no proviso for that. A pity. Whether to allow foreign nationals in their borders, criminal or not, is a right all nations retain regardless. That's why we have passports and visas.

A little more about Mr. Eliot, our "envoy" to Waterana: He is prone to violent seizures immediately after being medicated, but don't worry: they usually subside after about an hour, and you only need to medicate him every other hour or so. Good luck. :)

This is going to be a close one...
it is only early days yet. some of those that voted no should have really read the proposal. also, this is a bad time for it to come to vote, with christmas coming up and all

It is not an infringement on sovereignty if nations agree to take in deportees from other nations (much like what Cyprus and other nations did when Israel decided to exile Palestinian militants a few years back), but strangely this resolution makes no proviso for that. A pity. Whether to allow foreign nationals in their borders, criminal or not, is a right all nations retain regardless. That's why we have passports and visas.

A little more about Mr. Eliot, our "envoy" to Waterana: He is prone to violent seizures immediately after being medicated, but don't worry: they usually subside after about an hour, and you only need to medicate him every other hour or so. Good luck. :)

If that had been mentioned during the draft stages, it would have been included in some form, but I didn't think of it and can't remember anyone else suggesting it.

If a person is stripped of their citizenship and kicked outside their nations borders, then they are stateless and don't have visas and passports. Do they?

Forced Banishment Ban

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.


OOC: This is an interesting idea for a resolution ... I've been poking around for a few minutes looking up US citizenship laws to get a feel for how I should vote. So I wanted to actually pass along that I appreciate a topic that gets me curious like that!!! :)

IC:
Mikitivity is curious about the implications of this resolution on our domestic voting laws. Some nations have laws that disenfranchise, i.e. take away the right to vote, convicted felons. And of these nations, the right to vote is sometimes linked with "citizenship", thus a convicted felon might still be considered a "resident" but not a voting citizen. The felons can no longer vote, can not apply for certain jobs, can not serve as a juror, and forfeit many other responsibilities and priveledges entitled to citizens.

My government has always firmly believed that the point of UN resolutions is to make general suggestions, so I'm not going to be a stickler for exact words here ... but my general question is can felons still be disenfranchised upon conviction? I ask this, because it is my impression that your resolution actually intended to prevent nations from removing a convicted felon's residence.

Thank you,
-Howie T. Katzman

it is only early days yet. some of those that voted no should have really read the proposal. also, this is a bad time for it to come to vote, with christmas coming up and all

But they are all sheep who automatically click yes for every resolution, remember :D.

It is not an infringement on sovereignty if nations agree to take in deportees from other nations (much like what Cyprus and other nations did when Israel decided to exile Palestinian militants a few years back), but strangely this resolution makes no proviso for that. A pity. Whether to allow foreign nationals in their borders, criminal or not, is a right all nations retain regardless. That's why we have passports and visas.

Ah, but you see, some of us consider forceful deportation an infringement on human rights. (OOC: And your Israel example couldn't be better for this point.) If a nation wants to take voluntarily exiled people, there is absolutely nothing in this proposal stopping it.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.
The Principality of Malclavia notes that this resolution does not prevent offering a choice between 99-year banishment and execution.

The Principality is prepared to make the appropriate changes to its laws if this resolution passes.

OOC: This is an interesting idea for a resolution ... I've been poking around for a few minutes looking up US citizenship laws to get a feel for how I should vote. So I wanted to actually pass along that I appreciate a topic that gets me curious like that!!! :)

IC:
Mikitivity is curious about the implications of this resolution on our domestic voting laws. Some nations have laws that disenfranchise, i.e. take away the right to vote, convicted felons. And of these nations, the right to vote is sometimes linked with "citizenship", thus a convicted felon might still be considered a "resident" but not a voting citizen. The felons can no longer vote, can not apply for certain jobs, can not serve as a juror, and forfeit many other responsibilities and priveledges entitled to citizens.

My government has always firmly believed that the point of UN resolutions is to make general suggestions, so I'm not going to be a stickler for exact words here ... but my general question is can felons still be disenfranchised upon conviction? I ask this, because it is my impression that your resolution actually intended to prevent nations from removing a convicted felon's residence.

Thank you,
-Howie T. Katzman


Something else I wish had come up in the draft stage because when I was racking my brain trying to come up with reasons other than banishment for a nation to want to strip citizenship, I couldn't think of any.

Nations can still take away the right to vote, but I think under my resolution they wouldn't be able to remove citizenship to do so.

The Principality of Malclavia notes that this resolution does not prevent offering a choice between 99-year banishment and execution.

The Principality is prepared to make the appropriate changes to its laws if this resolution passes.
Looky here:
3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.Oh wait, it looks like it does indeed prevent offering a choice between banishment and execution.

The-Republic']Looky here:
Oh wait, it looks like it does indeed prevent offering a choice between banishment and execution.
Incorrect.

Th resolution prohibits offering a choice between permanent banishment and execution. After 99 years, the criminal (not victim, as the resolution incorrectly states) would be free to return.

But they are all sheep who automatically click yes for every resolution, remember :D.
sheep clicking yes i can understand, but sheep clicking no?

...Of course they end up in other nations. They have to pass through other nations. They will eventually settle in another nation. Have you thought about them committing crimes on the way to this place they conviently just vanish off the face of the earth. How else are they going to eat. No nation should have to deal with another nations garbage. End of story.

Yeah, the whole idea behind banishment being that no one will take them. There've been countries that have said they will take them. So be it. They may end up there. Banishment is sentenced to those that the State no longer feels it should take care of. If we put them in a gulag or a faraway Island, we still have to pay for them. It's not that we don't want to see them anymore. It's that we don't want to take care of them. If you don't want to take care of them either, stop them at the door, or kick them out when they sneak in. Where they end up should be neither your concern or ours.

It's not selfishness, and it's not an infringement of your borders.

It's not up to us to care how they eat, survive, or have interesting conversations. They're not our citizen anymore, and we're not going to suffer their presence. Like I said, if you don't want them, don't take them. If they can't survive, well, that's their problem.

Let me ask you a question, what of self-imposed exile? Someone who runs from the law, and is unable to be apprehended? Are we to be held accountable if this person lives the rest of their natural life, luxuriating in, say, Mexico?

The only infringement of sovereignty is the UN's attempt here.

After careful consideration, we believe that Enn's agreement with the government of Faren-land, wherein any Ennish criminals are offered full Farenese citizenship and their crimes struck from the record, can still function. As this is always a voluntary arrangement made by each criminal, it should be able to continue.

As such, the Triumvirate of Enn sees no need to oppose this resolution.

sheep clicking yes i can understand, but sheep clicking no?

Sorry, I was just having a dig at those who complain that bad resolutions pass because the majority of people just click yes without reading the resolution concerned.

The fact mine is losing means that either people are reading it, just don't like the idea or don't like the title.

Nations can still take away the right to vote, but I think under my resolution they wouldn't be able to remove citizenship to do so.
The resolution defines citizenship as the legal right to reside within a nation. Other rights, privileges and duties are not addressed by the resolution.

Voting, jury duty, etc. should not be impacted at all by the resolution.

Yeah, the whole idea behind banishment being that no one will take them. There've been countries that have said they will take them. So be it. They may end up there. Banishment is sentenced to those that the State no longer feels it should take care of. If we put them in a gulag or a faraway Island, we still have to pay for them. It's not that we don't want to see them anymore. It's that we don't want to take care of them. If you don't want to take care of them either, stop them at the door, or kick them out when they sneak in. Where they end up should be neither your concern or ours.

It's not selfishness, and it's not an infringement of your borders.

It's not up to us to care how they eat, survive, or have interesting conversations. They're not our citizen anymore, and we're not going to suffer their presence. Like I said, if you don't want them, don't take them. If they can't survive, well, that's their problem.

Let me ask you a question, what of self-imposed exile? Someone who runs from the law, and is unable to be apprehended? Are we to be held accountable if this person lives the rest of their natural life, luxuriating in, say, Mexico?

The only infringement of sovereignty is the UN's attempt here.


Actually, we do kick them out. Any banished criminals we find within our borders are transported straight back to their home nation because we don't recognise stripped citizenship or banishment. They are looked on as illegal immigrants and deported as such.

The Principality of Malclavia notes that this resolution does not prevent offering a choice between 99-year banishment and execution.

The Principality is prepared to make the appropriate changes to its laws if this resolution passes.

The nation of Galloism thanks you for your recommendation. We are prepared to pass a similar law, with a banishment time period of 999 years in its place.

Angelina Gallo

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Duke Bartender says that this law seeks to fix a problem that doesn't exist. With 30K NSUN nations, and 100K+ NS Nations, there is likely to be a nation that will accept any particular exile.

The Glorious Grand Duchy of Galactic Gargleblaster has encountered too many citizens getting eaten by our native Traalian Bugblatter Beasts. This horrible fate can be easily be stopped by putting a towel over your head. Since the Duke's little playthings (er, our citizens) continue to forget to bring a towel, nudity is compulsory this forces the modest to wear one with them at all times. Any citizens that defy the Duke out of modesty are banished.

The last time there was a UN rating of "Most Nude Citizens" it was apparent to the Duke that hardly any nations have compulsory nudity. Therefore, the banning of these 'criminals' is hardly a burden on the world at all.

GGGG has some very uninhabitable (read deadly but economically valuable family holdings) reaches that nevertheless the Duke feels should be inhabited and worked for their resources. Should this unfortunate law be passed, we have room for a few millions of any nation's crimi- um err.. 'guest workers'. Just send me a telegram, and I will put them to valuable societal function for the Duke, and for the World. The fuel ingredients for the fantastically corrosive Gargleblasterblasters have to come from *somewhere*.

----Smedley (wearing a torn, very tight unitard filthy with badges, ribbons, and medals, and a hickey)

Actually, we do kick them out. Any banished criminals we find within our borders are transported straight back to their home nation because we don't recognise stripped citizenship or banishment. They are looked on as illegal immigrants and deported as such.

A good policy to have, and it seems to work well for your own purposes. Of course, there's no reason the rest of the world should have to follow your laws. If you don't want them, by all means, send them straight back here. If they've been sentenced to life-long exile, then they're going to be sent out again.

There is no need for the UN to be involved in such matters, and this resolution should not pass.

"Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law."

"2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason. "



We do not practice jure solis or jure sanguinus here. My country does not now, nor has it ever, granted citizenship merely for being born in my country or for being born to citizens. You have to prove you deserve it. For those born here, that is either through examination or a willingness to perform duties for the state. For those who move here, likewise. To force us to just give citizenship to people lucky enough to be born here is absurd.

In this sense, it does prey heavily on my national sovereignity. We reserve the right to revoke the priviledges of citizenship from all traitors.

It is not an infringement on sovereignty if nations agree to take in deportees from other nations (much like what Cyprus and other nations did when Israel decided to exile Palestinian militants a few years back), but strangely this resolution makes no proviso for that. A pity. Whether to allow foreign nationals in their borders, criminal or not, is a right all nations retain regardless. That's why we have passports and visas.

Hmmm, this is an interesting notion. Is there a way we can justify hypothetical (though still possible) situations such as the one raised by Ambassador Riley using the intent of this resolution?

-Howie T. Katzman

Something else I wish had come up in the draft stage because when I was racking my brain trying to come up with reasons other than banishment for a nation to want to strip citizenship, I couldn't think of any.

OOC:
My fault too!!! :) I wasn't paying attention during the drafting stage (which I firmly believe is the most important time to participate) ... but don't worry, I'll just pretend to be slippery and invoke "legislative intent" when pretending that my country has complied with your resolution. It really is an interesting topic, and it honestly seems that your resolution's focus is to prevent a forced loss of residency / home.

Yeah, the whole idea behind banishment being that no one will take them.
no, the whole idea about banishment is that you kick them out of your country and dump them on others

It's not selfishness, and it's not an infringement of your borders.
this is a total load of BS. fighting for your 'right' (term used loosly) to dump criminals on other nations is being selfish and is an infringment of borders because they have to go somewhere

It's not up to us to care how they eat, survive, or have interesting conversations. They're not our citizen anymore, and we're not going to suffer their presence. Like I said, if you don't want them, don't take them. If they can't survive, well, that's their problem.

of course you dont. you prefer other nations take care of your trash. deal with it yourself.

Let me ask you a question, what of self-imposed exile? Someone who runs from the law, and is unable to be apprehended? Are we to be held accountable if this person lives the rest of their natural life, luxuriating in, say, Mexico?

not really, because it wasnt a government desicion, it was that individuals desicion. this resolution deals with being forcably kicked out due to laws.

The only infringement of sovereignty is the UN's attempt here.
again, BS. they are your criminals, you deal with them.

and for those that argue NatSov: this is very much an international issue, and their are quite a few from NSO, myself included, that actually support this. if anything, it is protecting NatSov by allowing us not to have to put up with other nations trash

The nation of Galloism thanks you for your recommendation. We are prepared to pass a similar law, with a banishment time period of 999 years in its place.

Beware, the rights of immortal vampires are next in the proposal queue!!! ;)

Beware, the rights of immortal vampires are next in the proposal queue!!! ;)

I don't think I have any of those, not in the past 5,000 years or so.

Didn't we send those guys to Chechnya?

My government has been pointed out in the regional discussion that this resolution de facto takes away the possibility to strip someone's citizenship even if that person received the citizenship through illegal naturalisation. How do the fellow spokespeople here feel about this possible flaw?

My government is currently on "abstain". We like the idea of this resolution but feel it is too much of an unfinished draft currently. The problem mentioned above could well push us to against, despite agreeing with the principles behind this resolution. Were it to be written with more care we'd even be vocally for.

Hmmm, this is an interesting notion. Is there a way we can justify hypothetical (though still possible) situations such as the one raised by Ambassador Riley using the intent of this resolution?

-Howie T. Katzman



OOC:
My fault too!!! :) I wasn't paying attention during the drafting stage (which I firmly believe is the most important time to participate) ... but don't worry, I'll just pretend to be slippery and invoke "legislative intent" when pretending that my country has complied with your resolution. It really is an interesting topic, and it honestly seems that your resolution's focus is to prevent a forced loss of residency / home.

If this resolution fails this time, which by early voting it well might, I'm not going to cry about it. What I will do is use this thread, and the points raised in it, as a "draft" type thread to redo the resolution and try again.

The resolution started out focusing on preventing loss of home but grew to focus more on the rights of nations not to have to deal with other nations criminal problems.

Perhaps a new version that starts more at a nations borders and just stops them forcing their criminal elements (except for pre arranged agreements between nations as per Kenny's main point) onto the international community, instead of interfering with its citizenship laws ect, might be more platable to UN members.

no, the whole idea about banishment is that you kick them out of your country and dump them on others
We don't give them a destination, I don't see how we're "dumping them on others."

this is a total load of BS. fighting for your 'right' (term used loosly) to dump criminals on other nations is being selfish and is an infringment of borders because they have to go somewhere
They have to go somewhere, correct. If you can't control who you allow to live in your borders, then it's your problem, not mine.

of course you dont. you prefer other nations take care of your trash. deal with it yourself.
Optimally, no one takes care of them.

not really, because it wasnt a government desicion, it was that individuals desicion. this resolution deals with being forcably kicked out due to laws.
That individual was a criminal, dear Ambassador, and the situation is the same. You have an unwanted criminal in your midst. What do you do? You get rid of him. Why is it any different if we don't want him back?

again, BS. they are your criminals, you deal with them.
They're certainly not ours, and that's the idea. We don't want to take care of them. We don't want to pay for their imprisonment or execution, effectively making them not ours. They violate our laws, and that is somehow our fault? Your entire argument is based around this premise that it's our fault that someone decides to break our laws.

and for those that argue NatSov: this is very much an international issue, and their are quite a few from NSO, myself included, that actually support this. if anything, it is protecting NatSov by allowing us not to have to put up with other nations trash
So don't put up with another nation's trash.

I honestly don't see why that's so difficult a concept. If you don't want them, don't tolerate them within your borders. The only sovereignty being violated are those nations who have laws that involve exile.

My government has been pointed out in the regional discussion that this resolution de facto takes away the possibility to strip someone's citizenship even if that person received the citizenship through illegal naturalisation. How do the fellow spokespeople here feel about this possible flaw?

I cannot speak for the author, but it would seem that an illegally naturalised person is not a citizen of the country, but merely a foreign fraudster. If this is correct, then you would have no problems returning that person to the country of origin when you discover the illegality.

*snip*
Perhaps a new version that starts more at a nations borders and just stops them forcing their criminal elements (except for pre arranged agreements between nations as per Kenny's main point) onto the international community, instead of interfering with its citizenship laws ect, might be more platable to UN members.

The people of Cluichstan believe that this one omission is the sole fault with the proposal, and we would wholeheartedly support a new proposal on this matter that includes language correcting said omission.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

We don't give them a destination, I don't see how we're "dumping them on others."
reguardless of destination, they have to go somewhere, and that is still dumping them on others

They have to go somewhere, correct. If you can't control who you allow to live in your borders, then it's your problem, not mine.
they say prevention is the best cure, ie dont send them in the first place

Optimally, no one takes care of them.
they have to live somewhere, and in this you are forcing them on us. deal with them instead of dumping them.

That individual was a criminal, dear Ambassador, and the situation is the same. You have an unwanted criminal in your midst. What do you do? You get rid of him. Why is it any different if we don't want him back?
it is not the same, and if they did come into our country illegaly, we will immediatly contact your embasy and return your trash. simple as that.

They're certainly not ours, and that's the idea. We don't want to take care of them. We don't want to pay for their imprisonment or execution, effectively making them not ours. They violate our laws, and that is somehow our fault? Your entire argument is based around this premise that it's our fault that someone decides to break our laws.
but they are yours. before the crime was commited, they were yours. while the crime was commited, they were yours. while the trial happend, they were yours. it was your desicion to expell them, not theirs, and not ours. you deal with them, not dump them

So don't put up with another nation's trash.
we dont. but as said before, prevention is the best cure, so dont dump them in the first place
I honestly don't see why that's so difficult a concept. If you don't want them, don't tolerate them within your borders. The only sovereignty being violated are those nations who have laws that involve exile.[/QUOTE]

If this resolution fails this time, which by early voting it well might, I'm not going to cry about it. What I will do is use this thread, and the points raised in it, as a "draft" type thread to redo the resolution and try again.

The resolution started out focusing on preventing loss of home but grew to focus more on the rights of nations not to have to deal with other nations criminal problems.

Perhaps a new version that starts more at a nations borders and just stops them forcing their criminal elements (except for pre arranged agreements between nations as per Kenny's main point) onto the international community, instead of interfering with its citizenship laws ect, might be more platable to UN members.

OOC: With that attitude in mind might I suggest that: (1) you copy the UN Delegate votes to consider FOR votes as potential sources for a telegram campaign, and (2) if you are ready to telegram for another draft, I *might* have time to fire off some 25 or so form letter telegrams speaking out in favour of a revised draft.

But don't give up hope on this draft ... :)

reguardless of destination, they have to go somewhere, and that is still dumping them on others...
Absolutely. They have to go somewhere. It isn't important where they go, so long as it isn't to our prisons where we have to waste resources treating them as we would a citizen, which they no longer are.

...they say prevention is the best cure, ie dont send them in the first place...
We're not sending them to you. We're sending them away from us. Regardless of where they end up, it's not in our control, and not part of our liability.

...they have to live somewhere, and in this you are forcing them on us. deal with them instead of dumping them...
We are dealing with them, by kicking them out of the country.


it is not the same, and if they did come into our country illegaly, we will immediatly contact your embasy and return your trash. simple as that.
It's not our citizen; not our trash.

...but they are yours. before the crime was commited, they were yours. while the crime was commited, they were yours. while the trial happend, they were yours. it was your desicion to expell them, not theirs, and not ours. you deal with them, not dump them...
Once the trial ended, they were no longer ours. They were their own sovereign person, and in that, we did not need to oblige them to stick around.

...we dont. but as said before, prevention is the best cure, so dont dump them in the first place.
You speak of it as if banishment specifically hands someone over to another country. It does not. There is no reason they should have to end up in your borders. That said, there is no reason we should have to keep them in ours.

OOC: With that attitude in mind might I suggest that: (1) you copy the UN Delegate votes to consider FOR votes as potential sources for a telegram campaign, and (2) if you are ready to telegram for another draft, I *might* have time to fire off some 25 or so form letter telegrams speaking out in favour of a revised draft.

But don't give up hope on this draft ... :)

1 - I'll do that ;).

2 - I appreciate the offer of possible help when the time comes. If it happens, nothing will be submitted until well after christmas though :).

and I haven't given up hope yet, but am just being practical and making plans for a possible failure.

i voted against this. if some idiot has been messing around with my government or has been causing unrest, i should be able to force him to leave. plus, it's not like allowing banishment will mean that nations would flush all opposition out

i voted against this. if some idiot has been screwing around with my government or has been causing unrest, i should be able to force him to leave

I must have a dirty mind judging from the pictures that popped into my head while I read the bit I've bolded above :D

I'm not sure, because you weren't spacific, but banishing people for what you have mentioned above could well already be illegal under a previous passed resolution. Namely this one...

Freedom of Conscience (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385208&postcount=116)

I must have a dirty mind judging from the pictures that popped into my head while I read the bit I've bolded above :D

I'm not sure, because you weren't spacific, but banishing people for what you have mentioned above could well already be illegal under a previous passed resolution. Namely this one...

Freedom of Conscience (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385208&postcount=116)

I could be wrong, but I think he's talking about Treason.

OOC: With that attitude in mind might I suggest that: (1) you copy the UN Delegate votes to consider FOR votes as potential sources for a telegram campaign, ....Add our name to the list. If the revised draft addresses the concerns we've voiced, we will join Cluichstan in changing our stance on this. Although we are somewhat insulted that Waterana as of yet has failed to respond to our generous offer of "diplomacy." :p

Add our name to the list. If the revised draft addresses the concerns we've voiced, we will join Cluichstan in changing our stance on this. Although we are somewhat insulted that Waterana as of yet has failed to respond to our generous offer of "diplomacy." :p

Oh yes, your envoy. Well he kinda went a bit out of control, so we have given him a luxurious, though slightly smelly, room in the local zoo where his rantings and ravings are entertaining the local children. Don't worry about him, the female gorilla in the cage with him is taking excellent care of him. In fact she hasn't left him alone since they were introduced :D.

Banning the Banishment Penalty is a bad idea. Someone who would qualify to be banished, if the penalty was banished, it will most likely leave the country the criminal is residing in into either choosing between the Death Penalty, which would include a moral battle in its own right, or a Life Penalty, which would only make the law-abiding tax payers get stuck with a criminal's wrongdoing costs.

Banning this penalty would only get rid of the lesser of three evils. Banishment is a necessary tool in our fight against crime and corruption. I SAY WE VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION AND KEEP EACH OF OUR COUNTRIES SAFE.

yours respectfully,

The Texan Empire

Banning the Banishment Penalty is a bad idea. Someone who would qualify to be banished, if the penalty was banished, it will most likely leave the country the criminal is residing in into either choosing between the Death Penalty, which would include a moral battle in its own right, or a Life Penalty, which would only make the law-abiding tax payers get stuck with a criminal's wrongdoing costs.

Banning this penalty would only get rid of the lesser of three evils. Banishment is a necessary tool in our fight against crime and corruption. I SAY WE VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION AND KEEP EACH OF OUR COUNTRIES SAFE.

yours respectfully,

The Texan Empire

Best way to keep our nations safe is for you to keep your criminals within your nation and either execute or imprison them. I can't see how having other peoples criminals running around the NationStates world is going to keep any nation safe.

:headbang:

Absolutely. They have to go somewhere. It isn't important where they go, so long as it isn't to our prisons where we have to waste resources treating them as we would a citizen, which they no longer are.
that is so selfish and a load of BS. ignorance isnt bliss. just because they are not there, doesnt mean that you have got rid of them because countries will force them back on you.


We're not sending them to you. We're sending them away from us. Regardless of where they end up, it's not in our control, and not part of our liability.
that is the problem: you are only seeing it that way. look at it from the reverse. say all your neighbours decided to dump their criminals on you. you wouldnt like it. now you know how others feel

We are dealing with them, by kicking them out of the country.
it isnt dealing with them, it is sidestepping the issue by dumping them

It's not our citizen; not our trash.
they originated from your country; they are your trash whether you accept it or not

Once the trial ended, they were no longer ours. They were their own sovereign person, and in that, we did not need to oblige them to stick around.
and what if they do? no wonder you are in power, nobody could probably vote for or against you....

You speak of it as if banishment specifically hands someone over to another country. It does not. There is no reason they should have to end up in your borders. That said, there is no reason we should have to keep them in ours.
i talk in general terms. i wouldnt want any nation having to deal with the trash of anothers. they are your criminals, whether you like it or not. deal with them within your borders, dont go dumping them outside them

Oh yes, your envoy. Well he kinda went a bit out of control, so we have given him a luxurious, though slightly smelly, room in the local zoo where his rantings and ravings are entertaining the local children. Don't worry about him, the female gorilla in the cage with him is taking excellent care of him. In fact she hasn't left him alone since they were introduced :D.We are most gratified to hear it. In fact, we are willing to recompensate the gorilla for the valuable service she is providing by guarding our embassy. If you're willing to send us a counterpart "envoy" in return for a full "diplomatic" exchange, by all means, send us a telegram.

I disagree with the proposed Forced Banishment Ban.

Our penal system is based on the principle that citizens and foreigners that commit serious violations of our laws are outside the protection of the same laws.

It is unfair to the victims and society as a whole if they are only imprisoned (prisons and other related detention facilities cost taxpayer's money). So we, through our justice system, give them a choice: work (what job depends on the gravity of the crime commited) until you repay your debt to society or permanently leave the USSC.

If they elect to return either legally or by other means, the convict will be summarily executed.

-Pi Chronopolice
-Federation President, United Star States of Chronopolice

I deeply disagree with the proposed Forced Banishment Ban.

Our penal system is based on the principle that citizens (and foreigners) that commit serious violations of our laws are outside the protection of the same laws.

It is unfair to the victims (and society as a whole) if they are only imprisoned (prisons and other related detention facilities cost taxpayer's money). So we, through our justice system, give them a choice: work ( what job depends on the gravity of the crime commited) until you repay your debt to society or permanently leave the USSC.

If they elect to return either legally or by other means, the convict will be summarily executed.

-Pi Chronopolice
-Federation President, United Star States of Chronopolice


If they agree to leave volutarily, then this resolution won't apply.

Personally, I don't consider your options of work or voluntary banishment should be affected by the resolution, as your not threatening the person (or others) with physical harm or death.I agree however that the way clause 3 is worded now, it could well prevent such a choice.

If this resolution fails and is rewritten, I will fix that clause to exclude systems such as yours from being affected. You will however have to find a new home for your criminal before banishing him or her. The point remains that no nation should be allowed to just foist its criminals off onto the international community at large.

[The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio marches to the podium stiffly, his face red with anger. Tossing aside his usual prepared speech, he storms up to the lectern and begins speaking.]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

Esteemed Delegates and Representatives: We rise in OUTRAGE against this vile attempt to undermine the faith of Our people! Let all understand--this proposal undermines the very foundation of Our nation's existence.

As We have explained to this august assembly before, membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. Sadly, it happens on occasion that a misguided soul rejects their faith and turns against the teachings of the Church. For such apostates and heretics, We have no recourse but to impose the sad duty of excommunication, with the resulting removal of citizenship. We assure this august body that, in keeping with Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27, no punishment is inflicted herein--only the removal of that which the apostate and heretic has chosen themselves to reject.

This resolution, by removing the ability of sovereign nations to revoke citizenship, even by due process of law, prohibits Us from imposing excommunication, even to reprobates who intend on destroying the HOCEK through false teachings.

Make no mistake: This proposed resolution would be a blatant interference in the functioning of a religious institution, namely the HOCEK government itself. As such, it is in violation of several standing NSUN resolutions:

It is an act of intolerance against Our people's religion, a violation of NSUN Resolution #20.
It is an infringement upon Our people's right to worship in the manner they choose as guaranteed by Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27.
It is an infringement upon Our people's chosen government's ability to exercise its legal powers as guaranteed under Article 1, NSUN Resolution #50.
It is an act of legal discrimination against Our theocratic form of government, a violation of NSUN Resolution #88.

In conclusion, We beseech the assembly here to vote down this attempt at the destruction of sovereignity. The next nation upon the chopping block of NSUN tyranny may be your own!

It is an infringement upon Our people's right to worship in the manner they choose as guaranteed by Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27.
Oh, this is too good.

You are accusing this body of infringing on your people's religious freedoms when you excommunicate them and strip them of their citizenship for not worshipping how the state tells them to?

Please.

[The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio marches to the podium stiffly, his face red with anger. Tossing aside his usual prepared speech, he storms up to the lectern and begins speaking.]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

Esteemed Delegates and Representatives: We rise in OUTRAGE against this vile attempt to undermine the faith of Our people! Let all understand--this proposal undermines the very foundation of Our nation's existence.

As We have explained to this august assembly before, membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. Sadly, it happens on occasion that a misguided soul rejects their faith and turns against the teachings of the Church. For such apostates and heretics, We have no recourse but to impose the sad duty of excommunication, with the resulting removal of citizenship. We assure this august body that, in keeping with Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27, no punishment is inflicted herein--only the removal of that which the apostate and heretic has chosen themselves to reject.

This resolution, by removing the ability of sovereign nations to revoke citizenship, even by due process of law, prohibits Us from imposing excommunication, even to reprobates who intend on destroying the HOCEK through false teachings.

Make no mistake: This proposed resolution would be a blatant interference in the functioning of a religious institution, namely the HOCEK government itself. As such, it is in violation of several standing NSUN resolutions:

It is an act of intolerance against Our people's religion, a violation of NSUN Resolution #20.
It is an infringement upon Our people's right to worship in the manner they choose as guaranteed by Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27.
It is an infringement upon Our people's chosen government's ability to exercise its legal powers as guaranteed under Article 1, NSUN Resolution #50.
It is an act of legal discrimination against Our theocratic form of government, a violation of NSUN Resolution #88.

In conclusion, We beseech the assembly here to vote down this attempt at the destruction of sovereignity. The next nation upon the chopping block of NSUN tyranny may be your own!
i believe, by doing this, you are violating a few passed resolutions anyway. there is provison for freedom of religion, and freedom from pursecution on those grounds.

[The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio marches to the podium stiffly, his face red with anger. Tossing aside his usual prepared speech, he storms up to the lectern and begins speaking.]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

Esteemed Delegates and Representatives: We rise in OUTRAGE against this vile attempt to undermine the faith of Our people! Let all understand--this proposal undermines the very foundation of Our nation's existence.

As We have explained to this august assembly before, membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. Sadly, it happens on occasion that a misguided soul rejects their faith and turns against the teachings of the Church. For such apostates and heretics, We have no recourse but to impose the sad duty of excommunication, with the resulting removal of citizenship. We assure this august body that, in keeping with Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27, no punishment is inflicted herein--only the removal of that which the apostate and heretic has chosen themselves to reject.

This resolution, by removing the ability of sovereign nations to revoke citizenship, even by due process of law, prohibits Us from imposing excommunication, even to reprobates who intend on destroying the HOCEK through false teachings.

Make no mistake: This proposed resolution would be a blatant interference in the functioning of a religious institution, namely the HOCEK government itself. As such, it is in violation of several standing NSUN resolutions:

It is an act of intolerance against Our people's religion, a violation of NSUN Resolution #20.
It is an infringement upon Our people's right to worship in the manner they choose as guaranteed by Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27.
It is an infringement upon Our people's chosen government's ability to exercise its legal powers as guaranteed under Article 1, NSUN Resolution #50.
It is an act of legal discrimination against Our theocratic form of government, a violation of NSUN Resolution #88.

In conclusion, We beseech the assembly here to vote down this attempt at the destruction of sovereignity. The next nation upon the chopping block of NSUN tyranny may be your own!


If this resolution fails this time, which by early voting it well might, I'm not going to cry about it. What I will do is use this thread, and the points raised in it, as a "draft" type thread to redo the resolution and try again.

The resolution started out focusing on preventing loss of home but grew to focus more on the rights of nations not to have to deal with other nations criminal problems.

Perhaps a new version that starts more at a nations borders and just stops them forcing their criminal elements (except for pre arranged agreements between nations as per Kenny's main point) onto the international community, instead of interfering with its citizenship laws ect, might be more platable to UN members.

Sheesh, I've already conceded that the resolution has problems. Was the rant really necessary?

Maybe if a lot of the complaints in this thread (not just your post) had been brought up in the draft stage, I would have been able to fix them.

The-Republic']You are accusing this body of infringing on your people's religious freedoms when you excommunicate them and strip them of their citizenship for not worshipping how the state tells them to?

Membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is purely voluntary. Any member of the HOCEK, however unwisely We may deem it, has the freedom to renounce their faith and leave the Church. But in doing so, they by definition renounce their citizenship in Our nation.

There is no hypocracy nor double standard here, merely the simple stating of how Our nation operates. We ask nothing more than to be allowed to function as any sovereign state here in the NSUN--a right that this proposal would revoke.

Sheesh, I've already conceded that the resolution has problems. Was the rant really necessary?

We apologize if Our speech seems intemperate. But understand that this proposal cuts at the very heart of Our national sovereignity. If the esteemed representative of Weterana sees problems in the proposal, would they be willing to see it withdrawn?

Maybe if a lot of the complaints in this thread (not just your post) had been brought up in the draft stage, I would have been able to fix them.

Indeed, We wish Our representatives could've had a hand in shaping this proposal. But sadly, We knew nothing of it until it came up to vote.

:headbang:

that is so selfish and a load of BS. ignorance isnt bliss. just because they are not there, doesnt mean that you have got rid of them because countries will force them back on you.

that is the problem: you are only seeing it that way. look at it from the reverse. say all your neighbours decided to dump their criminals on you. you wouldnt like it. now you know how others feel

it isnt dealing with them, it is sidestepping the issue by dumping them

they originated from your country; they are your trash whether you accept it or not

and what if they do? no wonder you are in power, nobody could probably vote for or against you....

i talk in general terms. i wouldnt want any nation having to deal with the trash of anothers. they are your criminals, whether you like it or not. deal with them within your borders, dont go dumping them outside them

Here's the thing I see you're failing to comprehend: exile does not mean delivery. If an exiled person finds his or her way to your doorstep, they did it of their own accord, and it is up to you to either turn them away, send them back to where they came, or accept them into your borders.

Role-reversal makes no difference. If there was suddenly a series of mass banishments by my country's neighbors, we would consider the situation: did these people commit heinous crimes or just political dissent? We would consider what political rammifications there would be for turning them away or accepting them into our borders (if they are the citizens of an enemy and merely political dissenters, by all means, come on in). Given that, the decision would be made at the border, and not after they were inside. If someone were to enter the country illegally, they would be dealt with as illegal immigrants. This does not change the country's stance on banishment. If you could see past your "trash" rhetoric for one minute, you might just understand why. As it is, I don't think you're capable.

But back to the issue. There should be no objection here; no nation is obligated to take in the rejected citizens of another. No one's arguing that. But somehow, you seem to think they are. If one country sends exiles back where they came, the exiles will either sit on the doorstep for the rest of their natural lives, or step back in and have their natural lives cut short, plain and simple. That isn't an argument against banishment.

In fact, none of what has been said here is an argument against exile. "We don't want to deal with it" is not an accurate counter to the issue of banishment. No one is saying you have to deal with it. The only thing your nation must consider in a situation like that is what to do with the exiles, then and there. Not what will happen to them once they are gone and not who will end up with them.

Another thing you might like to consider, though I have the feeling you won't: If the UN forces a country to abandon the practice of banishment, then those countries must take up the practice of execution or imprisonment of the would-be exiles, which does, in fact, cost the country resources that would not have been used otherwise. Now, is the UN supposed to be our legislator and our accountant?

Membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is purely voluntary. Any member of the HOCEK, however unwisely We may deem it, has the freedom to renounce their faith and leave the Church. But in doing so, they by definition renounce their citizenship in Our nation.

There is no hypocracy nor double standard here, merely the simple stating of how Our nation operates. We ask nothing more than to be allowed to function as any sovereign state here in the NSUN--a right that this proposal would revoke.
we disagree, there is a double standard, and it is violating the resolution. removal of citizenship is a punishment for not following your religion, and that is the violation.

We apologize if Our speech seems intemperate. But understand that this proposal cuts at the very heart of Our national sovereignity. If the esteemed representative of Weterana sees problems in the proposal, would they be willing to see it withdrawn?

It can't be withdrawn now its up for vote. It will either pass or fail. Don't worry, at the moment its failing ;).

Indeed, We wish Our representatives could've had a hand in shaping this proposal. But sadly, We knew nothing of it until it came up to vote.

I did put up a draft thread here. The link to it is in this threads second post.

we disagree, there is a double standard, and it is violating the resolution. removal of citizenship is a punishment for not following your religion, and that is the violation.
It's called a theocracy. HOCEK has never claimed to be anything but a theocracy. That's not a double standard, just a different standard to what most of the rest of us are used to.

we disagree, there is a double standard, and it is violating the resolution. removal of citizenship is a punishment for not following your religion, and that is the violation.

How can there be a double standard when "being a citizen" and "following the religion" are one and the same? Please understand that there is no so-called "separation of Church and State" in Our nation--they are the same institution.

Here's the thing I see you're failing to comprehend: exile does not mean delivery. If an exiled person finds his or her way to your doorstep, they did it of their own accord, and it is up to you to either turn them away, send them back to where they came, or accept them into your borders.

Role-reversal makes no difference. If there was suddenly a series of mass banishments by my country's neighbors, we would consider the situation: did these people commit heinous crimes or just political dissent? We would consider what political rammifications there would be for turning them away or accepting them into our borders (if they are the citizens of an enemy and merely political dissenters, by all means, come on in). Given that, the decision would be made at the border, and not after they were inside. If someone were to enter the country illegally, they would be dealt with as illegal immigrants. This does not change the country's stance on banishment. If you could see past your "trash" rhetoric for one minute, you might just understand why. As it is, I don't think you're capable.

But back to the issue. There should be no objection here; no nation is obligated to take in the rejected citizens of another. No one's arguing that. But somehow, you seem to think they are. If one country sends exiles back where they came, the exiles will either sit on the doorstep for the rest of their natural lives, or step back in and have their natural lives cut short, plain and simple. That isn't an argument against banishment.

In fact, none of what has been said here is an argument against exile. "We don't want to deal with it" is not an accurate counter to the issue of banishment. No one is saying you have to deal with it. The only thing your nation must consider in a situation like that is what to do with the exiles, then and there. Not what will happen to them once they are gone and not who will end up with them.

Another thing you might like to consider, though I have the feeling you won't: If the UN forces a country to abandon the practice of banishment, then those countries must take up the practice of execution or imprisonment of the would-be exiles, which does, in fact, cost the country resources that would not have been used otherwise. Now, is the UN supposed to be our legislator and our accountant?
and what you are forgetting is that the cost is effectivly fobbed onto other countries. sure, we can turn them away, but it costs money to do that as well. and it still doesnt deall with the fact that they have to go somewhere. using the phrase 'exile does not mean delivery' is a very weak argument, because it is just excusing you from the blame of kicking them out in the first place. you say "We don't want to deal with it" is not an accurate counter to the issue of banishment, but it isnt a good argument for banishment either.

How can there be a double standard when "being a citizen" and "following the religion" are one and the same? Please understand that there is no so-called "separation of Church and State" in Our nation--they are the same institution.
a quote from UBR:
Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

a quote from UFC
5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies,

b) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State,


a quote from Rights of Minorities and Women
ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.


shall i go on. as i have stated, it is covered already in quite a few resolutions, and you look to be violating them.

OOC: sorry for seeming to hijack the thread.

and what you are forgetting is that the cost is effectivly fobbed onto other countries. sure, we can turn them away, but it costs money to do that as well. and it still doesnt deall with the fact that they have to go somewhere. using the phrase 'exile does not mean delivery' is a very weak argument, because it is just excusing you from the blame of kicking them out in the first place. you say "We don't want to deal with it" is not an accurate counter to the issue of banishment, but it isnt a good argument for banishment either.

No. You're a little confused. You've got it backwards. There is no need to debate the validity of banishment. Banishment is. There is a need to explain why it shouldn't be, which can be countered, but there is no need for anyone to defend the practice of banishment.

I don't understand why this is difficult for you, Ambassador, for the people in question, when sitting at your border, are potential immigrants, like any other. People without a nation. They've left their country of origin for whatever reason, and they've come to yours for whatever reason, seeking a place to live. It is up to you to accept them or turn them away. One or the other.

If someone renounces their citizenship and emigrates from Bresnia to immigrate to the Lynx Alliance, is accepted, and then commits a crime, are they Bresnia's trash? Are they our garbage, thrown out for the world to deal with?

The only difference between that person and the exiled is that one chose to renounce their citizenship, and the other had it stripped from them.

No. You're a little confused. You've got it backwards. There is no need to debate the validity of banishment. Banishment is. There is a need to explain why it shouldn't be, which can be countered, but there is no need for anyone to defend the practice of banishment.
well, you seem to be doing just that

I don't understand why this is difficult for you, Ambassador, for the people in question, when sitting at your border, are potential immigrants, like any other. People without a nation. They've left their country of origin for whatever reason, and they've come to yours for whatever reason, seeking a place to live. It is up to you to accept them or turn them away. One or the other.
we openly accept immigrants. we dont accept other countries undesireables. and there is a difference between volentarily renouncing citizenship, and being forced to do so. if they are forced, then we question whether they should be allowed in here too.

If someone renounces their citizenship and emigrates from Bresnia to immigrate to the Lynx Alliance, is accepted, and then commits a crime, are they Bresnia's trash? Are they our garbage, thrown out for the world to deal with?
if someone volentarily renounces their citizenship and moves to TLA, the come under our law. we dont see them as being anyone elses trash, bar our own because we have accepted them. on the otherhand, if they were banished for breaking a law, we would not accept them

The only difference between that person and the exiled is that one chose to renounce their citizenship, and the other had it stripped from them.
and therein lies the problem. if someone has been stripped of citizenship, there has to be some reason behind it, usually breaking the law. to us, it is up to you to deal with your law breakers. no one else should have to accept exiles from another country. it is easy to say 'you dont have to accept them', but they do have to go somewhere. you cant exile someone and think you have washed your hands of the situation.

No. You're a little confused. You've got it backwards. There is no need to debate the validity of banishment. Banishment is. There is a need to explain why it shouldn't be, which can be countered, but there is no need for anyone to defend the practice of banishment.

I don't understand why this is difficult for you, Ambassador, for the people in question, when sitting at your border, are potential immigrants, like any other. People without a nation. They've left their country of origin for whatever reason, and they've come to yours for whatever reason, seeking a place to live. It is up to you to accept them or turn them away. One or the other.

If someone renounces their citizenship and emigrates from Bresnia to immigrate to the Lynx Alliance, is accepted, and then commits a crime, are they Bresnia's trash? Are they our garbage, thrown out for the world to deal with?

The only difference between that person and the exiled is that one chose to renounce their citizenship, and the other had it stripped from them.

Think about your argument...just think. If a person chooses to renounce their citizenship, that's their choice. They consiously make the decision to leave your country, for their reason, and go somewhere else. It's likely that they have a plan and that they have a private motive.

If you banish a person, you make them leave, not by their choice but by yours. You tell them to get out because you don't want to take the time to help them, your fellow countryman, get past what they have done. You kick them out into the world when they have no personal desire to leave your country and no plan of what to do with themselves. You are, when you banish a criminal, blowing the leaves from your lawn on to your naeighbors lawn in stead of vacuming them up and disposing of them yourself.

:headbang: Use your several brain cells and think friend, just think about your argument.

No. You're a little confused. You've got it backwards. There is no need to debate the validity of banishment. Banishment is. There is a need to explain why it shouldn't be, which can be countered, but there is no need for anyone to defend the practice of banishment.

When it impacts in a negative way on other nations not involved in the crimes committed, then yes they do have to defend it.

A real life example. I wonder what the result would be if (and I'm using my imagination here) Canada and Mexico suddenly decided to just banish all their criminals to the US because it is cheaper and easier for them. Would the government of the US accept that as the soverign right of their neighbours and take in the criminals as immigrants?

Somehow I think not and expect they would just deport them all back where they came from while taking every necessary international step possible to make it stop. This resolution is trying to do the same (and yes, in a flawed way).

I don't understand why this is difficult for you, Ambassador, for the people in question, when sitting at your border, are potential immigrants, like any other. People without a nation. They've left their country of origin for whatever reason, and they've come to yours for whatever reason, seeking a place to live. It is up to you to accept them or turn them away. One or the other.

No they aren't potential immigrants and they didn't leave their nation. They are dumped criminals who were forced out of their nation by their government. Our nations shouldn't have to decide what to do with them, and cover the costs of that just so your nation can sing tra la la and pretend they don't exist.

. You are, when you banish a criminal, blowing the leaves from your lawn on to your naeighbors lawn in stead of vacuming them up and disposing of them yourself.

beautiful analogy, my friend, that sums it up brilliantly

beautiful analogy, my friend, that sums it up brilliantly
Thank you, I do try to make a good point.

Think about your argument...just think. If a person chooses to renounce their citizenship, that's their choice. They consiously make the decision to leave your country, for their reason, and go somewhere else. It's likely that they have a plan and that they have a private motive.

If you banish a person, you make them leave, not by their choice but by yours. You tell them to get out because you don't want to take the time to help them, your fellow countryman, get past what they have done. You kick them out into the world when they have no personal desire to leave your country and no plan of what to do with themselves. You are, when you banish a criminal, blowing the leaves from your lawn on to your naeighbors lawn in stead of vacuming them up and disposing of them yourself.

:headbang: Use your several brain cells and think friend, just think about your argument.

It's irrelevant. He's arguing that his country doesn't want them, so my country shouldn't be allowed to kick them out. From the perspective of his country, there is little actual difference between the two people. The actions are the same; there is a different significance applied. Citizenship status removed, departed country, applies for immigration.

I'm not arguing citizenship applications should be accepted blindly; I'm saying there is little difference between how your country should handle one or the other. Try to think.

well, you seem to be doing just that

...we openly accept immigrants. we dont accept other countries undesireables...

Then that is your stance, and that is your policy. It needn't be everyone's.

...A real life example. I wonder what the result would be if (and I'm using my imagination here) Canada and Mexico suddenly decided to just banish all their criminals to the US because it is cheaper and easier for them. Would the government of the US accept that as the soverign right of their neighbours and take in the criminals as immigrants?

This is the inherent flaw in your argument. When someone is banished, they are not given a destination.

It's irrelevant. He's arguing that his country doesn't want them, so my country shouldn't be allowed to kick them out. From the perspective of his country, there is little actual difference between the two people. The actions are the same; there is a different significance applied. Citizenship status removed, departed country, applies for immigration.

I'm not arguing citizenship applications should be accepted blindly; I'm saying there is little difference between how your country should handle one or the other. Try to think.
there is a big difference. i am not arguing that my country doesnt want them, just stating it using us as an example. what i am arguing is you shouldnt offload them on us or any other nation. again, as stated they are not leaving because they want to, they are leaving because they are being forced to.

It's irrelevant. He's arguing that his country doesn't want them, so my country shouldn't be allowed to kick them out. From the perspective of his country, there is little actual difference between the two people. The actions are the same; there is a different significance applied. Citizenship status removed, departed country, applies for immigration.

I'm not arguing citizenship applications should be accepted blindly; I'm saying there is little difference between how your country should handle one or the other. Try to think.

No, that's not my argument. I'm saying that when you banish a person, you do it for a reason. You do it because, in stead of putting them into your penal system, you just want to pretend like they're not your problem. I don't care that they come to my doorstep because I will turn them away in a heartbeat. I care that they will find ways to get into my country and cause me problems.

If you banish a person, it is for a serious crime. If a person has committed a serious crime, how likely are they to coperate with a government, especialy one they are not familiar with or afraid of. How can you kick criminals out of your country and say that they won't cause problems when the reason you kicked them out is that they cause problems?

This is the inherent flaw in your argument. When someone is banished, they are not given a destination.
this 'no destination' argument is weak. it has nothing to do with destination, it has to deal with the banishment in the first place

by the way, nice bypass of the rest of the argument that was in that post you quoted before. whilst it may be our stance, i think you will find there are quite a few others that have the same stance too

No separation of church and state is mandated by the United Nations? Even a spiritually advanced civilization must quickly realize that they are not allowed to imprison people based only on religious grounds (Res. 115 - Freedom of Conscience) and must confer identical rights to all citizens, regardless of religion (Res. 99 - Discrimination Accord), and remain within the United Nations. Thus, it is already illegal to banish a person from one's nation based on religious views.

So imagine my shock at learning of the practices of the Eternal Kawaii, who actually has a religious test for citizenship, despite the binding resolution passed by this Assembly that disallows such things! My colleagues, we are dealing either with a rogue state operating under such delusions of grandeur that they believe they can scuttle a resolution under vote while trumpeting their noncompliance with one already passed or the representative from the Eternal Kawaii has been grossly misinformed of his own government's functioning.

In either case, Krioval soundly condemns the statements of the representative of the Eternal Kawaii for their dishonesty, applauds the spirit of this resolution, and looks forward to the day when nations deal with their problems ahead of dealing with those of their neighbors.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

This is the inherent flaw in your argument. When someone is banished, they are not given a destination.

Its just an example and the first one I thought of. Australia is an island and has no borders so I couldn't use it. Canada only has one border, where else would its banished criminals go, the north pole?

Does your nation provide transport for your banished, or are they just thrown over the border and left to it.

No, that's not my argument. I'm saying that when you banish a person, you do it for a reason. You do it because, in stead of putting them into your penal system, you just want to pretend like they're not your problem. I don't care that they come to my doorstep because I will turn them away in a heartbeat. I care that they will find ways to get into my country and cause me problems.

If you banish a person, it is for a serious crime. If a person has committed a serious crime, how likely are they to coperate with a government, especialy one they are not familiar with or afraid of. How can you kick criminals out of your country and say that they won't cause problems when the reason you kicked them out is that they cause problems?

Not very likely at all, and you should take this into consideration before granting citizenship.

I can't say that they won't cause problems, and there is no argument made that another country has to accept them.

this 'no destination' argument is weak. it has nothing to do with destination, it has to deal with the banishment in the first place

by the way, nice bypass of the rest of the argument that was in that post you quoted before. whilst it may be our stance, i think you will find there are quite a few others that have the same stance too

The entirety of the proposal is based on the idea that people don't want to accept the exiled into their midst. It's a non-issue, as there's no reason that they have to.

Not very, and you should take this into consideration before granting citizenship.
I'm still not talking about the citizenship issue. As I said, I'd never let a single one into my country. My issue is that you have a responsibility to your people. You are their government and you are responsible for their well being. This means that, even if they've killed half of your population, you are responsible for their safety and to make sure they have a home.

It is not a governments role to cast off it's issues of public health and budgeting to other countries so why is it that you feel the need to cast off your crime issues onto us. You should have the dignity to care about your countrymen and moreover, you don't have the right to pass the responsibility for them onto others. Everyone here speaks for their own government and we all havge our own problems. All I'm trying to tell you is that your issues, all of your issues, including crime and punnishment, need to stay on your soil and not anyone elses.

I can't think of any other way to demonstrate this to you, YOUR PEOPLE ARE YOUR PROBLEM. Even if your citizens are criminals, they are still YOUR PEOPLE.

Its just an example and the first one I thought of. Australia is an island and has no borders so I couldn't use it. Canada only has one border, where else would its banished criminals go, the north pole?

Does your nation provide transport for your banished, or are they just thrown over the border and left to it.

Providing transport would be a good way to do it. Sentencing them to exile, and then buying them a one-way flight to wherever it is they wish to apply for citizenship would be an effective way (especially as costs go: a death sentence has been proved to be more expensive than a life sentence, which isn't entirely cheap in the first place).

I'm not saying there aren't issues in banishment that need to be addressed. I'm saying that preventing countries from an exile sentence is a violation of that country's sovereign rights, and basing such a prevention on the "well, we don't want your leftovers" reasoning isn't going to cut it. You need a better reason to strip a country of its laws.

I'm still not talking about the citizenship issue. As I said, I'd never let a single one into my country. My issue is that you have a responsibility to your people. You are their government and you are responsible for their well being. This means that, even if they've killed half of your population, you are responsible for their safety and to make sure they have a home.

It is not a governments role to cast off it's issues of public health and budgeting to other countries so why is it that you feel the need to cast off your crime issues onto us. You should have the dignity to care about your countrymen and moreover, you don't have the right to pass the responsibility for them onto others. Everyone here speaks for their own government and we all havge our own problems. All I'm trying to tell you is that your issues, all of your issues, including crime and punnishment, need to stay on your soil and not anyone elses.

I can't think of any other way to demonstrate this to you, YOUR PEOPLE ARE YOUR PROBLEM. Even if your citizens are criminals, they are still YOUR PEOPLE.

If someone is stripped of their citizenship, it is likely to be for a good reason, and that person should then be considered not to be a citizenship of my country.

The entirety of the proposal is based on the idea that people don't want to accept the exiled into their midst. It's a non-issue, as there's no reason that they have to.
but it will come to a point where someone will have to accept them. and thats what the problem is. if nobody accepts them, they will be just shafted to the next country for the rest of their life, or untill the go back to your country.

...again, as stated they are not leaving because they want to, they are leaving because they are being forced to.

Which is a very good observation, but doesn't demonstrate why countries should not be allowed to banish those guilty of high treason.

but it will come to a point where someone will have to accept them. and thats what the problem is. if nobody accepts them, they will be just shafted to the next country for the rest of their life, or untill the go back to your country.

Absolutely correct. As stated, I don't agree that a person has a human right to have citizenship. There are countries out there that have already said they would be willing to accept such people within their borders, so they are out there. They may not be the most desirable places, but they are out there.

I'm still not talking about the citizenship issue. As I said, I'd never let a single one into my country. My issue is that you have a responsibility to your people. You are their government and you are responsible for their well being. This means that, even if they've killed half of your population, you are responsible for their safety and to make sure they have a home.

It is not a governments role to cast off it's issues of public health and budgeting to other countries so why is it that you feel the need to cast off your crime issues onto us. You should have the dignity to care about your countrymen and moreover, you don't have the right to pass the responsibility for them onto others. Everyone here speaks for their own government and we all havge our own problems. All I'm trying to tell you is that your issues, all of your issues, including crime and punnishment, need to stay on your soil and not anyone elses.

I can't think of any other way to demonstrate this to you, YOUR PEOPLE ARE YOUR PROBLEM. Even if your citizens are criminals, they are still YOUR PEOPLE.
Hear hear! Very well put old boy (or Girl). This Proposal has the full support of the Delegation for the Realm.
You want to banish your criminal element? Do it on your own sovereign territory. Be it an island, Cave, Space station, Colony. The Nation of the Venerable Libertarians will always accept refugees and political Assylum seekers who arrive in our territory of their own free will.

I'm going to say straight from the outset that I will not be made to feel guilty by the emotional arguement of "if we can't banish them, then we'll have to execute them".

What you do to them within your own borders is your own business, I neither care or want to know about it.



Then why force your opinion on us? If it is for human rights, then why would you force us to turn to execution as an option? Wouldn't it be better if they could find peace and happiness in some elses country? Wait, while you are at it, ban immigration for all of us too.

Fidel Gutierrez, Supreme Chancellor, Weinerdogstan
Emperor, Empire of Corporate Oppression
ECO Headquarters (http://nationstates.workingproject.net)

If someone is stripped of their citizenship, it is likely to be for a good reason, and that person should then be considered not to be a citizenship of my country.
:headbang: Can anyone help me here?

You can't take citizenship away from a person because you don't like them or their deeds. every person needs to belong to a nation and the nation that they belong to has to be responsible for them.

If you were to buy a video game and you found out there was a glitch in that single disk, just the one you bought, would you throw it away? No, you would try to get it fixed. You can't look at a problem and say, "Well as long as it's away from me, it's solved." Because that's how we will end up with a nation of people who have NO NATION.

SOMEONE HELP PLEASE...THIS IS BECOMING MORE OF A SHOUTING MATCH THAN A DEBATE. (That wasn't yelling, I just want attention for my post)

Which is a very good observation, but doesn't demonstrate why countries should not be allowed to banish those guilty of high treason.
i feel as though we are being caught in an endless loop. if someone is guilty of treason, do you really think that any other nation is going to accept them? it is fine to banish them, but you need to find somewhere for them to go, otherwise people will just mark them 'return to sender' and you will be lobbed with them again. if you are too cheap to rehabilitate them, or even use the death penalty, then that is your problem, not ours. therefor you shouldnt force your problems onto us, and by us i mean every other nation.

i feel as though we are being caught in an endless loop. if someone is guilty of treason, do you really think that any other nation is going to accept them? it is fine to banish them, but you need to find somewhere for them to go, otherwise people will just mark them 'return to sender' and you will be lobbed with them again. if you are too cheap to rehabilitate them, or even use the death penalty, then that is your problem, not ours. therefor you shouldnt force your problems onto us, and by us i mean every other nation.

Perhaps if the treason is done in the name of another country... Let me think... yeah, they might want them.

Then why force your opinion on us? If it is for human rights, then why would you force us to turn to execution as an option? Wouldn't it be better if they could find peace and happiness in some elses country? Wait, while you are at it, ban immigration for all of us too.

Fidel Gutierrez, Supreme Chancellor, Weinerdogstan
Emperor, Empire of Corporate Oppression
ECO Headquarters (http://nationstates.workingproject.net)

Because you are forcing your criminals on us, and we don't want them. Do whatever you want to them inside your own borders. Thats your business. Once your justice system crosses your borders, which banishment does, then it becomes the business of the international community and we have every right to address that.

How about the human right of the peoples of my nation to be able to live their lives in safety and peace without other nations criminals prowling our borders.

Perhaps if the treason is done in the name of another country... Let me think... yeah, they might want them.
Oh, sure, "perhaps". That just solves all the problems with your argument...one "what if" situation.

"Perhaps" it isn't? Then what?

...You can't take citizenship away from a person because you don't like them or their deeds. every person needs to belong to a nation and the nation that they belong to has to be responsible for them.

If you were to buy a video game and you found out there was a glitch in that single disk, just the one you bought, would you throw it away? No, you would try to get it fixed. You can't look at a problem and say, "Well as long as it's away from me, it's solved." Because that's how we will end up with a nation of people who have NO NATION...

If someone commits treason or espionage, you don't consider that a banishable offense? I said it had to be a good reason. "Good" had yet to be defined. Again, I'm not arguing for banishment, I'm arguing against the resolution removing a nation's right to banish someone.

Your analogy is flawed. If you were to buy a video game, and that video game hit you in the head with a brick, would you throw it away? Would you want the option of throwing it away?

As poetic as your last sentence was, I don't see the logic behind it.

Oh, sure, "perhaps". That just solves all the problems with your argument...one "what if" situation.

"Perhaps" it isn't? Then what?

Perhaps the punishment would be different.

You're trying to twist my words into meaning something they're not. Not once have I said banishment should be used a lot, nor have I said it should be used without care. The only thing I've argued for is that it isn't the UN's place to prevent countries from sentencing people to lifelong exile, unless it is the UN's view that such an act violates their human rights.

Another problem with the proposal as-is:

Any native born, dual or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile from their home nation if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.
This resolution potentially makes a mockery of many (most?) nations' judicial systems. Any criminal (classified as a "victim" in the resolution) or family member has the option to voluntarily go into "temporary exile" to avoid imprisonment or other punishment.

This would codify "skipping town" into all UN member nations' bodies of law.

Perhaps the punishment would be different.

You're trying to twist my words into meaning something they're not. Not once have I said banishment should be used a lot, nor have I said it should be used without care. The only thing I've argued for is that it isn't the UN's place to prevent countries from sentencing people to lifelong exile, unless it is the UN's view that such an act violates their human rights.
the UN doesnt just deal with HR issues, it also deals with issues that trancend national borders. issues such as this one. its like the analogy before, it is like blowing the leaves into the neighbours yard, as opposed to sucking them up and dealing with them yourself.

If someone commits treason or espionage, you don't consider that a banishable offense? I said it had to be a good reason. "Good" had yet to be defined. Again, I'm not arguing for banishment, I'm arguing against the resolution removing a nation's right to banish someone.

Your analogy is flawed. If you were to buy a video game, and that video game hit you in the head with a brick, would you throw it away? Would you want the option of throwing it away?

As poetic as your last sentence was, I don't see the logic behind it.

If my game hit me in the head with a brick, I'd break it in half. The fact that some of your people may hate you, while it may say something about your government, isn't even a factor to me. I don't care if you want to bannish people as a punnishment for speeding. My point is that bannishment can't be an option because it makes the criminals, the CONVICTED criminals, your neighbor's problems. The logic behind my argment is that I don't give a damn about your criminals. They have no right to step foot in my country and you have no right to put them there.

When you bannish a person, you make them leave you territory completely. If the criminal is not on your territory, he is on someone elses and you don't have the right to put him or her there. You don't own the world, as much as you may think you do, you only have domain over your land and when you make someone who belongs to your country leave your land, you are unlawfully putting your citizens on another countries territory. That's the same action you would take of you were invading another country, so why is it okay for you to "invade" other countries with your filth?

The Republic of Evil666Bill's Two Cents:

At first when reading the resolution I did agree with the idea of banishment from a country for a certain crime, but the idea of the crime itself is brought up, but I think within the set ideals of one's own country, the crime fits their ideas and the people of that country should know that. Although banishment could lead to the banishment without cause and the threats of death, but overall I must say that the banishment ideals and laws fit only to the country's ideas so I must vote against this resolution.

Perhaps the punishment would be different.

You're trying to twist my words into meaning something they're not. Not once have I said banishment should be used a lot, nor have I said it should be used without care. The only thing I've argued for is that it isn't the UN's place to prevent countries from sentencing people to lifelong exile, unless it is the UN's view that such an act violates their human rights.

I only brought up somethign that you hadn't thought of. If you want to go into "what if" scenarios, we can argue indefinately. If you can't speak in absolution, don't speak, because all you are doing is bringing more issues into this and we still need to solve them main one.

No separation of church and state is mandated by the United Nations? Even a spiritually advanced civilization must quickly realize that they are not allowed to imprison people based only on religious grounds (Res. 115 - Freedom of Conscience) and must confer identical rights to all citizens, regardless of religion (Res. 99 - Discrimination Accord), and remain within the United Nations. Thus, it is already illegal to banish a person from one's nation based on religious views.

So imagine my shock at learning of the practices of the Eternal Kawaii, who actually has a religious test for citizenship, despite the binding resolution passed by this Assembly that disallows such things! My colleagues, we are dealing either with a rogue state operating under such delusions of grandeur that they believe they can scuttle a resolution under vote while trumpeting their noncompliance with one already passed or the representative from the Eternal Kawaii has been grossly misinformed of his own government's functioning.

In either case, Krioval soundly condemns the statements of the representative of the Eternal Kawaii for their dishonesty, applauds the spirit of this resolution, and looks forward to the day when nations deal with their problems ahead of dealing with those of their neighbors.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

We rise to catagorically reject the base canards put forward by the representitave of Kiroval, and demand an apology for their defamation of Our nation. Nowhere have We said that We imprison people for their faith. Neither do we practice religious discrimination--as all Our citizens are of one faith, such descrimination is by definition impossible.

It is true we have a religious test for citizenship, but as We have stated before, this merely acknowleges the obvious--that in Our nation, the Church and State are one. No compulsion of faith is imposed--all are free to accept or reject membership in the HOCEK, and with it, citizenship in the Eternal Kawaii.

We catagorically reject as well any attempt to cloud this debate by baseless accusations against Our nation, and remind the august assembly here that it is Our government which is aggrieved by this proposed resolution. We are not the problem--this proposal is!

That's the same action you would take of you were invading another country, so why is it okay for you to "invade" other countries with your filth?
i wonder if that would be grounds to go to war?

the UN doesnt just deal with HR issues, it also deals with issues that trancend national borders. issues such as this one. its like the analogy before, it is like blowing the leaves into the neighbours yard, as opposed to sucking them up and dealing with them yourself.

I'll ask you the same question I asked before:
Is the UN to be both our legislator and our accountant?
Is it going to pay for the prison time or execution where the punishment would otherwise have been exile?

Your analogy is, again, flawed. A banishment sentence does not inherently have a final destination in mind. The only destination is "elsewhere."

I say this again because your argument for the ban on banishment is that other countries shouldn't be forced to deal with those people, and it is inherently flawed because there was no sense that they had to in the first place. Exiles are recieved the same way refugees or immigrants are, and can just as easily be turned away.

Another problem with the proposal as-is:


This resolution potentially makes a mockery of many (most?) nations' judicial systems. Any criminal (classified as a "victim" in the resolution) or family member has the option to voluntarily go into "temporary exile" to avoid imprisonment or other punishment.

This would codify "skipping town" into all UN member nations' bodies of law.

It says the person may make an "agreement" to go into exile. Not that they can just skip town. That means they can agree with the government to leave the nation voluntarily. If the nation wants to imprison them ect, they just have to refuse the agreement. Why would you want to stop family members from leaving, unless they were involved in the crime which makes them criminals themselves.

Yes victim was the wrong word to use and I regret using it. Not much I can do about that at the moment though.

I'll ask you the same question I asked before:
Is the UN to be both our legislator and our accountant?
Is it going to pay for the prison time or execution where the punishment would otherwise have been exile?

Your analogy is, again, flawed. A banishment sentence does not inherently have a final destination in mind. The only destination is "elsewhere."

I say this again because your argument for the ban on banishment is that other countries shouldn't be forced to deal with those people, and it is inherently flawed because there was no sense that they had to in the first place. Exiles are recieved the same way refugees or immigrants are, and can just as easily be turned away.

I'll tell you again. ELSWHERE is not your land and you don't not control your land. You cannot put your citizens "elswhere" because your people belong to you.

I think that, technically speaking, having bannished people from another country try to gain enrty to your own counrty is grounds for war. Anyone have an opinion on that?

Also, another fault in your argument, accountants don't pay a dirty cent. They will tell you how much you owe, much like I'm sure the UN will do for you, but they will not give you money. In fact, you pay them.

[The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio marches to the podium stiffly, his face red with anger. Tossing aside his usual prepared speech, he storms up to the lectern and begins speaking.]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

Esteemed Delegates and Representatives: We rise in OUTRAGE against this vile attempt to undermine the faith of Our people! Let all understand--this proposal undermines the very foundation of Our nation's existence.

As We have explained to this august assembly before, membership in the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship in Our nation. Sadly, it happens on occasion that a misguided soul rejects their faith and turns against the teachings of the Church. For such apostates and heretics, We have no recourse but to impose the sad duty of excommunication, with the resulting removal of citizenship. We assure this august body that, in keeping with Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27, no punishment is inflicted herein--only the removal of that which the apostate and heretic has chosen themselves to reject.

This resolution, by removing the ability of sovereign nations to revoke citizenship, even by due process of law, prohibits Us from imposing excommunication, even to reprobates who intend on destroying the HOCEK through false teachings.

Make no mistake: This proposed resolution would be a blatant interference in the functioning of a religious institution, namely the HOCEK government itself. As such, it is in violation of several standing NSUN resolutions:

It is an act of intolerance against Our people's religion, a violation of NSUN Resolution #20.
It is an infringement upon Our people's right to worship in the manner they choose as guaranteed by Article 1, NSUN Resolution #27.
It is an infringement upon Our people's chosen government's ability to exercise its legal powers as guaranteed under Article 1, NSUN Resolution #50.
It is an act of legal discrimination against Our theocratic form of government, a violation of NSUN Resolution #88.

In conclusion, We beseech the assembly here to vote down this attempt at the destruction of sovereignity. The next nation upon the chopping block of NSUN tyranny may be your own!


LAE is for, as this proposition will help those oppresed citizens of the Eternal Kawaii, who are so wrong not wanting to adhere to the "everybody have to think the same way", ie: the way the Cute One is interpreted by the Holy Otaku Church, and who have no other choice than to leave their cute nation.

mtCObp

I have a severe cold at the moment, so am retiring from the fight for a couple of hours rest in bed.

Thank you very much to Jungle Rats Annonymous and The Lynx Alliance for your spirited defence of this resolution, and others who have helped. Being unwell, and my brain being more soggy than usual, I really appreciate it :).

If my game hit me in the head with a brick, I'd break it in half. The fact that some of your people may hate you, while it may say something about your government, isn't even a factor to me. I don't care if you want to bannish people as a punnishment for speeding. My point is that bannishment can't be an option because it makes the criminals, the CONVICTED criminals, your neighbor's problems. The logic behind my argment is that I don't give a damn about your criminals. They have no right to step foot in my country and you have no right to put them there.

When you bannish a person, you make them leave you territory completely. If the criminal is not on your territory, he is on someone elses and you don't have the right to put him or her there. You don't own the world, as much as you may think you do, you only have domain over your land and when you make someone who belongs to your country leave your land, you are unlawfully putting your citizens on another countries territory. That's the same action you would take of you were invading another country, so why is it okay for you to "invade" other countries with your filth?

Your arguments are getting less and less sensible. It does not necessarily make them my neighbor's problems. Modern technology makes many things possible, so boundaries like oceans and vast expanses are no longer an issue.

Let me try this one more time, in the hopes that you might finally understand, though I fear I'm kidding myself: They're not setting foot in your country. They're not invading your country. They're asking for entrance. You don't banish someone to another country, you banish them out of yours; after that, another country might accept them, they might not.

Let me put it in terms you might understand. If some random guy is kicked out of his house, and he comes knocking on yours, does that mean he's moved in?

I'll ask you the same question I asked before:
Is the UN to be both our legislator and our accountant?
Is it going to pay for the prison time or execution where the punishment would otherwise have been exile?

Your analogy is, again, flawed. A banishment sentence does not inherently have a final destination in mind. The only destination is "elsewhere."

I say this again because your argument for the ban on banishment is that other countries shouldn't be forced to deal with those people, and it is inherently flawed because there was no sense that they had to in the first place. Exiles are recieved the same way refugees or immigrants are, and can just as easily be turned away.
the point of the matter is that another nation has to foot your bill. banish them if you want, but i would encourage nations to send the bill of actually looking after the people to your nation. just because you are too cheap to deal with them, doesnt give you the right to dump them. whilst the destination may not be set, people do have a problem having criminals dumped on them, whether the destination was determined or not

the point of the matter is that another nation has to foot your bill. banish them if you want, but i would encourage nations to send the bill of actually looking after the people to your nation. just because you are too cheap to deal with them, doesnt give you the right to dump them. whilst the destination may not be set, people do have a problem having criminals dumped on them, whether the destination was determined or not

What part of "can just as easily be turned away" aren't you understanding?

I'll tell you again. ELSWHERE is not your land and you don't not control your land. You cannot put your citizens "elswhere" because your people belong to you.

I think that, technically speaking, having bannished people from another country try to gain enrty to your own counrty is grounds for war. Anyone have an opinion on that?

Also, another fault in your argument, accountants don't pay a dirty cent. They will tell you how much you owe, much like I'm sure the UN will do for you, but they will not give you money. In fact, you pay them.

:headbang:

Okay, okay, I get it. Telling them to go anywhere is a problem. How about telling them to leave? "Get out of my country, you're not welcome here anymore."

I think at this point you're being ridiculous. I have my own beliefs as to why, but it's not worth mentioning at this juncture.

If it means so much to you, replace the word "accountant" with the word "financial advisor." I wasn't suggesting that as an accountant (or a financial advisor), the UN would pay for such things. The two were different questions on a similar train of thought.

At this point it's clear you're being intentionally obtuse, so there is no point in discussing this any further.

Your arguments are getting less and less sensible. It does not necessarily make them my neighbor's problems. Modern technology makes many things possible, so boundaries like oceans and vast expanses are no longer an issue.

Let me try this one more time, in the hopes that you might finally understand, though I fear I'm kidding myself: They're not setting foot in your country. They're not invading your country. They're asking for entrance. You don't banish someone to another country, you banish them out of yours; after that, another country might accept them, they might not.

Let me put it in terms you might understand. If some random guy is kicked out of his house, and he comes knocking on yours, does that mean he's moved in?

To use your metaphor, won't that "guy" eventually want to move in somewhere. If he tries repeatedly to get into hoouse, just for the night. Just so he can get some sleep, and he is repeatedly denied access, will he not eventually break into a house? You don't seem to understand that, as long as a person is not within your boundaries, they are within someone elses. Whether or not that person recognizes that they are theyre and regardless of their decision to accept or deny that person citizenship, that person has to exist and they will exist within another country. while it would be nice to make criminals just dissapear, you can't do that. When you kick a person out of your coutry they will ALWAYS be somewhere else. It is physically impossible for them not to be in another country unless you send them into space or out onto the ocean. Wither of the previous cases would not be bannishment and are therefore outside of our debate.

All I want you to understand is that, due to the laws of physics, the people that are bannished from their country will always be somewhere else. They may not gain citizenship in the country that they reside in, but they will be there, it is a fact of this physical universe.

Your arguments are getting less and less sensible. It does not necessarily make them my neighbor's problems. Modern technology makes many things possible, so boundaries like oceans and vast expanses are no longer an issue.

Let me try this one more time, in the hopes that you might finally understand, though I fear I'm kidding myself: They're not setting foot in your country. They're not invading your country. They're asking for entrance. You don't banish someone to another country, you banish them out of yours; after that, another country might accept them, they might not.

Let me put it in terms you might understand. If some random guy is kicked out of his house, and he comes knocking on yours, does that mean he's moved in?
and your arguments are getting worse and stale. you obviously do not see the differnce between someone who has volentarily left their country and rocked up on your doorstep, and someone who has been forced out of their own country rocking up on your doorstep. they are not the same. as for the technology, that doesnt mean a thing. the term 'neighbour' is beeing used loosly as 'everyone else' here. whilst you are banishing them out of your country, they have to go elsewhere, and that is the problem. there is no such thing as nowhere, it is always somewhere.

What part of "can just as easily be turned away" aren't you understanding?
in the dream world of your head, maybe, but in reality, it isnt so easy. there are costs involved with removing the person. you say they are standing at the border, well, that border is with another country, or are you forgetting that

and your arguments are getting worse and stale. you obviously do not see the differnce between someone who has volentarily left their country and rocked up on your doorstep, and someone who has been forced out of their own country rocking up on your doorstep. they are not the same. as for the technology, that doesnt mean a thing. the term 'neighbour' is beeing used loosly as 'everyone else' here. whilst you are banishing them out of your country, they have to go elsewhere, and that is the problem. there is no such thing as nowhere, it is always somewhere.

Thanks for your support Lynx. I think i will have to leave you out to hang for a while or I fear I will say something I regret. I don't think you will get this guy to understand our point but I sincerely hope you do. Goodbye for now.

Forced Banishment Ban


Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.



We understand this deals to start with criminals being forced out of one nation to find a home some place else.


Yet you define cititizenship as such that persons may claim it in more than one nation this we can't support. As under our laws you are either a citizen of our nation or not.. Thus this to me sets up them having citizenship in as many nations as they select to. I saw nothing in the proposal that prevents this.


Also on the criminals we deal with our own. They can stay and test our ropes and trees or try their luck swimming the 600 pluss miles to the nearest nation that might take them. I believe you place your bad guys on an island where the sharks are the only thing between them and freedom.. Well we also use the sharks... to keep em out and in...

To use your metaphor, won't that "guy" eventually want to move in somewhere. If he tries repeatedly to get into hoouse, just for the night. Just so he can get some sleep, and he is repeatedly denied access, will he not eventually break into a house? You don't seem to understand that, as long as a person is not within your boundaries, they are within someone elses. Whether or not that person recognizes that they are theyre and regardless of their decision to accept or deny that person citizenship, that person has to exist and they will exist within another country. while it would be nice to make criminals just dissapear, you can't do that. When you kick a person out of your coutry they will ALWAYS be somewhere else. It is physically impossible for them not to be in another country unless you send them into space or out onto the ocean. Wither of the previous cases would not be bannishment and are therefore outside of our debate.

All I want you to understand is that, due to the laws of physics, the people that are bannished from their country will always be somewhere else. They may not gain citizenship in the country that they reside in, but they will be there, it is a fact of this physical universe.

If they are repeatedly kicked out, they will break in, and they can be dealt with as such.

If they are let in by some kindly home (or a very sinister one), then it's done.

If they are consistently forced out onto the street, so be it.

All I want you to understand is that it's not a good enough reason to remove a country's right to banish those it deems worthy of such a punishment.

If they leave the country to outer space or to the ocean, it would still be banishment, as they are no longer in the country. If you don't believe me, look it up, I already have, just to double-check on what I previously stated. There is only one definition for "banish" and "exile" (each), and all it requires is the forceful departure from one's country and the absense from one's country, respectively.

Banishment makes someone homeless. Bottom line. If you want to give them a home, fine. If you don't, even better. It's part of their punishment. Now if you want to argue against banishment from a human rights perspective, feel free.

One problem I see with banishing a person guilty of espionage and/or treason to a willing recipient: Nation A does not wish to allow the treasonous retch to remain within its borders and seeks a willing nation to accept him/her/it. Nation B despises nation A and would therefore be eccstatic to harbor the criminal, as well as, all of their knowledge and ill will. Criminal from nation A is now able to continue their harmful intentions against their previous homeland possibly with Nation B's assistance.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

And another point, if your criminal justice system is incapable of handling such a criminal then you should definitely get to revamping your system. Pawning your problems off on others does not show your civilization that you take the issue seriously, and, if the worst one has to endure is moving then what is the deterent for future crimes of this nature?

"Oh, look! Bob was selling government secrets to Nation B and, when he was caught, he just moved to Nation B. He sent pictures of his ocean view condo!"

-JL Skeptic

Thanks for your support Lynx. I think i will have to leave you out to hang for a while or I fear I will say something I regret. I don't think you will get this guy to understand our point but I sincerely hope you do. Goodbye for now.

I understand exactly what you're saying. There's no reason you should have to be burdened by someone else's criminals, and I agree with you! There's no reason you should have to be burdened by someone else's criminals! So don't be!

One problem I see with banishing a person guilty of espionage and/or treason to a willing recipient: Nation A does not wish to allow the treasonous retch to remain within its borders and seeks a willing nation to accept him/her/it. Nation B despises nation A and would therefore be eccstatic to harbor the criminal, as well as, all of their knowledge and ill will. Criminal from nation A is now able to continue their harmful intentions against their previous homeland possibly with Nation B's assistance.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

And another point, if your criminal justice system is incapable of handling such a criminal then you should definitely get to revamping your system. Pawning your problems off on others does not show your civilization that you take the issue seriously, and, if the worst one has to endure is moving then what is the deterent for future crimes of this nature?

"Oh, look! Bob was selling government secrets to Nation B and, when he was caught, he just moved to Nation B. He sent pictures of his ocean view condo!"

-JL Skeptic

That's an argument not to use banishment in certain cases. A very convincing one. It does not, however, back the claim that it should be illegal for governments to banish people.

I understand exactly what you're saying. There's no reason you should have to be burdened by someone else's criminals, and I agree with you! There's no reason you should have to be burdened by someone else's criminals! So don't be!
thats where this resolution comes in. it protects nations from the burdon of having to deal with another nation's criminals.

Yet you define cititizenship as such that persons may claim it in more than one nation this we can't support. As under our laws you are either a citizen of our nation or not.. Thus this to me sets up them having citizenship in as many nations as they select to. I saw nothing in the proposal that prevents this.
if that is a law in your land, then this doesnt contraveen it. this is just stating that some nations allow it, that is all

and your arguments are getting worse and stale. you obviously do not see the differnce between someone who has volentarily left their country and rocked up on your doorstep, and someone who has been forced out of their own country rocking up on your doorstep. they are not the same. as for the technology, that doesnt mean a thing. the term 'neighbour' is beeing used loosly as 'everyone else' here. whilst you are banishing them out of your country, they have to go elsewhere, and that is the problem. there is no such thing as nowhere, it is always somewhere.

I'm going to try and address both of your replies as one, just for sanity's sake.

I do see the difference. What I don't see is why your government should treat the way it assesses each case differently. Turn them away, fine. If they invade your country illegally, do whatever your laws dictate: kill them, throw them in the ocean. They no longer are citizens of the country they came from, so don't worry about sending them back.

Yes, they always go somewhere, and that somewhere could be international waters, could it not?

in the dream world of your head, maybe, but in reality, it isnt so easy. there are costs involved with removing the person. you say they are standing at the border, well, that border is with another country, or are you forgetting that
Please clarify what you're trying to say, as it isn't entirely clear.

We rise to catagorically reject the base canards put forward by the representitave of Kiroval, and demand an apology for their defamation of Our nation. Nowhere have We said that We imprison people for their faith. Neither do we practice religious discrimination--as all Our citizens are of one faith, such descrimination is by definition impossible.

It is true we have a religious test for citizenship, but as We have stated before, this merely acknowleges the obvious--that in Our nation, the Church and State are one. No compulsion of faith is imposed--all are free to accept or reject membership in the HOCEK, and with it, citizenship in the Eternal Kawaii.

We catagorically reject as well any attempt to cloud this debate by baseless accusations against Our nation, and remind the august assembly here that it is Our government which is aggrieved by this proposed resolution. We are not the problem--this proposal is!


Your government claims to tie religious affiliation and citizenship, and requires that if one chooses to change religion, that they lose their citizenship as a result. This directly contravenes both the spirit and the letter of Resolution Ninety-Nine, where it states, and I quote:

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,

2. The right to participate in government

(snip)

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

Also, the Eternal Kawaii is bound by the resolution entitled "The Universal Bill of Rights", the first article of which requires that citizens be able to change faith at any time without punishment by the state. Deprivation of citizenship for such a personal choice is obviously a punishment covered by this resolution.

In conclusion, the objections of the Eternal Kawaii do not rise to the level of conflict with this resolution over issues of religion alone, since those issues do not and cannot exist. Thank you for your time.

~ 高原 (Takahara)

http://test256.free.fr/cutehappy.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/nightlife3.jpg

thats where this resolution comes in. it protects nations from the burdon of having to deal with another nation's criminals.

No, that's what the resolution is trying to do, but is failing. It does not protect a foreign country from a fugitive. It does not protect a country from an illegal entry into your nation. These things will happen regardless of whether or not some country halfway 'round the world can banish its criminals.

All it does is remove a legal tool. Nothing more.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.
Mandates the following

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.




Yes it does as this MANDATES that I can't send them packing if they have dual citizenship...... as we understand one born here at right age is a citizen and then if under our laws we allow them citizenship they are thus.

This says if they become dual citizens of several nations we can't do a thing to them and we have to keep those born here even if they violate our laws of citizenship. Our laws say you either are Zeldon or not Zeldon no split/dual citizenships.

I'm going to try and address both of your replies as one, just for sanity's sake.

I do see the difference. What I don't see is why your government should treat the way it assesses each case differently. Turn them away, fine. If they invade your country illegally, do whatever your laws dictate: kill them, throw them in the ocean. They no longer are citizens of the country they came from, so don't worry about sending them back.

Yes, they always go somewhere, and that somewhere could be international waters, could it not?
the reason being is that we shouldnt even have to go through the process in the first place. just because they broke one of you laws doesnt give you the right to offload them on the doorstep of other nations. i know the destination isnt set, but you do have to drop them somewhere. as for international waters, what? are you planing on drowning them somewhere? and is ther such a thing as international waters anymore? i am pretty sure someone would have claimed them.


Please clarify what you're trying to say, as it isn't entirely clear.
what i am saying is while they are knocking on one nations door, they are in another whilst doing so. and simply saying 'you deal with it with your immigration process' is just like getting an essay at school, going up to a geek, and saying 'you do it, i cant be bothered'.

No, that's what the resolution is trying to do, but is failing. It does not protect a foreign country from a fugitive. It does not protect a country from an illegal entry into your nation. These things will happen regardless of whether or not some country halfway 'round the world can banish its criminals.

All it does is remove a legal tool. Nothing more.
whilst it doesnt protect against illegals or fugitives, it does protect against criminals convicted in Nation A from being dumped by said nation on Nations B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L and every other nation. this isnt designed to stop illegal immigrants. this isnt designed to stop fugitives from entering borders. this stops nations using the rest of the world as their dumping ground for criminals, thats all.

the reason being is that we shouldnt even have to go through the process in the first place. just because they broke one of you laws doesnt give you the right to offload them on the doorstep of other nations. i know the destination isnt set, but you do have to drop them somewhere. as for international waters, what? are you planing on drowning them somewhere? and is ther such a thing as international waters anymore? i am pretty sure someone would have claimed them.



what i am saying is while they are knocking on one nations door, they are in another whilst doing so. and simply saying 'you deal with it with your immigration process' is just like getting an essay at school, going up to a geek, and saying 'you do it, i cant be bothered'.
No one can claim international waters. A certain distance from shore is called "international waters." In times of war, certain seas are said to be controlled by certain armies, but that is only because of their overwhelming presence, and not because of some actual flag flying at the bottom of the ocean.

I going to ignore your term paper comparison because it makes no sense in this context. But I see what you're saying, and I have to tell you that it's a very simplistic way of looking at it, and it's not all that accurate.

Here's what happens: We banish someone, he washes up on your shore, you say, "Hey, look, we got your guy over here," we say, "He's not one of ours anymore, feel free to do whatever with him." You do whatever with him. The only reason you happen to be dealing with him is because he washed up on your shores. We didn't send him there. We didn't ask for you to pick him up. He's not one of ours. Do you understand it yet?

This entire resolution is based on a premise that is false. It has a complete misunderstanding of what banishment actually is, and it shows.

whilst it doesnt protect against illegals or fugitives, it does protect against criminals convicted in Nation A from being dumped by said nation on Nations B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L and every other nation.
Not really. It allows criminals that are citizens to avoid punishment by volunteering for temporary exile, which the state must grant.

More criminals would be heading off to other countries, not fewer.

No one can claim international waters. A certain distance from shore is called "international waters." In times of war, certain seas are said to be controlled by certain armies, but that is only because of their overwhelming presence, and not because of some actual flag flying at the bottom of the ocean.

I going to ignore your term paper comparison because it makes no sense in this context. But I see what you're saying, and I have to tell you that it's a very simplistic way of looking at it, and it's not all that accurate.

Here's what happens: We banish someone, he washes up on your shore, you say, "Hey, look, we got your guy over here," we say, "He's not one of ours anymore, feel free to do whatever with him." You do whatever with him. The only reason you happen to be dealing with him is because he washed up on your shores. We didn't send him there. We didn't ask for you to pick him up. He's not one of ours. Do you understand it yet?

This entire resolution is based on a premise that is false. It has a complete misunderstanding of what banishment actually is, and it shows.
holding your hands up and saying 'not our problem' isnt a resonable answer, as we would dump them back on you anyway, and would concider giving you the bill for the time wasted. as for international waters, just remember, this is nationstates... most of the territory, both land, space, and under water gets taken so international waters would be very limited indeed. by the way, that is your understanding of bannishment, and on that issue we dissagree.

whilst it doesnt protect against illegals or fugitives, it does protect against criminals convicted in Nation A from being dumped by said nation on Nations B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L and every other nation. this isnt designed to stop illegal immigrants. this isnt designed to stop fugitives from entering borders. this stops nations using the rest of the world as their dumping ground for criminals, thats all.

I understand what you're saying, but you're completely exaggerating how it works. For the sake of argument, Nation A dumps Criminal Alpha into Area One, a neutral piece of ground (say, the Mid-Atlantic or Antarctica or the Moon) and Criminal Alpha finds his way to Nation B. If Nation B doesn't want him, Nation B turns him around. Nation A is only indirectly responsible for Criminal Alpha's arrival.

Not really. It allows criminals that are citizens to avoid punishment by volunteering for temporary exile, which the state must grant.

More criminals would be heading off to other countries, not fewer.
but even then, they have to find someone to take them

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.



The four items under the mandate prevent nations from dealing with criminals as again under our laws to hold dual citizenship is against said laws. Thus you either give up the other nations or leave ours giving up citizenship here.. Item 4 prevents that. Item 3 says we can't send them packing.


Thus again Zeldon can't support this and suggests others not support it if they execute instead of exile or banish persons for high crimes.. As this clearly stops that...


I do agree with the threatening the family if they had no part in the action of the person tried and found guilty of said high crimes; but if they hide or assist them they violate laws against aiding criminals; thus they become criminals and may be subject to same punishment as the person they helped.

holding your hands up and saying 'not our problem' isnt a resonable answer, as we would dump them back on you anyway, and would concider giving you the bill for the time wasted. as for international waters, just remember, this is nationstates... most of the territory, both land, space, and under water gets taken so international waters would be very limited indeed. by the way, that is your understanding of bannishment, and on that issue we dissagree.
For the sake of argument, that's what we're talking about. And because of that argument, along with those presented by others on the board, this resolution should not pass.

By the way, that is not only my understanding of "banishment," it is also the definition.

I understand what you're saying, but you're completely exaggerating how it works. For the sake of argument, Nation A dumps Criminal Alpha into Area One, a neutral piece of ground (say, the Mid-Atlantic or Antarctica or the Moon) and Criminal Alpha finds his way to Nation B. If Nation B doesn't want him, Nation B turns him around. Nation A is only indirectly responsible for Criminal Alpha's arrival.
as i have pointed out, with the nature of NS, there is pretty much no neutral ground

For the sake of argument, that's what we're talking about. And because of that argument, along with those presented by others on the board, this resolution should not pass.

By the way, that is not only my understanding of "banishment," it is also the definition.
i have dug up two definitions from askoxford.com
banish

• verb 1 make (someone) leave a place, especially as an official punishment. 2 get rid of; drive away.

— DERIVATIVES banishment noun.

— ORIGIN Old French banir

and
exile

• noun 1 the state of being barred from one’s native country. 2 a person who lives in exile.

• verb expel and bar (someone) from their native country.

— ORIGIN Latin exilium ‘banishment’.
the problem is, these people have to go somewhere. that somewhere is usually another country. to us that is an unfair burden. they are your criminals, convicted in your courts, deal with them within your borders. it may be saving you costs, but it is then putting it on other nations, because they have to deal with them. exicute them, throw them in jail, we dont care, just as long as it is done within your borders.

as i have pointed out, with the nature of NS, there is pretty much no neutral ground

There is always neutral ground.

i have dug up two definitions from askoxford.com

and

the problem is, these people have to go somewhere. that somewhere is usually another country. to us that is an unfair burden. they are your criminals, convicted in your courts, deal with them within your borders. it may be saving you costs, but it is then putting it on other nations, because they have to deal with them. exicute them, throw them in jail, we dont care, just as long as it is done within your borders.

Neutral

Ground.

For the sake of argument, it exists. Okay? It exists. I'm going to point to a spot on the globe or in space, and ask you who owns it, and you're going to tell me you don't know. And I'm going to say that we put them there. He is banished. It is done.

If this resolution FAILS, which it WILL, I move that those nations that vote FOR this resolution be shipped the world's worst citizens.

Bleeding hearts are no match for bleeding victims.

Vote Banishment!!!

Not really. It allows criminals that are citizens to avoid punishment by volunteering for temporary exile, which the state must grant.

More criminals would be heading off to other countries, not fewer.

but even then, they have to find someone to take them
Not really. The criminal says he'll go into exile, and the state must accept. Treason? Espionage? Mass Murder? The state must instead work to find someone to take the so-called "victim".

I suppose it does effectively repeal any members' death penalty laws on the books... since the nation MUST let the "victim" leave.

We approve this proposal for it forces nations to reconsider solution to re-integrate condemn criminals, as it clearly states that death penalty is not an allowed alternative (claim 3). Actually I believe it is a subtle way of banning death penalty at all. And the free land of yearning is greatly happy that this banning spread across the world.

We laugh to the states which complain about UN interference. Yes UN does interfer in what you are allowed to do or not to your citizen, and we hope this is just the beginning of a set of laws for more human and civil rights worldwide.

Neutral

Ground.

For the sake of argument, it exists. Okay? It exists. I'm going to point to a spot on the globe or in space, and ask you who owns it, and you're going to tell me you don't know. And I'm going to say that we put them there. He is banished. It is done.
thats the thing, you say it is for the sake of argument.... the thing is, it doesnt exist, and if it does, i am sure some nation will snatch it up

I suppose it does effectively repeal any members' death penalty laws on the books... since the nation MUST let the "victim" leave.


This may well be true but it doesn't say how he can leave. As a criminal here he can't own property nor use public transportation.. The only way off the island other than that is swim.. as citizens are not allowed to assist criminals subject to themselves being tried and found guilty of a number of crimes for doing so.... It's six hundred miles to nearest land mass not claimed by us. Our sharks are as good as those around Waterana prison island.. and just as hungry all the time.....

Not really. The criminal says he'll go into exile, and the state must accept. Treason? Espionage? Mass Murder? The state must instead work to find someone to take the so-called "victim".

I suppose it does effectively repeal any members' death penalty laws on the books... since the nation MUST let the "victim" leave.
yeah, but they must have a country willing to take them, otherwise where else are they going to go?

IF we give our subjects more freedoms then they will begin to think it is owed to them. I cant have free thinkers in MY nation.

thats the thing, you say it is for the sake of argument.... the thing is, it doesnt exist, and if it does, i am sure some nation will snatch it up
It's an idea taken from the real world and applied to NS. As there is no map of NS keeping track of every country, there is no map of NS keeping track of neutral ground. So anything that is "for the sake of argument" is real for NS. The neutral ground, which exists simply because I claim there is some next to my country. And that's where I put my banished people.

Are we so sure that banished people will no longer be a threat once they have been banished? The Nomadic Peoples of WildMoon believe that both internal and external security are important, therefore we deal with criminal issues internally as opposed to risking international security by banishing them to another country. The Nomadic Peoples of WildMoon are not so naive as to believe banished criminals will not become terrorists at an international level.

- The Nomadic Peoples of WildMoon

It's an idea taken from the real world and applied to NS. As there is no map of NS keeping track of every country, there is no map of NS keeping track of neutral ground. So anything that is "for the sake of argument" is real for NS. The neutral ground, which exists simply because I claim there is some next to my country. And that's where I put my banished people.

Dibs on the "neutral ground"!

Dibs on the "neutral ground"!
Hush, you! There's more.

Dibs on the "neutral ground"!
this is exactly what i was talking about. now those criminals are on Krioval territory... now what?

this is exactly what i was talking about. now those criminals are on Krioval territory... now what?
My criminals were there first, so Krioval can suck it.

Honestly, I've said all I can say right now. I have to finish work and pass out.

The neutral ground, which exists simply because I claim there is some next to my country. And that's where I put my banished people.

(ooc)
I just created the Free Land of Nationless Individuals (an anarchy, of course). There is now a place for nations to send the people they banished, on the NS "globe" if they can't find another nation to take them.

Actually I believe it is a subtle way of banning death penalty at all..


Thus this action needs to be in another proposal and not with the subject of this one.

Simply one requiring a nation not to dump it's criminals on others. Exile or Banishment has nothing in it that says capital punishment.

A fully different action requiring a single separate proposal for each action.

Also there may be something that allows capital punishment which this would ammend thus making it illegal if so... since it sets up a time when capital punishment (death) can't be imposed that under some other may be legal..

My criminals were there first, so Krioval can suck it.

Honestly, I've said all I can say right now. I have to finish work and pass out.

What about the ones who aren't there yet? I decide that you can't put them on my territory any more. And there's no more "neutral ground". What now?

as i have pointed out, with the nature of NS, there is pretty much no neutral ground

What about nations not in the UN?

What about nations not in the UN?

Those are the sovereign territory of their claimant governments, aren't they?

Forced Banishment Ban

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Waterana

Description: Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens from their home nation as punishment for various crimes/actions.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these criminals. This forces those receiving nations to put their own people at risk, and to deal with the problems that the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid, whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation’s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing a punishment that forces both dangerous and non-dangerous criminals to seek refuge in other states is grossly unfair and unjust to the international community.

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Any native born, dual or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile from their home nation if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home nation.

Votes For: 27

Votes Against: 15

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Fri Dec 16 2005


Absolutely not! The citizens of Barvinia greatly oppose this proposal! But even if it passes, all my islands for the different types of criminals are within Christian Utopia's borders, therefore, even though these people are banned from the mainland, they remain our responsibility, in a small sense. They are free people with the exception of: We make sure that they never leave! Unless of course, other regions are willing to accept them into their region. With the normal paperwork and procedures, naturally. All decisions are final and irrevocable! Good day!

OOC: Gosh... I sleep for 8h and I find 10 pages of ping-pong. :rolleyes: OK, I will now be heavily patronising.

First of all, Fonzoland formally claims all previously unclaimed territory in the world. If any other nation challenges this claim, on any specific territory, we concede that territory to them, and claim the remaining ones. There, neutral ground is gone.

There.
Is.
No.
Doorstep.

People cannot be "between countries." You are either in country A or in country B. Even if you are in a boat or airplane or spaceship, the vessel is still sovereign territory of one nation. So, the minute you banish somebody from your territory, the person enters another nation's territory. (Dumping someone in international waters, the north pole, or the moon is just a form of death penalty, and as such an irrelevant counterexample.)

Getting that out of the way, by the very definition of banishment, where the person ends up is indeed the problem of the banishing nation. Just saying "we don't want you" does not constitute an act of banishment. Physically driving the person out of your border (and therefore, by my previous argument, into another country) is what constitutes banishment. The fact that you allow the person to choose which border to exit through is immaterial - if you FORCE the person to exit, and if they cross into my territory, I still consider your nation responsible for the action, not the involuntarily banished individual.

Now I could argue why this is a bad thing, why this transcends national borders, why the UN would want to prevent it; but it has been argued before, and besides, it seems painstakingly obvious. Defending banishment on the grounds of NatSov is, in my humble opinion, nothing short of a devious joke.

Actually I believe it is a subtle way of banning death penalty at all.

I need to explain something. This resolution is in no way designed to ban the death penalty. I have repeatedly stated that what you do to your criminals within your borders is your own business. If that means executing them, so be it.

The only thing that clause is designed to do is prevent nations using the threat of the death penalty as a lever to force criminals to agree to voluntary banishment. Thats it, nothing more, nothing less. It does not stop any nation sentencing a criminal to death and carrying out that sentence.

As I stated in a previous post, I originally wanted this resolution to recognise the right of all nations to run their justice system, within their own borders, anyway they saw fit (taking into account previous resolutions of course). That would have pretty much ensured a nations right to use the death penalty if they wished to. Problem was I couldn't find a way to word it properly so ended up dropping the idea. When I rewrite this resolution, I'll certainly look at that again and try to find a good way to include it.

but even then, they have to find someone to take them

Why? Maybe they can just die cold and alone in neutral/international land?

It's looking less likely to pass - 1200 behind, with only one feeder having voted (Mammothistan, for The Pacific), while West, South and North are all looking like going against. Typical rule of thumb is that a proposal needs to be more than 2000 ahead in order to survive a combined no vote from the Pacifics, RR and the larger player created regions (which has happened, and has been enough to send a vote from 'for' to 'against').

Absolutely. They have to go somewhere. It isn't important where they go, so long as it isn't to our prisons where we have to waste resources treating them as we would a citizen, which they no longer are.

We're not sending them to you. We're sending them away from us. Regardless of where they end up, it's not in our control, and not part of our liability.

Former Bresnian citizen wreaks havoc in Deerhood Bay Shopping Centre

Deerhood Bay, Groot Gouda - A banished Bresnian citizen created a mess in a shopping centre on the Deerhood Bay Boulevard, one of the main tourist attractions of northern Groot Gouda. The man was completely our of control, requiring 8 policemen to arrest him.

Apparently, the person was suffering from a rare disease making him go ballistic on coin-operated rocking horses. On the sight of a child gently rocking on a horse, accompanied by the sweet tune "Rawhide", he went berserk, threw the child of the horse and threw the horse through the shop's window. He then proceeded to demolish the entire shop. Fortunately, no people were hurt badly by his actions, although several people received light scratches and bruises. The fairly exclusive clothing shop has substantial damage to the interior and lost a large part of its wares.

The local government was outraged that this person, staying illegally in Groot Gouda, was banished from Bresnia without consideration for other nations. The reason for banishment is unknown. The president, upon hearing about this matter, has promised that "Bresnia will pay for this, the damn selfish bastards!". The bills have been sent to the Bresnia government for a total rumoured to exceed 21 million florins (about a million dollars). No official response has been received from the Bresnian government so far. Bresnia does not have an ambassador in Groot Gouda. The UN ambassador apparently has stated that "Regardless of where [those banished] end up, it's not in our control, and not part of our liability".

I need to explain something. This resolution is in no way designed to ban the death penalty. I have repeatedly stated that what you do to your criminals within your borders is your own business. If that means executing them, so be it.

The only thing that clause is designed to do is prevent nations using the threat of the death penalty as a lever to force criminals to agree to voluntary banishment. Thats it, nothing more, nothing less. It does not stop any nation sentencing a criminal to death and carrying out that sentence.

[...]

So you mean a nation would not be able to let the condemn person the choice between death and leaving, but just have to kill him?

So you mean a nation would not be able to let the condemn person the choice between death and leaving, but just have to kill him?

If you choose to have a death penalty in your country, you have that right. Nobody is forcing you to do it, you can also throw him in jail. You just cannot force the person to leave.

This is one of the dumdest resolutions I have ever seen. I will kick anybody out of my nation that I wish. It is our right as a nation to remove anyone we find undesireable. I will not make a huge debate on this issue as it is clear it is going down in flames. All I will say is if you love criminals so much we will just ship them to your nation.

This is one of the dumdest resolutions I have ever seen. I will kick anybody out of my nation that I wish. It is our right as a nation to remove anyone we find undesireable. I will not make a huge debate on this issue as it is clear it is going down in flames. All I will say is if you love criminals so much we will just ship them to your nation.

Can anyone tell me how it is doing in the vote at the moment? nationstates.net is blocked at my workplace.

This is one of the dumdest resolutions I have ever seen. I will kick anybody out of my nation that I wish. It is our right as a nation to remove anyone we find undesireable. I will not make a huge debate on this issue as it is clear it is going down in flames. All I will say is if you love criminals so much we will just ship them to your nation.

We don't love criminals, that why we want you to keep yours the heck in your own nation. They are your problem, deal with them yourselves. You don't have the right to dump your garbage on other nations.

Yes the resoltion is going down in flames, but it will be back. One thing this run has done is show me where the problems are and what I have to do to fix them. The principals of the resolution won't change, and the delusion some nations have, that they have a "right" to use the rest of the NationStates world as a rubbish dump, will end.

Here you go Hirota,

Votes For: 1,972

Votes Against: 3,404

Its being royally reamed at the moment. Not a big disaster though, as I explained above :).

Votes For: 1,972

Votes Against: 3,404

Pretty bad, I would say. But I agree with Waterana, the basic principle of this resolution is sound, and will pass eventually. I guess that, other than closing some loopholes, this will only go through if the human rights angle is dropped all together, and only mutual consent between nations is imposed. For me, this is a disturbing signal of the views of NS nations...

My nation is small and simple. We have systems in place to deal with our criminals already. If this preposal passes then we will be forced to introduce the death penalty because we do not have the required resources to completely reform our penal system. We do not believe that this is the right course of action. This is the High Councils final say on the matter.

The Elder of The High Council of The Allied States of The Older Capitalists.
I strongly agree with this concept!

Absolutely not! The citizens of Barvinia greatly oppose this proposal! But even if it passes, all my islands for the different types of criminals are within Christian Utopia's borders, therefore, even though these people are banned from the mainland, they remain our responsibility, in a small sense. They are free people with the exception of: We make sure that they never leave! Unless of course, other regions are willing to accept them into their region. With the normal paperwork and procedures, naturally. All decisions are final and irrevocable! Good day!

The right to travel freely throughout their country.

Actually, it seems the UN Gnomes have been thwarting you this whole time. Alert whoever's in charge of your Department of Bigotry that his isolation programs don't really exist. Good day!

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

For the better part of two RL years Wolfish has operated the TAL-4 prison complex, where, for a fee, we house criminals from across the NS-World.

It is quite a profitable excercise...not to mention a relief to those nations that no long have to deal with the threat of maintaining criminals for their natural lives in vast complexes.

Total population at TAL-4 recently exceeded 248,000.

We will vote against this resolution.

W.

Thus this action needs to be in another proposal and not with the subject of this one.

Simply one requiring a nation not to dump it's criminals on others. Exile or Banishment has nothing in it that says capital punishment.

A fully different action requiring a single separate proposal for each action.

Also there may be something that allows capital punishment which this would ammend thus making it illegal if so... since it sets up a time when capital punishment (death) can't be imposed that under some other may be legal..

It does start a trend in changing the penalties for crimes in sovereign countries. In essence you can't tell me what to do with my criminals. I don't think a single representative here has said their country dumps criminals on the rest of the world, most have stated they have pre-arranged agreements with other nations exchanging exiled persons, or perhaps even paying other countries to deal with it.

This Resolution needs to be withdrawn, or at the very least needs to be completely re-written.

Outlawing something that many nations already accept is bad Diplomacy

It does start a trend in changing the penalties for crimes in sovereign countries. In essence you can't tell me what to do with my criminals. I don't think a single representative here has said their country dumps criminals on the rest of the world, most have stated they have pre-arranged agreements with other nations exchanging exiled persons, or perhaps even paying other countries to deal with it.

This Resolution needs to be withdrawn, or at the very least needs to be completely re-written.

Outlawing something that many nations already accept is bad Diplomacy

Actually, one of the most vocal opponants of this resolution does just dump his criminals over the border, and I'm darn sure he isn't the only one. It is happening.

What your laws are within your nation is your own business, but once those laws cross borders they become the business of the whole international community and we have every right to address any problems those laws of yours cause us.

A resolution can't be withdrawn once its up for vote, but looks like this one is going to fail. When that happens, it will be rewritten using suggestions ect from this thread (and others offsite) then resubmitted.

I don't think I have any of those, not in the past 5,000 years or so.

Didn't we send those guys to Chechnya?

No you capitalist pigs! You sent them over to me and now I have this huge vampire pestiside problem and the amount of blood transmitted viruses that are being carried across my nation is catasphroic! I already had to quarenten have my population!

Ohh and yeah, we vote against this due to reasons of national soverignty and the fact that it is none of our business how another country punishes its citizens. Any person who enters the great democratic People's Republic of Pochinco may be executed by the State due to our strict immigration laws.

~By the hand of:

Chairwoman Aunt Voula,
Premier of the PRP
President of the People's Reform Party of Pochinco
Supreme Commadant of the United Pochincan Defence Front
Grand Speaker of the National People's Assembly

Former Bresnian citizen wreaks havoc in Deerhood Bay Shopping Centre

Deerhood Bay, Groot Gouda - A banished Bresnian citizen created a mess in a shopping centre on the Deerhood Bay Boulevard, one of the main tourist attractions of northern Groot Gouda. The man was completely our of control, requiring 8 policemen to arrest him.

Apparently, the person was suffering from a rare disease making him go ballistic on coin-operated rocking horses. On the sight of a child gently rocking on a horse, accompanied by the sweet tune "Rawhide", he went berserk, threw the child of the horse and threw the horse through the shop's window. He then proceeded to demolish the entire shop. Fortunately, no people were hurt badly by his actions, although several people received light scratches and bruises. The fairly exclusive clothing shop has substantial damage to the interior and lost a large part of its wares.

The local government was outraged that this person, staying illegally in Groot Gouda, was banished from Bresnia without consideration for other nations. The reason for banishment is unknown. The president, upon hearing about this matter, has promised that "Bresnia will pay for this, the damn selfish bastards!". The bills have been sent to the Bresnia government for a total rumoured to exceed 21 million florins (about a million dollars). No official response has been received from the Bresnian government so far. Bresnia does not have an ambassador in Groot Gouda. The UN ambassador apparently has stated that "Regardless of where [those banished] end up, it's not in our control, and not part of our liability".

Bresnia does not have a policy of banishment, but we'd like the option to remain open to us. However, taking your "news article" as the complete hypothetical that it is, I have one question: How did the citizen get into your country?

Although we agree a nation should deal with it's own criminals in it's own manner this proposal goes beyond that. As it sets up dual citizenship as legal.
Since here and possibly in many nations you can only be a citizen of one nation dual citizenship would be a crime. Thus those of dual citizenship status would be subject to this proposal and no nation can kick them out nor change their citizenship status..

Thus under this resolustion you may be in violation of certain parts of it by even inacting this..
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #49
Rights and Duties of UN States
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria
Description: :
UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States:

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II: The Art of War:

Article 6
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.


Here by proposing such that effects the citizenship laws of ours and other nations dealing with dual citizenship you have violated Article 3 above.

Also since this would creat civil strife in my nation and others who have laws against dual citizenship this again violates Article 6.

And yes I understand there may be some 'immunities under international law' come into play with Article 3 but that is not part of Article 6 so..

We deal with our criminals and don't dump them on other nations. Anyone who claims dual citizenship and refuses to give up one is a criminal here. Thus under the proposal we can't do a thing to them but keep them here and let them be. Our normal policy was have them choose where they go and not come back, subject to hanging, and demand we let them back in should they want find the other nation not as great a place as they thought.


Also Article 6 to me already keeps my nation from sending criminals to yours or anyone elses without their knowledge and consent to take said person in..

Pochinco']No you capitalist pigs! You sent them over to me and now I have this huge vampire pestiside problem and the amount of blood transmitted viruses that are being carried across my nation is catasphroic! I already had to quarenten have my population!

Ohh and yeah, we vote against this due to reasons of national soverignty and the fact that it is none of our business how another country punishes its citizens. Any person who enters the great democratic People's Republic of Pochinco may be executed by the State due to our strict immigration laws.
I find it interesting that you first make up a perfect example of why this resolution is necessary, and then vote against.

A resolution can't be withdrawn once its up for vote, but looks like this one is going to fail. When that happens, it will be rewritten using suggestions ect from this thread (and others offsite) then resubmitted.

As I have stated previously, the people of Cluichstan will gladly support a future version of this proposal that provides an exception for those nationss who willingly accept exiles from another nation. We trust that our friends from Waterana will put forth just such a proposal, as this issue is a good one is certainly worthy of being addressed by this austere body.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Actually, one of the most vocal opponants of this resolution does just dump his criminals over the border, and I'm darn sure he isn't the only one. It is happening.

What your laws are within your nation is your own business, but once those laws cross borders they become the business of the whole international community and we have every right to address any problems those laws of yours cause us.

A resolution can't be withdrawn once its up for vote, but looks like this one is going to fail. When that happens, it will be rewritten using suggestions ect from this thread (and others offsite) then resubmitted.

So you're going to punish the entire community for the acts of a few? We don't need a hand slap against countries that probably shouldn't even be a member of the United Nations anyways... What does this Resolution say it's going to do to those who do violate the ban? slap them on the wrist and say naughty johnny don't do it again? If they're already dumping citizen a piece of paper from the United Nations isn't going to stop them from continuing to do it. Try some diplomacy not legislation.... If that doesn't work step up your own countries immigration controls.


Lets stop making laws that don't do anything.

Also Zeldon you have made many great points on why this is bad legislation.

As I have stated previously, the people of Cluichstan will gladly support a future version of this proposal that provides an exception for those nationss who willingly accept exiles from another nation. We trust that our friends from Waterana will put forth just such a proposal, as this issue is a good one is certainly worthy of being addressed by this austere body.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

I tend to agree. The most prominent argument is that it's irresponsible to drop people into another country without that country's permission -- then address that. Banning the practice of banishment may resolve this, but it throws the baby out with the bathwater. There are many countries who have spoken up in both the drafting stage and the voting stage to say that they would willingly accept criminals. There is also the idea of neutral territory, whether it be the middle of a trade lane in the Atlantic Ocean, or an asteroid near Jupiter or an international research facility in Antarctica.

There is also the idea of neutral territory, whether it be the middle of a trade lane in the Atlantic Ocean, or an asteroid near Jupiter or an international research facility in Antarctica.

False, and previously answered. Any accessible territory with reasonable life-supporting capabilities is sovereign. Placing people in territory without those does not constitute banishment, but death penalty, and that is not precluded in any way by this resolution. I think someone's imagination is getting a little carried over by the argument.

I agree!! There are many things that you can do besides ban the criminals, and execution isn't one of them. Puerto Alize is a small nation, and we don't like to be bothered with a lot of drama :sniper: , so we are very peaceful:fluffle: .

The-Republic']Actually, it seems the UN Gnomes have been thwarting you this whole time. Alert whoever's in charge of your Department of Bigotry that his isolation programs don't really exist. Good day!

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN


Wouldn't interpreting that clause in the manner that you suggest effectively rule out using any form of imprisonment as a penalty for crimes?

No separation of church and state is mandated by the United Nations? Even a spiritually advanced civilization must quickly realize that they are not allowed to imprison people based only on religious grounds (Res. 115 - Freedom of Conscience) and must confer identical rights to all citizens, regardless of religion (Res. 99 - Discrimination Accord), and remain within the United Nations.

Don't the UN's basic rules say that its Resolutions can't try to ban any form of government? Isn't a requirement to confer equal rights on all citizens regardless of religion incompatible with Theocracies, which are a recognised form of government? Isn't Resolution #99 therefore illegal?

a death sentence has been proved to be more expensive than a life sentence, which isn't entirely cheap in the first place.

Proven by whom?!? A short period of imprisonment, a skilled hangman's services -- and those of a chaplain, perhaps -- for an hour or so, and a rope (which could be re-used) as against [probably] several decades of imprisonment? I don't see how those sums add up...

Pochinco']Ohh and yeah, we vote against this due to reasons of national soverignty and the fact that it is none of our business how another country punishes its citizens.
I've got news for you, your national sovereignty ends at my nation's borders, and banishment does affect multiple nations as the banished have to go somewhere.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Beware, the rights of immortal vampires are next in the proposal queue!!! ;)

Ah, but there's nothing in that proposal to say that you have to imprison them away from sunlight:

"Warder, what's that pile of ashes over in that cell?"
"Oh, that's where we left the latest convicted vampire just before dawn..."

;-)

My government has been pointed out in the regional discussion that this resolution de facto takes away the possibility to strip someone's citizenship even if that person received the citizenship through illegal naturalisation. How do the fellow spokespeople here feel about this possible flaw?
My government is currently on "abstain". We like the idea of this resolution but feel it is too much of an unfinished draft currently. The problem mentioned above could well push us to against, despite agreeing with the principles behind this resolution. Were it to be written with more care we'd even be vocally for.


The government of St Edmund is inclined to agree with you about this point, which is in fact a detail that we questioned during the earlier discussion...

The government of St Edmund is inclined to agree with you about this point, which is in fact a detail that we questioned during the earlier discussion...

I gave my opinion on that a while ago, but it seems to have been lost...

Wouldn't interpreting that clause in the manner that you suggest effectively rule out using any form of imprisonment as a penalty for crimes?
Actually, yes, which was part of the basis for my attempted repeal months ago. Some other UN nations convinced me, however, that it would be virtually impossible to get the masses to vote for something called "Repeal: End Slavery." I'm thinking about trying again though, getting a replacement drafted before I give it another go. [/hijack]

In conclusion, We beseech the assembly here to vote down this attempt at the destruction of sovereignity. The next nation upon the chopping block of NSUN tyranny may be your own![Chuckles]

Silly Kawaiians. National sovereignty is for us, not you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10089478#post10089478)!!

George Brown
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

:mad:
this resolution is a joke, thats all i have to say








BROOKSCONIA

:mad:
this resolution is a joke, thats all i have to say
Whew! At least we won't be hearing from him anymore.

Forced Banishment Ban

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Waterana

Description: Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens from their home nation as punishment for various crimes/actions.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these criminals. This forces those receiving nations to put their own people at risk, and to deal with the problems that the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid, whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation’s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing a punishment that forces both dangerous and non-dangerous criminals to seek refuge in other states is grossly unfair and unjust to the international community.

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Any native born, dual or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile from their home nation if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home nation.




This resolution denies the rights of the soverign states to use their citizenship as a privledge. Just because you are born on the soil, does not give you complete and absolute citizenship! Criminlas need to be punished, especially if they decide to flee their homelands in order to escape the crime. The ultimate form of punishment is to deny them the freedoms and protections within the borders of their homelands. It is by this reasoning that Wales Poland will vote against the Forced Banishment Ban.

The Parliment of the Kingdom of Fourhearts has just passed a resolution that both states our nations opposition to the proposed UN Resolution and condems the author for drafting a document that is in clear violation of national rights.

Titus Chain
Ambassodor to the UN

This is a tough one. I need to read through the resolution a few more times to make sure there's not a loophole in it.

Reading through the previous discussion, I see that a lot of the comments have been related to the status of citizenship as a right, a privilege, or whatever. I feel that citizenship is not in itself a fundamental right. However, I do see *domicile* as a fundamental right -- that is, I don't feel that people have a right to be a member of some nation, but I do feel that they have a right to have someplace to call home. If a nation is allowed to send a person into exile, they are leaving open the possibility that the person's right of domicile will be abrogated -- that their right to have "someplace to call home" will be violated. I'm not sure that I can in good conscience allow to continue a practice which could jeopardize someone's human rights.

On the other hand, as I've said, I need to read over this a few more times before deciding to cast a 'Yes' vote.

Matthew I
Holarch of Perinea

Hi! I acually agree on this matter and i dont see why others arent.:confused:

This idea is silly and childish. Although at times exile and/ or deportment are cruel they are very necessary evils. If terrorists are caught but are not citizens then the government has no right to put them on trial and punish them. The only place a person can be tried is in their country of citizenship. Since the country the terrorist is presently in is not their homeland, the only choice the government has is to deport the criminal back to their land of origin where they shall be punished accordingly to the crime they committed if at all.

- Emporer of Daladur