NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

RECOGNIZING that, within the many varied cultures of the United Nations, people may at times have reason to leave their nation of residence in the pursuit of refuge, opportunity, or escape from persecution or injustice;

WISHING to establish that right in international law;

The General Assembly of The United Nations:

1 - DECLARES it a right of persons to emigrate from their nation of residence;

2 - MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations;

3-SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS from that mandate and declared right persons who are either undergoing ongoing legal proceedings or any subsequent sentence; those below the age of consent within their home nation who lack consent of parent(s) or guardian(s); those mentally incapable of making such decisions; those who would pose a public health risk; those whose presence is required by a court of law; or those being held as prisoners of war during times of conflict;

4 - STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to facilitate the travel of persons fleeing hostile situations including, but not limited to, war, civil unrest, ethnic or racial persecution, or governments that are viewed as oppressive or unethical by the fleeing persons, to locations that are more friendly towards the person;

5 - EMPHASIZES that this resolution in no way affects the policies of any member nation concerning entry into its sovereign territory;

Co-Authored by: Yelda


Have at it.

Thank you for posting this. Obviously, we are in full support of this Resolution and await comments from the General Assembly.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

It's a good proposal but clause three has us concerned.

You say emigration can be denied if the person is underaged who lacks consent from a parent or gaurdian. What if they do not have a parent or guaridan? Or perhaps they are running from their guardian because they are a slave to a guaridan, or are being forced to comitte crimes, and the list can go on.

Ambassador,
Alejandra Cannon

It's a good proposal but clause three has us concerned.

You say emigration can be denied if the person is underaged who lacks consent from a parent or gaurdian. What if they do not have a parent or guaridan? Or perhaps they are running from their guardian because they are a slave to a guaridan, or are being forced to comitte crimes, and the list can go on.



A minor under any of these listed circumstances would be best served by going to the authorities to rectify the situation, and possibly have themselves declared emancipated. Running to another nation won't help them if they aren't willing to gain legal recognition of their own independance.

Not every nation recognizes rights of a minor. Not every nation grants emancipation, and they won't have to unless it is stated. Some courts put a child back with a family whether or not that child belongs there. Are you pretty much willing to deny a child rights of Asylum?

Not every nation recognizes rights of a minor. Not every nation grants emancipation, and they won't have to unless it is stated. Some courts put a child back with a family whether or not that child belongs there.

Fair enough, but emancipation of minors is outside of the scope of this proposal. Perhaps it is something that can be done in the future, but this proposal is intended to deal with emigration, not emancipation.

It doesn't have to. I just feel minors that are orphans shouldn't be excluded.

It doesn't have to. I just feel minors that are orphans shouldn't be excluded.

Running under the theory that orphans would be housed in an orphanage or some such, they would still have a legal guardian who could consent.

Some orphanages are hell houses, some nations don't have a decent welfare system to even have a child in an orphanage. War torn nations, developing countries or children who are forced into servatude.

Some orphanages are hell houses, some nations don't have a decent welfare system to even have a child in an orphanage. War torn nations, developing countries or children who are forced into servatude.

Again, these are more issues that do not fall under the purview of this proposal. While I understand that you don't wish certain individuals to be excluded, there is also a concern that minors will leave their home nation to run away from home because their parents won't raise their allowance. Your scenarios can be rectified through further legislation on the matter of orphanages or emancipation of minors.

Not every nation recognizes rights of a minor.
Every UN nation does. The Child Protection Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26) covers many of your concerns regarding the welfare of minors. Furthermore, slavery is illegal in UN nations and your examples of children in "War torn nations" would be covered by Children in War (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030111&postcount=52) and Refugee Protection Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030195&postcount=66).

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Good call. Those resolutions had slipped my mind at the moment.

LAE fully suport this proposal, well done.

As I have stated on Reclamation, Paradica supports this.

Roderick Spear
Not even going to bother

The Elleltian Delegation proudly supports this legislation. Particularly we are pleased with the clauses protecting the rights of nations to determine their entrance processes.

As far as the sole objector, as of yet, Yelda is right. Children have their rights protected under many resolutions. However, Ellelt would gladly accept any child that wished to leave their nation of origin to immigrate here, provided that they have the permission of their legal guardian, or in the case of a Non-UN nation that they not having that permission, the Extraordinary Commission for the Prevention of Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can confirm that that state does not respect the rights of children.

We will provide them education, housing, food, health care, in sort all the basics until they can become productive citizens. Indeed we have also taken large numbers of Marxist Refugees...mainly the wives and children of revolutionaries in other lands who have sent their loved ones to our homeland to protect them during their socialist revolution.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

What about placing restrictions on travel to certain nations considered to be enemies but with which we are not directly at war?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

(OOC: I'm thinking of something like the RL US' travel ban regarding Cuba, which, while I think it's pointless and stupid, might be the sort of policy some NS nations may want to implement.)

A valid point, possibly, though I think your RL example might be a tiny bit off. I might be mistaken, but I believe that the US doesn't have a blanket ban on Americans travelling to Cuba, though they do greatly restrict Cubans and cuban products entering the USA. Products wouldn't be covered by this, and nations are still allowed to decide upon their own immigration policies.

With the way it is now, a government might not be able to stop you from going to a specific country, but they could seriously hinder your return. If the government has any probable cause that your voyage will result in wrongdoing against the state, they would be permitted to interefere with the individuals travel as it could rationally be assumed that there are some form of legal proceedings against the person. Not in all cases, I suppose, though. It might be worth looking at, in any case.

OOC: Not a blanket ban anymore, no, but I recall that during my uni years -- we're talking about 15 years or so ago here -- a class taught by one of my profs had to get a special exemption from the State Dept. for a trip to Cuba under the banner of "eduational purposes." It seems that the restrictions (or at least the enforcement of them) have been slackened somewhat in recent years, but at one point they were extremely tight.

You could still prohibit people from entering another nation, under charges of consorting with the enemy or suchlike. If people are allowed to leave Bobtopia as they wish, then Bobtopia is in compliance, regardless of whether it prohibits its citizens entering Bobstan or not.

The way the US-Cuba thing works as I understand it is financial transactions are forbidden. So whilst you could go into Cuba, you couldn't then buy food, rent a hotel room, etc. meaning it's only a de facto ban in any case.

You could still prohibit people from entering another nation, under charges of consorting with the enemy or suchlike. If people are allowed to leave Bobtopia as they wish, then Bobtopia is in compliance, regardless of whether it prohibits its citizens entering Bobstan or not.

Ah, yes, I see your point. While we would have to allow someone to leave Cluichstan to go to, say, Discoraversalism, under the last clause, we wouldn't have to allow that person back onto our territory.

Colour us persuaded. And since that was our only concern with this proposal, you can also colour us in favour of it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I am sorry, but under that logic, if I decided too, I could make it so that, if you leave, you may never come back. That doesn't really float my boat. Can you please add a clause in there stating that a person is allowed to return to there original country if the following things are true:

1. They want to return.
2. They don't have any court case for other countries or are serving time.
3. They have not joined a military.
4. They have not joined a spying group such as the RL CIA. (This is OOCish)
5. There legal guardian approves (If they are miners, and if their guardians moved with them)

Otherwise, the nation of Havvy will vote in the negative unless strong votes of FOR in my region.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Delegate of Sicily
UN Ambassador of Havvy

I am sorry, but under that logic, if I decided too, I could make it so that, if you leave, you may never come back. That doesn't really float my boat. Can you please add a clause in there stating that a person is allowed to return to there original country if the following things are true:<snip>
Why on earth would we want to do that? Nations have the right to bar entrance to any person they see fit, including their former citizens.

Naella Sìorrui
Attaché, Committee for State Security

3-SPECIFICALLY I guess you want a space before and after the "-"

That's the only thing I can see, so you've got Hirota's vote.

As for Havvy's concerns....if it was a choice of denying someone access which Hirota considered a danger, that's certainly what we'd see as being within our soverign rights.

As a nation that has declared itself a haven for people fleeing from undesirable or repressive situations, Altanar is fully in support of this proposal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

This will be getting submitted after the weekend, so if there are any last minute suggestions or complaints, now is the time to get them out.

OOC: I won't be available to post much this weekend, but I will be checking in on any posted comments. I'll do my best to answer any concerns and address any issues. Thanks to everyone for helping to get this to the point it's at now.

I began drafting a proposal concerning this exact right some months ago, and your proposal hit the nail on the head. I'm happy to see this right being promoted. We will support.

I like it. But isn't this open to the living-in-Bobtopia-is-illegal-so-you're-all-criminals-and-can't-leave loophole?

I like it. But isn't this open to the living-in-Bobtopia-is-illegal-so-you're-all-criminals-and-can't-leave loophole?

I will admit that that is one I had not thought of. I also have no idea how it would be addressed. Reasonable Nation Theory would go with the idea that nations would not generally do anything like that, but we're all aware of how unreasonable some nations can be at times.

The Bobtopian government would have to have some form of ongoing legal proceedings against every single citizen, though, or have them undergoing their sentence whilst they went about their daily lives. This will prove rather taxing on the populace and the government fairly rapidly. While Bobtopia could utilize such a loophole, they would quickly realize how impractical it is, and would further be bombarded with questions from their neighbours along the lines of "If it's illegal to live there, why are you preventing them from leaving?" I might even go so far as to say that the Bobtopian government would be making itself complicit in the apparent illegal act by barring the only way that people would have to stop breaking the law.

If you can think of a way that such a scenario could be properly covered by this bill, I'm open to suggestion.

Submitted.

Current Approvals: 85
Requires 29 more approvals.

Approved.

Quorum Reached!

Congratulations, Kiv.

BUMP!

This will be coming up to vote fairly shortly. My thanks to everyone who assisted with the drafting, and to those who supported the efforts to bring this to vote.

I'll have Tarquin get right on making a short film showing why this proposal should be supported.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'll have Tarquin get right on making a short film showing why this proposal should be supported.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Do us all a favor and screen it before you show it to the rest of us, OK?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Do us all a favor and screen it before you show it to the rest of us, OK?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No need, I don't think. I'm pretty sure that other one was just a onetime mishap.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Liubenia is in support of this proposed resolution. However, there are only a few nitpicks we have.

1) As stated earlier here, children who are exempt from having parents or guardians cannot get out of their country easily. Also, if the authorities are corrupt, they may decide to ignore these children who come to them for emancipation. But because this is outside the scope of the draft, there is nothing we can do yet.

2) POW's should be most welcome from escape of other countries. But, alas, there is nothing we can really do if the country holding them denies it unless a country specifically goes in to rescue them.

Again, we just felt these should be mentioned, though they may have been already.

The State of Arabia would oppose this resolution. We feel that it is a nations right to chose their emigration laws.

-President bin 'Isa, Chief Ambassador to the NSUN

The region of the Unified Nations of Politica votes no to this resolution. Although we agree with the principle of emigration amongst nations we do not feel it warrants the UN's discretion as to how we set our own individual laws governing this topic.

Open borders? Ridiculous. The UN has no right to decide what my nation, and our serene region should do with our borders. Without borders every nation here is worthless. You have no identity with out borders. You have no control. You have nothing. My fellow countrymen, as well as regional allies all endorse this position, and will see to it that we fight our hardest at stopping this ridiculous proposal. Whatever happened to "identity" & "individualism"?

Open borders? Ridiculous.Sure is. Good thing this proposal doesn't do that, hey?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

As a UN Delegate, I am willing to vote on this in principle, but am wary of the following deficiency (unless they are addressed in previous resolutions?)

The mandate does not provide protection for those who are being forced to emigrate from their nations through violent coercion, i.e., people smuggling or illegal sex trade. Surely the right to emigrate should be backed up by a right to not be forced to do so? Are there provisions in previous UN Resolutions that address this issue?

Are there provisions in previous UN Resolutions that address this issue?Yes there is "Ban Trafficking in Persons":

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030210&postcount=69

Open borders? Ridiculous.

Now, where have I put...? Oh. Yes. Over there, already nailed to the door.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2774/unwarningqf4.jpg

Ariddia supports this proposal, of course. It's a wonder we didn't think of it earlier. Well done.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

"Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations. I would like to rise in opposition to the esteemed delegate of the Antarctic Oasis, a region which our nation recently declared its independence from, and discuss for a moment how various traitors, spies, and people who might be familiar with classified state secrets might use this resolution to bravely sneak out of your nations ... oh where did I put my notes. It's rather annoying when your secretary is on leave for mating season."

(Suddenly, a small Adeline penguin enteres the chamber and hands Flash a note. Flash apparently is flushed at the reading of the note.)

"Holy shit! She's what? He did what? Oh my! Is this microphone still on? Ladies and gentlemen, if you will excuse me, I will yield the debate to my assistant who is in a secret undiscosed location - probably drunk as a skunk at the Hogs Breath saloon - because I'm not feeling well at the moment. I'm sure he will have an appropriate comment as soon as he sobers up. In the mean time Retired Werepenguins I would like to announce that Retired Werepenguins strongly supports this resolution and encourages all other nations to do likewise. I would also like to say that there is a player down on the field. I think it's me."

(With that Flash faints. The Adeline pengun shakes her head in disgust as a team of gnomes comes in and puts - after two attempts - the bulky body of Flash on a stretcher.)

The admittedly novice nation of Sneem would like to inquire what would happen under this resolution if say a nuclear scientist or individual with sensitive national security knowledge wanted to emigrate to an unstable region due to financial enticement? Would it be illegal under this act for the nation from which this person sought to emigrate to bar such an exit citing merely national security as its justification?

The admittedly novice nation of Sneem would like to inquire what would happen under this resolution if say a nuclear scientist or individual with sensitive national security knowledge wanted to emigrate to an unstable region due to financial enticement? Would it be illegal under this act for the nation from which this person sought to emigrate to bar such an exit citing merely national security as its justification?Welcome to the UN; you raise a very interesting point.

It would seem that you have found a curious... well... not loophole per se, but perhaps an oversight. However, this does allow you to detain people via court order, so I would wager that if you are concerned about top scientists fleeing, that would be the avenue to pursue.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The admittedly novice nation of Sneem would like to inquire what would happen under this resolution if say a nuclear scientist or individual with sensitive national security knowledge wanted to emigrate to an unstable region due to financial enticement? Would it be illegal under this act for the nation from which this person sought to emigrate to bar such an exit citing merely national security as its justification?

I'd like to join Vermi in welcoming the representative from Sneem to the UN. You do indeed raise an interesting question, but I do believe Vermi is correct in his/her (I'm unsure of Vermi's gender, as I'm not about to check the genitalia of a fire-breathing dragon) assessment. Thank you, though, for bringing this to our attention. It shows you actually read the proposal and gave it a good bit of thought, something quite rare unfortunately among newcomers to these hallowed halls. We look forward to your continued participation here.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

(I'm unsure of Vermi's gender, as I'm not about to check the genitalia of a fire-breathing dragon)I'm a she.

Cutie.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

"As we stated during the drafting, we oppose the resolution mostly due to clause 3 SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS from that mandate and declared right persons who are either undergoing ongoing legal proceedings or any subsequent sentence;those below the age of consent within their home nation who lack consent of parent(s) or guardian(s); We feel the restrictions placed on displaced children, especially in conflict is far too great. Rational is emancipation. For starters not every nation recgonizes emancipation, many courts are too biased in keeping the family together they will reject emancipation of a youth, or they will simply get lost in a long legal battle. Not to mention the possibility of being kidnapped. Please inform me where an 11 year old is going to get a lawyer, if the justice system doesn't guarantee him/ her of such. If a child is fleeing from an opprseive government, where children are being forced to become soldiers then we should allow them to enter our country. What orphans as well? Some oprhanges are absolute hell houses. Many children in Under Developed Nations are likely to die in an oprhange, be forced into prostotuion against their will. I know there is a real potentail for runaways to expolit this bill, but nations should be responsible in spotting the signs of bogus runaway teenagers who are simply trying to spite their parents and thoes that are fleeing for their future. The beaurcreacy involved in making another proposal which would likely be cancelled out do to the effects by this one, to adress all these problems is simply not worth it.

Another clause that has us concerned is in the same cluase hose being held as prisoners of war during times of conflict; Such a broad based statement. Many nations that commite ethnic cleansing will hold people as POWs. So does that mean we deny their rights as well, because they are prisoners. Now a nation can detain the alleged POW and see why he/she's a POW. If there is a reasonable, like he/she is a terrorist, then they can extradite him/her back. But what if someone (in war time) is abducted for research experiments? Should we send them back to be tested on?"

And the gavel tapped, she was out of time, she sat back down as the next represenative took the floor

As we stated during the drafting, we oppose the resolution mostly due to clause 3 We feel the restrictions placed on displaced children, especially in conflict is far too great. Rational is emancipation. For starters not every nation recgonizes emancipation, many courts are too biased in keeping the family together they will reject emancipation of a youth, or they will simply get lost in a long legal battle. Not to mention the possibility of being kidnapped. Please inform me where an 11 year old is going to get a lawyer, if the justice system doesn't guarantee him/ her of such. If a child is fleeing from an opprseive government, where children are being forced to become soldiers then we should allow them to enter our country. What orphans as well? Some oprhanges are absolute hell houses. Many children in Under Developed Nations are likely to die in an oprhange, be forced into prostotuion against their will. I know there is a real potentail for runaways to expolit this bill, but nations should be responsible in spotting the signs of bogus runaway teenagers who are simply trying to spite their parents and thoes that are fleeing for their future. The beaurcreacy involved in making another proposal which would likely be cancelled out do to the effects by this one, to adress all these problems is simply not worth it.The subject of child welfare was already addressed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12183235&postcount=11) during the drafting session. I see nothing in existing UN law which would allow nations to force children into conscription or prostitution. There are additional protections given to children in orphanages. Emancipation, we feel, is a redherring.

Another clause that has us concerned is in the same cluase Such a broad based statement. Many nations that commite ethnic cleansing will hold people as POWs. So does that mean we deny their rights as well, because they are prisoners. Now a nation can detain the alleged POW and see why he/she's a POW. If there is a reasonable, like he/she is a terrorist, then they can extradite him/her back. But what if someone (in war time) is abducted for research experiments? Should we send them back to be tested on?Also under previous UN mandates, you cannot hold someone as a prisoner of war for purposes of ethnic cleansing or human testing. The Wolfish Convention (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=30) is pretty clear on that.

I'm a she.

Cutie.



Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich hides behind his assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

No need, I don't think. I'm pretty sure that other one was just a onetime mishap.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It had bleeding well BETTER be. I just got the bandages off my eyes three days ago. Yes, the scars look cool and all that, but I barely escaped with my sight intact.



An outstanding resolution. Greater Seattle casts four slightly mighty votes FOR it.

Also, an additional welcome to Sneem, with the interesting "Werner Von Braun"-like scenario.

Lio Vandernburg having decided that Continuity of Government was the perfect excuse to suddenly be "indisposed" and go on a vacation for awhile, a new face slowly entered the halls. It was a rather unshaven face with shifty eyes and a somewhat unwashed appearance.

Taking the Crythythian seat, he looked over the proposition then leaned back in his chair.

"Now, overall this piece o' lageeslatshun be a nice spot o' work." He said with an obvious slur. "But what happens when somebody just says somethin' like 'Everyone in my nation is a prisoner of war.' They'd be in the clear, right?"

Open borders? Ridiculous. The UN has no right to decide what my nation, and our serene region should do with our borders. Without borders every nation here is worthless. You have no identity with out borders. You have no control. You have nothing. My fellow countrymen, as well as regional allies all endorse this position, and will see to it that we fight our hardest at stopping this ridiculous proposal. Whatever happened to "identity" & "individualism"?

Since we see that the representative of Senji Dog is new here, we're going to be nice about this...

This is NOT an "open borders" resolution! If this was an "open borders" resolution, you'd hear our whole delegation roaring like lions with haemmorhoids. Under this resolution, every nation retains the complete and unconditional right to control who enters the country. We believe that's an absolute and inalienable right of every nation. This resolution simply prohibits nations from keeping people from leaving the country unless certain conditions apply. That blunts a weapon commonly used by oppressive regimes to subjugate their populations.

Ausserland has voted FOR the resolution.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

'Everyone in my nation is a prisoner of war.' They'd be in the clear, right?"
Are you willing to apply all of these provisions to every single person in your nation?
Wolfish Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of occupation, even if the occupation meets with no armed resistance. The present Convention shall apply to the prisoners from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Article 3

The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which impartial humanitarian organization may undertake for the protection of prisoners of war and for their relief.

Article 4

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Article 5

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 6

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 7

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

Article 8

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Article 9

Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.

The admittedly novice nation of Sneem would like to inquire what would happen under this resolution if say a nuclear scientist or individual with sensitive national security knowledge wanted to emigrate to an unstable region due to financial enticement? Would it be illegal under this act for the nation from which this person sought to emigrate to bar such an exit citing merely national security as its justification?

We'd like to join with the representatives of The Most Glorious Hack and Cluichstan in welcoming our new colleague from Sneem to the Assembly. (This may be the first time we've joined with those two buzzards on anything. Maybe we all need naps.) It is awfully nice to see a new representative take the time to read and think about resolutions.

The short answer is yes. You couldn't just keep the person from leaving by saying "national security". But there's a longer answer. We'd hope that your nation has laws prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of classified information. We'd also hope you've classified the "sensitive national security knowledge". And you've discovered that this person has been dealing with the foreign nation to arrange for the "financial inducements", right? So you have a court issue a warrant for the person's arrest on a charge of conspiracy to commit espionage (or whatever the crime is called in your nation). Clause 3 applies; you pull the person's passport and prohibit exit.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Waterana supports this resolution, and votes for.

The restrictions on children leaving the nation without parent/guardian permission is understandable. There is one loophole with that restriction though. One I just remembered or would have brought up ine drafting stage. It is only a minor thing, and only affects children having an unrestricted right to leave in a single circumstance.

- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

That includes all non-combatants, including unaccompanied children, but is only valid in a post war occupation scenario.

Hirota expresses its wholesome support for this proposal, and publicly declares it's vote FOR this legislation

the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst is OPPOSED to this legislation. our nation does not want immigrants to come to our lands. some may call us xenophobic. if the Kingdom wanted these people, we would colonize their homeland and make them subject to our laws, language and traditions. if your nations want immigrants then by all means take them. we have enough trouble with the ones trying to ILLEGALLY enter our lands that we cannot accept ones who would want to enter legally anyways. Aschenhyrst for Aschenhyrstians, Outlanders stay Out. HRH Mark II, King of Aschenhyrst

As promised, my assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel (http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg) has prepared a short film in support of this proposal.

Sheik Nadnerb starts the film. After going through the usual previews for upcoming UN films; admonishments against smoking; and adverts for popcorn, soda, and other snacks available in the lobby, the actual film begins...












































http://www.lovethehoff.com/images/hoff.gif

TARQUIIIIIIIN!!!

the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst is OPPOSED to this legislation. our nation does not want immigrants to come to our lands. some may call us xenophobic. if the Kingdom wanted these people, we would colonize their homeland and make them subject to our laws, language and traditions. if your nations want immigrants then by all means take them. we have enough trouble with the ones trying to ILLEGALLY enter our lands that we cannot accept ones who would want to enter legally anyways. Aschenhyrst for Aschenhyrstians, Outlanders stay Out. HRH Mark II, King of Aschenhyrst

If you don't want to let anyone IN to your nation, why are you opposed to this legislation? It doesn't say ANYTHING about letting folks in. It says that, with some exceptions, you must allow folks to LEAVE. Emigration, not immigration. Please read the resolution fully before posting something we will all regret.

http://www.lovethehoff.com/images/hoff.gif

TARQUIIIIIIIN!!!

DAMMIT, CLUICH! Thankfully, I had on my Joo-Janta DH-500 Hasselhoff-sensitive sunglasses. They immediately turn opaque whenever they sense a Hasselhoff presence or image. They're working on headphone earbuds that will do the same for his music.

Damned clever, those Intangible scientists....

Hello. This proposal is a bad idea. Except what if this person is needed some other place then court. They would excape. Let us say they are trying to run away from the armed forces or such. Or lets say a person emigrates when they might have been arrested but the charges have not been brought up. This would cause many problems. Does this proposal allow prinsoners of the government to get away. Or people who have not commited a crime but may have. What if a person leaves and is brought up with charges of a crime that is not a crime in their new home. Will that new home extertite the person back to the country of which they were charged. It is a bad idea making this a international law. It conterdicts many national laws. Last thing we need it immigrants.

If you don't want to let anyone IN to your nation, why are you opposed to this legislation? It doesn't say ANYTHING about letting folks in. It says that, with some exceptions, you must allow folks to LEAVE. Emigration, not immigration. Please read the resolution fully before posting something we will all regret.

No he is correct. Think if everyone left their country. They would go somewhere else and it may be his countryt hey will go to. People get used to their own traditions not some foriegn proposals from countries far away.

Having found no problems with this piece as written, I still find it necessary to place the vote of my delegated regions AGAINST this proposal. We have read this finely crafted work, and with the exception of the third clause, agree with the basic idea.

"3-SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS [] those mentally incapable of making such decisions"

We find all of our constituents to fall under this category, and therefore do not wish to pass a resolution that will do nothing other then fill paper.

Von Stradh, the paper saver.

On a side note: any wishing to leave the realm are free to do so, but I am afraid you might find breathing a little difficult.

Which also brings up another problem with the third clause.
"those who would pose a public health risk"
Yes, I think this describes the types who live in my shadow.

*now taking gaseous form to escape another defenstration* I take my leave.

No he is correct. Think if everyone left their country. They would go somewhere else and it may be his countryt hey will go to. People get used to their own traditions not some foriegn proposals from countries far away.

We would observe that under clause 5, the government of Aschenhyrst is not in any way required to let any person in that they do not choose to let in. We would disapprove of such a policy on humanitarian and economic grounds, but it is clear that all governments remain firmly in control of their own immigration policy.

Just so I have this right...

If this resolution passes I will be forced to allow everyone who doesn't fit into any of the restrictions in paragraph 3 to Emigrate to the country of their choice "just because".

If So...

It seems to me that if this resolution passes the only way I will be able to peacefully prevent a potential mass exodus of valuable subjects would be to get into a bidding war with my neighbors for the services of my own people.

And if I can't win a bidding war...

I will either be forced to ignore the Resolution and enslave my people, or I must take steps (sabotage would work) to insure my neighbor country is less attractive to potential immigrants.

Help me out here...

I'm just a little guy trying to carve out a little corner of the globe for myself and my heirs. This resolution has all the earmarks of yet another attempt by the rich and powerful to keep the little guy in his place.

The United Pacific States of Tsumara, though agreeing with the resolution, does not feel that it falls within the proper scope of the United Nations and will be voting against the resolution.

On second thought, as it allows governments to restrict IMMIGRATION though not EMIGRATION, we will be voting for.

how can you be serious? this is like the U.S. opening its borders to Mexico. this could destroy the UN econimy and potentially flood all sociallist countries, witch means that countries with high econimies will simply reduce political freedoms to detur people from coming into their country. ALL WILL BE LOST!

I only have one concern for the amendment--minors being unable to freely emigrate. A lot of countries that have an increasing number of immigrants entering their borders have faced problems with sexual slave trade of minors. This is a growing concern that is very hard to detect and leaves many psychological problems with victims of these trades. I propose that changes be made to the amendment. It would recognize these cases and become a clause that would allow minors to stay within the United States until proper therapy fir the victim and charges against offenders have been completed.

It had bleeding well BETTER be. I just got the bandages off my eyes three days ago. Yes, the scars look cool and all that, but I barely escaped with my sight intact.

OOC: It has to be, as the mods have spoken (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12300967&postcount=5).
For which I am forever grateful.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich hides behind his assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.I figured that would ensure that you remember.

It seems to me that if this resolution passes the only way I will be able to peacefully prevent a potential mass exodus of valuable subjects would be to get into a bidding war with my neighbors for the services of my own people.Why do you assume that all of your citizens will instantly flee? Is your country really such a backwater jerkhole that nobody would stay?

If so, this resolution is the least of your worries.


how can you be serious? this is like the U.S. opening its borders to Mexico. this could destroy the UN econimy and potentially flood all sociallist countries, witch means that countries with high econimies will simply reduce political freedoms to detur people from coming into their country. ALL WILL BE LOST!You fail at reading comprehension.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Just so I have this right...

If this resolution passes I will be forced to allow everyone who doesn't fit into any of the restrictions in paragraph 3 to Emigrate to the country of their choice "just because".

If So...

It seems to me that if this resolution passes the only way I will be able to peacefully prevent a potential mass exodus of valuable subjects would be to get into a bidding war with my neighbors for the services of my own people.

And if I can't win a bidding war...

I will either be forced to ignore the Resolution and enslave my people, or I must take steps (sabotage would work) to insure my neighbor country is less attractive to potential immigrants.

Is Your Excellency seriously suggesting that the entire population of Your Excellency's nation would be motivated to emigrate if this resolution were passed? Please excuse my curiosity, but exactly what does Your Excellency's government *do* to them?

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

"SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS ... those mentally incapable of making such decisions"

This is a source for trouble.

There were countries in the past (most of you are too young to remember them) where wanting to leave the country was considered a mental illness. Hence the problem.

But We shall support this resolution, although not perfect, as any resolution that increases the human rights level.

Are you willing to apply all of these provisions to every single person in your nation?

He man laughed loudly, putting his muddy feet up on the table in from of him. "Mate, I'm a semi-'lected official, by that of course meanin' after Lio ran off, I was the only one who stood up saying 'I'll go do it!' and everyone else was like 'Rippa!' I can't apply provisions to a bloody peanut butter sandwich, let alone any Crythythian citizen." He picked something from his teeth with his pinky nail idly, then flicked it away. "I was just wonderin' bout the loophole. Ponderin' even, if ye will."

He man laughed loudly, putting his muddy feet up on the table in from of him. "Mate, I'm a semi-'lected official, by that of course meanin' after Leo ran off, I was the only one who stood up saying 'I'll go do it!' and everyone else was like 'Rippa!' I can't apply provisions to a bloody peanut butter sandwich, let alone any Crythythian citizen." He picked something from his teeth with his pinky nail idly, then flicked it away. "I was just wonderin' bout the loophole. Ponderin' even, if ye will."
I see. What I meant was, any nation wishing to use that loophole would be required to apply the provisions of the Wolfish Convention to their entire population.

"Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."

"The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health."

"Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

"Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger."

Hardly seems worth it.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Ardchoille welcomes Keeva to the UN. Before you cast your vote, we'd like to draw your attention to a few matters which may make it easier for you to decide.
I only have one concern for the amendment--minors being unable to freely emigrate. A lot of countries that have an increasing number of immigrants entering their borders have faced problems with sexual slave trade of minors.
Check out The Child Protection Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26) and Trafficking in Persons (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030210&postcount=69). Between them, these may allay your concerns.

(I was too lazy to look them up, but the Hirotan and Yeldan delegations thoughtfully distributed copies when the subject came up earlier in the debate.)
I propose that changes be made to the amendment.
Too late. It's been submitted. That's just the way the NS UN works.
<snip> allow minors to stay within the United States ...
This body has no jurisdiction over the United States.

Yet.
_________________
Dicey Reilly, president of Ardchoille.

Is Your Excellency seriously suggesting that the entire population of Your Excellency's nation would be motivated to emigrate if this resolution were passed? Please excuse my curiosity, but exactly what does Your Excellency's government *do* to them?

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

I don't *do* anything for them. I create conditions under which they can *do* for themselves.

My point was as a sovereign nation I should have the right to limit emigration if I think it is in the best interest of the majority of my citizens. Doesn't mean I will, just that as the Most Exulted Ruler I should have the opportunity to do so. I am in charge here, after all.

I figured that would ensure that you remember.

Why do you assume that all of your citizens will instantly flee? Is your country really such a backwater jerkhole that nobody would stay?

If so, this resolution is the least of your worries.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

"backwater jerkhole"? As soon as Chloe locates your schematics I gonna come over there and crush you...

Love and esterel would like to congratule the authors for bringing this topic on the NSUN floor and has proudly voted FOR.

No he is correct. Think if everyone left their country. They would go somewhere else and it may be his countryt hey will go to. People get used to their own traditions not some foriegn proposals from countries far away.

No. No, no, no. Did you read the post I replied to? He is INcorrect because he thinks the resolution allows people INTO his country. It has no power or bearing on immigration.

Now, as for your problem, exactly why will "everyone" leave your country because of this resolution?

Supported. How can anyone be against a resolution that makes Victor Laszlo life easier?

"backwater jerkhole"? As soon as Chloe locates your schematics I gonna come over there and crush you...

You threatened a Mod.

*sits back with popcorn and a lovely beverage*

This will be good.

Just a side note, I would like to welcome the delegation from Tsumara to the UN. It is always good to see another Urocan nation around here.

Roderick Spear
Guy from Paradica

You threatened a Mod.
(I'm pretty sure it was all IC. That's how it came across to me, anyway.)

(I'm pretty sure it was all IC. That's how it came across to me, anyway.)

I got the same impression. However, I would be somewhat careful about antagonizing a delegate who breathes fire. :eek: ;)

Back on topic, I vote against this resolution because it unfairly restricts my restrictions on who can leave my country.

My point was as a sovereign nation I should have the right to limit emigration if I think it is in the best interest of the majority of my citizens. Doesn't mean I will, just that as the Most Exulted Ruler I should have the opportunity to do so. I am in charge here, after all.

Remind us why your nation joined the UN, in that case.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

So correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone is allowed to simply cross a border and claim instant citizen ship?

That is what issue 2 - MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations. Claims.

Does anyone find a problem with this?

That says you have to give those people the same rights you give everyone else, it says you HAVE to put them on your welfare program immediately. That you have to play them unemployment until they find a job.

Pardon me for a moment if I deign the economy of my country as being more important then someone who wants to move there without any requirements. My vote will be against this proposal everytime until it is amended to protect the nation being emigrated too.

This is about EMIGRATION, not IMMIGRATION. Anyone is allowed to leave any country they want. That doesn't mean they are allowed to move into any country they want.

Roderick Spear
Insert Title Here

2 - MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations.

Does anyone find a problem with this?
No, I don't. Article 3 says:
3-SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS from that mandate and declared right persons who are either undergoing ongoing legal proceedings or any subsequent sentence; those below the age of consent within their home nation who lack consent of parent(s) or guardian(s); those mentally incapable of making such decisions; those who would pose a public health risk; those whose presence is required by a court of law; or those being held as prisoners of war during times of conflict;
Then Article 5 goes on to say:
5 - EMPHASIZES that this resolution in no way affects the policies of any member nation concerning entry into its sovereign territory;
Try reading the Resolution and understanding what it says before commenting next time.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone is allowed to simply cross a border and claim instant citizen ship?

That is what issue 2 - MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations. Claims.

Does anyone find a problem with this?

That says you have to give those people the same rights you give everyone else, it says you HAVE to put them on your welfare program immediately. That you have to play them unemployment until they find a job.

Pardon me for a moment if I deign the economy of my country as being more important then someone who wants to move there without any requirements. My vote will be against this proposal everytime until it is amended to protect the nation being emigrated too.

You're wrong. This proposal is about emigration, not immigration. Did you read the resolution?

Travilia E. Twerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Urm, hang on, would those whom an arrest warrant has been put out on but not arrested yet be inculded ine exemptions? As the way I'm reading it, you have to be in the prosess of being prosecuted, carrying out a sentence or a witness (etc) to be exempt...

Urm, hang on, would those whom an arrest warrant has been put out on but not arrested yet be inculded ine exemptions? As the way I'm reading it, you have to be in the prosess of being prosecuted, carrying out a sentence or a witness (etc) to be exempt...
If an arrest warrant has been issued, I would consider that "undergoing ongoing legal proceedings".

edit: also "whose presence is required by a court of law"

I'm not sure how it works in Cobdenia, but in Yelda warrants are issued by courts. Therefore, if the warrant has been issued the person's presence is required by a court of law even if the warrant hasn't been served and the person has not yet been arrested.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Oops, my mistake. Misread "by a court" as "in court"

Back to for

"backwater jerkhole"? As soon as Chloe locates your schematics I gonna come over there and crush you...

(I'm pretty sure it was all IC. That's how it came across to me, anyway.)

Of course it was IC. How else would a country named Jackbaurdom react to a statement like that?

I see a lot of discussion about emigration vs. immigration here.

Question is, how can this Body bestow the Right to emigrate upon my citizens and further Mandate that I adhere to that Right regardless of my own wishes, yet claim innocence to affecting the immigration policy of sovereign nations? After all, logic dictates that if you're leaving one nation sooner or later you're bound to turn up somewhere else.

Or maybe the word "... Yet" has been temporarily omitted from Paragraph 5?

I see a lot of discussion about emigration vs. immigration here.

Question is, how can this Body bestow the Right to emigrate upon my citizens and further Mandate that I adhere to that Right regardless of my own wishes, yet claim innocence to affecting the immigration policy of sovereign nations? After all, logic dictates that if you're leaving one nation sooner or later you're bound to turn up somewhere else.

Or maybe the word "... Yet" has been temporarily omitted from Paragraph 5?
Just because we can, and will, grant them the right to leave your nation does not mean that they may enter any nation they please. Yes, they will turn up somewhere else, but that somewhere else has to be a nation which will accept them.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

This is an interesting resolution. Again, it isn't clear enough about emigration and immigration: it would require a second resolution in partnership with it, on immigration. However, it sets a good standard: and remember, there is a back-out clause at the end, although this effectively means that no one has to do anything about this resolution if they dont want to. Im not against the principles of it, so i would vote for it. Im just worried that it wont actually do anything meaningful other than state an intent.

Pax in Aeternum

So correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone is allowed to simply cross a border and claim instant citizen ship?

No.

That is what issue 2 - MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations. Claims.

No, it doesn't.

Does anyone find a problem with this?

Only with your lack of reading comprehension.

That says you have to give those people the same rights you give everyone else,

No, it doesn't.

it says you HAVE to put them on your welfare program immediately.

No, it doesn't.

That you have to play them unemployment until they find a job.

No, it doesn't.

Pardon me for a moment if I deign the economy of my country as being more important then someone who wants to move there without any requirements.

So don't let them in.

My vote will be against this proposal everytime until it is amended to protect the nation being emigrated too.

1) It can't be amended at this point. Had you taken the trouble to come discuss the matter while it was being drafted, any concerns you may have had could have been addressed. Now, it is too late to change it.

2) You cannot emigrate to a nation. You can only emigrate from a nation. What you are thinking of is IMMIGRATION, not emigration. You are free to decide upon your own immigration policy.

I see a lot of discussion about emigration vs. immigration here.

Question is, how can this Body bestow the Right to emigrate upon my citizens and further Mandate that I adhere to that Right regardless of my own wishes, yet claim innocence to affecting the immigration policy of sovereign nations? After all, logic dictates that if you're leaving one nation sooner or later you're bound to turn up somewhere else.

Or maybe the word "... Yet" has been temporarily omitted from Paragraph 5?

If you don't want them, don't take them. If nobody wants them, then they will have nowhere to go. That is very unfortunate for them.

This is an interesting resolution. Again, it isn't clear enough about emigration and immigration: it would require a second resolution in partnership with it, on immigration.

THere is no need for anything in partnership, Nations should be able to decide for themselves who they allow onto their soil.

However, it sets a good standard: and remember, there is a back-out clause at the end,

I assume you're referring to the line that allows nations to decide upopn their own immigration policies. That isn't a backout. That's there to make sure people understand that they can restrict immigration policies however they see fit. It seems to have failed.

although this effectively means that no one has to do anything about this resolution if they dont want to.

Except, of course, every other clause within the text of the proposal.

Im not against the principles of it, so i would vote for it. Im just worried that it wont actually do anything meaningful other than state an intent.

It declares that you cannot restrict emigration without some rational reason for doing so. It isn't optional. It isn't a suggestion. These are not merely words on a paper. These are declarative international mandates. They will suffice.

I apologize. I don't intend to sound as if I'm browbeating, but there has been an incredible massing of ambassadors who seem to be missing the major differences between emigration and immigration. They are quite simple. Immigration is entry. Emigration is exit. This proposal says that they get to exit. It goes on to say that you get to decide who gains entry. You can still have the bouncer at the front door checking ID, but you don't get to lock them inside unless they've been bad.

Admiral Shackleford
Acolyte of Defence
Standing in for Mr. Feldstein

OOC:sorry I'm late joining the debate. I got attacked by a nasty case of Real Life in the form of work and prior commitments that worked together with bad timing and intarweb wonkyness to delay my arrival.

If you don't want them, don't take them. If nobody wants them, then they will have nowhere to go. That is very unfortunate for them.
And with 26,642 UN member nations to choose from, I think those cases would be exceedingly rare if not non-existent. Yelda, for instance, has a very open immigration policy due to the vast unsettled areas of The Pleiades. I imagine that there are nations who would be willing to accept virtually anyone, within reason.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

I see a lot of discussion about emigration vs. immigration here.

Question is, how can this Body bestow the Right to emigrate upon my citizens and further Mandate that I adhere to that Right regardless of my own wishes, yet claim innocence to affecting the immigration policy of sovereign nations? After all, logic dictates that if you're leaving one nation sooner or later you're bound to turn up somewhere else.

Or maybe the word "... Yet" has been temporarily omitted from Paragraph 5?

Very simple. Emigration control and immigration control are two very different things. This resolution does not in any way affect the immigration policy of any nation. Period.

And your attempt at the tired, old slippery slope argument ain't a-gonna fly. The history of this institution clearly invalidates it.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

"backwater jerkhole"? As soon as Chloe locates your schematics I gonna come over there and crush you...My schematics? You think I'm an automaton? A robotic dragon to blow cute smoke rings and sing about Puff?

Amusing, but no. Also, I wasn't directly calling your nation a backwater jerkhole. I simply said that a nation would have to be some kind of backwater jerkhole for its entire population to flee like rats when given the chance. Perhaps your immediate leap to insult says something about how you yourself view your nation...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OOC: I know it's all in good fun, no worries about my mod status. My 8.4 billion population, on the other hand, might give would be invaders pause, hee.

1. how is this going to be enforced
2. this how is this not like the refugee resolution which is un resolution 194 all the rights that your claiming for these people who want to leave are under that
3. this over steps the bounds of the un, and encroachs on the sovereign state, states may take this wrong way and this may cause backlash
4.whats stopping people from emmigranting now, most countries people want to emmigrant from dont care if they leave
5. this resolution is completely useless because of un resolution 194 why do we need this

1. how is this going to be enforced
2. this how is this not like the refugee resolution which is un resolution 194 all the rights that your claiming for these people who want to leave are under that
3. this over steps the bounds of the un, and encroachs on the sovereign state, states may take this wrong way and this may cause backlash
4.whats stopping people from emmigranting now, most countries people want to emmigrant from dont care if they leave
5. this resolution is completely useless because of un resolution 194 why do we need this
194? What the heck does No Ex Post Facto Laws have to do with emigration?

1. how is this going to be enforced
2. this how is this not like the refugee resolution which is un resolution 194 all the rights that your claiming for these people who want to leave are under that
3. this over steps the bounds of the un, and encroachs on the sovereign state, states may take this wrong way and this may cause backlash
4.whats stopping people from emmigranting now, most countries people want to emmigrant from dont care if they leave
5. this resolution is completely useless because of un resolution 194 why do we need this

1. NSUNR #194 is "No Ex Post Facto Laws", which has absolutely nothing to do with emigration.

2. The fact that a nation which calls itself Kruschevs paradise would make a statement like your number 4 is hysterically funny.

3. Emigrants emigrate.

4. You type capital letters by holding down the Shift key while you press the appropriate letter key. Try it sometime. It's fun.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

1. how is this going to be enforced
Like most other UN resolutions, the gnomes will find a way. We are given to understand that the more you annoy them, the sillier that way will be.

2. this how is this not like the refugee resolution which is un resolution 194 all the rights that your claiming for these people who want to leave are under that
Resolution 194 is concerned with retroactive lawmaking. You were perhaps thinking of Resolution 65, the Refugee Protection Act? If so, you are entirely wrong about it covering the situations addressed by this proposal. There is perhaps a small overlap, given that in times of war, Resolution #65 does require nations (implicitly including their home nation) to allow those displaced by combat safe passage, but beyond that the two resolutions deal with entirely different circumstances.

3. this over steps the bounds of the un, and encroachs on the sovereign state, states may take this wrong way and this may cause backlash
States may and will take this however they choose to take it. May choose to take affront at the most bizarrely innocuous requirements (or, indeed, the lack thereof). Further, if this is an encroachment of the UN upon the sovereignty of any given state, then it is clear that it precisely the sort of encroachment that any supra-national body should be morally obliged to take. Both of these arguments are therefore exceedingly weak points to level at any resolution, never mind this particular one

4.whats stopping people from emmigranting now, most countries people want to emmigrant from dont care if they leave
This is quite simply a hopeless generalisation made by someone who has utterly failed to consider the sheer variety of nations attending this chamber, never mind across the worlds.

We have already heard from a number of governments expressing alarm that they believe that their citizens will flee the moment they hear of this resolution passing. Clearly those governments currently believe that they can and do prevent their populations from leaving at present. We choose not to ask what mechanism they use.

There are also clearly governments that keep their populations effectively enslaved, using a variety of means that we are sure you would in no way endorse. For the sake of those people alone, this resolution must pass.

5. this resolution is completely useless because of un resolution 194 why do we need this
1. Punctuation is not, in fact, optional. We strongly recommend using it, as it disambiguates your otherwise nonsensical statement.

2. You will need to justify this remark in more detail (and with correct references) before it becomes convincing.

Well you have to give the representative of Kruschevs paradise some credit seeing as they actually took the time to explain why they're against. Shame that their argument makes no sense....

Roderick Spear
Paradican Ambassador to the UN

4. You type capital letters by holding down the Shift key while you press the appropriate letter key. Try it sometime. It's fun.

The true sons and daughters of ee cummings are few and far between. It is best not to annoy them least they discover the CAPS LOCK key by accident and never discover how to turn it off. :p

Well you have to give the representative of Kruschevs paradise some credit seeing as they actually took the time to explain why they're against. Shame that their argument makes no sense....


We must remember that the UN is comprised of various cultures who speak various languages.

One, very important part of his argument made a lot of sense. This resolution does, indeed encroach upon the state's sovereignty.

Furthermore, it will hurt more than help those it is intended to help. I say this because any power now wishing to prevent emigration will have to dedicate a vast amount of resources to create the necessary red tape that will keep compliance with international law and while still "regulating" emigration. The redirection of the nation's resources will be felt by the people of that nation, not its leaders.

I feel that neither this resolution, nor resolution 65, goes far enough in adressing the growing problem refugees face. The existance of stateless persons stripped of their rights is the fundamental cause of many of the horrors we face in the modern world, and are entirely reshaping the way we must look at international politics. If we don't take dramatic action now, all we are doing is waiting for the next tragedy to strike.

Jonathan Glover explains the necessity of acting immediately to prevent the recurrance of such tragedies.


With disasters on the scale of some in the twentieth century, any ethical theory that can give no help in avoiding them, is inadequate. The thought at Auschwitz and at other places, "never again," is more compelling than any abstract ethical principle. If persuaded that an otherwise convincing ethical theory could justify the Nazi genocide, I should without hesitation give up the theory. In reconstructing ethics, revulsion against these things... has a central place... For those of us whose everyday life is in relatively calm and sheltered places, the horrors of Rwanda, Bosnia, or Kosovo seem unreal. . . Repressing each atrocity maintains the illusion that the world is fundamentally a tolerable place. Yet it is almost certain that, as you [hear] this sentence, in some places people are being killed and others are being tortured.


The way we view international politics is outdated with the advent of stateless refugees, allowing for unlimited dehumanization and murder through the reduction of such refugees to rightless “bare life”. Furthermore, we must examine all international policy from the perspective of the refugee.

Giorgio Agamben explains:


in the system of the nation-state the refugee represents... a disquieting element... because by breaking up the identity between man and citizen, between nativity and nationality, the refugee throws into crisis the original fiction of sovereignty... the novelty of our era, which threatens the very foundations of the nation-state, is that growing portions of humanity can no longer be represented within it. For this reason - that is, inasmuch as the refugee unhinges the old trinity of state/nation/territory - this apparently marginal figure deserves... to be considered the central figure of our political history... the first camps in Europe were built as places to control refugees, and... the progression - internment camps, concentration camps, extermination camps - represents a perfectly real filiation. One of the few rules... faithfully observed in the course of the "final solution" was that only after the Jews and gypsies were completely denationalized... could they be sent to the extermination camps. When the rights of man are no longer the rights of the citizen, then he is... destined to die.


Without intervention, the state is continually forced to exploit the refugee in an effort to preserve national sovereignty.

State power has become focused on the exploitation of such refugees, through the preservation of what Agamben labels bare life – the state between life and death, in which an individual becomes nothing more than a tool of the state without rights.

Agamben furthers:


Thus, life originally appears in law only as the counterpart of a power that threatens death. But what is valid for the pater’s right of life and death is even more valid for the sovereign power... in the Hobbesian foundation of sovereignty, life in the state of nature is defined only by its being unconditionally exposed to a death threat, the limitless right of everybody over everything and political life – that is, the life that unfolds under the protection of the Leviathan – is nothing but this very same life always exposed to a threat that now rests exclusively in the hands of the sovereign. The... [absolute and perpetual power], which defines state power, is not founded – in the last instance – on a political will, but rather on naked life, which is kept safe and protected only to the degree to which it submits itself to the sovereign’s (or the law’s) right of life and death... The state of exception, which is what the sovereign each and every time decides, takes place precisely when naked life – which normally appears rejoined to the multifarious forms of social life, is explicitly put into question and revoked as the ultimate foundation of political power.


Furthermore, modern fears of violence and terrorism further fuel the state’s exploitation of refugees.

Seyla BenHabib explains:


The category of the terrorist as an “internal enemy,” as one who is among us, even if not one of us, strains the... community by revealing that the rule of law is not all-inclusive and that violence lurks at the edges of everyday normalcy. Our thinking about... refugees... becomes colored by the image of others as potential enemies; the “other” becomes the criminal.


Insofar as state sovereignty is dependent upon the transformation of refugees into expendable “bare life,” only an external actor is capable of counteracting such a situation in order to prevent the genocides, wars, and other atrocities that are the logical extension of that political scenario. The UN has the capacity to offset such tragedies by transcending national sovereignty, a system dependent on the relegation of certain individuals as outside the domain of rights, as those “sovereign” governments of Nazi Germany and the Rwandan Genocide once did. We need not eliminate national sovereignty, but merely pass a resolution strong enough to protect the world's refugees, and forward-thinking enough to take into account the changing nature of the world. Resolution 65 is not enough - it merely allows refugees safe passage - it does not grant them rights. It still relegates them to the realm of bare life. We supposedly provide for all human rights, but we only apply these through the apparatus of the state. We have no means of enforcement. I see two possible options.

1. a) Establish a non-territorial UN state with the typical modes of power of a state but without any defined territory in order to provide for the rights of stateless persons while they seek new homes. b) Mandate that no member nation may revoke the citizenship of any persons born or nationalized within its jurisdiction. c) Further encourage member nations to provide full citizenship and the rights associated with it to any and all stateless refugees seeking it, as resolution 65 already does.

or

2. Reform the entire way we view the classical state/nation/territority trinity, as Agamben explains:


Before the extermination camps are reopened... nation-states must find the courage to call into question the very principle of the very... trinity of the state/nation/territority which is based on it... Instead of two national states separated by uncertaina nd threatening boundaries, one could imagine two political communities dwelling in the same region and in exodus one into the the otherk divided from each other by a series of reciprocal extraterritorialities, in which the guiding concept would no longer be the ius of the citizen, but rahter the refugium of the individual.


It seems the first proposal might be a more viable option.

Needless to say, I will be casting my vote in support of this resolution, but we must bear in mind that more must be done to resolve the issues contained therein.

not immigration.

my question is....where are all these displaced persons going to go. Are we required to let them into our countries?

I have no problem letting my citizens leave, I just don't want to have to let everyone else's citizens into MY country.

not immigration.

my question is....where are all these displaced persons going to go. Are we required to let them into our countries?

I have no problem letting my citizens leave, I just don't want to have to let everyone else's citizens into MY country.
No, you're not required to let them in. Article 5 says:
5 - EMPHASIZES that this resolution in no way affects the policies of any member nation concerning entry into its sovereign territory;

not immigration.

my question is....where are all these displaced persons going to go. Are we required to let them into our countries?

I have no problem letting my citizens leave, I just don't want to have to let everyone else's citizens into MY country.

Oh I'm sure that with 91,737 nations in the world, they'll find somewhere to go.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I assume you're referring to the line that allows nations to decide upopn their own immigration policies. That isn't a backout. That's there to make sure people understand that they can restrict immigration policies however they see fit. It seems to have failed.


Indeed, it does seem that way. Article 5 CLEARLY states that who you let IN to your country is your own country's affair. Honestly, I have no bleeding idea how you could have made that delineation any clearer.

Ben looked over to his junior assistant.

Carol, take over. I'll be in the Strangers' Bar, weeping for the future.

i partly agree with kibl i cant remember the rest............ but, i think that emigrants should fill out paperwork and become registered citizens, not just let into our nations freely.

While Aleshia would uphold the principals behind this resolution we have several concerns. These may be covered by other resolutions in which case we hopefully could vote for the resolution.

1stly Clause 3 does not seem to define decision making abilities. We would also be concerned that the resolution discriminates against particular groups e.g. people with learning disabilities. This lack of clarification may also allow less scrupulous governments to decide that citizens wishing to emigrate might be perceived as having mental health issues. Thought also needs to be given to the effect on cross border medical programmes.

2ndly We would wish also wish to see some form of compensation or support to poorer countries who lose many of their trained and professional classes to richer nations (Especially occupations such as teaching, nursing, engineering etc). If there is not then such a resolution may well increase the divide between rich and poor nations.

Indeed in the worst case scenario a country could lose all the people who would provide support services while having an increasing proportion of the population requiring those services. (following added after reading later posts) With nations able to say no to immigrants this is a clause which advantages wealthy nations at the disadvantage of the poor.

We must remember that the UN is comprised of various cultures who speak various languages.

One, very important part of his argument made a lot of sense. This resolution does, indeed encroach upon the state's sovereignty.

Furthermore, it will hurt more than help those it is intended to help. I say this because any power now wishing to prevent emigration will have to dedicate a vast amount of resources to create the necessary red tape that will keep compliance with international law and while still "regulating" emigration. The redirection of the nation's resources will be felt by the people of that nation, not its leaders.

Ben Royce was just about to round the corner of the heavy granite-walled Assembly chamber and enter that blessed part of the building known as Out Of Earshot, when the quoted words above vibrated the ossicles in his middle ear just enough to register as

...complete horseshit. Dammit. I was so looking forward to my nightly Kamekazi.

Ben heaved a sigh and reversed his footsteps to return to his podium to lodge his reply.

Any power who actually NEEDS to prevent emigration is probably so irrevocably mismanaging its citizenry that red tape is the least of its concerns. By your definition, at least half, if not most, of all UN resolutions "encroach upon national sovereignty."

I put it to you, sir, that you were not FORCED to join the UN, but acceded to every last operating resolution and policy BY CHOICE. Have you read the list of currently functioning resolutions? Do you even KNOW what you've agreed to just by being here? If not, you'd better have a look: you'll find many resolutions that have evaded the "national sovereignty" objection...and the "slippery slope" objection, and many others.

We join the UN knowing that we're trying to better the UN community as a whole. That means that there will need to be occasional compromises in order to ensure that, for example, human rights are being observed, international trade agreements are being followed, children are being educated, and many many other things which can sometimes seem like an intrusion upon sovereign soil to nations with deep cultural sensitivites, something to hide, or warlike/domination ambitions. That is, unless you're just trying to be contrarian and have found no better argument that NatSov.

So, if you are in any of those three groups, why, in the name of all that's holy, did you join the UN? In this resolution's case "keeping compliance with international law" is simple. If your country is in such bad shape that folks want to leave, you must let them go unless they fall into one of the categories listed within the resolution's articles. That's not intrusion, that's freedom -- that's casting a vote with one's feet.

Have you any other arguments against this resolution?

I proposed a very similar proposal quite a few months ago here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10195853). I am pleased that it is finally up for a vote.

1) By your definition, at least half, if not most, of all UN resolutions "encroach upon national sovereignty."

2) I put it to you, sir, that you were not FORCED to join the UN, but acceded to every last operating resolution and policy BY CHOICE. Have you read the list of currently functioning resolutions? Do you even KNOW what you've agreed to just by being here? If not, you'd better have a look: you'll find many resolutions that have evaded the "national sovereignty" objection...and the "slippery slope" objection, and many others.

3) We join the UN knowing that we're trying to better the UN community as a whole. That means that there will need to be occasional compromises in order to ensure that, for example, human rights are being observed, international trade agreements are being followed, children are being educated, and many many other things which can sometimes seem like an intrusion upon sovereign soil to nations with deep cultural sensitivites, something to hide, or warlike/domination ambitions. That is, unless you're just trying to be contrarian and have found no better argument that NatSov.

4) So, if you are in any of those three groups, why, in the name of all that's holy, did you join the UN? In this resolution's case "keeping compliance with international law" is simple. If your country is in such bad shape that folks want to leave, you must let them go unless they fall into one of the categories listed within the resolution's articles. That's not intrusion, that's freedom -- that's casting a vote with one's feet.


1) That's too bad. I envision a much more progressive UN in the future.

2) I've agreed to have a voice in international affairs, and if you do not like to hear positions contrary to your own, I would suggest a different line of work.

3) The scope of the UNs influence should be at the international level. To assume a "majority of nations" knows best how to educate (for example) another nation's populace is foolish, at best. If you wish to better the UN community I would start by opening your mind to discussion and not ranting against anyone without a uniform position.

4) I was not aware it was my obligation to not oppose the majority in any given resolution. It appears any vision of the UNs mission (other than your own) is invalid. Why bother voting, then? I would also point out that I was merely demonstrating a possible side effect of this resolution that would pose a threat to human rights. To accuse me of the very actions about which I am concerned is ludicrous. And yes, I did cast my vote, and also my voice. If you do not like it, perhaps you should propose a resolution that prohibits members from voicing their concerns. That would fall right in line with your totalitarian leanings.

We must remember that the UN is comprised of various cultures who speak various languages.

One, very important part of his argument made a lot of sense. This resolution does, indeed encroach upon the state's sovereignty.

Furthermore, it will hurt more than help those it is intended to help. I say this because any power now wishing to prevent emigration will have to dedicate a vast amount of resources to create the necessary red tape that will keep compliance with international law and while still "regulating" emigration. The redirection of the nation's resources will be felt by the people of that nation, not its leaders.

We have the greatest respect for those whose first language is not English, yet who manage to communicate their thoughts here. But there's a difference between those people and the people who have so little respect for the readers of their posts that they can't be bothered hitting the Shift key.

Any resolution that has any "teeth" at all will necessarily "encroach" to some degree on the sovereignty of member nations. That's a given. The question to be considered in each case is whether that encroachment is warranted. Simply whining that a resolution violates national sovereignty is a meaningless argument that devalues legitimate concern about the proper limits of the role of the UN.

Perhaps those governments you speak of could devote that "vast amount of resources" to improving the quality of life for their citizens so they won't want to leave. And perhaps, if those governments don't want to have to invest that "vast amount of resources", they'll choose to comply with the spirit of the resolution instead. The argument holds no water.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

RECOGNIZING that, within the many varied cultures of the United Nations, people may at times have reason to leave their nation of residence in the pursuit of refuge, opportunity, or escape from persecution or injustice;

WISHING to establish that right in international law;

The General Assembly of The United Nations:

1 - DECLARES it a right of persons to emigrate from their nation of residence;

2 - MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations;

I disagree, citizens of SRAD have no right to abandon their society and commune for reasons which are obviously disguised as ideological in this proposal. Such citizens do not have a right to leave, and will be delt with appropriately by the People's Justice for reactionary and dissident actions for trying to leave in the first place.

The SRAD further defines 'persecution or injustice' as reactionary propaganda, and will as regional delegate vote against it.

5 - EMPHASIZES that this resolution in no way affects the policies of any member nation concerning entry into its sovereign territory;
I strongly disagree, this proposal is clearly a reactionary plot against socialist states.

5 - EMPHASIZES that this resolution in no way affects the policies of any member nation concerning entry into its sovereign territory;

I strongly disagree, this proposal is clearly a reactionary plot against socialist states.

Disagree all you want. All that does is demonstrate that you're either incapable of understanding the provisions of the proposal or incapable of understanding the difference between entry and exit. Show me one single sentence in this proposal that affects my country's immigration policies. Don't look too hard, though. There isn't one.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations.

Show me one single sentence in this proposal that affects my country's immigration policies. Don't look too hard, though. There isn't one.No, that's not what he's saying. See, nobody wants to leave The Glorious And Wonderful Peoples And Workers Paradise save through Evil Capitalist Propaganda. And since nobody would ever wish to leave he Glorious And Wonderful Peoples And Workers Paradise, it's a "reactionary plot".

And, of course, Evil Capitalist Propaganda.

Don't look for logic here, Ambassador Thwerdock. It lives elsewhere.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I strongly disagree, this proposal is clearly a reactionary plot against socialist states.

As the representative of a socialist state, I say it isn't.

Now prove me wrong.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

As a representative of a communist state, I also say it isn't. If the right to leave one's nation is classified as dissident activity, then regrettably we must all turn ourselves in to the authoritites.

We must see this resolution for what it really is: not a blow against socialism, but a blow against corrupt fascist governments! As the honourable delegate from Andaras Prime rightly implied, there is no reason for citizens of good socialist countries to leave, as in these countries they are respected, equal and free. However, there are many nations in which the citizens are not respected, equal or free. It is our duty as the United Nations, the vanguard of freedom and peace in this world, to allow and encourage the downtrodden proletariat to free themselves from their cruel despots. This is why the delegation of the PR Leninia-Trotskya is going to vote in favour of this resolution, and why my country will do everything it can to welcome these downtrodden refugees into our nation.

I urge all nations represented who believe in peace, equality and freedom to do the same.


Colonel Marco Ignatius,
General Assembly delegate,
People's Republic of Leninia-Trotskya

2 - MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations;

What would be construed as hindering?

Imagine the following a small impoverished nation decides to improve its medical services over a 20 year period. As part of this process it encourages and spends its resources on training Doctors and Nurses. Each Doctor costs $ 65 000 each nurse $43,000 to train from primary school onwards. A powerful private health corporation asks to visit the teaching hospitals and meet with the newly qualifying medical staff to discuss their emmigration to wealthy developed nations.

The teaching hospital refuses space, lists of names or to facilitate or support the meetings in any manner. Could this be construed as hindering emmigration?

If a nation was to introduce a tax on travel because of concerns over carbon emmissions and this meant that an individual could not afford to travel could this be construed as hindering emmigration?

Aleshia is increasingly concerned over this proposal We believe this will benefit wealthy nations and a minority of individuals from poorer nations whilst making it harder for poorer states to develop to their full potential

The Orthodox Republics Synod has a concern not addressed in the current UN measure. While we support the idea of not hindering the average citizen from relocating as she or he chooses, we would not allow one to move who has had access to internal security issues. We also would not want to have criminals leave our borders and take their antisocial behaviors abroad. We have yet to determine how we will vote on this one,

Metropolitan Michael

we would not allow one to move who has had access to internal security issues.That was addressed earlier in this very thread.

We also would not want to have criminals leave our borders and take their antisocial behaviors abroad.This is addressed in the Resolution itself.

No, that's not what he's saying. See, nobody wants to leave The Glorious And Wonderful Peoples And Workers Paradise save through Evil Capitalist Propaganda.

But as you know, that argument is blatently false. There are a lot of reasons why a person would leave paradise to wander through the hell of elsewhere. Love is one of the biggest reasons. I'm sure that both the family states of "Montague" and "Capulet" both had excellent (albiet feudal) governing systems and yet Romeo fell in love with Juliet.

In fact, it is good to have people who love your system leave your nation to spread the good word about your system to others. Keeping a good thing to yourself, especially an idea that doesn't diminish by being spread is simply wrong.

So if you are a tropical paradise, and some of your scientists are for some strange reason ski nuts, why not let them emmigrate? You can in turn take all our surfing scientist dudes and everyone will be happy. Emigration really is a win win situation. After all, all the people who don't like your nation can hop on a boat and emmigrate out of your nation to international waters where after realizing that no one wants them in the first place they will all drown like lemmings and reduce the surplus population. Another win win situation.

1) That's too bad. I envision a much more progressive UN in the future.

Look, when you agree to international law, there is always some kind of compromise somewhere. To view international cooperation as an intrusion on national sovereignty is an extremist, and frankly paranoid, position.

2) I've agreed to have a voice in international affairs, and if you do not like to hear positions contrary to your own, I would suggest a different line of work.

:rolleyes: I love to hear positions contrary to my own. In fact, I've been known to change my mind and even my vote on occasion, with solid, resonable arguments. Running around and wailing about national sovereignty qualifies as neither solid nor reasonable.

3) The scope of the UNs influence should be at the international level. To assume a "majority of nations" knows best how to educate (for example) another nation's populace is foolish, at best. If you wish to better the UN community I would start by opening your mind to discussion and not ranting against anyone without a uniform position.

Swinnnng and a miss. I do not suggest that you take the majority position. I suggest that you take any position you like, but that you take it with some kind of argument that makes sense. The majority of nations does not know best how to educate anyone else's populace. Rather, education initiatives in the UN exist to ensure that they are educated at all.

4) I was not aware it was my obligation to not oppose the majority in any given resolution. It appears any vision of the UNs mission (other than your own) is invalid. Why bother voting, then? I would also point out that I was merely demonstrating a possible side effect of this resolution that would pose a threat to human rights. To accuse me of the very actions about which I am concerned is ludicrous. And yes, I did cast my vote, and also my voice. If you do not like it, perhaps you should propose a resolution that prohibits members from voicing their concerns. That would fall right in line with your totalitarian leanings.

Aaaand cue the sympathetic strings! You can feign like you've been somehow oppressed all you like. The point remains that your argument against this resolution is inherently flawed and weak. I pointed that out, you didn't like it. I apologize for your inconvenience. But, as many other posts, to which you seem disinclined to respond, have pointed out, if you are so worried about mass emigration, the "red tape" money you're loath to spend should probably go into improving conditions for your populace so that they do not wish to leave.

So far, the only really thoughtful objection to this resolution has been the issue of "brain drain", wherein wealthier countries lure away trained professionals from poorer nations. That's a legitimate concern, and I'm sorry, but national sovereignty doesn't come close to that level of objection, and as such is rarely taken to heart as a legitimate objection. National sovereignty is more of a philosophical debate chew-toy that divides UN members into camps. It's a bit like conservative versus liberal in the RLUSA. Opposing legislation merely because it's "too liberal" or "too conservative" would hardly stand as legitimate opposition. Neither does opposing NSUN resolutions strictly on NatSov grounds.

Of COURSE you're free to disagree, dissent, rant, and rave all you want. Just don't be so faux-offended when someone decides to announce that your vessel holds no water. It's happened to me, and it'll happen again and again. Such is the give and take of an international body such as the NSUN.

Blessed popcorn unfortunately has to vote against this well intentioned resolution. Specifically, I am concerned that the exceptions under paragraph 3 are not comprehensive enough. For instance, an individual could flee a country during an ongoing criminal investigation of that individual previous to that individual's arrest. At that point in time the individual would not be subject to either ongoing legal proceedings and their presence would not be required by a court of law. Blessed popcorn does not want to have to tie up our court system by bringing legal proceedings against every possible suspect every time a crime is committed. In our country the Executive and Judicial branches are separate.

Other unforseen situations may also occur where a country would be forced under this resolution to allow individuals to leave even though there is a compelling governmental interest in the individual. If this bill is reintroduced with an appeals process to a world court we would heartily endorse it.

In reaction to any possible rebuttal that Blessed Popcorn should have involved itself in the modeling of this resolution; we respectfully state that we can not be everywhere at once. We are involving ourselves now and a revised resolution could easily be introduced.

It was something of a relief for us to see the reasonable concerns expressed by the honorable representative of Aleshia. We don't share the concerns, but it was a refreshing change from some of the claptrap we've been subjected to in this debate.

What would be construed as hindering?

Imagine the following a small impoverished nation decides to improve its medical services over a 20 year period. As part of this process it encourages and spends its resources on training Doctors and Nurses. Each Doctor costs $ 65 000 each nurse $43,000 to train from primary school onwards. A powerful private health corporation asks to visit the teaching hospitals and meet with the newly qualifying medical staff to discuss their emmigration to wealthy developed nations.

The teaching hospital refuses space, lists of names or to facilitate or support the meetings in any manner. Could this be construed as hindering emmigration?

In our view, no. It would be a refusal to promote this particular emigration. But there's a big difference between that and "hindering". Nothing in the resolution requires a nation to promote emigration or help other nations entice its citizens away.

If a nation was to introduce a tax on travel because of concerns over carbon emmissions and this meant that an individual could not afford to travel could this be construed as hindering emmigration?

We believe that the key here is intent. The imposition of the tax was not an attempt to hinder emigration. The tax was imposed for the purpose of reducing emissions. The effect on emigration is only an incidental by-product. We would consider the tax perfectly legal under the resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Specifically, I am concerned that the exceptions under paragraph 3 are not comprehensive enough. For instance, an individual could flee a country during an ongoing criminal investigation of that individual previous to that individual's arrest. At that point in time the individual would not be subject to either ongoing legal proceedings and their presence would not be required by a court of law. Blessed popcorn does not want to have to tie up our court system by bringing legal proceedings against every possible suspect every time a crime is committed.

You could officially consider that any individual who has been asked by the police to remain "in town" to assist with their inquiries is "undergoing ongoing legal proceedings ".


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

i partly agree with kibl i cant remember the rest............ but, i think that emigrants should fill out paperwork and become registered citizens, not just let into our nations freely.

We grow weary of pointing out that how and whether one allows people into one's nation, and what bureaucratic hoops such immigrants are required to just through, are entirely the province and decision of one's national government.

i partly agree with kibl i cant remember the rest............ but, i think that emigrants should fill out paperwork and become registered citizens, not just let into our nations freely.

Here, check out this book.

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0525474846.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I strongly disagree, this proposal is clearly a reactionary plot against socialist states.

Why am I not surprised? It seems that, in your mind, everything is a reactionary plot against socialist states -- this resolution, the UN itself, Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise/index.php?showtopic=23), pandas, microwave popcorn, the nation of Picker's compliance with UN resolutions, hemorrhoids, the planet Jupiter, the Glo Worm (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/39/130px-Original-glowworm-photo.jpg), oxygen, Bob Flibble's genetic jackhammer...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If this passes, most nations are crazy!

If doesn't pass, most nations are crazy!
Fixed.

If this passes, most nations are crazy!

People (and Nations) have struggled for freedom since the dawn of time. The struggle only remains because when it is within their grasp, they immediately surrender it to a bureaucracy.

Instead of becoming the international mediators of war and trade, the majority of this council would instead choose to dedicate its resources (ie. our resources) to domesticating the masses.

This resolution is a blatant hypocrisy, disguised as compassion.

Though these are unpopular words, but they are the truth.

Fixed.

No no, he was right the first time.

Incidentally, never vacation in Kivisto. My assistant came back incoherent, babbling about the "abortions," "White rhinos," "chili cheese sauce," and "Margaret Thatcher 'home videos."

He was never the same.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

No no, he was right the first time.
So you don't let people leave your nation at will? I'll remember never to move there.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

So you don't let people leave your nation at will? I'll remember never to move there.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

It's a joke. Because, you know, there are some really crazy nations that belong to the UN. Ha ha, hee hee, you know?

Rang Erman
Ambassador Pro Tempore
Advisor for pointing out really obvious jokes that shouldn't need to be.

I proposed a very similar proposal quite a few months ago here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10195853). I am pleased that it is finally up for a vote.

In all honesty, we did use some of your draft as a framework to build our idea upon. There was some good stuff in there, and I am pleased that you approve of its progress.

I disagree, citizens of SRAD have no right to abandon their society and commune for reasons which are obviously disguised as ideological in this proposal. Such citizens do not have a right to leave, and will be delt with appropriately by the People's Justice for reactionary and dissident actions for trying to leave in the first place.

Have fun with that.

The SRAD further defines 'persecution or injustice' as reactionary propaganda, and will as regional delegate vote against it.

Good for you.


I strongly disagree, this proposal is clearly a reactionary plot against socialist states.

I fail to be surprised.

NEXT!

Aleshia is increasingly concerned over this proposal We believe this will benefit wealthy nations and a minority of individuals from poorer nations whilst making it harder for poorer states to develop to their full potential

I'm curious. How so?

Blessed popcorn unfortunately has to vote against this well intentioned resolution. Specifically, I am concerned that the exceptions under paragraph 3 are not comprehensive enough. For instance, an individual could flee a country during an ongoing criminal investigation of that individual previous to that individual's arrest.

If they are a suspect, then they are undergoing investigation, which is a legal process. You would be within your rights to prevent their departure.

If this bill is reintroduced with an appeals process to a world court we would heartily endorse it.

I would oppose the creation of any proper World Court.

No no, he was right the first time.

Incidentally, never vacation in Kivisto. My assistant came back incoherent, babbling about the "abortions," "White rhinos," "chili cheese sauce," and "Margaret Thatcher 'home videos."

He was never the same.

In all fairness, that was just a look alike in the videos. ;)

If this passes, most nations are crazy!

:rolleyes: Stop pulling complex logic jokes please. I don't think many people realize that "If A then B" translates to "NOT A OR B" and thus if B is always true the statement is always true whether or not A is true. Since we know as a FACT that most nations are crazy, the statement is always true whether or not this passes. :p

:rolleyes: Stop pulling complex logic jokes please. I don't think many people realize that "If A then B" translates to "NOT A OR B" and thus if B is always true the statement is always true whether or not A is true. Since we know as a FACT that most nations are crazy, the statement is always true whether or not this passes. :p

That right there^, that's funny.

It seems that, in your mind, everything is a reactionary plot against socialist states -- this resolution, the UN itself, Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise/index.php?showtopic=23), pandas, microwave popcorn, the nation of Picker's compliance with UN resolutions, hemorrhoids, the planet Jupiter, the Glo Worm (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/39/130px-Original-glowworm-photo.jpg), oxygen, Bob Flibble's genetic jackhammer...

To be fair to the honoured representative, we have always had our concerns about microwave popcorn, and PICKER is clearly a reactionary plot against something.

People (and Nations) have struggled for freedom since the dawn of time. The struggle only remains because when it is within their grasp, they immediately surrender it to a bureaucracy.

Instead of becoming the international mediators of war and trade, the majority of this council would instead choose to dedicate its resources (ie. our resources) to domesticating the masses.

This resolution is a blatant hypocrisy, disguised as compassion.

Though these are unpopular words, but they are the truth.
We find this a convincing argument that the Militant City-States are fully aware that their citizens would leave in flocks if they could. There is no logical connection between any two steps of this argument, and each assertion on its own seems deeply implausible. Such rhetoric belongs only to the desperate and the despot.

MANDATES that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations


We protest this. Many individuals can leave our country with the knowledge of our advanced facilities and such, and aid other unfriendly nations.


RECOMMENDS that member nations must refrain from hindering the emigration of persons from their nations


We would prefer that instead.

OCC: Anybody remember Samuel Slater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater), Britain, and Textile Mills??

We protest this. Many individuals can leave our country with the knowledge of our advanced facilities and such, and aid other unfriendly nations.

I'll refer back to earlier in the debate where Vermithrax Pejorative addressed a very similar concern put forward by the representative of Sneem.

It would seem that you have found a curious... well... not loophole per se, but perhaps an oversight. However, this does allow you to detain people via court order, so I would wager that if you are concerned about top scientists fleeing, that would be the avenue to pursue.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We find this a convincing argument that the Militant City-States are fully aware that their citizens would leave in flocks if they could. There is no logical connection between any two steps of this argument, and each assertion on its own seems deeply implausible. Such rhetoric belongs only to the desperate and the despot.

Are you calling my inoffensive centrist democracy a despot? Sounds like you're starting to believe the propaganda your bureaucratic welfare state is pushing.

Careful with that, the rich might get tired of supporting the lazy, one day. Or they'll emigrate, leaving you without a tax base and lots of crying welfare programs.

But these remarks are far from the point - which is what you desired, right? Misdirection.

You have not addressed my concerns, only denounced them without substance. I suppose I should have expected no more. After all, politics is not about truth, is it Gob? It's about looking good, even if you said nothing at all.

For the rest of you who actually wish to think before casting your vote - my opposition is not to the principal represented by this resolution, but to the higher principal that begs we keep this council in its proper, international scope. Emigration laws ahuld remain the domain of the Nation. To do otherwise will only injure the integrity of our mission.

For the rest of you who actually wish to think before casting your vote - my opposition is not to the principal represented by this resolution, but to the higher principal that begs we keep this council in its proper, international scope. Emigration laws ahuld remain the domain of the Nation. To do otherwise will only injure the integrity of our mission.

So you are asserting that international travel is not an international matter. That is special in a way that needs a window to lick.

Why am I not surprised? It seems that, in your mind, everything is a reactionary plot against socialist states -- this resolution, the UN itself, Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise/index.php?showtopic=23), pandas, microwave popcorn, the nation of Picker's compliance with UN resolutions, hemorrhoids, the planet Jupiter, the Glo Worm (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/39/130px-Original-glowworm-photo.jpg), oxygen, Bob Flibble's genetic jackhammer...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Did you have to bring that up again?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Did you have to bring that up again?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So, you're saying that the good sheik there makes your jackhammer rise?:p

So, you're saying that the good sheik there makes your jackhammer rise?:p

Perhaps I didn't make the best choice of words there.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Perhaps I didn't make the best choice of words there.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yeah. You probably would have been better off just leaving the jack hammer alone while still in the GA.;)

Since the Ambassador from the Militant City-States insists, we will state the obvious.

People (and Nations) have struggled for freedom since the dawn of time. The struggle only remains because when it is within their grasp, they immediately surrender it to a bureaucracy.
An intriguing argument, but one with no backing in history whatsoever. The struggle for freedom remains because there are as many different definitions of freedom as there are people.

Instead of becoming the international mediators of war and trade, the majority of this council would instead choose to dedicate its resources (ie. our resources) to domesticating the masses.
There is no discernable connection between this assertion and its predecessor, so we will take it as an independent point. As such, it falls under the weight of its own bile. This council has many purposes, of which mediation is but one. In addition, we fail to see how a resolution which explicitly allows the masses a choice in any way domesticates them. The only conclusion we have been able to draw from the presentation of this argument is that the ambassador is urgently desirous that his masses not be given this choice, the most obvious prompt for which would be a suspicion on his part that they would choose to leave.

This resolution is a blatant hypocrisy, disguised as compassion.
Again, there is no visible connection between this and either of the preceeding assertions. It is also manifestly untrue; certainly any hypocrisy present has been insufficiently blatant to come to our attention, and we are aware that we are not alone in this regard.

Though these are unpopular words, but they are the truth.
You have failed to prove a single one of your points, and have not in any case joined them in a logical chain of argument. The unpopularity of your words is beyond question, but their truth is distinctly lacking.

We protest this. Many individuals can leave our country with the knowledge of our advanced facilities and such, and aid other unfriendly nations.



We would prefer that instead.

OCC: Anybody remember Samuel Slater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater), Britain, and Textile Mills??

OOC: Yup, how could I not? Slater's Mill is practically just a stone's throw away from me.

Did you have to bring that up again?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Bob Flibble stars in...

http://www.dynamicduostudio.com/38%20IMAGES%20for%20website/JACKHAMMER.jpg
GENETIC JACKHAMMER

http://www.filmratings.com/images/NC-17(small)-01.gif

i do not comply

i do not comply

Best. First. Post. Ever.

i do not comply

Couldn't see that coming... :p

i comply

i comply

For the win.

For the win.

Damn. Why did I post on Altanar's thread instead of coming here first?! [/hijack]

OOC: Yup, how could I not? Slater Mill's practically just a stone's throw away from me.

*cough* *cough* The UN is not located in New England.

In all honesty, we did use some of your draft as a framework to build our idea upon. There was some good stuff in there, and I am pleased that you approve of its progress.


We are humbled and thankful for the acknowledgment.

i do not complyi complyGive my some dilithium crystals, and I bet I could build a warp drive out of these two... :D

Dilithium crystals or a moldy cheese sammich. Either would work.

Luigi P. O'Rourke
Special Assistant to the Ambassador

*cough* *cough* The UN is not located in New England.

OOC: It was an OOC reply to an OOC post, smart guy. Pay attention.