NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree cause its wrong to ban someone from there home!:eek:

Listen my fellow leaders, imagine you stole a piece of bread to feed your family. So your walking home and you get pulled off the streets trown out of the nation and told to never come back. You never even got to say bye to your family! So think about it like that.
Kat aka Cookies

well think about i gotta leave this fourm for now

Hi! I acually agree on this matter and i dont see why others arent.:confused:

I think the opponants of this resolution can be divided into 4 catagories.

Those that honesty oppose it because they use banishment, don't see anything wrong with it, and don't want it banned. This group I don't agree with, but do have respect for.

Those who have pointed out that this resolution, as written, is bad, needs redoing and have given suggestions and ideas for that to happen. This group I have a lot of respect for.

Those that don't like some parts of the resolution, such as the citizenship clause, but don't totally object to the whole thing. Again, this group I respect.

Then there are those using the tired old arguement of national soverignty while failing to realise that their nat sov ends at their borders. Banishment well and truly crosses borders, so is an international, not a national, problem. This group I have little respect for because their arguement is flawed right from the start.

Besides, I'm not a national soverignist and if I want to try to pass a resolution that demands all pets in all UN nations wear red flea collars 24/7, nat sov is the last thing I'd let get in my way.

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

Hate to tell you this, but my resolution only covers full, legal citizens of your nation, not immigrants, visitors ect. You are quite free to deport any non-citizen you wish.

Exile/banishment and deportation are two very different things.

The Government of Unending Virtue thinks that certain things need to be resolved before putting out a new resolution concerning this matter, which is a reflection of its consideration to many ideas, cocerns, put forth in this forum:

- Citizenship of each nation is a word regulated under a citizenship law of each nation, and presummably this law is very fundamental to the construction of that nation. You cannot define that word because the word is a constitutional word. The United Nations is expressly not designed to override the constitution and sovereinty of member states. Each country ought to be able to grant, revoke, or accept voluntary renunciation of citizenship to the people either born or not born in their country in accordance to their own regulation. Since the purpose of this resolution wishes to deal with the "right of abode", which is not an issue of citizenship: i.e. a person who does not have citizenship in nation A can have the right of abode in nation A, and therefore lives, works, and raises a family in nation A, I recommend that the issue of citizenship be removed from this resolution, as it is very difficult to accept that the government can not revoke citizenship from people when its fundamental law says that it can. Such control-freak resolutions would only make leaders less wanting to remain a member of the United Nations, which is detrimental to the purpose of the United Nations: to promote an environment of International negotiations and prevent the use of force to resolve conflicts (i.e. the less number of members, the more likely violence would resurface)

- Some nations claimed that if they were not able to exile criminals, the death penalty would have to be used. That is totally not true. In fact, there are some nations who do not exile people to foreign nations, they exile criminals to a part of their own nation in which large and isolated labour camps are set up and labour is extracted from the bannished person in exchange for giving them three meals a day and a shack to live in. This way, the person is neither executed, nor being fed by taxpayers, and the person would remain there or various labour/forced work camps for the rest of his/her life.

- The clause concerning a voluntary exile being made to a country who is willing to accept the person shouldn't be needed as it is redundant. The argument is: a person either does, or does not have the right to self exile. If he does, and is free to choose to self exile, then he has "freedom", and is not a criminal whose freedom is restricted. His moving away into another country is called visiting a foreign nation or immigration to a foreign nation. A foreign country either receives foreigners or it does not, and if it does, then it will already have laws concerning visa and entry permissions, and if it does not, the person will probably not choose to go there, and choose another country to go to, as he is free. If the person does not have the right to self-exile, then his freedom is being restricted and detained, he is considered a "criminal" in that country, and the appropriate clauses dealing with forced and coerced exiles falls on the case. Either way, this clause is not needed.

ok i'm back;)

did anyone read what i put about the being thorwn out of the nation? well i gotta go again.:(

I have thought long and hard about this issue and I have a few issues to present to those of you who are against it.

1) Where will the criminals go when they are kicked off of their land? No other country will want them and they will have to exist somewhere. Eventually, if they are rejected from society, they will become fugitives and sneak into countries and cause even more problems.

2) When you bannish a person, you don't tech them a lesson. The idea behind a penal sytem is that the criminals get what they deserve and are taught a lesson. If all they get for disobeying the law is kicked out, what do they care? They can just move on to the next nation and reak there havoc all over again.

The general theme of my thoughts is that, while it is true that citizenship is gift and not a right, criminals can't just be kicked out and forgetten. When they're forgotten by their homeland they become other nations' problem and what gives you the right to dump your trash onto another nation?

I have thought long and hard about this issue and I have a few issues to present to those of you who are against it.

1) Where will the criminals go when they are kicked off of their land? No other country will want them and they will have to exist somewhere. Eventually, if they are rejected from society, they will become fugitives and sneak into countries and cause even more problems.

2) When you bannish a person, you don't tech them a lesson. The idea behind a penal sytem is that the criminals get what they deserve and are taught a lesson. If all they get for disobeying the law is kicked out, what do they care? They can just move on to the next nation and reak there havoc all over again.

The general theme of my thoughts is that, while it is true that citizenship is gift and not a right, criminals can't just be kicked out and forgetten. When they're forgotten by their homeland they become other nations' problem and what gives you the right to dump your trash onto another nation?

i probably would jail prisoners too, but if a political troublemaker comes around the corner, and i cant jail since he hasnt committed a crime, i can banish him. he will travel until he comes to a nation where he is welcome and there he shall stay. like marx.

i probably would jail prisoners too, but if a political troublemaker comes around the corner, and i cant jail since he hasnt committed a crime, i can banish him. he will travel until he comes to a nation where he is welcome and there he shall stay. like marx.
I see where you're coming from but I don't understand how you can do that to a person. Criminal or not, even if they do eventually find a place to live. It seems like you should provid some sort of transport or plan or support for a person, even a criminal, when you kick them out of your country. They quite literally have nothing at all to call their own.

The Government of Unending Virtue thinks that certain things need to be resolved before putting out a new resolution concerning this matter, which is a reflection of its consideration to many ideas, cocerns, put forth in this forum:

- Citizenship of each nation is a word regulated under a citizenship law of each nation, and presummably this law is very fundamental to the construction of that nation. You cannot define that word because the word is a constitutional word. The United Nations is expressly not designed to override the constitution and sovereinty of member states. Each country ought to be able to grant, revoke, or accept voluntary renunciation of citizenship to the people either born or not born in their country in accordance to their own regulation. Since the purpose of this resolution wishes to deal with the "right of abode", which is not an issue of citizenship: i.e. a person who does not have citizenship in nation A can have the right of abode in nation A, and therefore lives, works, and raises a family in nation A, I recommend that the issue of citizenship be removed from this resolution, as it is very difficult to accept that the government can not revoke citizenship from people when its fundamental law says that it can. Such control-freak resolutions would only make leaders less wanting to remain a member of the United Nations, which is detrimental to the purpose of the United Nations: to promote an environment of International negotiations and prevent the use of force to resolve conflicts (i.e. the less number of members, the more likely violence would resurface)

- Some nations claimed that if they were not able to exile criminals, the death penalty would have to be used. That is totally not true. In fact, there are some nations who do not exile people to foreign nations, they exile criminals to a part of their own nation in which large and isolated labour camps are set up and labour is extracted from the bannished person in exchange for giving them three meals a day and a shack to live in. This way, the person is neither executed, nor being fed by taxpayers, and the person would remain there or various labour/forced work camps for the rest of his/her life.

- The clause concerning a voluntary exile being made to a country who is willing to accept the person shouldn't be needed as it is redundant. The argument is: a person either does, or does not have the right to self exile. If he does, and is free to choose to self exile, then he has "freedom", and is not a criminal whose freedom is restricted. His moving away into another country is called visiting a foreign nation or immigration to a foreign nation. A foreign country either receives foreigners or it does not, and if it does, then it will already have laws concerning visa and entry permissions, and if it does not, the person will probably not choose to go there, and choose another country to go to, as he is free. If the person does not have the right to self-exile, then his freedom is being restricted and detained, he is considered a "criminal" in that country, and the appropriate clauses dealing with forced and coerced exiles falls on the case. Either way, this clause is not needed.


Thank you for your post. It has certainly given me some food for thought and I will remember the points raised in it when rewriting the resolution :).

i probably would jail prisoners too, but if a political troublemaker comes around the corner, and i cant jail since he hasnt committed a crime, i can banish him. he will travel until he comes to a nation where he is welcome and there he shall stay. like marx.

If you're a UN nation, I doubt you can do that under this resolution as it would be seen as punishing someone for their beliefs...

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

The Government of the Armed Republic of Droskianishk has voted on this issue and will refuse to support it. The government of Droskianishk see's this as an attempt by the ambitious, self-appointed global government we call the UN to infringe our national soveriegnty.

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".

The Nomadic Peoples of WildMoon thank Grout Gouda for giving a solid example. This is why the Nomadic Peoples of WildMoon fully support the Banishment Ban.

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

Well, having read through the proposal and all this debate (both well and poorly written, though more of the former by a goodly margin), I have decided to join the group that supports the proposal as a concept, but will abstain due to feeling that it needs a serious rewrite. I have little more to say that has not been said, but I think that it should be remembered that:

a) People don't disappear - they must go somewhere.
b) A criminal should be punished fittingly to the crime - and to many, banishment would matter little. If one is a strong member of a community, one is less likely to commit a crime, except out of desparation; such crimes would not be serious enough to warrant banishment except in extreme circumstances, or the strictest nations.
c) Someone will always have to pay, because that's how the world works - either with labour of some sort, or money for another's efforts. The nation that creates the criminal should be the one paying, or the criminal themselves (I have some fondness for the labour camps, though caution should be taken to avoid cruelty).

I came on this dabate late, but I hope my words made sense...
-Erolki, Leader in Chief
Republic of Eakia

The Government of the Armed Republic of Droskianishk has voted on this issue and will refuse to support it. The government of Droskianishk see's this as an attempt by the ambitious, self-appointed global government we call the UN to infringe our national soveriegnty.
Gaaah! You do realize that this resolution is helping to protect you from having to increase border control spending, correct? That it helps keep unwanted criminals from entering your country and perpetuating crime?

Please tell me exactly what sovereign powers you think are being violated by this. It is an international issue, and as such it lies within this body's jurisdiction.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The Government of the Armed Republic of Droskianishk has voted on this issue and will refuse to support it. The government of Droskianishk see's this as an attempt by the ambitious, self-appointed global government we call the UN to infringe our national soveriegnty.
ummm... wrong! if anything it protects NatSov, in that you wont have another country's criminals rocking up on your doorstep.

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..
:headbang:

get it through your thick scull. this neither allows or bans dual citizenship. it acknowledges it, in that some countries do allow it, and some dont.

Agreed.

There are countries that have said they will accept banished people, no questions asked. It has been pointed out, and Waterana has declared they will revamp their proposal, correct?

There are ways for a country to banish a person without infringing on the rights of other nations (a two-week holding period while a suitable destination can be found, for instance), and given the existence of the previously mentioned countries, this should not at all be a problem.

So, as far as I see it, you might want to consider shortening the resolution to involve only this demand of other nations: "No nation may banish its citizen without the full understanding of all involved parties on an agreed-upon destination." Play with the wording, and there you go. That seems to be the only objection to banishment, and that resolution were brought up, I would gladly vote in favor. As it is, it limits a country's ability to govern itself, without providing adequate justification.

The Kingdom of Bresnia retains its own policies and beliefs on the subject of banishment, but would be willing to agree to such a proposal, should it be brought forward.

it looks like this resolution isn't going to pass

well, to all those nations against the resolution, i think you should prepare yourselves to receive my criminals... :D

also, if you have CITIZENS so unhappy in your nation that they prefer to commit a crime rather than just leave the country, i think something is wrong with your country and politics.

you should TREAT THE CAUSE, NOT THE EFFECT.

you ban a criminal one day, tomorrow you will have to ban another one. as long as something in your country generates criminals, you will never get rid of them.

Vote No

A nation shall have the right to freely exile who they feel.

There are countries that have said they will accept banished people, no questions asked. It has been pointed out, and Waterana has declared they will revamp their proposal, correct?

There are ways for a country to banish a person without infringing on the rights of other nations (a two-week holding period while a suitable destination can be found, for instance), and given the existence of the previously mentioned countries, this should not at all be a problem.

So, as far as I see it, you might want to consider shortening the resolution to involve only this demand of other nations: "No nation may banish its citizen without the full understanding of all involved parties on an agreed-upon destination." Play with the wording, and there you go. That seems to be the only objection to banishment, and that resolution were brought up, I would gladly vote in favor. As it is, it limits a country's ability to govern itself, without providing adequate justification.

The Kingdom of Bresnia retains its own policies and beliefs on the subject of banishment, but would be willing to agree to such a proposal, should it be brought forward.
for once in this debate, we would probably agree. since Waterana has said they are taking it back to the drawing board, this might be taken into concideration. whilst we aknowledge that there are some nations willing to take them in, we also aknowledge that nations shoud:
a) actually deal with them instead of sidesteping, and
b) seek out nations that will accept them, as opposed to dumping them, which has been known to happen.

I feel that we can come to an agreement on this topic too. As long as the revamping preserves human rights, Jungle Rats Annonymous will support it.

Why does it always seem that the minority has the loudest voice, yet the weakest force? Tis a pity.

SqR

Ausserland has voted against this resolution. While we believe the resolution has many positive features, we cannot accept its provisions concerning citizenship.

We believe citizenship is a right, possessed by all those who qualify under national law. We do not believe, though, that it is an inalienable right. In Ausserland, we believe that citizenship is conditional upon allegiance to the nation. If a person refuses to bear allegiance to the nation, they no longer have the right to claim citizenship. We remove citizenship only in very narrow circumstances: e.g., conviction, upheld on appeal, of treason, or naturalization as a citizen of another country (we don't allow dual citizenship).

Please note that citizenship is a completely different issue from a person's ability to reside in a country. In our case, a person whose citizenship is removed becomes a national of Ausserland, perfectly free to continue to live in the country. They may not, though, enjoy the privileges specifically reserved by law for citizens: voting, standing for election, being commissioned as an officer in our armed services, employment in sensitive government positions, etc.

We look forward to the efforts of the distinguished representative of Waterana in continuing work on this issue.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

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:

Originally Posted by Discrimination Accord
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.

We wish to bring to this august assembly's attention the fact that NSUN Resolution #99 speaks to the rights "of citizens". Nowhere does it discuss the issue of the requirements of citizenship. Our nation applies its law equitably and fairly to all Our citizens, in due keeping with the resolution. The representative of Kiroval's complaint here, is therefore without merit.

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.

And what "punishment" is Our nation guilty of when the apostate or heretic is denied citizenship? They themselves have chosen to reject citizenship by their rejection of HOCEK membership--the two concepts are inseparable and synonymous. Would the representative of Kiroval approve of Us imposing forced conversion and mandatory membership in Our church?

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)

We offer regrets for the representative's obviously poorly informed views of the HOCEK and Our nation. We can but offer Our Conclave of Friendship's services to enlighten them to Our nation's laws and customs, and hope that they may see Our nation for what We are, not what the rumor-mongers would have the world believe. Clearly such misunderstandings can lead to nothing but grief.

August personages,

With the recommended changes, particularly as regards citizenship, I, Fu Huangdi, ruler of the Nomadic Peoples of Hou Mian, will gladly accept this proposal. Let us all rejoice that common sense and discourse has led to a middle ground that most will accept!

I look forward to the day when I can cast my "yes" vote for a proposal that so clearly expresses the wishes of most nations!

Fu Huangdi
Chief of the Fubai People
Leader of Hou Mian

a quick sugestion to Waterana on the re-sub: wait till after the xmas/new year break, that way more people are likly to vote.

a quick sugestion to Waterana on the re-sub: wait till after the xmas/new year break, that way more people are likly to vote.

Don't worry, that was already part of the plan. I am going to be too busy with xmas/new year myself to be worried about this anyway :).

It prob won't be resubmitte until end of jan/start of feb at the earliest.

it looks like this resolution isn't going to pass

you ban a criminal one day, tomorrow you will have to ban another one. as long as something in your country generates criminals, you will never get rid of them.

Lets just be grateful that this resoultion isn't going to pass.
No nation should be told who it can and can't have as a citizen. Thankfully the resoultion is going to fail and so emergency laws which our nation was drawing up will be put on ice until a time when it looks like this resoultion has been put up again and their is a danger it will pass. The emergency laws would have stripped (without any exceptions) all citizens who were not born in our nation of their citizenship. this would have inculded naturalised, dual, immigants gaining citzenship and people from other nations marrying our citzens. A new status of "Non-Citizen Resident" would have been created allowing these people to enjoy all the rights of being a citizen without this U.N. resoultion affecting them.
We belive that people born in a country should never ever be banished no matter how bad the crime. We would rather pay for a citizen to spend the rest of their life in our jails than to banish them. However we will not tolerate people becoming citizens and then commiting crimes agasint our country or acting in a way which is not in favour of our nation.
Let me tell you that depsite our strict laws we have only banished one citizen in the past 2 years. This person seeked asylum in our nation and was granted citizenship. this person then preached hate agasint our nation and its leaders. This person regularly tried to encourage people of a similar reglion to him to commit terrorist acts agasint our nation. This person was banished back to his born nation.
All nations must protect the right to withdrawn citizenship it has granted. For this reason I have been lobbying nations with a powerful U.N. vote to defeat this resoultion and would everytime this resoultion comes up to vote in its current form. Granting citizenship is a privillage not a right.
I look forward to and support a new resoultion which only applies to citizens born in the nation they hold citizenship.

we feel that banisment should stay as we use it to deal with seroius crime treason, murder, ecta

we feel that banisment should stay as we use it to deal with seroius crime treason, murder, ecta
this is the problem. it doesnt deal with these crimes, it just dumps the responsability onto another nation. you are responsable for your criminals, you deal with them in your own territory. we admit that there are nations out there willing to accept these people, but it shouldnt be accepted as a policy for dealing, or should i say not dealing with them

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

If you believe this is true that we have to send you back to your home nation should you commit a crime here then come on. We have a strong rope and tree just for you here. Also if another nation wants you for a crime in it's borders don't come here as we will send you back faster than you might think to them on request and simple proof of your crimes there. As under one of the resolutions we have a right to deport criminals and also seek deportation from another nation without any actions from third party nations. Thus this idea is just a dream but our trees and ropes are real...

:headbang:

get it through your thick scull. this neither allows or bans dual citizenship. it acknowledges it, in that some countries do allow it, and some dont.


It MANDATES that we have to allow it..... Thus it goes against our laws on such. We can't do a thing to a person born here who also becomes a citizen of anothe nation under this proposal.. Also once we give citizenship to a person we can't do a thing to take that away from them but to execute them then they still have the citizenship just not alive to exercise the rights under such. In the past we exiled those who wanted to become citizens of another nation to that nation only if that nation had taken them as citizens.. Thus they lost citizenship here,..... this would let them keep it here and still be dual citizens..... and we can do nothing with them..... under out laws they become crimials if they claim citizenship in more than our nation. Anyone coming here wanting citizenship must renounce their citizenship from the other nation before we will even take them in. Should they decide they want to return to the other nation as a citizen then they are criminals here and not allowed back in for any reason. Thus this proposal effects how we deal with them and leaves only a death penility for them.. As criminals can't hold citizenship here thus dual citizenship is a crime person holding it are criminals. Before you say other nations allow it we know that and will let a person in as a visitor who has such but they are not allowed to become citizens here just visitors under different set of laws for travel in our nation.

If this was only dealing with dumping criminals on other nations then we could support it but because of the reference to dual citizenship we can't also we can even see the points made on the death penility as it as written leaves us no choice but that to deal with persons of dual citizenship.


A point that anyone born in a nation under their laws becomes a citizen at some point if they meet the national rules for such. Thus here a person born becomes a citizen then say applies to become one under another nation. That nation allows such thus dual citizenship. Here they are no longer citizens but under this we can't end their birth citizenship thus they hold both citizenships and are criminals and we can't send them packing as such. I understand the fear of hard core criminals but this says criminals period.. of which a person who holds citizenship in our nation and also claims such in another nation to be a dual citizen. Also same applies to naturalized citizens that we might take in and they later decide they want to be citizen of their birth nation again or another nation but keep citizenship rights here also. This says we can't change their citizenship status.. Also if a person born here kills or rapes and is found guilty of said crimes we can't end their citizenship... It goes well beyond exile or banishment of a person with the side effects of such a proposal in reguards to citizenship. Also it has some effects of how a nation deals with capital punishment (death) but we feel that is a minor point to dual citizenship..


We try in every way to find a place for those unhappy here and have several nations that will take them. Those who rape, kill, and are just hard core bad dudes we have two ways out for them. Swim the 600 miles past the sharks to the nearest safe place or let us test our rope on them as they swing from it under a huge oak tree. Also all criminals loose citizenship here once found guilty in a court thus no citizen will assist them in leaving here in any way. As they in so doing face criminal charges and will join them in the swim or necktie party..

Ausserland has voted against this resolution. While we believe the resolution has many positive features, we cannot accept its provisions concerning citizenship.

We believe citizenship is a right, possessed by all those who qualify under national law. We do not believe, though, that it is an inalienable right. In Ausserland, we believe that citizenship is conditional upon allegiance to the nation. If a person refuses to bear allegiance to the nation, they no longer have the right to claim citizenship. We remove citizenship only in very narrow circumstances: e.g., conviction, upheld on appeal, of treason, or naturalization as a citizen of another country (we don't allow dual citizenship).

Please note that citizenship is a completely different issue from a person's ability to reside in a country. In our case, a person whose citizenship is removed becomes a national of Ausserland, perfectly free to continue to live in the country. They may not, though, enjoy the privileges specifically reserved by law for citizens: voting, standing for election, being commissioned as an officer in our armed services, employment in sensitive government positions, etc.

We look forward to the efforts of the distinguished representative of Waterana in continuing work on this issue.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


Thank You! for saying what have been trying to say all along on the citizenship issue as seen in this proposal.

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassasor Zeldon

It MANDATES that we have to allow it..... Thus it goes against our laws on such. We can't do a thing to a person born here who also becomes a citizen of anothe nation under this proposal.. Also once we give citizenship to a person we can't do a thing to take that away from them but to execute them then they still have the citizenship just not alive to exercise the rights under such. In the past we exiled those who wanted to become citizens of another nation to that nation only if that nation had taken them as citizens.. Thus they lost citizenship here,..... this would let them keep it here and still be dual citizens..... and we can do nothing with them..... under out laws they become crimials if they claim citizenship in more than our nation. Anyone coming here wanting citizenship must renounce their citizenship from the other nation before we will even take them in. Should they decide they want to return to the other nation as a citizen then they are criminals here and not allowed back in for any reason. Thus this proposal effects how we deal with them and leaves only a death penility for them.. As criminals can't hold citizenship here thus dual citizenship is a crime person holding it are criminals. Before you say other nations allow it we know that and will let a person in as a visitor who has such but they are not allowed to become citizens here just visitors under different set of laws for travel in our nation.

That's an interesting point, which I hope the revised proposal will address. St Edmund does allow dual citizenship, but we do have rules about it with which the clause that you mention would seem to clash... Allowing nation 'A' to strip people of their citizenship there if they've also acquired citizenship in another nation despite 'A' having laws to the contrary makes sense to me.

:headbang:

get it through your thick scull. this neither allows or bans dual citizenship. it acknowledges it, in that some countries do allow it, and some dont.

We suggest that, before accusing another member of having a thick scull [sic], the representative of The Lynx Alliance stop and read the proposal and give respectful consideration to the member's argument.

The honorable representative of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez is entirely correct. The proposal does require that nations allow dual citizenship. The pertinent provision reads:

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

An example....

John Smith is a citizen of Ausserland. Mr. Smith applies for and is granted naturalization as a citizen of Fonzoland. He is now a dual citizen of those countries. The proposal would prohibit us from removing his Ausserland citizenship. We are thus forced to accept and "allow" his dual citizenship.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

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?

Illegaly, obviously. Probably the result of human trafficking. That's what happens whit banishing, you get a whole group of nationless people wandering around, sneaking over your borders.

I gave my opinion on that a while ago, but it seems to have been lost...

As I recall, you said something like "but they got it illegally, so it doesn't count". However, once citizenship is granted, No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

- Some nations claimed that if they were not able to exile criminals, the death penalty would have to be used. That is totally not true. In fact, there are some nations who do not exile people to foreign nations, they exile criminals to a part of their own nation in which large and isolated labour camps are set up and labour is extracted from the bannished person in exchange for giving them three meals a day and a shack to live in. This way, the person is neither executed, nor being fed by taxpayers, and the person would remain there or various labour/forced work camps for the rest of his/her life.
Not true. If a nation exiles someone, no more resources are spent on that individual. Ever. If someone is sent to a work camp in some distant part of the land, then there are still resources that need to be spent. If all we do is take them outside the courthouse and shoot them, then perhaps that is the next cheapest step to exile.

Illegaly, obviously. Probably the result of human trafficking. That's what happens whit banishing, you get a whole group of nationless people wandering around, sneaking over your borders.
And what prevents your country from dealing with them as illegal residents?

That's an interesting point, which I hope the revised proposal will address. St Edmund does allow dual citizenship, but we do have rules about it with which the clause that you mention would seem to clash... Allowing nation 'A' to strip people of their citizenship there if they've also acquired citizenship in another nation despite 'A' having laws to the contrary makes sense to me.


We would hope that St Edmund respect out concerns on dual citizenship and not allow a citizen of our nation to gain citizenship without renouncing ours first. Just as we would not take a citizen of St Edmunds in as a citizen unless they renounce citizenship there. This prevents us from doing that. We would allow a person in as a visitor to our country who holds dual citizenship but they would not be allow citizenship here unless they renouces both nations.

Also as stated criminals here while in prison or serving time hold no citizenship rights at all but keep certain legal rights given all person who are tried here.. They just loose those special rights given citizens,,,, voting, marriage, legal assistance free, education, and health care.. to name a few. that citizens would have this prevents us from removing citizenship on criminals.

Thus as stated it goes beyond just dealing with exile or banishment of persons. It gets into other issues of citizenship and punishment of criminals. As for the issue of the death penility it opens us up to that as the only way to get rid of those who currently might become criminals by holding claiming dual citizenship or even our minor criminals in prison for short times. Since we can't take their citizenship away thus they will retain rights we don't give criminals..

It MANDATES that we have to allow it..... Thus it goes against our laws on such. We can't do a thing to a person born here who also becomes a citizen of anothe nation under this proposal.. Also once we give citizenship to a person we can't do a thing to take that away from them but to execute them then they still have the citizenship just not alive to exercise the rights under such. In the past we exiled those who wanted to become citizens of another nation to that nation only if that nation had taken them as citizens.. Thus they lost citizenship here,..... this would let them keep it here and still be dual citizens..... and we can do nothing with them..... under out laws they become crimials if they claim citizenship in more than our nation. Anyone coming here wanting citizenship must renounce their citizenship from the other nation before we will even take them in. Should they decide they want to return to the other nation as a citizen then they are criminals here and not allowed back in for any reason. Thus this proposal effects how we deal with them and leaves only a death penility for them.. As criminals can't hold citizenship here thus dual citizenship is a crime person holding it are criminals. Before you say other nations allow it we know that and will let a person in as a visitor who has such but they are not allowed to become citizens here just visitors under different set of laws for travel in our nation.

If this was only dealing with dumping criminals on other nations then we could support it but because of the reference to dual citizenship we can't also we can even see the points made on the death penility as it as written leaves us no choice but that to deal with persons of dual citizenship.


A point that anyone born in a nation under their laws becomes a citizen at some point if they meet the national rules for such. Thus here a person born becomes a citizen then say applies to become one under another nation. That nation allows such thus dual citizenship. Here they are no longer citizens but under this we can't end their birth citizenship thus they hold both citizenships and are criminals and we can't send them packing as such. I understand the fear of hard core criminals but this says criminals period.. of which a person who holds citizenship in our nation and also claims such in another nation to be a dual citizen. Also same applies to naturalized citizens that we might take in and they later decide they want to be citizen of their birth nation again or another nation but keep citizenship rights here also. This says we can't change their citizenship status.. Also if a person born here kills or rapes and is found guilty of said crimes we can't end their citizenship... It goes well beyond exile or banishment of a person with the side effects of such a proposal in reguards to citizenship. Also it has some effects of how a nation deals with capital punishment (death) but we feel that is a minor point to dual citizenship..


We try in every way to find a place for those unhappy here and have several nations that will take them. Those who rape, kill, and are just hard core bad dudes we have two ways out for them. Swim the 600 miles past the sharks to the nearest safe place or let us test our rope on them as they swing from it under a huge oak tree. Also all criminals loose citizenship here once found guilty in a court thus no citizen will assist them in leaving here in any way. As they in so doing face criminal charges and will join them in the swim or necktie party..


It does not mandate that you have to allow dual citizenship. Thats nowhere in the proposal at all. As TLA said earlier, it simply includes any dual citizens a nation does recognise, as full legal citizens and therefore covered under this resolution. I don't know how you got the idea that this is mandating that you must allow dual citizenship. There is nothing in it that stops your nation, or any other, from requiring any immigrant to renounce citizenship of their nation of origin before becoming a full citizen of yours.

My definition of dual citizenship is someone born in a nation to parents who are citizens of another, and both the birth nation and home nation of the parents accept the child as a legal citizen, therefore the child is a dual citizen of two nations from birth.

Anyway, the citizenship section will be either totally rewritten or left out of this when the resolution is redone.

It does not mandate that you have to allow dual citizenship. Thats nowhere in the proposal at all. As TLA said earlier, it simply includes any dual citizens a nation does recognise, as full legal citizens and therefore covered under this resolution. I don't know how you got the idea that this is mandating that you must allow dual citizenship. There is nothing in it that stops your nation, or any other, from requiring any immigrant to renounce citizenship of their nation of origin before becoming a full citizen of yours.
The issue, I believe, is with emigrants rather than immigrants.

Scenario: Nation A does not allow dual citizenship, while nation B does. A natural-born citizen of A applies and is granted for citizenship in B. This resolution would prevent nation A from revoking citizenship, and in effect requiring A to acknowledge dual citizenship.

The issue, I believe, is with emigrants rather than immigrants.

Scenario: Nation A does not allow dual citizenship, while nation B does. A natural-born citizen of A applies and is granted for citizenship in B. This resolution would prevent nation A from revoking citizenship, and in effect requiring A to acknowledge dual citizenship.

Fair enough.

The resolution is failing, so that won't be a problem for any nation anyway :D.

As I said earlier, the citizenship section will be totally rewritten or left out when this disaster is redone.

Scenario: Nation A does not allow dual citizenship, while nation B does. A natural-born citizen of A applies and is granted for citizenship in B. This resolution would prevent nation A from revoking citizenship, and in effect requiring A to acknowledge dual citizenship.

Exactly.

We will gladly support a redraft of this resolution, providing it addresses the dual citizenship concern and allows banishment only when another nation is willing to accept the criminal as a citizen without providing any further punishment.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

As I recall, you said something like "but they got it illegally, so it doesn't count". However, once citizenship is granted, No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

The issue is whether an illegally naturalised person is considered to have ever been a citizen.

Example: Suppose we sign a contract, and it is later found that you signed under coercion. The laws regulating rescission of contracts do not apply, since the contract is considered null from the start. In the eyes of the law, it is as if it never existed.

My opinion is that the same principle would apply in your scenario, but hey, I am not a lawyer.

We suggest that, before accusing another member of having a thick scull [sic], the representative of The Lynx Alliance stop and read the proposal and give respectful consideration to the member's argument.

The honorable representative of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez is entirely correct. The proposal does require that nations allow dual citizenship. The pertinent provision reads:

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

An example....

John Smith is a citizen of Ausserland. Mr. Smith applies for and is granted naturalization as a citizen of Fonzoland. He is now a dual citizen of those countries. The proposal would prohibit us from removing his Ausserland citizenship. We are thus forced to accept and "allow" his dual citizenship.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
well, why didnt anybody bring this up before, as opposed to whining about it being allowed. but then again, that could be just reading between the lines. we'll look at this:

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.

and this:
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 way I see these, you pretty much could still allow a migrate out of country/loose citizenship. i believe that this is more based on a punishment for a crime, not a person's choice to live in another country. maybe this could be made a lot clearer in the next draft

It does not mandate that you have to allow dual citizenship. Thats nowhere in the proposal at all. As TLA said earlier, it simply includes any dual citizens a nation does recognise, as full legal citizens and therefore covered under this resolution. I don't know how you got the idea that this is mandating that you must allow dual citizenship. There is nothing in it that stops your nation, or any other, from requiring any immigrant to renounce citizenship of their nation of origin before becoming a full citizen of yours.

Sorry, but we must respectfully disagree. A person is a citizen of Ausserland. The person applies for and is granted -- without our knowledge -- naturalization as a citizen of Wailele Island. Clause 2 of the resolution prohibits Ausserland from removing his or her citizenship. We are forced to allow the dual citizenship status to continue. The situation cited in the last sentence is very different, and we agree with the conclusion there.

My definition of dual citizenship is someone born in a nation to parents who are citizens of another, and both the birth nation and home nation of the parents accept the child as a legal citizen, therefore the child is a dual citizen of two nations from birth.

Dual citizenship simply means that a person holds citizenship in two nations at once. If you had defined it as you do here for the purposes of the resolution, that would be one thing. But the term has a recognized meaning in international law.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Fair enough.

The resolution is failing, so that won't be a problem for any nation anyway :D.

As I said earlier, the citizenship section will be totally rewritten or left out when this disaster is redone.

I've already had my butt kicked over this, and answered it. Malclavia simplified it down to something that someone with a cold addled brain could understand :).

Madame President has cast her vote AGAINST this resolution, as have the UN Nations within her region whom she represents. It is a well-developed and well thought out resolution, but I simply do not agree that it should become Charter Law. No hard feelings, right?

And what prevents your country from dealing with them as illegal residents?

Your unlikelyness to pay the bill?

The issue is whether an illegally naturalised person is considered to have ever been a citizen.

He has, he's been naturalised to one.

Example: Suppose we sign a contract, and it is later found that you signed under coercion. The laws regulating rescission of contracts do not apply, since the contract is considered null from the start. In the eyes of the law, it is as if it never existed.

My opinion is that the same principle would apply in your scenario, but hey, I am not a lawyer.

I think they're different things. I might as well use the (OOC) example: if my bike gets stolen, and someone buys it from the thief, that person is the owner of the bike, and if I happen to see it somewhere and take it, I'm considered a thief.

Someone has received citizenship, that's what counts. This law clearly states that there is no reason why I could take that away. So "but it's illegal" can't be a reason.

Your unlikelyness to pay the bill?
How does your country deal with illegal immigrants?

okay, this is a bad resolution... take a look at it 7887 no to 3206 yes... the majority of the nations say no, and most of us here say Hell no...

Many dissent on the fact that the UN doesn't have any business telling me how to punish my criminals, others don't like the wording establishing legal dual citizenships. Which many have stated are illegal in thier countries(perhaps recently made illegal). But still illegal.

I really wouldn't worry about re-writing this resolution it will likely be spanked a second time around too.

:headbang:

He has, he's been naturalised to one.



I think they're different things. I might as well use the (OOC) example: if my bike gets stolen, and someone buys it from the thief, that person is the owner of the bike, and if I happen to see it somewhere and take it, I'm considered a thief.

Someone has received citizenship, that's what counts. This law clearly states that there is no reason why I could take that away. So "but it's illegal" can't be a reason.

Through due process, you will get your bicycle back. IF you can prove it was yours to begin with.

At least in most countries with the rule of law, if you buy stolen property, that's your mistake. If they can show you knew it was stolen, that's your crime. Either way--the property will be returned to the proper owner.

okay, this is a bad resolution... take a look at it 7887 no to 3206 yes... the majority of the nations say no, and most of us here say Hell no...

Many dissent on the fact that the UN doesn't have any business telling me how to punish my criminals, others don't like the wording establishing legal dual citizenships. Which many have stated are illegal in thier countries(perhaps recently made illegal). But still illegal.

I really wouldn't worry about re-writing this resolution it will likely be spanked a second time around too.

:headbang:

We respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the representative of Naviblah. We think that the resolution has definite potential for passage if revised.

Ausserland voted against the resolution. We did so specifically because of its provisions on citizenship. We also disagree with the provision totally banning banishment and forced exile, but we could live with it. If the citizenship clauses were eliminated or changed to accommodate our concerns, we would vote for the resolution.

The distinguished representative of Waterana has stated the intention to redraft the resolution should it fail, with due consideration to the concerns expressed in this forum. We applaud and encourage that intention.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Banishment has been used for centuries by the Polaris Castes as an ultimate form of punishment and shame for the few individuals who harm the state. Since the death penalty is not practiced in our state, and banishment is a relatively human-friendly penalty, we have often regarded it as the best solution to deal with most serious crimes.

Therefore, Bis Andreya has placed a vote of "Nay" against the current resolution. If such a resolution were to be re-drafted, then Bis Andreya would consider it again. However, the Polaris wish to re-enforce the concept of national sovereignty. Although human-rights violations can be administered and banned by the UN, banishment and the right of a nation thereof to banish their criminals falls squarely into the realm of sovereign power.

May Ory'Hara watch over you all.

Sincerely,

Bis Andreya

Banishment has been used for centuries by the Polaris Castes as an ultimate form of punishment and shame for the few individuals who harm the state. Since the death penalty is not practiced in our state, and banishment is a relatively human-friendly penalty, we have often regarded it as the best solution to deal with most serious crimes.

Therefore, Bis Andreya has placed a vote of "Nay" against the current resolution. If such a resolution were to be re-drafted, then Bis Andreya would consider it again. However, the Polaris wish to re-enforce the concept of national sovereignty. Although human-rights violations can be administered and banned by the UN, banishment and the right of a nation thereof to banish their criminals falls squarely into the realm of sovereign power.

May Ory'Hara watch over you all.

Sincerely,

Bis Andreya


No it doesn't actually because your soverignty ends at your borders and by just banishing your worst criminals out into the NationStates world, you are violating my soveringty, and the soverignty of every other nation to not have to deal with your criminals. Banishment crosses borders so is an international concern as it impacts on all nations.

Having said that though, the resolution will be rewritten, and one of the new things that will be included is that nations who make agreements with other nations to accept their criminals will be exempt from any form of a banishment ban.

No it doesn't actually because your soverignty ends at your borders and by just banishing your worst criminals out into the NationStates world, you are violating my soveringty, and the soverignty of every other nation to not have to deal with your criminals. Banishment crosses borders so is an international concern as it impacts on all nations.

Having said that though, the resolution will be rewritten, and one of the new things that will be included is that nations who make agreements with other nations to accept their criminals will be exempt from any form of a banishment ban.
i might piss of some mods by doing this, but i am sick of repeating myself:

YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THIS WITH NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BECAUSE IT GOES ACROSS YOUR BORDER AND AFFECTS EVERYONE ELSE

grrr. the whole point of NatSov is dealing with UN issues that affects what you can do within your own borders. by using NatSov as an argument against this, you are effectivly against NatSov, because you would be violating the NatSov of other nations. as Waterana has stated, they will be taking this back to the drawing board to re-do. a suggestion for others next time is to come in here and debate it before it gets submitted, instead of waiting for it to come to vote, then complaining.

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


Please explain what this UN Res. is all about!!

The People's Republic of Plasmadriver

Please explain what this UN Res. is all about!!

The People's Republic of Plasmadriver
i will sum it up in a simple manner: it pretty much prevents nations from dumping their convicted criminals on everyone else. the way it is going, it is going to fail, and Waterana is going to write a redraft to address some of the things people didnt mention till after it went to vote

He has, he's been naturalised to one.



I think they're different things. I might as well use the (OOC) example: if my bike gets stolen, and someone buys it from the thief, that person is the owner of the bike, and if I happen to see it somewhere and take it, I'm considered a thief.

Someone has received citizenship, that's what counts. This law clearly states that there is no reason why I could take that away. So "but it's illegal" can't be a reason.

Your example falls straight into my example of contract law. If you go with the bycicle to the police and prove it belongs to you, then in the eyes of the law the sale from the thief to the new guy is null and void. Never existed. He was riding the bike by mistake, but it never actually belonged to him. Now, he can sue the thief for fraud (selling something that wasn't his), but he can NEVER challenge your ownership of the bycicle.

"He has received citizenship" is a statement that can be cancelled after the fact, if it is proven that the process that led him to receive it was irregular. But I am just repeating myself.

i might piss of some mods by doing this, but i am sick of repeating myself:

YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THIS WITH NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BECAUSE IT GOES ACROSS YOUR BORDER AND AFFECTS EVERYONE ELSE

grrr. the whole point of NatSov is dealing with UN issues that affects what you can do within your own borders. by using NatSov as an argument against this, you are effectivly against NatSov, because you would be violating the NatSov of other nations. as Waterana has stated, they will be taking this back to the drawing board to re-do. a suggestion for others next time is to come in here and debate it before it gets submitted, instead of waiting for it to come to vote, then complaining.
(( I didn't register 'til it was put to vote. ))

(( I didn't register 'til it was put to vote. ))
i realised that, especially through our TG. this was mainly aimed at those that dont pop their head up until the vote actually happens. also, whilst you put up an interesting idea, many go the route of 'this violates our NatSov, we can do whatever we want to our criminals!' which, technically, isnt exactly a valid argument

Banishment is a humane form of punishment that allows people to not be around, causing trouble, whilst they are not dead. Australia was populated by people who were banished from Britain. Also, LA Ice punishes people who follow bogan practises with banishment, and our nation would be overpopulated with species homo bogiens without it. We would never turn to the death penalty. Ever.

Banishment is a humane form of punishment that allows people to not be around, causing trouble, whilst they are not dead. Australia was populated by people who were banished from Britain. Also, LA Ice punishes people who follow bogan practises with banishment, and our nation would be overpopulated with species homo bogiens without it. We would never turn to the death penalty. Ever.

Techinically speaking, Australia was populated by people who were under "internal banishment." Because Britain owned and controlled Australia, that is not the kind of thing that is being banned under this resolution. THis is more like what Cuba did when it took the people from its sanitariums and prisons and sent them on boats to the United States.

Techinically speaking, Australia was populated by people who were under "internal banishment." Because Britain owned and controlled Australia, that is not the kind of thing that is being banned under this resolution. THis is more like what Cuba did when it took the people from its sanitariums and prisons and sent them on boats to the United States.

Exactly, couldn't have put it better myself :).

I have tried to make sense of all the arguments, but I've lost track, so here is Sangamon's position: Because the resolution defines citizenship, and because citizenship is defined in such a way as to suggest that any person born of the nation should automatically gain citizenship, Sangamon cannot even consider voting for this resolution. Citizens of Sangamon earn their citizenship at adulthood through a test and oath or through the same test and oath in naturalization, so we have many non-citizens that were born on our soil but sadly do not choose to commit to citizenship.

So for us, the point is moot. I do believe we lean as many others have, toward taking responsibility for our own criminals. Even there, however, we might consider options to export, where a person of a personal conviction not agreeable to our society might in fact benefit another.

We shall wait for a future resolution that may address the issue more precisely.

Vacillia's position is as follows.

Feel free to send your convicts to our country. Our nation's policy concerning criminals is to force them into slavery. For us more criminals means more slaves to the menial work no one else wants to do.

Vacillia's position is as follows.

Feel free to send your convicts to our country. Our nation's policy concerning criminals is to force them into slavery. For us more criminals means more slaves to the menial work no one else wants to do.
which is in direct and indirect violation of so many passed resolutions that you better not be part of the UN

Thanks to all that voted against and helped defeat this absurd proposal. It almost seemed to easy. ;) Sanity finally taking over in the UN? Hmmm..... That's yet to be seen! :p Take care!

Thanks to all that voted against and helped defeat this absurd proposal. It almost seemed to easy. ;) Sanity finally taking over in the UN? Hmmm..... That's yet to be seen! :p Take care!
how, may i ask, is this proposal absurd? besides the 'citizenship' section and lack of reference to nations willing to accept exiles, both which will be dealt with in the resub, this is one of the better ideas that has actually come through here. i would really like to know why you think this is absurd. also, if you are going to use the natsov argument, dont even bother replying then.

Thanks to all that voted against and helped defeat this absurd proposal. It almost seemed to easy. ;) Sanity finally taking over in the UN? Hmmm..... That's yet to be seen! :p Take care!

I'd like to thank those who, while disliking and voting against the resolution, managed to post here simply spelling out what they felt was the problem in a polite manner. I accept the resolution as written is flawed and needs redoing.

I appreciate all the new suggestions and improvement ideas that have been brought up in this thread. The posts in this thread will be used for the rewrite and I will endevour to address as many of the concerns raised here as I can, while keeping the resolution to its basic principals.

I'd also like to give a huge thanks to those who have defended the resolution, and in some cases the author. That thanks goes especially to The Lynx Alliance :).

The resolution should disappear off the floor in the next few hours (I think), so I won't post in this thread again. Hopefully, the next resolution to hit the floor will have a much better response than mine has :).

no thanks needed, Waterana. just seemed that there were many misguided nations on what banishment was, and how it reflects in nationstats. that, and also the philosophy of 'deal with your own mess' ;)

The posts in this thread will be used for the rewrite and I will endevour to address as many of the concerns raised here as I can, while keeping the resolution to its basic principals.
If I could add one more suggestion... if it's not inconsistent with the principles, a proposal presented as regulating, rather than disallowing, the practice of banishment might be better received. :)

The Ministry of Citizenship proposes a solution to the 'anti-expulsion' proposal. We in the Order of Rome believe that your nationality is in your blood, and that no document, passport or otherwise can prove it. We allow foreginers into our great fatherland to spend their money and to buy our products, and nothing else. There is no immigration, so we do not have this problem of 'expelling' people. However, for those who commit crimes against the Holy Empire, treason or blasphemy, we tie the victim to The Wall of the Infidel, in Central Square, and slash minor arteries. This cleansing of the blood will remove any trace of our Great Nation from the infidels body-absolving us of any of his crimes.

The Ministry of Citizenship proposes a solution to the 'anti-expulsion' proposal. We in the Order of Rome believe that your nationality is in your blood, and that no document, passport or otherwise can prove it. We allow foreginers into our great fatherland to spend their money and to buy our products, and nothing else. There is no immigration, so we do not have this problem of 'expelling' people. However, for those who commit crimes against the Holy Empire, treason or blasphemy, we tie the victim to The Wall of the Infidel, in Central Square, and slash minor arteries. This cleansing of the blood will remove any trace of our Great Nation from the infidels body-absolving us of any of his crimes.
wow, thats very different....

*warns his people about traveling to Order of Rome*

The Ministry of Citizenship proposes a solution to the 'anti-expulsion' proposal. We in the Order of Rome believe that your nationality is in your blood, and that no document, passport or otherwise can prove it. We allow foreginers into our great fatherland to spend their money and to buy our products, and nothing else. There is no immigration, so we do not have this problem of 'expelling' people. However, for those who commit crimes against the Holy Empire, treason or blasphemy, we tie the victim to The Wall of the Infidel, in Central Square, and slash minor arteries. This cleansing of the blood will remove any trace of our Great Nation from the infidels body-absolving us of any of his crimes.
This could well run into problems with UN resolutions, particularly END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS.

Dear Enn. The Ministry of Citizenship would like to inform you that we were not proposing the ammendment to the UN Proposal, as it does not affect us in the slightest. We were merely offering practical advice to our fellow nations on how to deal with such proplems if this Proposal becomes law. As for BARBARIC TORTURE, the Council for Punishment of Moral Indiscretion (the CPMI is the enforcement agency of the Ministry of Citzenship) is a democratically elected institution, with all Drainings vote on by the public. It was also the very same public that voted in favour of Drainings.
Fear not however for the citizens of our great state. The UN profile for our country reads:

1) 'Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown'
2) 'In their personal lives, however, citizens are relatively unoppressed'
3) 'it [The Holy Council] devotes most of its attentions to Social Welfare, with areas such as Commerce and Law & Order receiving almost no funds by comparison'

We hope this clarifies any misunderstandings about our great state.

The Ministry of Citizenship

Dear Enn. The Ministry of Citizenship would like to inform you that we were not proposing the ammendment to the UN Proposal, as it does not affect us in the slightest. We were merely offering practical advice to our fellow nations on how to deal with such proplems if this Proposal becomes law. As for BARBARIC TORTURE, the Council for Punishment of Moral Indiscretion (the CPMI is the enforcement agency of the Ministry of Citzenship) is a democratically elected institution, with all Drainings vote on by the public. It was also the very same public that voted in favour of Drainings.
Fear not however for the citizens of our great state. The UN profile for our country reads:

1) 'Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown'
2) 'In their personal lives, however, citizens are relatively unoppressed'
3) 'it [The Holy Council] devotes most of its attentions to Social Welfare, with areas such as Commerce and Law & Order receiving almost no funds by comparison'

We hope this clarifies any misunderstandings about our great state.

The Ministry of Citizenship
obviously someone here is new, and hasnt read through all the resolutions, including the ones they is violaiting by not reading the passed resolutions. i know there are over 100 of them, but please do take the time to read them and adjust accordingly

how, may i ask, is this proposal absurd? besides the 'citizenship' section and lack of reference to nations willing to accept exiles, both which will be dealt with in the resub, this is one of the better ideas that has actually come through here. i would really like to know why you think this is absurd. also, if you are going to use the natsov argument, dont even bother replying then.


I agree fully that this is needed but since it contained mandates on citizenship it could not be supported as it stands here proposed.

As citizenship to us is not granted the day you are born but only once you reach and age and can earn it. Also certain crimes give cause to take citizenship from persons.. This in effect would stop us from doing that as well as allow person to hold dual citizenship, --- we want to inject here that a person holding dual citizenship in two nations other than ours we treat as any visitor might be treated but should they seek citizenship status here they must renounce it in the other two, this would end that --- thus it goes beyond it's stated intent in the area of citizenship..

Dumping criminals on nations that don't want them is for us wrong as we have agreements with certain nations and find under certain UN resolutions that we must not do this. Resolution 49 is one article 3 as well as article 6 may not for some say this but for us it does.

We will wait to see what comes up in the new draft of this and if possible support it, as long as it covers the isssue intended and leaves citizenship out of it. As something nobody though of or I missed it... All criminals are not citizens of the state they are tried and convicted in, thus would this one let us say charge and convict a person from another nation and exile them back to their own state of citizenship. Will have to go back and look but this is something to consider in the new draft. As it says criminals period... don't think it clears they are citizens of the state convicted in..

All criminals are not citizens of the state they are tried and convicted in, thus would this one let us say charge and convict a person from another nation and exile them back to their own state of citizenship. Will have to go back and look but this is something to consider in the new draft. As it says criminals period... don't think it clears they are citizens of the state convicted in..

Deportation isn't really part of this resolution. If you're convicted of a felony or major crime and you're not a citizen of a country most do deport your rear end back to your nation of origin, or citizenship.

I was just reading through some old resolutions and the forums, and found the following

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9052878&postcount=104

which says.

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders


And many cultures do consider exile and banishment a capital punishment for crimes determined as capital.

though this resolution which many have said is an international resolution it's putting limits on what nations can do with thier criminals. It is a capital punishment determined within the borders of a sovereign nation. And from my views makes this resolution and any redraft illegal.

I was just reading through some old resolutions and the forums, and found the following

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9052878&postcount=104

which says.




And many cultures do consider exile and banishment a capital punishment for crimes determined as capital.

though this resolution which many have said is an international resolution it's putting limits on what nations can do with thier criminals. It is a capital punishment determined within the borders of a sovereign nation. And from my views makes this resolution and any redraft illegal.

Capital punishment almost universally refers to execution. However, even accepting that some countries may consider banishment capital punishment, that resolution you point to clearly states

"AFFIRMING ALSO that THIS RESOLUTION shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders"

Therefore, that resolution does not apply to any other resolution.

Ergo, it does not effect this resolution's ban on banishment.

alright.. i've only just applied for UN membership, and i see this ILL-THOUGHT proposal. wondering if i should withdraw my application for membership all together. :headbang:

there are, surely, cases where a nation-state can revoke someone's citizen status; if it was obtained under false pretences, for example. this proposal is usurping MY sovereignty over my long-suffering slaves :mad:

BUT.. even if you do let this "thing" through. it is going to prove ineffective. the "voluntary exile" provision.. there is no such thing.. no one will just up and decide to pack up and head into exile.. some pressure must've been applied. the exiled must've been presented with options where exile was by far the better option: prison vs exile, or more likely death vs exile. could also come as something less direct, but just as effective.. you know, the Family touch: eg a whispered hint "you are of course free to voluntarily go into exile, just as we are free to voluntarily throw your sister into jail with a bunch of sodomites for cellmates"..

to allow for voluntary exile of criminals is to allow a nation to dump its crime problems on another nation.

as for political undesirables. to let the nation exile them means that it can figuratively sweep it's own political problems under the rug instead of dealing with it either constructively (by implementing reform), or destructively (which could incur popular dissatisfaction). imprisoning or persecuting political dissidents inside a state's borders, in view of the state's public, is more troublesome than simply shipping them overseas, where they are out of sight out of mind... wholesale political exile (voluntary or otherwise) ultimately results in political stagnation

MY PROPOSAL:
reject this resolution. rethink it. reword it. and resubmit in a better form with provisions that go along these lines:
1- the nation of citizenship at birth cannot revoke a person's citizenship (as this is his/her first, primer, and ultimate state).
2- exile is banned (to say that exile is a better option to the death penalty or long jail terms is to imply that the state has a right, and the intention, to burden other nations with its most violent criminals, and that it can abrogate its obligation to provide the means for the maintenance of its own law&order)
i would not mention anything else in the proposal, to leave it open for each nation to develop and apply its own laws.
as for "voluntary exile", it is nothing but an extended holiday under a different name.. not something to be legislated for.

GDGPB
(Grand Duchy Grand PooBaah)

My nation is also a small nation, and we don't have the funds to imprison all of our criminals, and we don't have the heart to :sniper: execute them. Just political prisoners are executed in my nation. This forced banishment is an option that is low cost, and allows the criminals to leave the country with their lives. It also gives the felons the chance to start new lives in other countries.

This forced banishment is an option that is low cost, and allows the criminals to leave the country with their lives. It also gives the felons the chance to start new lives in other countries.

so, what you're saying is: "let the RICH nations pay for MY failure to control my crime problems"

you're forgetting a very crucial flaw in your logic here. no other nation is going to even LET YOUR CRIMINALS past it's border security. it'll just turn them around and ship'em right back to you..

not very good diplomatic move on your part to try that in the first place

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"This is a formal advisory to this august assembly that the delgacy of our humble region officially changed hands while this proposal was still at vote, when Jack Riley (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Jack_Riley) told Sen. Horatio Sulla of Palentine UN Office (www.nationstates.net/palentine_un_office) to fuck off after the two got into an argument over which ambassador was uglier: the old hag from WarChesterVille or the skank from Herebedragonston. That's when Sulla put his notorious "barbaric machismo" to good use and challenged Riley to put his boxing gloves where his big mouth was. And so the two duked it out, but after six rounds with no clear winner, President Manuelo Fernanda (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Manuelo_Fernanda), having gotten sufficiently bored, starting talking shit about both of them, to which Riley shot back a flip remark about having carnal relations with his mother. Unfortunately, in all the hubbub Riley had forgotten that Fernanda was a former professional boxer, and thusly provoked, the president jumped into the ring and proceeded to pound his UN ambassador with extreme prejudice. Riley went down after about 20 seconds, muttering incohrently as he hit the floor, "What the fuck's the matter with you? The dolphin mafia hits better than you do!" But it was too late. Riley was down, and Sulla was declared winner by default, taking as his prize the regional delegacy. Therefore, Palentine UN Office on behalf of its region has cast its votes AGAINST this legislation.

Please contact Palentine UN Office in the future for all your proposal-approving needs. Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny), the defeated delegate, informs us that its reputation for invading rogue nations that piss them off will not pass with their former distinction in this body, and it will not hesitate to invade your nation if you bother lobbying it for support of legislation to outlaw smoking weed on Sunday beneath a specter of the Virgin Mary appearing under the sign of a McDonald's arch, or whatever.VICTORY IS MINE!!

which is in direct and indirect violation of so many passed resolutions that you better not be part of the UN

In that case, it looks as if I've found a technical flaw in the game then.

If a nation is a UN member then why do options the violate resolutions even appear if the nation was brought into compliance with the resolutions?

The government of St Edmund, whilst approving the general principle of this proposal, is also amongst those who would like any revised & resubmitted verson to refer to 'nationals' rather than to 'citizens'.

Also, we would like a clarification about the prohibition of temporary banishment which was added to this proposal after we had previously expressed our support for forbidding permanent banishment: This does only apply to the banishment of criminals, right?
One aspect of St Edmund's democratic system is that, once a year, our citizens are collectively allowed to choose any [b]one of our nationals -- apart from convicted criminals whose punishment is still incomplete, politicians who are currently in office, the current holders of a few other official positions, or anybody who has already been affected by this process during the previous ten years -- into exile for the forthcoming year!
(This concept of 'ostracism' was copied from ancient Athens...) The "victims" of this process are usually either politicians who are currently out of office, businessmen who've seemed too disrespectful of society, or show-business personalities whose lifestyles have seemed offensive to large sections of the population... They aren't allowed to take any of their own money with them, but are paid a small but "adequate" allowance through our embassies in the lands to which they travel. There are already nations that are willing to take them, so we wouldn't be imposing them on any of you other UN members...

I'm glad this resolution didn't get passed. I was strictly against it since you have to resort to either Execution or you have to let your prisoners loose. Also, you wouldn't have the right to control your citizens.

Hmm, two things come to mind...

However, for those who commit crimes against the Holy Empire, treason or blasphemy, we tie the victim to The Wall of the Infidel, in Central Square, and slash minor arteries.

Well, punishing the victim probably cuts down on those pesky 911 (or equivalent) calls.

We allow foreginers into our great fatherland to spend their money and to buy our products, and nothing else. ... However, for those who commit crimes against the Holy Empire, treason or blasphemy, we tie the victim to The Wall of the Infidel, in Central Square, and slash minor arteries.

Must do wonders for the sale of souvenir "I went to the Order of Rome, but all I brought back was a case of anemia" T-shirts.

alright.. i've only just applied for UN membership, and i see this ILL-THOUGHT proposal. wondering if i should withdraw my application for membership all together. :headbang:

there are, surely, cases where a nation-state can revoke someone's citizen status; if it was obtained under false pretences, for example. this proposal is usurping MY sovereignty over my long-suffering slaves :mad:

BUT.. even if you do let this "thing" through. it is going to prove ineffective. the "voluntary exile" provision.. there is no such thing.. no one will just up and decide to pack up and head into exile.. some pressure must've been applied. the exiled must've been presented with options where exile was by far the better option: prison vs exile, or more likely death vs exile. could also come as something less direct, but just as effective.. you know, the Family touch: eg a whispered hint "you are of course free to voluntarily go into exile, just as we are free to voluntarily throw your sister into jail with a bunch of sodomites for cellmates"..

to allow for voluntary exile of criminals is to allow a nation to dump its crime problems on another nation.

as for political undesirables. to let the nation exile them means that it can figuratively sweep it's own political problems under the rug instead of dealing with it either constructively (by implementing reform), or destructively (which could incur popular dissatisfaction). imprisoning or persecuting political dissidents inside a state's borders, in view of the state's public, is more troublesome than simply shipping them overseas, where they are out of sight out of mind... wholesale political exile (voluntary or otherwise) ultimately results in political stagnation

MY PROPOSAL:
reject this resolution. rethink it. reword it. and resubmit in a better form with provisions that go along these lines:
1- the nation of citizenship at birth cannot revoke a person's citizenship (as this is his/her first, primer, and ultimate state).
2- exile is banned (to say that exile is a better option to the death penalty or long jail terms is to imply that the state has a right, and the intention, to burden other nations with its most violent criminals, and that it can abrogate its obligation to provide the means for the maintenance of its own law&order)
i would not mention anything else in the proposal, to leave it open for each nation to develop and apply its own laws.
as for "voluntary exile", it is nothing but an extended holiday under a different name.. not something to be legislated for.

GDGPB
(Grand Duchy Grand PooBaah)
i will deal with the bolded section first. First off, using NatSov is not an argument against the resolution. this one is protecting NatSov, in that you dont have to deal with another nations problems (stops the repeat button). second, your slaves? that would be a violation of a passed resolution there, mister. go and look through the passed resolutions. you might find that you will be hitting the resign button sooner, or you might find you are in deep s*** (pardon my Frosbitarian).

i believe volentary exile would be offered to those whose political ideas dont match the government, and have been arrested on a trumped up charge. as Waterana has said, they will be redrafting this and resubmitting it.

In that case, it looks as if I've found a technical flaw in the game then.

If a nation is a UN member then why do options the violate resolutions even appear if the nation was brought into compliance with the resolutions?
they just do. they cant exactly change the game mechanics to remove them. the thing is, if you get an issue that is covered by the UN, and you go against the UN resolution, it stuffs up your economy.

alright.. i've only just applied for UN membership, and i see this ILL-THOUGHT proposal. wondering if i should withdraw my application for membership all together. :headbang:

MY PROPOSAL:
reject this resolution. rethink it. reword it. and resubmit in a better form with provisions that go along these lines:
1- the nation of citizenship at birth cannot revoke a person's citizenship (as this is his/her first, primer, and ultimate state).
2- exile is banned (to say that exile is a better option to the death penalty or long jail terms is to imply that the state has a right, and the intention, to burden other nations with its most violent criminals, and that it can abrogate its obligation to provide the means for the maintenance of its own law&order)
i would not mention anything else in the proposal, to leave it open for each nation to develop and apply its own laws.
as for "voluntary exile", it is nothing but an extended holiday under a different name.. not something to be legislated for.

GDGPB
(Grand Duchy Grand PooBaah)

I would hope that if come to submit a proposal such as this one that you consider the reasons this one lost so bad. As it was not the issue of banshment or exile to so called dump criminals on other nations that was a problem with it...

It was the mandates on dual citizenship and setting that no nation could remove citizenship that got it into the lose column. Yours would probably end up there also as it states we can't take what we give back..

As here and in many nations citizenship is not based just on the fact you were born in that nation or that one or both of your parents live here and are citizens. Birth here doesn't make you a citizen.. and only as long as you follow our laws you can once you do get it keep it.

Once you commit a crime then we deal with you and as soon as you are found guilty your citizenship status goes to criminal status. Dual citizenship status is a crime if the person refuses to renounce all others or renounce ours and leave... This one stopped us from taking away any citizenship once given even to criminals and allowed no way to deal with dual citizenship but hang them or let them swim..

We do agree that a death penility is the best solution to many hard core crimes. Thus folks found guilty of such crimes have here two choices 1) Swim 600 miles to the nearest place that might let them come ashore through shark infested waters no boat... 2) Pick out a good strong tree for us to let them swing on a rope from.

Deportation isn't really part of this resolution. If you're convicted of a felony or major crime and you're not a citizen of a country most do deport your rear end back to your nation of origin, or citizenship.


As you say most but we are not most and deal with any criminal regardless of where they might claim citizenship.. (should they not be a citizen here they may also come to face several charges in violations of them being visitors to our nation and comminting a crime here beyond the crime thus the sums of the crime may warrant hanging or swiming) If the crime warrants hanging or swimming then they have those two choices.

We do try in most cases to work out exile to a neutral nation; or the ones they are citizens of; for those who might be convicted of minor crimes... rape and killing are two of one will hang you or send you swimming. Also persons who pose a security threat to our nation will never be exported regardless of citizenship status.. As we want to make sure they pay for the crimes and not get let off.. as many nations don't hang em where we would.. nor come back to haunt us...

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 say where ever the criminal goes the law shall follow and track them down and let them do the time.:headbang: