NationStates Jolt Archive

I have had this idea for awhile, it was proposed awhile ago unsuccessfully, and I believe it has a good chance to pass, so I am submitting it again.

This proposal has been submitted and can be found here! (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Emigration%20Rights)
UN Delegates, Please support it!

In an effort to promote the human rights of all peoples, this resolution shall mandate global emigration rights.

DEEPLY DISTURBED: that many people are treated inhumanely in the nation in which they reside,

RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" resolution and its promotion of the freedom of choice.

ALSO RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" act does not cover an individual's freedom to chose a country to reside in.

DEFINING: Emigration as the movement of people out of their home country. This is very different from immigration which is defined as the movement of people into a country.

OBSERVING: that families and relationships are split up when people are not allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.

EMPHASIZING: that people should be allowed to pursue residence in another nation than the one in which they currently reside.

DECLARING: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they reside and this right shall not be obstructed by any nation.


NOW MANDATING: that all people shall be allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.

FURTHER DECLARING the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; minors who do not have consent from their legal guardian(s); those confined to a hospital or treatment center who are suffering a medical condition that impedes their judgement; those under a subpoena to a court; or those interned (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict.

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

Quick Q&A:

Q. Does this resolution make countries allow immigrants into their nation?
A. No, it only affects emigration policies.

Q. Why does it not prohibit the transport of illegal goods?
A. If a person is caught bring illegal goods out of a country they would be arrested and charged with a crime, therefore making them ineligable to emigrate under this resolution.


*This post has been edited to the current draft and it is final form of the resolution which has been proposed.*

Pardon me if I sound ignorant, but how can someone emigrate from one nation without immigrating into another?

And if they can't, then how does this resolution NOT affect immigration policies?

Pardon me if I sound ignorant, but how can someone emigrate from one nation without immigrating into another?

And if they can't, then how does this resolution NOT affect immigration policies?
Heh. The way I read this is that this guarantee's the right to emigrate from their country, but it doesn't make other countries take them. If no country will take them, then they really can't emigrate, can they? All this says is that nations have the right to leave their country, but by not affecting immigration laws, it actually only guarantees this if another country will take them.

Ator Peoples, clause #2 and maybe #3 is/are HOC violations, if I am applying the rule correctly.

What I'm gathering from this is that if this proposal were passed, there would be such a flood of oppressed emigrants that nearly every country - except the oppressing ones, I suppose - would be inspired to suddenly restrict its own immigration laws, thus rendering this proposal null and void.

Unless they were all to go and live on an unoccupied island somewhere, or leap into outer space or something. Given the imaginary nature of NationStates, such a course of action could most likely be arranged.

NOW MANDATING: that all people shall be allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.

FURTHER DECLARING the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; those under a subpoena to a court; or those interred (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict.

Assuming that a nation dosen't need its citzens to have exit visas to leave they still need a nation to go to. They'll be immigrants in that new land.

Since a nations own immigration policy will still be in effect it looks like this act won't do anything.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/nihongaz/toothless.jpg

On the rule violations: I believe I was told this was okay because it can stand on its own if those resolutions were to be repealed. It doesn't need those resolutions for it to keep its impact.

As for the immigration part: this resolution is so that people can't be kept in their own country against their will. A government for example may be oppressing its people, and if a citizen wants to leave for a better life, the government can't keep the person there. They must let them leave if they so desire. However, other countries need not let them in.

They must let them leave if they so desire. However, other countries need not let them in.

Yes, but where will they go?

I can say now that our nation will increase our immigration guidelines to prevent an upsurge of people who are leaving their country for no reason other than to do so. If they can pass the stricter guideline, all is well, but if they can't, our borders are closed.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/nihongaz/toothless.jpgIncorrect.

This looks to be designed to stop acts like happened in East Germany where citizens couldn't leave if they wanted to. Finding a nation that will accept you is easy enough -- there's plenty of nations out there. The problem is not people being unable to "come in", it's that they can't leave.

This Proposal could probably be improved and tightened up, but it's a solid idea. Let's not jump to absurd possibilities ("lol! wut if all 30,000 UN nashuns wont let them in?!") just to kick this thing around. That's just as bad as the super-tech arguement ("My citizens have advanced to the stage of super-intelligent shades of blue! This won't affect me because my government can't stop us from leaving anyway!").

We believe that this is a worthwhile idea. The proposal needs some tightening up and perhaps will benefit from suggestions made in this forum.

We would respectfully point out to our colleagues that the proposal addresses emigration policies only. It simply says a nation may not stop its nationals from leaving the country without proper cause. Nothing in it would have any effect on immigration policies. Each nation would be left completely free to decide who is permitted to enter its borders. It would be up to the people wishing to emigrate to find a new home willing to accept them.

We'll try to offer some suggestions later and hope to be able to support it on its way to the queue and passage.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I agree with my colleague from Ausserland that this is a worthwhile proposal and one that merits further discussion. Yelda approved this back in June when it was last submitted.

During those discussions, a point was raised by the Wolfish delegation which I feel should be addressed further.
I'll support this proposal - however, if it fails and you re-submit - I'd recommend that you include a clause that allows for borders to be shut during times where the government may need to invoke Marshall Law (civil war - large scale terrorist attack etc).

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

ie: Allowing for (or Notwithstanding) any nation's ability to suspend these rights during times of Marshall Law, or a national state of emergency, where the national interests outweight the rights of the individual.
There may be instances where governments would have a legitimate reason to close the borders temporarily.

My reply based on the merits of the proposed text....

In an effort to promote the human rights of all peoples, this resolution shall mandate global emigration rights.um kay

DEEPLY DISTURBED: that many people are treated inhumanely in the nation in which they reside,Also UMkay

RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" resolution and its promotion of the freedom of choice.Then why cant we all choose to smoke canabis? Gamble away our lifes savings and shoot Mimes on sight?
Universal freedom of choice does not affirm an individuals right to do what ever they want where ever they want when ever they want.

ALSO RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" act does not cover an individual's freedom to chose a country to reside in.Partly for the reason quoted above.

DEFINING: Emigration as the movement of people out of their home country. This is very different from immigration which is defined as the movement of people into a country.so if i go on holidays to ENN for a week, am i emigrating? This is a very loose definition.

OBSERVING: that families and relationships are split up when people are not allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.
Well that has been the way of things since the dawn of time. Had nobody separated from our families and loved ones never to see them again we wouldnt have any nations. There would be just one big human race all living in africa.

EMPHASIZING: that people should be allowed to pursue residence in another nation than the one in which they currently reside.Actually this is not bad. I am agreeable to allowing Persons to Persue residence via the normal channels for emigrating/immigrating.

DECLARING: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they reside and this right shall not be obstructed by any nation.Now hang on just there one sec cowboy! Nations have a right to obstruct admittance. I suggest rewording this so it permits travel or immigration where a nation accepts that person via the usual systems. EG visas etc.


NOW MANDATING: that all people shall be allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.See my point above.

FURTHER DECLARING the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; those under a subpoena to a court; or those interred (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict. Given that the majority of immigrants are those who are poverty stricken and unable to have a decent quality of life in the nation of origin, also the fact that the majority of those incarcerated would be economic prisoners eg thiefs and petty criminals this would seem to me as a bit harsh.

ACCEPTS: that this resolution has no effect on the immigration policies of individual nations. Thus rendering the whole thing toothless and optional. if you are going to submit a proposal leave out the loopholes.

Happy christmas all porridge fans.

so if i go on holidays to ENN for a week, am i emigrating? This is a very loose definition.
For the purposes of this resolution, yes

A simple solution to by pass this resolution is to simply make every citizen subject to the crime of living in your country and therefore your country is a prison. No emigration allowed then. There needs to be an exeption clause in there becuase of the reason I cited above. Perhaps something along the lines of "Unless the people of a country all politcal prisoners or are otherwise incarcerated because of mindset"
Also I would be careful of the possible Refugee problem this could create if the people flee from the country but have no where to go

A simple solution to by pass this resolution is to simply make every citizen subject to the crime of living in your country and therefore your country is a prison. No emigration allowed then. There needs to be an exeption clause in there becuase of the reason I cited above. Perhaps something along the lines of "Unless the people of a country all politcal prisoners or are otherwise incarcerated because of mindset"
Also I would be careful of the possible Refugee problem this could create if the people flee from the country but have no where to go

Please people, let's keep this reasonable.

I have one main worry with this proposal. You say "the right to leave shall not be obstructed." This might be misinterpreted to mean abolishing all sorts of border controls: If I am searching everyone leaving the country, naturally I am temporarily obstructing them while I search. And if you legalise this sort of "obstruction," then I would be worried with countries that decide to run 5y background checks of emmigrants, to make sure they did not commit crimes.

I agree with VL on the wording, perhaps what you are legislating on is not emmigration at all, just international travel in general.

To all the posters who argue that this does nothing, I second Hack's comments on that. Without this resolution, if you want to move from country A to country B, you need approval of both. With this resolution, country A can only stop you from leaving if you are a criminal, so the decision lies purely in B. This already happens in most RL countries, but there are counterexamples.

There are other cases where this right should not be granted, namely minors without parental permission, interned mental patients, more general cases of involuntary confinement, etc. This has to be made tighter.

Overall, I would support a proposal in this direction. But I disagree with the author's intentions of immediate submission.

I agree with my colleague from Ausserland that this is a worthwhile proposal and one that merits further discussion. Yelda approved this back in June when it was last submitted.

During those discussions, a point was raised by the Wolfish delegation which I feel should be addressed further.

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

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

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


There may be instances where governments would have a legitimate reason to close the borders temporarily.

Our distinguished colleague from Yelda has a good point. We agree such a clause should be added. It would have to be done carefully, to prevent abuse. Note that "Marshall Law" should be "martial law".

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Maybe I was a little too quick to the gun on this. But I do have problems with wording as do many others. Maybe there is a kind of middle ground where both country A and B have a say in what is going on. I have no problem with people being able to go to and fro between nations, I'd just like some kind of a visas system so I know why they're leaving and where. It happens in real life but mainly for immigration purposes, I don't see why it can't be adopted to emmigration as well.

Maybe I was a little too quick to the gun on this. But I do have problems with wording as do many others. Maybe there is a kind of middle ground where both country A and B have a say in what is going on. I have no problem with people being able to go to and fro between nations, I'd just like some kind of a visas system so I know why they're leaving and where. It happens in real life but mainly for immigration purposes, I don't see why it can't be adopted to emmigration as well.

There are plenty of economic, social, and legal arguments for restricting the inflow of immigrants. What possible arguments could you have to force someone to stay in your country against their will? Forcing people to declare reason and destination is not limiting anything, so it should be fine.

My reply based on the merits of the proposed text....

We have a few comments on specific points raised by the distinguished representative of Venerable Libertarians:

so if i go on holidays to ENN for a week, am i emigrating? This is a very loose definition.

A good point. We'd suggest adding "for the purpose of seeking residence elsewhere". Also, emigration and immigration should be defined in separate clauses to help prevent confusion between the two.

Now hang on just there one sec cowboy! Nations have a right to obstruct admittance. I suggest rewording this so it permits travel or immigration where a nation accepts that person via the usual systems. EG visas etc.

Agreed. Maybe "providing the person has obtained permission to enter his or her destination nation" or something like that.

Given that the majority of immigrants are those who are poverty stricken and unable to have a decent quality of life in the nation of origin, also the fact that the majority of those incarcerated would be economic prisoners eg thiefs and petty criminals this would seem to me as a bit harsh.

We can't agree that this is too harsh. We believe it's necessary in order to prevent the resolution from being a golden road for criminals to escape punishment. ("Put me in jail? Hah! I demand my right to emigrate to Omigodtheykilledkenny!" :D )

Thus rendering the whole thing toothless and optional. if you are going to submit a proposal leave out the loopholes.

We don't see this as a loophole. Immigration vs. emigration.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Maybe I was a little too quick to the gun on this. But I do have problems with wording as do many others. Maybe there is a kind of middle ground where both country A and B have a say in what is going on. I have no problem with people being able to go to and fro between nations, I'd just like some kind of a visas system so I know why they're leaving and where. It happens in real life but mainly for immigration purposes, I don't see why it can't be adopted to emmigration as well.

We agree with the honorable representative that the wording of the proposal could be improved, and we trust that the author will be doing just that as the discussion progresses.

The representative is correct that there are RL nations (Russia being one) that require exit visas. This proposal would preclude that. But it would not stop you from requiring people leaving your country to identify themselves and complete some sort of record of their leaving.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I have no problem with allowing people to leave the country.

I have a problem with allowing money, artworks, trade secrets, official documents, and so on, to leave the country. So 'not be obstructed' I am wary of. I would like to see a provision that makes clear - it may already be the case, but it's not explicit - that we may search, and if necessarily temporarily detain, people leaving, in order to prevent the illegal export of $object, the latter of which we may define as we see fit, and further that if said person is found to be attempting to take anything out of the country which we had prohibited, they be denied the right to leave until they relinquish said object to state custody.

The Empire has no problem with emigration provided that the person leaving has a nation to go to and has the necessary paperwork (visa's, work permit etc) already organised.

My main concern is that this covers similar ground to the recent proposal about 'forced banishment', specifically the clauses on volantary exile.

that proposal although defeated didn't address the concerns raised by Ambasador Bausch either.

Since theres already a lot of nations that have established protocols for dealing with emigration all that is needed is a law that states that a person has the right to emigrate if they can find a new nation that will accept them. After that the issue can be dealt with on a local level.

The Empire has no problem with emigration provided that the person leaving has a nation to go to and has the necessary paperwork (visa's, work permit etc) already organised.

My main concern is that this covers similar ground to the recent proposal about 'forced banishment', specifically the clauses on volantary exile.

that proposal although defeated didn't address the concerns raised by Ambasador Bausch either.

Since theres already a lot of nations that have established protocols for dealing with emigration all that is needed is a law that states that a person has the right to emigrate if they can find a new nation that will accept them. After that the issue can be dealt with on a local level.

We apologize if we seem rather befuddled. (It's rather early in the day for us to be unbefuddled.) We're not clear what the concerns of the honorable representative of Kirisubo are. Could he please explain?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ambassador Alhmann, our main concern is with the emigration of families and sometimes extended families.

the 'forced banishment' proposal allowed for a person to take their famiy with them but didn't specify what a family was or how far it could extend.

If an immigrant settles in Kirisubo for example and their family wants to follow them over after they have settled in then the host nation will have difficult decisions to make. A 'family' needs to be defined more fully so immigration can be kept in check. Some nations may also want to limit work permits to people with specific skills.

This issue is a legal minefield and its best to sort it out now before this proposal is submitted.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

Ambassador Alhmann, our main concern is with the emigration of families and sometimes extended families.

the 'forced banishment' proposal allowed for a person to take their famiy with them but didn't specify what a family was or how far it could extend.

If an immigrant settles in Kirisubo for example and their family wants to follow them over after they have settled in then the host nation will have difficult decisions to make. A 'family' needs to be defined more fully so immigration can be kept in check. Some nations may also want to limit work permits to people with specific skills.

This issue is a legal minefield and its best to sort it out now before this proposal is submitted.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

I would assume that any problems of the style you describe would only be faced by the receiving country, rather than the country of departure. Not restricting in any way immigration law, this proposal does not venture at all into the minefield.

Ambassador Alhmann, our main concern is with the emigration of families and sometimes extended families.

the 'forced banishment' proposal allowed for a person to take their famiy with them but didn't specify what a family was or how far it could extend.

If an immigrant settles in Kirisubo for example and their family wants to follow them over after they have settled in then the host nation will have difficult decisions to make. A 'family' needs to be defined more fully so immigration can be kept in check. Some nations may also want to limit work permits to people with specific skills.

This issue is a legal minefield and its best to sort it out now before this proposal is submitted.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

We thank the honorable Ambassador for the explanation.

In response, we would once again point out that this proposal deals with Emigration policy, not IMmigration policy. Each nation remains free to set its own rules for admitting people to the country. The honorable Ambassador's concern may be well founded, but it's not relevant to this particular proposal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

"this proposal deals with Emigration policy, not IMmigration policy"

since this is the case then its a true case of national sovereignty kicking in which I can very easily live with.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

The government of St Edmund has no problems with the basic concept involved in this proosal, but shares the concerns that several other governments have already raised about various ways in which the original draft needs to be tightened up.

Oh, and it's "interned" not "interred": What the latter term actually means is "buried"...

NOW MANDATING: that all people shall be allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.



I like others ask where do they go if nobody wants them. I notice that you allow for the holding of criminals which is good since most nations don't want them dumped on others or using emigration as an excuse to avoid trail.

Also if this should stop a nation from recording those who leave their nation then once they gone how will they; should they desire get back in.. What will they have to say they came from the former nation? As it could be consider hindering them leaving to make them resister leaving and carry documents saying they from some place. As it would involve time to get these and certain security checks to make sure they are not criminals.

The idea of this is good but needs work before it would work.. As see this as an effort to dump folks on other nations.. As one can say we only following the resosultion and letting them leave without hindering their departure. How did we know they were criminals or carry some wild new virus?

Please people, let's keep this reasonable.

I have one main worry with this proposal. You say "the right to leave shall not be obstructed." This might be misinterpreted to mean abolishing all sorts of border controls: If I am searching everyone leaving the country, naturally I am temporarily obstructing them while I search. And if you legalise this sort of "obstruction," then I would be worried with countries that decide to run 5y background checks of emmigrants, to make sure they did not commit crimes.

I agree with VL on the wording, perhaps what you are legislating on is not emmigration at all, just international travel in general.

To all the posters who argue that this does nothing, I second Hack's comments on that. Without this resolution, if you want to move from country A to country B, you need approval of both. With this resolution, country A can only stop you from leaving if you are a criminal, so the decision lies purely in B. This already happens in most RL countries, but there are counterexamples.

There are other cases where this right should not be granted, namely minors without parental permission, interned mental patients, more general cases of involuntary confinement, etc. This has to be made tighter.

Overall, I would support a proposal in this direction. But I disagree with the author's intentions of immediate submission.


Thank you for your comments. I apologize for having been too busy to post recently. Closing up the loopholes is a nescessity, as I now see. Especially for minors and mental patients as you mentioned. Here is my edited clause regarding this:

FURTHER DECLARING the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; minors who do not have consent from their legal guardian(s); those confined to a hospital or treatment center who are suffering a medical condition that impedes their judgement; those under a subpoena to a court; or those interned (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict.

Have I closed up most loopholes? I am also trying to decide if another clause is needed regarding the illegal exporting of goods.

I like others ask where do they go if nobody wants them.
It's up to the would-be emigre to find someplace to go. This resolution doesn't kick people out of countries, it prevents countries from stopping them from leaving without good reason (criminals, etc.).

If the people can't find a nation willing to accept them as immigrants, that's not the fault of the nation they're trying to leave.

Have I closed up most loopholes? I am also trying to decide if another clause is needed regarding the illegal exporting of goods.



Not only do you need to consider the exporting of goods but information also. Say a person is working for our nation on a project and decides to move to another and sale the information he got working here to the other. I know there are contract agreements set up for such but nothing prevents one from leaving nation A to nation B and profiting from information gotten in nation A. As so far there is no resolution anywhere about that so they could well do it and nation B since they gaining would face no action by UN for not returning the person for trail for contract violations also believe that extradition resolution would prevent nation A from taking action on nation B as all they have to do is say they believe he will be executed and they don't have to extradite.. Also nation A could not hold him on what he knows that might be vital to the security of nation A. As for the goods one needs to consider what those goods might be.. say nuke juice or some virus could be used as weapons.

There's a potential problem with allowing mental illness as a possible limiting factor on this right: Any national government that wants to keep its subjects from emigrating can simply assert that because their country & system of government are so self-evidently perfect anybody who wants to leave must be crazy... and can then define high-security 'hospitals', or even gulags, as the appropriate sites for treating that condition...

Any other comments on this proposed resolution? If I add in that revised clause, do you think it is ready for submission?

The new nation of Wyldtree embraces the concept and with the revised clause will support the resolution. Where these people head to and if they are permitted to enter is the business of the country of immigration, but no person within the boundries defined should be held to laws restricting them to leave to any location that will accept them.

first reaction- where woudl they go? this however is irelevant some people who are pemettied to elve a country still cannot find anywhere to go.

i support this preposal as stopping someone form leaving a country (excluding the given constraints) is foolish and should be stopped as it effectively puts the whole populace under house arrest

Any other comments on this proposed resolution? If I add in that revised clause, do you think it is ready for submission?
With the suggested clause regarding exporting illegal goods, we believe this proposal will serve to make the world a better place and it will certainly have the support of the Federation of Questionable Industries. Criticisms by other NSUN Ambassadors regarding immigration and the unjust classification of citizens as 'insane' or 'criminal' should clearly be disregarded as are outside the purview of this resolution and/or covered by previous NSUN Resolutions.

M. Tweedpot
NSUN Representative
Federation of Questionable Industries

We would suggest that the honorable representative of Ator People post a revised draft here, so that members can take a "last look".

As for including a clause on illegal export, we would not be in favor of it. If a person is detected attempting to illegally export something, the person should be arrested and charged with the crime. We believe that would place the person in one of the categories already exempt from the provisions of the proposal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

In an effort to promote the human rights of all peoples, this resolution shall mandate global emigration rights.

DEEPLY DISTURBED: that many people are treated inhumanely in the nation in which they reside,

RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" resolution and its promotion of the freedom of choice.

ALSO RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" act does not cover an individual's freedom to chose a country to reside in.

DEFINING: Emigration as the movement of people out of their home country. This is very different from immigration which is defined as the movement of people into a country.

OBSERVING: that families and relationships are split up when people are not allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.

EMPHASIZING: that people should be allowed to pursue residence in another nation than the one in which they currently reside.

DECLARING: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they reside and this right shall not be obstructed by any nation.


NOW MANDATING: that all people shall be allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.

FURTHER DECLARING the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; minors who do not have consent from their legal guardian(s); those confined to a hospital or treatment center who are suffering a medical condition that impedes their judgement; those under a subpoena to a court; or those interned (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict.

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

Quick Q&A:

Q. Does this resolution make countries allow immigrants into their nation?
A. No, it only affects emigration policies.

Q. Why does it not prohibit the transport of illegal goods?
A. If a person is caught bring illegal goods out of a country they would be arrested and charged with a crime, therefore making them ineligable to emigrate under this resolution.


*The first post has been edited to show this. I plan, if no more changes are to be made, to submit this tonight/tomorrow.*

This proposal has now been submitted! All UN delegates are respectfully asked to support this. Thank you.

We have just asked the delegate for our region, City Ankh Morpork, to add an approval. We believe this proposal deserves to be brought to a vote.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I approve of this. I think it will add strength to the NatSov argument against 'fundamental HR' tosh: if we pass this, then people can leave our nasty beastly countries and go live in Fluffietopia whenever they like. I'll ask my delegate to add their name.

EDIT: Ator, try TGing Noctaurus, and seeing if you can get Gatesville behind this. That would be worth a lot of votes.

Thanks for the suggestion.

The text of the proposal, and where you can approve it if you are a delegate, is located here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Emigration%20Rights


Any suggestions on how I can work to get this proposal to a vote?

Thanks for the suggestion.

The text of the proposal, and where you can approve it if you are a delegate, is located here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Emigration%20Rights

Any suggestions on how I can work to get this proposal to a vote?

TG as many delegates as possible. (Don't TG those who state in their region's WFEs they don't want to be contacted, though.) That's basically all you can do.

Things that go BUMP in the night...

Here's the approval link again:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Emigration

;)

Okay, I've telegrammed over 100 UN nations I believe, and I'll do more tomorrow maybe.

Remember, voting ends Thursday, so UN delegates, please approve this.

Wyldtree has just gained regional delegate status and I have approved this proposal. I do hope more will come forward and approve this as I believe it to be an important issue. I must stress that no one's saying nations have to accept these people, but it's a basic human right for those not noted to be able to go where they will be taken.

Sadly the approval process ends today and the votes and the status is:

Status: Lacking Support (requires 57 more approvals)


We had 67 approvals, which is more than I've had on previous attempts, but not enough. Perhaps I'll submit it again when I have more time to telegram more delegates. Thank you for all who helped, and who knows, maybe 57 delegates will approve it in a couple hours ;)