NationStates Jolt Archive

Do not comment on this draft. Instead, see the new draft here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12603364&posted=1#post12603364)to see the new draft.

WHEREAS thousands of refugees are displaced from their native homes and forced to move elsewhere
DEFINING "refugee" to be "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution"
REALIZING the condition of these refugees is one that may be taken advantage of
DECLARES all people fitting this definition, regardless of age, race, or sex, shall have the following rights in their new home:
1. All refugees have the right to stay in their new home for at least ten years, during which time they may apply for citizenship if they wish.
2. All refugees have the right to leave the country and return to their homeland.
3. All refugees have the right to work or seek employment.
4. Refugees may not be deliberately forced into labor, even for pay
5. Refugees have the same rights as citizens of the country
6. If the laws of their new home contradict anything in this resolution, the country must follow the resolution unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that an exception should be made
_________________________________________________________________
That's the draft proposal. Please leave any comments you have about it.

what is the resolutions stance on Economic refugees. If a nation's economy is crumbling and its so bad that their is a famine and living standards are atrocious and these citizens flee across the border to seek a better life do they count as refugees? i think economic refugees should be mentioned

Officially the Lerasian governments view is that our borders are sealed. anyone who is cought corssing the border is arrested without leniency or mercy. and any embassy that saw Lerasian refugees storm into it asking for aslym we would expect that embassy to return those citizens back to Lerasia

You'll want to look over previous Resolutions. At least one deals with refugees.

My government objects to this proposal, as it is currently worded, on the combined basis of 'national sovereignty' and common sense: Although we actually concede that refugees are a sufficiently trans-national problem for the passage of UN resolutions on on this topic to be potentially reasonable, there are several details within the specific rights this proposal would grant to them that we consider excessive or otherwise inappropriate _

What if the new "home" that the refugees choose doesn't really have the spare room or other necessary resources to let them in without significantly depriving its own people? If the UN insists that we have to take all applicants in, without letting nations set quotas, then shouldn't the UN collectively help those nations that get lumbered with more than their fair share of refugee immigrants?
If any of the refugees offend against the hospitality that they receive within the "new "home" by committing serious crimes there then we feel strongly that its authorities should be allowed to expel them, either after any other appropriate punishments for those crimes have been imposed or in lieu of those other punishments.
Requirement #1 would mean that nations might have to allow any refugees who arrived as young children to apply for citizenship before the age at which a native-born person could do so.
With regards to Requirement #2: This should not apply to any of them who are properly charged with serious crimes within their new "homes", while they are awaiting trial or being tried or serving jail terms or awaiting punishment for those offences, unless the host-nation's government agrees... and what if their new "home" and the old homeland to which they wish to return are currently at war?
Requirement #3 must only apply to adult refugees, although I don't recall the exact age-threshold necessary offhand, because otherwise it would contravene an existing Resolution against 'Child Labour'.
With regards to Requirement #4: But what if the nation concerned routinely forces its own people to work? This proposal would actually give the refugees more rights than their host-nation's native population possesses...
Requirement #5 apparently assumes that all of a nation's native population will be counted as 'citizens', whereas there are actually a number of nations where only some smaller proportion of the populace has 'citizen' status: In my homeland, for example, 'citizenship' is a right that must be earned once adulthood has been reached and approximately 7% of our adult population has so far not bothered to undergo the necessary procedures... It would therefore be much more appropriate if this requirement only guaranteed those refugees the same rights as the host-nation's own people in general, rather than the same rights as the host-nation's 'citizens'. In fact, because as currently worded it effectively says that they must be given those rights even before they apply for citizenship, it means that -- for example -- they might have to be allowed to run for & receive elective office without becoming citizens!
And with regards to Resolution #6: To whom must any nations whose laws these rules would contradict prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that an exception they want to make is justifiable?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this dashed penguin costume...)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad8hi.png

As to the actual proposal, even though Quintessence of Dust has generally advocated open borders and assistance for refugees, we could not support this. The past resolution on refugees is useless tat, so something better would be a good idea, but this resolution is too sweeping. In particular, note the contradiction between clauses 1 and 5: in the first, refugees must apply for citizenship, but by the fifth, they are automatically granted it (including, in our case, voting rights).

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

You'll want to look over previous Resolutions. At least one deals with refugees.

I looked and I didn't see any. Of course, I didn't check every single resolution, so it's completely possible that I missed one. If anyone knows the number of a resolution that deals with refugees, please leave it here. Then I can withdraw this draft, or revise it so it doesn't repeat existing laws.

Response to suggestions:

Although many people will flee a country because of economic conditions, I don't believe they are refugees. A refugee flees a country because the country itself is deliberately harming them. Famine is harmful, but it doesn't go after people on purpose.

I agree that people caught crossing the border illegally should not be allowed in. However, if someone is a refugee, they do not have to enter illegally.

The qualm about the inability of a nation to take in refugees makes sense. The UN should help, or at least compensate nations that do. I still don't know where the line between what the UN can and cannot do is, so if someone else would like to write the appropriate clause, please do.

Breaking the laws of the country should be punished in the same way citizens are punished for breaking the laws. If expulsion is one of the punishments, countries should be allowed to do that. However, I do not think a country should be allowed to intentionally banish a refugee to the country they are fleeing. Anywhere else is fine.

In New Limacon, anyone who is born in the country automatically becomes a citizen. I didn't consider that this is not the case in all countries, and so the clause should be changed. What about, "All refugees have the right to stay in their new home for at least ten years, or until three years after they legally become adults in that country. During this time, they may apply for citizenship."

Refugees that break the law are of course not allowed to leave. I did not put this in because once a law is broken, one's rights change. In New Limacon citizens are free to leave the country, unless they are awaiting trial or incarcerated. It is the same for refugees.

If the two countries are at war, the refugees should retain the same rights if they are really refugees. If they are spies, or saboteurs, they have the same rights as spies or saboteurs.

The line forbidding children to work (and consequently, to seek work) is this, from UN Resolution #14:
Be it hereby resolved that the UN shall guarantee the rights of children to NOT work in any mines, factories, chemical plants or ANY OTHER industrial occupation; moreover, it shall be prohibited for a child to take up labor in such an occupation.
The age given at the top of the resolution is 12. The clause in this resolution says that all people have a right to seek work and gain employment. I think it can be fixed by adding "over age 12."

Preventing forced employment would be giving the refugees more rights in some countries, if there was not a UN Resolution banning slavery. UN Resolution #6 is "End Slavery" and covers the citizens of a country already.

Again, I did not consider the laws of citizenship in individual countries very much. It should be changed to "current residents", or something like that.

I was thinking that the host country would have to prove it to the UN. I didn't come out and say it because, again, I am not sure how much the UN is actually allowed to do.

I do not believe declarations one and five are contradictory, necessarily. However, I think that if the word "citizen" is changed, as it will be, there should be no further dispute.
_________________________________________________________________
I will put the revised draft up soon, until then, please continue to comment on the draft or on my responses.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=64 <-- old refugee resolution

In New Limacon, anyone who is born in the country automatically becomes a citizen. I didn't consider that this is not the case in all countries, and so the clause should be changed. What about, "All refugees have the right to stay in their new home for at least ten years, or until three years after they legally become adults in that country. During this time, they may apply for citizenship."
If you offer alternatives like this, we would suggest stating whether it is the longer or shorter of the possible periods that applies.

Refugees that break the law are of course not allowed to leave. I did not put this in because once a law is broken, one's rights change. In New Limacon citizens are free to leave the country, unless they are awaiting trial or incarcerated. It is the same for refugees.
It is probably worth putting some statement to this effect in, otherwise laws may be perceived to be in conflict with one another. Such, we find, tends to be to the enrichment only of lawyers.

The age given at the top of the resolution is 12. The clause in this resolution says that all people have a right to seek work and gain employment. I think it gain be fixed by adding "over age 12."
We would strongly urge against this. The resolution you quote has an unfortunately humanocentric view of the multiverse. Given the number of different species in this chamber, we suspect it would not take long for someone to introduce you to an ambassador for whom twelve would be a venerable age, and another for whom it would be barely out of infancy. Quoting any age is problematic; better, we suggest, to offer the reasons for which the age should be chosen. We warn you, this is something of a hobby-horse for us!

We would strongly urge against this. The resolution you quote has an unfortunately humanocentric view of the multiverse. Given the number of different species in this chamber, we suspect it would not take long for someone to introduce you to an ambassador for whom twelve would be a venerable age, and another for whom it would be barely out of infancy. Quoting any age is problematic; better, we suggest, to offer the reasons for which the age should be chosen. We warn you, this is something of a hobby-horse for us!

Hmm...I am pretty sure everyone in the UN is the same species; I think that is part of the game. However, I do see your point, even among different cultures of the same species age and maturity are not necessarily the same. The age I used came from the "Child Labor" resolution, which uses the age 12. Perhaps if the resolution refers to this, say, "over the age given in the UN resolution concerning child labor. That way, if the resolution changes, or is repealed, this won't become obsolete at the same time.

Also, thank you Forgottenlands for the resolution dealing with refugees. I would still like to propose this one, because Resolution #65 is not only mild, but does not outline any rights for the refugees.

Hmm...I am pretty sure everyone in the UN is the same species; I think that is part of the game.Bzzt! Wrong! Vermi, tell him what he's won.

However, I do see your point, even among different cultures of the same species age and maturity are not necessarily the same. The age I used came from the "Child Labor" resolution, which uses the age 12. Perhaps if the resolution refers to this, say, "over the age given in the UN resolution concerning child labor. That way, if the resolution changes, or is repealed, this won't become obsolete at the same time. No, then your resolution runs afoul of the House of Cards rule.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Bzzt! Wrong! Vermi, tell him what he's won.A copy of our home game?


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

And a year's supply of Head On.

http://www.awfulcommercials.com/stills/headon01.jpg

Head On -- Apply directly to the forehead.
Head On -- Apply directly to the forehead.
Head On -- Apply directly to the forehead.

Hmm...I am pretty sure everyone in the UN is the same species; I think that is part of the game. However, I do see your point, even among different cultures of the same species age and maturity are not necessarily the same. The age I used came from the "Child Labor" resolution, which uses the age 12. Perhaps if the resolution refers to this, say, "over the age given in the UN resolution concerning child labor. That way, if the resolution changes, or is repealed, this won't become obsolete at the same time.


In this UN, there are a wide range of species, including overworked goblins, fire breathing dragons, and foul mouthed dolphins. :) It's a good idea to avoid getting too specific about ages for that reason.

Bzzt! Wrong! Vermi, tell him what he's won.

No, then your resolution runs afoul of the House of Cards rule.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
I stand by my belief that there is only one species in NationStates. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with the resolution.

What does have to do with the resolution is the age. I looked up the House of Cards rule (I haven't seen it before here) and a site from 2004 defined it as "You touch it, it falls over and you can't get out". How does this resolution run afoul of that?

I stand by my belief that there is only one species in NationStates. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with the resolution.
Your belief is incorrect. We have explained its relevance once already, and urge you to reconsider.

What does have to do with the resolution is the age. I looked up the House of Cards rule (I haven't seen it before here) and a site from 2004 defined it as "You touch it, it falls over and you can't get out". How does this resolution run afoul of that?
You appear not to have received a copy of the rules and guidance for proposed resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) that my assistant is passing to you now. It defines the term "House of Cards" as it is commonly used in illegal proposals: that a resolution must be capable of standing on its own, not having terms undefined if all resolutions it references should be repealed. As to how that applies, let us return to your earlier words:

However, I do see your point, even among different cultures of the same species age and maturity are not necessarily the same. The age I used came from the "Child Labor" resolution, which uses the age 12. Perhaps if the resolution refers to this, say, "over the age given in the UN resolution concerning child labor.
Clearly if 'the UN resolution concerning child labor' were repealed, the age under consideration would become undefined. Repealing it then brings down your proposed resolution like a house of cards.

I stand by my belief that there is only one species in NationStates. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with the resolution.Apparently you aren't paying attention, allow me to formally introduce you to Vermithrax (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12579142&postcount=12) who just happens to be a large, fire-breathing dragon. Now, what was it you were saying about their only being only one species in the UN?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I apologize for not checking in more regularly. Before this discussion continues, I would like to ask that we stop arguing over the number of species in NationStates. I don't care! With thousands of people using this, there are bound to be discrepancies among our beliefs. It is irrelevant to this proposal, except concerning age, which, as I have already said, can and should be fixed.

Thank you for the definition of "House of Cards". Technically, the resolution would not be recalling "Child Labor", but the minimum age the UN has agreed upon. However, I realize that this depends entirely on existing resolutions, so an age should be mentioned here.
I would like to make the minimum age twelve. It has already been established as a minimum age, so it has the advantage of tradition. Any other ideas?

That we would prefer a solution which was correct to one which was traditional?

We urge you once again to avoid stating an age, instead describing the requirement you perceive that age to fulfil and allowing nations to fill in the blanks appropriately. Admittedly the usefulness of your legislation will then depend on how well you can circumscribe the abilities of the creative amongst us to pervert your wording, but such is always a problem to be born in mind, and we think it would do you no great harm to thus put it at the forefront of your consideration.

WHEREAS thousands of refugees are displaced from their native homes and forced to move elsewhere
DEFINING "refugee" to be "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution"
REALIZING the condition of these refugees is one that may be taken advantage of
DECLARES all people fitting this definition, regardless of age, race, or sex, shall have the following rights in their new home:

agreed
1. All refugees have the right to stay in their new home for at least ten years, during which time they may apply for citizenship if they wish.
Ten Years!? i highly object to that, they can just walk over our borders stay around for ten years collect welfare and move on to another country!
2. All refugees have the right to leave the country and return to their homeland.

Agreed
3. All refugees have the right to work or seek employment.

Agreed

4. Refugees may not be deliberately forced into labor, even for pay

hmmmm.... let me mull this over.
5. Refugees have the same rights as citizens of the country

Will they be charged under the Law Systems of their homelands or our Law system?

6. If the laws of their new home contradict anything in this resolution, the country must follow the resolution unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that an exception should be made


doesn't Ex Post Facto come into play with this some how?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

The Delegate from Kuosio is intrigued by this resolution, but has a few comments to make.

WHEREAS thousands of refugees are displaced from their native homes and forced to move elsewhere
DEFINING "refugee" to be "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution"

Would it not make more sense to place the definition of "refugee" as the first clause in the resolution?

REALIZING the condition of these refugees is one that may be taken advantage of

The Delegate believes that New Limacon is trying to say something along the lines of:
REALIZING that refugee-accepting countries have a tendancy to exploit the fact that many refugees are desperate for a place to go, at any cost

DECLARES all people fitting this definition, regardless of age, race, or sex, shall have the following rights in their new home:

A definition of "new home" would be useful. Do we mean here any country that the refugee cares to enter, or any country which officially accepts the refugee's status as a resident of their country?

1. All refugees have the right to stay in their new home for at least ten years, during which time they may apply for citizenship if they wish.
The Delegate of Kuosio agrees with Cookesland, that ten years is an exceptionally long time. The Delegate of Kuosio would recommend drafting a clause which requires refugees to remain in their "new home" for the minimum time possible, whilst allowing them to apply for a longer refuge or indeed citizenship. The purpose of accepting refugees is to keep safe those people who cannot return to their homeland for whatever reason.

2. All refugees have the right to leave the country and return to their homeland.
3. All refugees have the right to work or seek employment.
Agreed, although the Delegate from Kuosio would recommend the addition of something similar to "at any time" to clause 2 and "according to local labour laws" to clause 3. The object would be to allow refugees to apply for jobs under the same conditions as any other foreigner, such as an expatriate.

4. Refugees may not be deliberately forced into labor, even for pay
Agreed.

5. Refugees have the same rights as citizens of the country
Would refugees having the same rights as foreign expatriates not make more sense?

6. If the laws of their new home contradict anything in this resolution, the country must follow the resolution unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that an exception should be made
Redundant, and possibly dangerous. OOC: AFAIK, one of the aims of NSUN is that resolutions are binding.

IC: The Delegate from Kuosio believes that this is an excellent resolution with lots of potential.

agreed
5. Refugees have the same rights as citizens of the country
Will they be charged under the Law Systems of their homelands or our Law system?
An interesting point, sir, and one which we should have spotted earlier. We would prefer for the law of the country of residence to be the one which applies, in the interests of simplicity and fairness. Anything else would have the major disadvantage of dissuading many possibly welcoming nations from taking refugees simply by virtue of the complexity of administering multiple legal systems simultaneously.

It is possible to get round such a stricture if one is sufficiently inventive. We, for example, are in the process of taking in refugees from the Eternal Kawaii, as are many others after their appeal in this chamber. For religious reasons they require to keep their own law. To reconcile our opposed viewpoints, the incoming refugees are being regarded as an embassy!

This is the second draft of the proposal. From now on, please comment on this draft, and not the previous one. If there was a problem in the previous draft that doesn't seem to have been fixed, go ahead and point it out, but otherwise, forget the first one every existed.

DEFINING "refugee" to be "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution",
WHEREAS thousands of refugees are displaced from their native homes and forced to move elsewhere,
REALIZING the naturally desperate situation of refugees may be exploited,

DECLARES all people fitting this definition, regardless of age, race, or sex, shall have the following rights in their new country of residence:
1. All refugees have the right to stay in their new home for as long as returning to their native country would put them in certain peril. During this time they may apply for citizenship if they wish.
2. All refugees have the right to leave the country and return to their homeland at any time.
3. All refugees have the right to work or seek employment according to local labor laws.
4. Refugees may not be deliberately forced into labor, even for pay.
5. Refugees have the same rights as native born residents of the country.

The government of Dakaristan rejects this draft proposal in it's present form.

While we concede the intention of this proposal is noble and to be commended, we refuse any set limits on the length of time refugees may remain within our borders. Such determinations belong exclusively within the the offices of our government. We also reject the granting of the same rights to refugees as our citizens enjoy. While Dakaristan, which has a record of fairness and justice toward her people (this cannot be disputed) will deal in all fairness with any refugees within our borders, we will not extend to them the freedoms of legal citizenship.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden seriously opposes the present draft. Though we believe that the basic rights of refugees must be respected, we cannot accord them the same benefits we extend to our taxpaying citizens, or else our systems would fail. And to us, this arrangement appears to be unjust for our citizens.

And as noted, governments should be the one to set the limits on how long refugees can stay within the nation's border.

Thank you.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli (http://www.ns.goobergunch.net/nationstates/index.php/Carina_Talchimio-Spicolli)
His Majesty's Permanent Representative to the United Nations

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden seriously opposes the present draft. Though we believe that the basic rights of refugees must be respected, we cannot accord them the same benefits we extend to our taxpaying citizens, or else our systems would fail.
There is an obvious solutions to this dilemma, Ambassador Talchimio-Spicolli. If your objection is that the refugees are not tax-paying, one could (and arguably should) treat them as one treats any residents of your country who for whatever reason (be it disability, unemployment or whatever) does not presently pay tax. Alternatively, one could (and definitely should) encourage them into paid employment so that they do both pay tax and contribute to the social fabric of your nation.

While we concede the intention of this proposal is noble and to be commended, we refuse any set limits on the length of time refugees may remain within our borders. Such determinations belong exclusively within the the offices of our government.
We would support this clause in the proposal, but would ask if the Ambassador of Dakaristan has an alternative wording that would fit his desires and still prevent refugees from being shipped back whence they came?

This is the second draft of the proposal. From now on, please comment on this draft, and not the previous one. If there was a problem in the previous draft that doesn't seem to have been fixed, go ahead and point it out, but otherwise, forget the first one every existed.
We would suggest that the Ambassador of Cookesland's point concerning what nation's set of laws applies to refugees needs some addressing, though we confess we are not certain how.

As to the draft itself, there is a trivial point concerning the absence of full stops from the ends of some of the numbered points, and the absence of commas from the ends of each line of prologue.

WHEREAS thousands of refugees are displaced from their native homes and forced to move elsewhere
DEFINING "refugee" to be "one who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution"
We concur with the earlier suggestion that the arguments builds more naturally if one places the definition first, and consequently replaces "WHEREAS" with "NOTING that" or similar.

We also note that the word "as" in the definition is something of a weasel word. Since it renders the listed possibilities as effectively "including but not limited to," we suspect that few nations will take issue with it, but we thought it best to raise the point before national paranoia could set in.

We also note that the word "as" in the definition is something of a weasel word. Since it renders the listed possibilities as effectively "including but not limited to," we suspect that few nations will take issue with it, but we thought it best to raise the point before national paranoia could set in.
Oh, you're right. Sorry about that; I just copied it from the dictionary. "As" should go.
We concur with the earlier suggestion that the arguments builds more naturally if one places the definition first, and consequently replaces "WHEREAS" with "NOTING that" or similar.

I'll switch that ASAP. It's small enough I won't bother making a new draft; I'll just edit the present one.

I have submitted this as a resolution proposal. If you are a UN Delegate, please help it get in quorum. Thanks!

I have submitted this as a resolution proposal.

Should we also go see your movie film?

Should we also go see your movie film?
My movie film? Yes, I think you would like it better than my stand-stillie film, which I have to admit was fairly dull. But seriously, I'm sorry for posting the announcement here, it was more so I could keep track of the date and time I submitted it.