NationStates Jolt Archive

Be it covenient for my esteemed fellow member states, Ritonas would like any comments/questions/complaints about the following resolution the Holy Empire of Ritonas plans to submit to the UN for proposal consideration.

Italicized sections are alterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOGNIZING that international travel and the passage of citizens between nations represents the greatest method of unifying citizenry, spreading international peace and goodwill, and creating an international sense of understanding,

ACKNOWLEDGING that all UN Member Nations are committed to a better world for the citizens of each member state,

And, ACKNOWLEDGING that free borders may present a security risk to nations for whom security is of primary concern,

And, ACKNOWLEDGING that some UN Nations may not support free travel or migration based on cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious differences,

However, REALIZING that UN Resolution already enacted brings all nations to a universal level of tolerance of variations in the aforementioned social categories,

And, REALIZING that there is no international provision protecting the right of a citizen to move himself from one nation to another,

ARGUING that the benefits of open borders between all member nations represents a far greater benefit to the UN as a whole and each member nation than the comparatively negligible security risks,

The United Nations hereby

DECLARES that all nations that are members of the United Nations shall allow free travel and migration of any other member nation’s citizens within its own borders,

PROVIDES FOR the following limitations and exceptions on this policy:
a) All incoming travelers and migrants are subject to reasonable customs inspection, background checks and identity certification,
b) All incoming migrants must be prepared to declare citizenship in their desired nation of destination, or live under the foreign national policies of the destination state,
c) Instances where it can be demonstrated that an individual would present a clear and present danger to the national security of the nation which they desired to enter, or presented a clear and present threat to the human rights of citizens of the state which they desired to enter
d) Instances where two or more nations are involved in direct and announced conflict with each other,

MANDATES, that no nation shall infringe upon the right of a citizen of a UN Member State to freely travel across borders within the UN System, providing that a citizen meets the limitations and exceptions specified above

REQUIRES that all UN Member States create sufficient policies and procedures to prevent a person of non-UN Member State citizenship from entering the UN Free Travel Zone and proceeding within the Free Travel Zone as if he or she were a UN Member State Citizen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Holy Empire of Ritonas greatly appreciates your comments.

Nations should have the right to ban immigration and travel in cases where the two nations are at war, the nation is making an economic protest against another nation, etc.

I'm not sure if there's already a resolution that lets families get together across national borders, but that might be a good topic, because it is an RL problem that might merit a resolution.

Nations should have the right to ban immigration and travel in cases where the two nations are at war, the nation is making an economic protest against another nation, etc.

Ritonas is interested by Ceorana's wise comment that a nation should restrict access to the citizens of another nation with who that nation is at war; if there is a consensus the resolution will be modified as such.

Some more comments.
PROVIDES FOR the following limitations and exceptions on this policy:
a) All incoming travelers and migrants are subject to reasonable customs inspection, background checks (which must be completed prior to arrival and must not delay arrival) and identity certification,
I would leave out the part in parenthesis. What if the nation doesn't know when a person is coming to the border?

b) All incoming migrants must be prepared to declare citizenship in their desired nation of destination, or live under the foreign national policies of the destination state’s Department of State,
Leave out Department of State, not all nations have one. Just say ...under the foreign national policies of the destination state,

Sorry, we cannot support this proposal. We do not believe that anyone has a "right" to enter another nation. Control of entry across its borders is the clear prerogative of each nation. Each nation has the duty to exercise that control when that is in the best interests of its people.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Nations should have the right to ban immigration and travel in cases where the two nations are at war, the nation is making an economic protest against another nation, etc.

I'm not sure if there's already a resolution that lets families get together across national borders, but that might be a good topic, because it is an RL problem that might merit a resolution.

Rights of indigenous peoples allowed for communication of indigenous peoples divided by international borders, but not families.

Sorry, we cannot support this proposal. We do not believe that anyone has a "right" to enter another nation. Control of entry across its borders is the clear prerogative of each nation. Each nation has the duty to exercise that control when that is in the best interests of its people.There are exceptions listed in the proposal. Perhaps if they were strengthened?

I agree that individuals do not have an instant right to enter another nation, but I think they should have the right to apply to enter another nation. Nations should be free to refuse entrance (for whatever reasons), but I think a individual should be allowed to apply.

The distinction I am trying to make is people should be allowed to leave a country, rather than automatically enter one :)

EDIT: Finally got it to make sense, ignore all that rambling above:

I would suggest that people are allowed freedom to leave their country (providing they are not subject to investigation relating to a criminal offence, and maybe a few other conditions), but that the right to refuse entrance to a nation is reserved as a national issue.

That way, if people want to leave the country, they can. They just have to find somewhere willing to accept them.

The Exarchs of Darsomir could never allow a declaration of open borders. However, we could support this proposal as it stands, given this statement:

DECLARES that all nations that are members of the United Nations shall allow free travel and migration of any other member nation’s citizens within its own borders, (my emphasis)
Provided this remains within, and not across, we have no problems. If they manage to get to Darsomir, and they obey our laws, that's perfectly fine.
On the other and, we're not really sure of the point of this as a proposal unless it says across.

ARGUING that the benefits of open borders between all member nations represents a far greater benefit to the UN as a whole and each member nation than the comparatively negligible security risks,

Negligible? Are you so sure? Your whole argument hinges on this belief. I strongly disagree with it, and therefore cannot support your proposal.

The UN has circa 30,000 nations. Of those, many are unstable, oppressive, belligerant, terrorism-supporting, xenophobic regimes, who would destroy every single neighbour just for fun. Many others profess naive, narrow-minded, intolerant, self-righteous political or religious ideologies, and wish to convert every reasonable nation to their foolish ways. Give up border control? Hell no.

Negligible? Are you so sure? Your whole argument hinges on this belief. I strongly disagree with it, and therefore cannot support your proposal.

The UN has circa 30,000 nations. Of those, many are unstable, oppressive, belligerant, terrorism-supporting, xenophobic regimes, who would destroy every single neighbour just for fun. Many others profess naive, narrow-minded, intolerant, self-righteous political or religious ideologies, and wish to convert every reasonable nation to their foolish ways. Give up border control? Hell no.

Ritonas aknowledges Fonzoland's argument (and the argument of others). However, Ritonas believes that the wording of the resolution is such that the following is true:

As is currently the international standard, it is the responsibility of a country to keep itself safe. Not the responsibility of immigrants or international travelers. There are those who wish to do harm to a nation, and it is the responsibility of said nation's government to keep them out, through the methods provided for in the resolution. It is NOT fair, nor if the UN Gen Assem is willing, legal to bar access to ALL who are citizens of the free world based on the fear of a tiny percentage of those citizens.

The purpose of this resolution is not to FORCE a nation to open it's borders, but to PREVENT nations from closing them arbitrarily. There are certain risks associated with democratic freedoms of citizens, this is something that Ritonas recognizes and admits. However, a vigilant nation should have minimal difficulty screening individuals who come to their nation for the traits you mentioned. The resolution merely guarantees that a nation does not seal itself off from the just and safe transfer of citizens between borders among UN states. It does nothing to protect the rights of those wishing to do harm in or to a foreign country or government.

Ritonas urges any who feel anxiety over this resolution to realize this resolution is only about protecting human rights, not about reducing barriers to terrorism, and the resolution makes provisions for situations in which a citizen may be denied access.

Ecopoeia will fully support this proposal, though on the condition that the amendments proposed by the Ceoranan delegate are implemented.

Best of luck.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I am a hot blooded national leader, and feel so threatened by your proposed law that I decide to declare war on Ritonas. Suppose further that all my citizens agree with my enlightened rule, and so all of them (even the peaceful, law-abiding harmless citizens) now have a profound hate for everything Ritonas stands for, and would wish nothing more than to see all Ritonasians dismembered in outrageously painful ways and dropped in pools of acid.

Now, the vast majority of Fonzolandians will have nothing objectionable in their background. In fact, a few of them might be harmless because they are allergic to blood, or for some other reason. But if your proposal becomes law, you will have to screen every single one of them, and find reasons not to allow them in, instead of simply closing your borders with a nation that is (rather successfully) invading your country and turning it to dust.

Does that make sense?

b) All incoming migrants must be prepared to declare citizenship in their desired nation of destination, or live under the foreign national policies of the destination state’s Department of State,.


Correct me if I read this wrong but anyone who travels to my nation must become a citizen of my nation. The UN needs to stay out of deciding who gains citizenship in any nation thus it's up to the citizens of a given nation to decide who comes and goes through their land as citizens like them.

Also many of the citizens of my nation have clean criminal records but all are part of our military and follow orders given them. Thus open your borders and we'll let them all migrate in and take over your nation then move on to the next one foolish enough to open their borders to just anyone.

Even with a limited background check who is to say this report will be accurate as to the status of that person. As I see a great change to dump criminals across open borders. Just wave a rope at them and tell them leave or swing and see where they go... In turn we will say they are good guys when asked just not welcome back here should they decide to return. As with free open borders they will not need to come back here. Should they try we will have a tall tree and rope waiting for them. Thus this proposal if approved gives many nations the chance to clean out it's criminal element and not have to fund prisons just let them drift across borders.

MANDATES, that no nation shall infringe upon the right of a citizen of a UN Member State to freely travel across borders within the UN System


The purpose of this resolution is not to FORCE a nation to open it's borders, but to PREVENT nations from closing them arbitrarily. There are certain risks associated with democratic freedoms of citizens, this is something that Ritonas recognizes and admits. However, a vigilant nation should have minimal difficulty screening individuals who come to their nation for the traits you mentioned. The resolution merely guarantees that a nation does not seal itself off from the just and safe transfer of citizens between borders among UN states. It does nothing to protect the rights of those wishing to do harm in or to a foreign country or government.

Notice the word MANDATES then FORCE.... they are as far as I'm concerned taking the same action... and it says 'FREELY TRAVEL across borders.' So dispite the other parts your final MANDATE is what has teeth as it says FREELY.... thus opens up a nations borders or should I say all national borders within the UN to terrorists and others who may only want to cause trouble.. As who does a background check on UN member nation and all citizens of them. Also who comfirms that any reports given as background checks are accurate... as what level of check is being done and by whom?

As we see a person moving from one nation to the next and in time their criminal past gets lost thus they in time get to where they can do some real damage some place...

Suppose, for the sake of argument...
Does that make sense?

Ritonas respectfully disagrees with Fonzoland's interperetation of existing international law, and the effect of this proposal. It seems to Ritonas that Fonzoland has read the title of the proposed legislation and presumed to understand the nuance of the proposal.

It is Ritonas's belief, and based on our interperetation of UN Resolutions already approved, the belief of the UN General Assembly that a citizen cannot be restricted from an activity they should be allowed to perform until there is just cause. If, this situation as you describe were to occur, and let us say that Mr. Smith, Mr. Black, and Mr. Jones from Fonzoland travel to Ritonas. Mr. Smith crosses the border, and his background is found to be clear, and as with the text of this proposition he is required to be allowed entry and to be extended the hand of citizenship provided he can pass the citizenship requirements of Ritonas. However, Mr. Smith murders Mrs. ben Jackob. Mr. Smith would be subject to the laws of Ritonas (in keeping with the wording of the proposed legislation) and he would be treated in accordance with International Law and the Law of the Holy Empire of Ritonas. Then, Mr. Black crosses the border and murders Mr. Messerschmidt. Mr. Black would similarly be treated as Mr. Smith. Mr. Jones then crosses the border and murders Prince Edwardo. Mr. Jones would be subject to International Law and the law of the Holy Empire. At this point it would be to the discretion of Ritonas whether now, a precendent had been astablished, and then persons from Fonzoland could be detained based on their nationality. This legislation only attempts to prevent international travel and migration discrimination based on nationality, race, sex, creed, or any other intrinsic human trait.

While Ritonas feels that this point adequately answers your counter to the legislation proposal, we ask Fonzoland and all other commenters if the legislation were modified to allow an exception for wartime (that is, countries directly involved in a conflict would be allowed to deny access to the citizenry of their opponents), would their feelings toward the resolution change substantially?

That said, Ritonas would like to propose a counter-case to Fonzoland:

Suppose Fonzoland is allies with the hypothetical nation Fonzyland, and Ritonas is also allies with Fonzyland. Ritonas and Fonzoland unfortunately descend into conflict, and in violation of the proposal BOTH ARBITRARILY close their borders to each other's citizens. A Citizen of Ritonas, bloody minded, travels to ally Fonzyland, and then is allowed free travel to Fonzoland, where said citizen proceeds to urinate on Fonzoland's statue of Jim Davis. Ritonas cannot envisage a scenario where a true member of the global community and United Nations can prevent this ocurence in the event of a war. The United Nations was set up to PREVENT war, and the resolution is a step in that direction. This is the position of Ritonas.

Correct me if I read this wrong but anyone who travels to my nation must become a citizen of my nation. The UN needs to stay out of deciding who gains citizenship in any nation thus it's up to the citizens of a given nation to decide who comes and goes through their land as citizens like them.


The UN is not deciding who gets citizenship where, but merely specifying that a person traveling to a country must declare their intent to live there (apply for citizenship) or be subject to the foreign national rules of the nation they are visiting.



Also many of the citizens of my nation have clean criminal records but all are part of our military and follow orders given them. Thus open your borders and we'll let them all migrate in and take over your nation then move on to the next one foolish enough to open their borders to just anyone.


They will "migrate" in, and find themselves returned to Zeldon without weapons as trying to cross the border into Ritonas with a weapon without a government permit is illegal. Ritonas suggests Zeldon passes similar laws to make protect itself.


Even with a limited background check who is to say this report will be accurate as to the status of that person. As I see a great change to dump criminals across open borders. Just wave a rope at them and tell them leave or swing and see where they go... In turn we will say they are good guys when asked just not welcome back here should they decide to return. As with free open borders they will not need to come back here. Should they try we will have a tall tree and rope waiting for them. Thus this proposal if approved gives many nations the chance to clean out it's criminal element and not have to fund prisons just let them drift across borders.


This is no different than the situation today, except that there is no guarantee that a citizen can enter a country. This proposal isn't designed to "force open the borders" it is designed to guarantee a civil right to move between free countries, for those who pose no threat to a country. A country that has extremely restrictive citizenship and foreign national laws is able to "seal" their borders, but this proposal guarantees that they do it with just cause, and not arbitrarily. Ritonas is a free democratic republic, if your military comes here they have no need for weapons. They may immigrate to Ritonas, become citizens, and the vote the current government out of power. Ritonas does not view the democratic process as an evil.


Notice the word MANDATES then FORCE.... they are as far as I'm concerned taking the same action... and it says 'FREELY TRAVEL across borders.' So dispite the other parts your final MANDATE is what has teeth as it says FREELY.... thus opens up a nations borders or should I say all national borders within the UN to terrorists and others who may only want to cause trouble.. As who does a background check on UN member nation and all citizens of them. Also who comfirms that any reports given as background checks are accurate... as what level of check is being done and by whom?

As we see a person moving from one nation to the next and in time their criminal past gets lost thus they in time get to where they can do some real damage some place...

It is Ritonas's responsibility to secure its borders, and we will do so within the full extent of the law. Just as it is illegal for the government to perform wiretaps in Ritonas (with exceptions) it is illegal for the government to seal the border (with exceptions, noted in the resolution). Ritonas suggests you consider the full force of the wording of the resolution before dismissing it as overly weak or overly powerful.

If you thought I'd harm your family would you invite me into your home? If I don't believe in your religion and have been active against such would you invite me into your church? Most of us would not invite somebody who we know would not fit into our family or group to join it. Also we would not try to enter your home, school, church, or other if we don't agree with what is being done there.

One of the issue that comes up is eating human body parts. Since we don't eat them and object to this we don't go to places that serve human body parts for a meal. We would hope that they in turn don't come here.. as we have strict laws about such matters as eating human body parts. Thus they would not be happy here nor very welcome as dispite any UN resolution of toleration there are some things one can't tolerate and that is why nations get founded by groups of people who believe in certain values.. If you can get all people to believe in common values then open borders would be no problem but as long as this is not a fact we will keep the borders closed for our citizens safety.

Also why limit this to borders open up your homes, schools, churches, and others to just anyone. Get rid of so called 'private places' for select groups of people lets open everything up to everyone...

Honestly, I could reply, and explain why there are a number of situations other than war (drug/weapon traffic, mass migration, and so on) where you would want to close borders. However, it is likely to become a pointless ping pong debate.

I strongly suggest you heed Hirota's advice, and do not touch the sovereign right of nations to decide on their border control. I also suggest you dig up a similar proposal which was weaker than yours and was still rejected by this assembly's plenary vote.

A final note:

It seems to Ritonas that Fonzoland has read the title of the proposed legislation and presumed to understand the nuance of the proposal.

This sort of arrogance is likely to get you slapped down, and hard. Please don't do it again.

This sort of arrogance is likely to get you slapped down, and hard. Please don't do it again.

You want I should 'ave 'im whacked?

You want I should 'ave 'im whacked?

I would like this august assembly to notice the endearing and polite way in which Cluich asks permission before whacking nations. Such a lovely, fluffy puppy deep inside...
:fluffle:

REQUIRES that all UN Member States create sufficient policies and procedures to prevent a person of non-UN Member State citizenship from entering the UN Free Travel Zone and proceeding within the Free Travel Zone as if "she" were a UN Member State Citizen..


What about the males here? As this part says "SHE"....! Thus discriminates and leaves males out.

Many nations have such policies and procedures in place and they are effective thus there is little need for a UN resolution on such that in this final gives nations the right to continue to do what they are doing about their borders. As we are REQUIRED to have them and do have them so this alone is all you need here. Don't tell nations how to protect their citizens from threats that might come from across ones borders.

As for your comment earlier on bringing weapons into my nation... We do have strict laws on what person can bring in even take out of our nation and want make sure they are enforced thus we control border entry/exit...... by even our own citizens... so why should we open them to others.... not citizens...?

Honestly, I could reply, and explain why there are a number of situations other than war (drug/weapon traffic, mass migration, and so on) where you would want to close borders. However, it is likely to become a pointless ping pong debate.

I strongly suggest you heed Hirota's advice, and do not touch the sovereign right of nations to decide on their border control. I also suggest you dig up a similar proposal which was weaker than yours and was still rejected by this assembly's plenary vote.

A final note:

This sort of arrogance is likely to get you slapped down, and hard. Please don't do it again.

First things first,
I am a duly appointed representative of the Holy Empire of Ritonas to the United Nations. As such, I have diplomatic immunity, which includes immunity for things said in debate of an issue. If you feel that your understanding of the proposal is greater than I, as a representative of Ritonas, have understood it to be, then perhaps you would do better to argue such, rather than threaten an illegal action which would be reported to the UN Secretariat and likely result in your expulsion from the organization. Ritonas did not mean offense, and has difficulty understanding how offense could be taken from that comment, but if Fonzoland is offended, we apologize for any manifest harm caused by our comment. However, we feel it was justified given your absolute refusal to see the purpose and structure of the legislation. This refusal is made clear in your latest reply.

A "ping-pong" argument may only occur if both parties continue to bring up the same points again and again. Ritonas, through me, has responded to your point regarding closing the borders to those incoming, and Ritonas believes that the resolution prevents it. Instead of threatening to "slap Ritonas down hard" you could propose a modification to the resolution which would bring about your desired changes?

As Ritonas has said, this resolution does little other than declare that no nation shall seal its borders ARBITRARILY. A nation may close its borders to specific individuals, or even, if the proposed amendment to the proposal is adopted, an an entire country or enemy with whom they are at war. But they may not shut out a class of individuals for any reason. The means to keep individuals out of a country are existant and, Ritonas feels, clearly stated in the proposed resolution.

As Ritonas has said, this resolution does little other than declare that no nation shall seal its borders ARBITRARILY. A nation may close its borders to specific individuals, or even, if the proposed amendment to the proposal is adopted, an an entire country or enemy with whom they are at war. But they may not shut out a class of individuals for any reason. The means to keep individuals out of a country are existant and, Ritonas feels, clearly stated in the proposed resolution.


Then may I ask why you are making this proposal if we can't; as you said "shut out a class of individuals for any reason" but "The means to keep individuals out of a country are existant and, Ritonas feels, clearly stated in the proposed resolution"... As why do we need it....? All we have to do is follow the proposal and keep doing what we are doing... we can still keep "a certain class of individuals" out by following 'existing means' to do so... So what does this do again..?

I would like this august assembly to notice the endearing and polite way in which Cluich asks permission before whacking nations. Such a lovely, fluffy puppy deep inside...
:fluffle:

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich rings up the Cluichstani Defense Ministry. "Hello? Sheik Nottap? It's time to retarget some of our nuclear missiles at Fonzoland."

Then may I ask why you are making this proposal if we can't "shut out a class of individuals for any reason" but "The means to keep individuals out of a country are existant and, Ritonas feels, clearly stated in the proposed resolution"... As why do we need it.... All we have to do is follow the proposal and keep doing what we are doing... we can still keep "a certain class of individuals" out by following existing means to do so... So what does this do again..?

OK, here's the theory:

Every individual citizen has the right to enter a country on his or her own merits

(that is what Ritonas feels should be the initial position)

However, as Fonzoland pointed out, there are those who would enter a country to cause manifest harm to that country, so we add:

Except where that person may cause manifest harm (both a and c (and if added, d) achieve this, by providing for method(s) of determining likelihood of manifest harm and allowing for an individual to be excluded based on such liklihood)

However, as no one has pointed at yet but Ritonas will point out, a person or group may come to a country, stay there, and live amongst its people without leaving nor declaring an intent to stay, so we add

An individual must tell the country they are going to if they want to live there (declare intent to request citizenship) or if they want to visit (be subject to foreign national policies (in the USA this is called "Visa/Guest Worker" status IIRC)) (b achieves this)
...

This is in essence how the system works now, however, it is possible that someday sometime a country (say, West Ritonas) decides that they don't like Ritonas, so they ban travel to and from Ritonas. Many Ritonasasianoanziens have relatives in West Ritonas, and enjoy travel there. It is the belief of Ritonas that it is unfair for West Ritonas to restrict travel based on something arbitraty like "you live in Ritonas" or "you are a woman" or "you are a goat herder" or "you are too poor." The ONLY situation where Ritonas feels it IS in fact justified, is when there is a clear and present danger to others. Ritonas feels there is precedent for this in current Resolution, which makes it fairly clear that a person is entitled to whatever action they choose as long as it does not harm others. That is the only fair restriction on a person's actions, and Ritonas vigorously supports that, in this case through this resolution. If Fonzoland (hypothetically) opposes legally the use of marijuana, anyone coming into their country is subject to their laws, as the resolution makes clear. So anyone who wants to go to Fonzoland has to be quit smoking dope to get in, one way or another. However, Ritonas thinks that it would not be right (hypothetically) for Fonzoland to deny access to their country to one group, but not all groups. That is what this resolution tries to achieve.

Ritonas apologizes for that lack of clarity before, and hopes that this is a better attempt at conveying our ideas.

DECLARES that all nations that are members of the United Nations shall allow free travel and migration of any other member nation’s citizens within its own borders,.


I would suggest that people are allowed freedom to leave their country (providing they are not subject to investigation relating to a criminal offence, and maybe a few other conditions), but that the right to refuse entrance to a nation is reserved as a national issue. That way, if people want to leave the country, they can. They just have to find somewhere willing to accept them.
The distinction I am trying to make is people should be allowed to leave a country, rather than automatically enter one
I believe Hirota makes a valid point as if a citizen is not free to leave a nation then there would be no problem of them crossing borders. As this clearly deals with travel into a nation not from one to another. As the statement by Ritonas is not clear here as to what it means...


Possibly solution:

DECLARES: That travel by citizens of UN member nations between UN nations shall not be restricted; provided the citizen traveling finds a nation willing to receive them, complies with laws of said nation for visitors to that nation, and they are not fleeing criminal action in their nation of citizenship.

I believe Hirota makes a valid point as if a citizen is not free to leave a nation then there would be no problem of them crossing borders. As this clearly deals with travel into a nation not from one to another. As the statement by Ritonas is not clear here as to what it means...

Possibly solution:

DECLARES: That travel by citizens of UN member nations between UN nations shall not be restricted; provided the citizen traveling finds a nation willing to receive them and they are not fleeing criminal action in their nation of citizenship.

Ritonas appreciates Zeldon's and Hirota's comments, and apologizes for not responding to Hirota sooner.

Ritonas has directed the resolution at each nation specifically. Thus,

DECLARES that all nations that are members of the United Nations shall allow free travel and migration of any other member nation’s citizens within its own borders,.

By the resolution, Ritonas may not turn away any Travelers or immigrants that meet the requirements of its citizenship rules and/or its foreign national rules.

The resolution is trying to prevent a country from sealing its borders, we feel that the wording of Zeldon's proposed modification allows for border discrimination if any nation chooses to perform it, thus the end result of Zeldon's proposal is to allow a person to flee his home country if and only if someone is willing to take him. Ritonas thinks that a UN member has a RESPONSIBILITY to take in citizens of a country that desire to come, as LONG AS that person is willing to follow the rules and restrictions of that country. This does not in any way affect the laws of a country internally, it only affects international travel. It does not even force a nation to accept anyone, but specifies the procedures and rules for how that is done and under what circumstances it may not be done. Ritonas has worder its proposal assuming that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and we feel that different wording (such as that proposed by Zeldon) assumes that a person is guilty and must demonstrate innocence before they can be treated as a human being.

This does not in any way affect the laws of a country internally, it only affects international travel. It does not even force a nation to accept anyone, but specifies the procedures and rules for how that is done and under what circumstances it may not be done. .
It does effect one internally because once they are here they are inside the country and we have to deal with them and their problems they bring with them. As we see the procedures we have in place may be maintained we still want to know why a proposal that simply says in effect keep doing what you are in regards to your border security...


Ritonas has worder its proposal assuming that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and we feel that different wording (such as that proposed by Zeldon) assumes that a person is guilty and must demonstrate innocence before they can be treated as a human being.
By doing a background check and reasonable inspection one has assumed that a person is guilty of something or there would not be a need for such in the first place. Thus while know about RW US 'Innocent until proven guilty' the fact is even there it's not fact. As they can handcuff you and put you in jail without trail also require you to pay bail, which is nothing more than a fine before you're brought to trail. Thus how can you justify bail or such actions on an innocent person that has not been brought to trail even.

We want to seal off our borders from enemy nations and prevent overcrowding. Free travel basicly removes our right to close off anything for anything.

It does effect one internally because once they are here they are inside the country and we have to deal with them and their problems they bring with them. As we see the procedures we have in place may be maintained we still want to know why a proposal that simply says in effect keep doing what you are in regards to your border security...


By doing a background check and reasonable inspection one has assumed that a person is guilty of something or there would not be a need for such in the first place. Thus while know about RW US 'Innocent until proven guilty' the fact is even there it's not fact. As they can handcuff you and put you in jail without trail also require you to pay bail, which is nothing more than a fine before you're brought to trail. Thus how can you justify bail or such actions on an innocent person that has not been brought to trail even.

Because there must be a compromise between security and freedom. Ritonas stands on the side of freedom, however we understand that there must be reasonable concessions made by those desiring freedom. No one is "jailing" anyone. The proposal does not "simply say in effect keep doing what you are doing." It mandates free travel between nations, and prevents discrimination. Just like many would argue that the Preamble to the US constitution issues equal rights for all, however there are several amendments concerning discrimination. This proposal prevents travel and migrant discrimination. Just as other proposals prevent workplace, sexual preference and other forms of discrimination. I again apologize for any lack of clarity, but I thought that was to be understood from the text and wording of the proposal.

Unfortunately free migration is too dangerous in this world. We fear bioterrorism, nuclear weapons, and other problems will cross over our border. Also we do not wish to let some of our scientists travel too freely, we have sensitive projects going on which could have potentially dangerous consequences if they run out of control. It would be very easy for someone to sail a small nuclear weapon into our ports if we do not watch migration carefullly.

What about the males here? As this part says "SHE"....! Thus discriminates and leaves males out.

Ok this is a good and lively debate but lets not play the sexism card here. when i read she i take it to have been added to state he or she .. just an alternative.

Please dont hijack a good proposal and good discussion with bs

A lot of the debate here seems to be what controls indvidual nations have on people travelling through their boarders. Surely a clause that mentions subject to the approval of the government of ... and given that the travellor agrees to abide by the laws of the nation.. as was suggested earlier would cover this.

the government of the Democratic Republic of dsboy supports this proposal and looks forward to debating it more on the UN floor.

Unfortunately free migration is too dangerous in this world. We fear bioterrorism, nuclear weapons, and other problems will cross over our border. Also we do not wish to let some of our scientists travel too freely, we have sensitive projects going on which could have potentially dangerous consequences if they run out of control. It would be very easy for someone to sail a small nuclear weapon into our ports if we do not watch migration carefullly.
We agree fully with our colleague and also add that there are other reasons why a nation wouldn't want their people leaving or others coming as they please.

So to this issue I say nay!

OOC: Ritonas, I would now be slapping down your sig line, if it wasn't so damn funny... :D

IC: The author does not seem to consider the sovereign right of member states to protect their national security. As such, we abstain from further suggestions. If this misguided effort ever reaches quorum, we will vote and campaign against it.

Unfortunately free migration is too dangerous in this world. We fear bioterrorism, nuclear weapons, and other problems will cross over our border. Also we do not wish to let some of our scientists travel too freely, we have sensitive projects going on which could have potentially dangerous consequences if they run out of control. It would be very easy for someone to sail a small nuclear weapon into our ports if we do not watch migration carefullly.

As the resolution makes clear, it is up to Commonalitarianism whom Commonalitarianism will allow to enter its nation. However, it will be (if the proposed legislation is adopted by the general assembly) illegal for Commonalitarianism to prevent the citizens of Ritonas from crossing its borders SO LONG AS those citizens are willing to be subject to the laws of Commonalitarianism, and SO LONG AS those citizens meet whatever barriers that Commonalitarianism erects to seed through them, as long as said barriers are levied in an individualistic manner (that is, a CLASS cannot be denied entry, only an individual can be). That is what the resolution says. Commonalitarianism is free to legislate in its own territory, and any citizen who enters its territory is subject to those laws, and Commonalitarianism is free to legislate its own citizens, and any citizen of Commonalitarianism is subject to the laws of Commonalitarianism. The legislation makes no further judgements as to what Commonalitarianism does to those who wish to enter than that they be treated no worse than any other citizen of Commonalitarianism (provided they wish to migrant) or any other foreign national (provided they have visitor status). The legislative proposal is trying to regulate the manner in which nations can or cannot restrict access to their borders. So, Commonalitarianism can deny Dr. Key Wong, Director of Weak Nuclear Force Weapons Research and the Commonalitarianism Defense Institute the ability to cross the boarder. Commonalitarianism can also deny Major Avi ben Levi of the Action Directe terrorist group from entering its borders. Commonalitarianism may NOT, however, deny access to citizens from every country whose name begins with the letter "R."

There are many implications that this legislation restricts national security activities. it does NOT. A nation is free to legislate how it desires, just so long as such legislation meets the criteria of the proposed resolution. (Those criteria are; Must be justified (clear and present danger or manifest harm) or must be in direct conflict with the nation whose citizens to whom they wish to deny access.

This legislation is about civil rights, and maintaining them. NOT about restricting individual government activity, government activity is not sepcifically restricted; the resolution creates a due process of denying emigration and or visitation to international travelers.

This proposal is founded on the completely spurious assumption -- without grounds in reality or any political theory we've ever heard of -- that an individual has a right to enter any country he or she wishes whenever he or she feels like it. We respect the representative of Ritonas' right to hold this belief. We do not share it.

Ausserland is firmly opposed to this proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This proposal is founded on the completely spurious assumption -- without grounds in reality or any political theory we've ever heard of -- that an individual has a right to enter any country he or she wishes whenever he or she feels like it. We respect the representative of Ritonas' right to hold this belief. We do not share it.


This proposal is not founded on any such assumption. This proposal is founded on the fact that international travel does exist, and its goal is to eliminate discrimination based solely on a person's place of origin. For instance, of there are 1 million and one citizens of Ausserland, and 1 million of them are terrorists and just downright mean people, and one of them is God herself, a nation can't discriminate against the one person based on the fact that everyone else from Ausserland is a royal pain.

As the resolution makes clear, it is up to Commonalitarianism whom Commonalitarianism will allow to enter its nation. Fair enough, although I think you've done sufficently expressed that in your proposal

However, it will be (if the proposed legislation is adopted by the general assembly) illegal for Commonalitarianism to prevent the citizens of Ritonas from crossing its borders SO LONG AS those citizens are willing to be subject to the laws of Commonalitarianism, and SO LONG AS those citizens meet whatever barriers that Commonalitarianism erects to seed through them, as long as said barriers are levied in an individualistic manner (that is, a CLASS cannot be denied entry, only an individual can be). That is what the resolution says.I think that's been expressed poorly as well.

Commonalitarianism is free to legislate in its own territory, and any citizen who enters its territory is subject to those laws, and Commonalitarianism is free to legislate its own citizens, and any citizen of Commonalitarianism is subject to the laws of Commonalitarianism. The legislation makes no further judgements as to what Commonalitarianism does to those who wish to enter than that they be treated no worse than any other citizen of Commonalitarianism (provided they wish to migrant) or any other foreign national (provided they have visitor status). The legislative proposal is trying to regulate the manner in which nations can or cannot restrict access to their borders. So, Commonalitarianism can deny Dr. Key Wong, Director of Weak Nuclear Force Weapons Research and the Commonalitarianism Defense Institute the ability to cross the boarder. Commonalitarianism can also deny Major Avi ben Levi of the Action Directe terrorist group from entering its borders. Commonalitarianism may NOT, however, deny access to citizens from every country whose name begins with the letter "R." {/quote]

[quote]There are many implications that this legislation restricts national security activities. it does NOT. A nation is free to legislate how it desires, just so long as such legislation meets the criteria of the proposed resolution. (Those criteria are; Must be justified (clear and present danger or manifest harm) or must be in direct conflict with the nation whose citizens to whom they wish to deny access.

This legislation is about civil rights, and maintaining them. NOT about restricting individual government activity, government activity is not sepcifically restricted; the resolution creates a due process of denying emigration and or visitation to international travelers.
I like the idea, but I think it is expressed in the wrong order. If the proposal said nations could forbid entry first, and then allow citizens freedom to exit their nations, so that the focus is on the power of the nation (quite rightly in this case), but allowing an individual to have the chance to leave for another nation (with certain exceptions to be considered)

I think a rewrite would do a world of good to this proposal.

Originally Posted by Ausserland
This proposal is founded on the completely spurious assumption -- without grounds in reality or any political theory we've ever heard of -- that an individual has a right to enter any country he or she wishes whenever he or she feels like it. We respect the representative of Ritonas' right to hold this belief. We do not share it.

This proposal is not founded on any such assumption. This proposal is founded on the fact that international travel does exist, and its goal is to eliminate discrimination based solely on a person's place of origin. For instance, of there are 1 million and one citizens of Ausserland, and 1 million of them are terrorists and just downright mean people, and one of them is God herself, a nation can't discriminate against the one person based on the fact that everyone else from Ausserland is a royal pain.

Let us quote an earlier posting by the represenative of Ritonas: "Every individual citizen has the right to enter a country on his or her own merits." So we ask: Does a citizen of Ritonas have a right to enter Ausserland unless one of the conditions listed in the "limitations and exceptions" clause pertains?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We've had another good look at the proposal, and a few things spring to mind.
DECLARES that all nations that are members of the United Nations shall allow free travel and migration of any other member nation’s citizens within its own borders,

1) This active clause does not have anything to do with creating open borders. All it says is that foreign nationals are given free travel within the borders of another nation, not across.
2) But that's hardly a small thing. We are not going to allow people free travel on any Darsomiri transport service, regardless of nationality. Indeed, foreign nationals tend to have more money than the average Darsomiri, so we are definitely not going to allow them this.

Because of these, there is no way we could support this, and we hope that other nations would not support this proposal.

Let us quote an earlier posting by the represenative of Ritonas: "Every individual citizen has the right to enter a country on his or her own merits." So we ask: Does a citizen of Ritonas have a right to enter Ausserland unless one of the conditions listed in the "limitations and exceptions" clause pertains?


Yes. Any citizen of a UN Member country can enter Ausserland, provided Ausserland consents that they may enter (that is what the limitations and exceptions" clause amounts to) as long as Ausserland's restrictions do NOT include a restriction that is discriminatory (that is, "no Helzontevaranian Descended persons" or "no one related to Burt Bacharach"). Ausserland can deny anyone access, and if their restrictions are non-descriminatory, they can deny everyone access.

Yes. Any citizen of a UN Member country can enter Ausserland, provided Ausserland consents that they may enter (that is what the limitations and exceptions" clause amounts to) as long as Ausserland's restrictions do NOT include a restriction that is discriminatory (that is, "no Helzontevaranian Descended persons" or "no one related to Burt Bacharach"). Ausserland can deny anyone access, and if their restrictions are non-descriminatory, they can deny everyone access.
We refer you to your own proposal. There is nothing in the active clauses that says that any nation is required to let anyone in. Perhaps you could peruse our last post for a longer explanation?

Acolyte Gaeblyn and Johannes,
UN Representatives of the Exarchs,
Darsomir

We've had another good look at the proposal, and a few things spring to mind.


1) This active clause does not have anything to do with creating open borders. All it says is that foreign nationals are given free travel within the borders of another nation, not across.
2) But that's hardly a small thing. We are not going to allow people free travel on any Darsomiri transport service, regardless of nationality. Indeed, foreign nationals tend to have more money than the average Darsomiri, so we are definitely not going to allow them this.

Because of these, there is no way we could support this, and we hope that other nations would not support this proposal.

Ritonas believe's that Darsomir's comment is one based on a misinterperetation of the language used in the proposal. Ritonas uses "within" as a preposition, to mean "In the inner part or parts of" or "Inside the fixed limits of" (1) and the word "travel" to mean "To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey" (1), that is, a UN Member Nation must allow the citizens of another nation to go from one place (this refers back to their home nation, and implied subject) to another (this refers to the UN Member Nation who is allowing the entrance). It is Ritonas's contention that this sentence is correctly formed.

This is an anti-discrimination proposal. It does not breach national security. It does not force a nation to open its borders to all. It forces a nation to justify closing them to an individual.


Sources
1 - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Ritonas believe's that Darsomir's comment is one based on a misinterperetation of the language used in the proposal. Ritonas uses "within" as a preposition, to mean "In the inner part or parts of" or "Inside the fixed limits of" (1) and the word "travel" to mean "To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey" (1),
Yes, and we agree with that definition. Under your proposal, we would be required to allow foreign nationals travel between the two capitals of Darsomir, but there is still nothing that says we have to allow them travel into Darsomir.
that is, a UN Member Nation must allow the citizens of another nation to go from one place (this refers back to their home nation, and implied subject) to another (this refers to the UN Member Nation who is allowing the entrance). It is Ritonas's contention that this sentence is correctly formed.
That is your contention here, but it remains that it is not what the proposal says. There is nothing within the proposal that says anything about people moving across any borders.

This is an anti-discrimination proposal. It does not breach national security. It does not force a nation to open its borders to all. It forces a nation to justify closing them to an individual.
That's as may be. It still looks like it is attempting to force us to subsidise foreign transport within our nation.

Please note - these are not criticisms of your idea (we don't much like it, but that doesn't stop us trying to help you get the best possible phrasing). However, the exact wording is still at the least unclear as to your intentions. If this is meant to allow travel across borders, say so. Currently, it only looks like it allows travel within borders, which means something completely different.

What about the imposition of a quarantine for medical purposes?

Perhaps it would be worth clarifying that 'free' for the purposes of this proposal means 'unrestricted' rather than 'without financial cost'.*

Ecopoeia maintains that free passage between nations, lands and seas is an essential human right. This world is a treasury for all; ownership is fallacy in the eyes of nature.

*OOC: or something better... hopefully you know what I mean.

To everyone interested:

The party tonight is in the mansion of the Ecopoeian representative. Bring your own drinks and crowbars, but feel free to trash the place. Ownership is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Ausserland
Let us quote an earlier posting by the represenative of Ritonas: "Every individual citizen has the right to enter a country on his or her own merits." So we ask: Does a citizen of Ritonas have a right to enter Ausserland unless one of the conditions listed in the "limitations and exceptions" clause pertains?

Yes. Any citizen of a UN Member country can enter Ausserland, provided Ausserland consents that they may enter (that is what the limitations and exceptions" clause amounts to) as long as Ausserland's restrictions do NOT include a restriction that is discriminatory (that is, "no Helzontevaranian Descended persons" or "no one related to Burt Bacharach"). Ausserland can deny anyone access, and if their restrictions are non-descriminatory, they can deny everyone access.

We thank the representative of Ritonas for his prompt and courteous response to our question.

We must again state that we find no basis in history or international law for the idea that a citizen of any nation has a right to enter any other nation. A nation is the home of its people, and its people, we believe, have the right to decide who will and will not enter their home. That is a long-established principle of international law and, we believe, a very valid one.

The representative states that the resolution allows control of entry as long as that control is not discriminatory. We disagree. The resolution does not prohibit discrimination in access control policy. The word discrimination isn't even mentioned in the text. Instead, the proposal sets a specific, narrow set of conditions under which a nation may prohibit entry. While this would certainly eliminate discrimination as a factor in denial of entry, a nation would also be prohibited from denying access based on economic conditions, public health concerns, undue burdens on welfare and public services, etc.

If the proposal specifically prohibited discrimination in immigration policy based on sex, race, etc., we would seriously consider supporting it. As it is, it would hamstring nations in their attempts to control entry to their territories in the interests of the welfare of their people.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

To everyone interested:

The party tonight in in the mansion of the Ecopoeian representative. Bring your own drinks and crowbars, but feel free to trash the place. Ownership is a fallacy.
OOC: Ha! Not that there's a mansion to be found in Ecopoeia...

Perhaps it would be worth clarifying that 'free' for the purposes of this proposal means 'unrestricted' rather than 'without financial cost'.*

Ecopoeia maintains that free passage between nations, lands and seas is an essential human right. This world is a treasury for all; ownership is fallacy in the eyes of nature.
At the moment, we're invading Chechnya. But when's that over, we'll reconsider your kind offer.