NationStates Jolt Archive

Immigration Harmonization Accord

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: REALIZING that inefficiencies and unfairness in immigration systems are both a danger to international stability and human rights;

BELIEVING that a standard and efficient system of immigration procedure will foster international cooperation, decrease prejudice & bias, and guard against threats to security;

HEREBY PROMULGATING an Immigration Harmonization Accord to achieve these goals:

Defining an immigrant as a person who, for various reasons, seeks to leave their country of origin for another and become a permanent legal resident;

Article I. Immigrant’s Rights
1. Any legal resident of a WA nation shall have the right to immigrate to another WA nation and seek citizenship or resident status in good faith and without malicious intent,
2. Immigrants may not be denied entry to a country on prejudicial grounds; such as race, religion, sex, or similar association,
3. Immigrants are entitled to speedy and fair processes when applying for resident status, citizenship, entry visas, and similar legal devices.

Article II. Nation’s Rights
1. Member nations may deny an immigrant's entry if:
a. They seek to cause harm or violence to the prevailing state or the inhabitants thereof,
b. Possess a criminal record that indicates dangerous or unstable tendencies, or a history of violence,
c. Carry a highly contagious disease that cannot be treated by the medical community of the destination country,
d. The entry of such persons would destabilize the country, as in the case of a civil war or similar national catastrophe.
2. Nations may enact legislation requiring immigrants to attend citizenship and assimilation courses, such as instruction in language and basic legal rights, and employment assistance.

Article III Procedures
1. Immigrants must apply for permanent legal residence and transport at least one month in advance of their departure, except when threats to personal safety makes such planning impossible;
2. Destination countries must enact immigration and citizenship procedures that begin no later than one month after initial applications, and last no longer than two years; such procedures include verification of identity and place of origin, background checks, issuing of identification and the fulfillment of the legal requirements of the destination country,
3. Applications for entry must be processed in a timely manner, and not be overly complicated or confusing,
4. Countries of origin shall cooperate with destination countries in providing such information at request, preferably in advance of emigration


We present this draft to the World Assembly for input and assistance in creating a final resolution to submit to vote.

In writing this, we sought to address problems extant in many immigration programs, such as racial quotas and unfair discrimination, lengthy application processes, and inconsistencies in the criteria for "acceptable" immigrants. By no means does this deal with all the problems, but we feel it is a start.

To that end, I will remind my fellow delegates that this is only a draft. Please confine your comments to constructive dialogue and suggestions on how to improve this bill.

With your input, we believe we can create a helpful and indispensable piece of legislation to strengthen the bonds between us as World Assembly members.

Yours &c,
Nemö Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

I think this would be the wrong category, it doesn't actually have anything to do with democracy. Try Human Rights, perhaps?

But on the bill itself, I have trouble with Article 1, Clause 1. I think it impedes heavily on the sovereignity of my nation to be refused the right to close down my borders to immigrants.

Also, Article II, Clause 1, B is troubling. I'd much rather prefer to have someone treated in their own country, instead of him immigrating here first and then being treated. If it's highly infectous, I can't let such a person cross the border, can I?

Aside from this, with perhaps a few tweaks other ambassadors could suggest, we would support this bill.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
20th of August, 6:48

I think this would be the wrong category, it doesn't actually have anything to do with democracy. Try Human Rights, perhaps?

We looked at Human Rights, and it would work, but we went with FoD as the description is "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms."

It could easily be Human Rights, too.

But on the bill itself, I have trouble with Article 1, Clause 1. I think it impedes heavily on the sovereignity of my nation to be refused the right to close down my borders to immigrants.

Article II provides nations with circumstances in which they can refuse entry to certain immigrants. We felt that prohibiting governments from refusing immigrants based on prejudice or false pretenses is something that national sovereignty doesn't trump.

Also, Article II, Clause 1, B is troubling. I'd much rather prefer to have someone treated in their own country, instead of him immigrating here first and then being treated. If it's highly infectous, I can't let such a person cross the border, can I?

Excellent suggestion. The priority is on being treated in the country of origin, unless it isn't possible to begin treatment or hadn't been diagnosed.

Aside from this, with perhaps a few tweaks other ambassadors could suggest, we would support this bill.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
20th of August, 6:48

Thank you for your suggestions.

N.T.
etc.

As a nation with almost open borders we can agree on most what is being said. But I cannot understand this sub-clause for denying an immigrant:
"c. Carry a highly infectious or deadly disease that cannot be treated by the medical community"
If it would be infectious AND deadly, I can understand it. If only highly infectious I agree.
But if someone has a deadly non infectious disease, what is the problem for being an immigrant? If only able to live a few months, than there is no reason for becoming an immigrant. But with several deadly diseases you can live 20 years.
I think this sub-clause could be
"Carry a highly infectious disease or a infectious deadly disease that cannot be treated by the medical community"

And I think that because there is no "2." the "1." can go away in Article II. Nation’s Rights.

I would suggest rewriting it a bit. My English is sadly bad. But I think that you cannot put in a sentence that you can deny an immigrant if they do something. It will be "immigrants" and "they" , or "an immigrant" and "he or she". Best is in singular, because otherwise every nation can deny immigrants simple because always some immigrants have a infectious deadly disease of want to do harm to the nation they wants to go. I think sub-clause b and c needs also the "he or she" or "the immigrant" as the first words.

So something like:
Article II. Nation’s Rights
Member nations may deny an immigrant if:
a. The immigrant seeks to cause harm or violence to the prevailing state or the inhabitants thereof,
b. The immigrant possesses a criminal record that indicates dangerous or unstable tendencies, or a history of violence,
c. The immigrant carries a highly infectious disease or a infectious deadly disease that cannot be treated by the medical community,
d. The entry of such a person will destabilize the country, as in the case of a civil or external war.

In article III clause 2 is an A. but not a B. so it has to be like this I think: "2. Destination countries must enact immigration and citizenship procedures that begin no later than one month after initial applications, and last no longer than two years. Such procedures include verification of identity and place of origin, background checks, issuing of identification and the fulfilment of the legal requirements of the destination country,"

I think I will support this proposal. Wish you success on it.

Regards

Immigration Harmonization Accord

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant

Description: REALIZING that inefficiencies and unfairness in immigration systems are both a danger to international stability and human rights;

BELIEVING that a standard and efficient system of immigration procedure will foster international cooperation, decrease prejudice & bias, and guard against threats to security;

HEREBY PROMULGATING an Immigration Harmonization Accord to achieve these goals:

Defining an immigrant as a person who, for various reasons, seeks to leave their country of origin for another and become a permanent legal resident;

Article I. Immigrant’s Rights
1. Any legal resident of a WA nation shall have the right to immigrate to another WA nation and seek citizenship or resident status in good faith and without malicious intent,
2. Immigrants may not be denied entry to a country on prejudicial grounds; such as race, religion, sex, or similar association,
3. Immigrants are entitled to speedy and fair processes when applying for residient status, citizenship, entry visas, and similar legal devices.

Article II. Nation’s Rights
1. Member nations may deny an immigrant if:
a. They seek to cause harm or violence to the prevailing state or the inhabitants thereof,
b. Possess a criminal record that indicates dangerous or unstable tendencies, or a history of violence,
c. Carry a highly infectious or deadly disease that cannot be treated by the medical community
d. The entry of such persons will destabilize the country, as in the case of a civil or external war,

Article III Procedures
1. Immigrants must apply for citizenship and transport at least one month in advance of their departure, except when threats to personal safety makes such planning impossible;
2. Destination countries must enact immigration and citizenship procedures that begin no later than one month after initial applications, and last no longer than two years,
A. Such procedures include verification of identity and place of origin, background checks, issuing of identification and the fulfillment of the legal requirements of the destination country,
3. Applications for entry must be processed in a timely manner, and not be overly complicated or confusing,
4. Countries of origin shall cooperate with destination countries in providing such information at request, preferably in advance of emigration
5. War refugees and seekers of asylum shall not be considered immigrants, excepting where they make the necessary requests for permanent residence,
6. In medical cases, the country of origin is responsible for providing complete patient histories and treatments, except in cases where such treatment is impossible or ailments could not be discovered before departure

We present this draft to the World Assembly for input and assistance in creating a final resolution to submit to vote.

In writing this, we sought to address problems extant in many immigration programs, such as racial quotas and unfair discrimination, lengthy application processes, and inconsistencies in the criteria for "acceptable" immigrants. By no means does this deal with all the problems, but we feel it is a start.

To that end, I will remind my fellow delegates that this is only a draft. Please confine your comments to constructive dialogue and suggestions on how to improve this bill.

With your input, we believe we can create a helpful and indispensable piece of legislation to strengthen the bonds between us as World Assembly members.

Yours &c,
Nemö Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

NO. Giving people the right to emigrate if they don't like how their current nation works is one thing, and might be justifiable as a fundamental 'sapient right', but forcing specific governments (i.e. any that want to keep their nations within the WA) to let people in goes too far against national sovereignty for my government to be at all happy with it.
(Then again, clause II.1.d. would probably still allow nations set strict limits on the total numbers of immigrants allowed; and to require that these already speak an appropriate language; and, maybe, to already have a job lined up... We still don't like this proposal, but that bit of it we could work with to mitigate the general effects...)


Some particular points that it might be wise for you to consider:

A/ What about those countries where there's no such thing as citizenship in the nation as a whole, because that 'nation' is a federation or confederation and citizenship is granted separately by & in each of its primary political subdivisions instead?
For example, 'Bears Armed' itself, where the gift of citizenship is legally in the paws of the separate Clans and Free Septs.

B/ What about any nations in which citizenship isn't granted automatically granted even to natives, and the procedure for those natives who do seek it currently takes longer than two years?
(OOC: for example 'St Edmund', where about 2½ years of 'national service' are required, although admittedly that nation is currently not a WA member...)

C/ What about cases where a WA member nation and one or more non-member nations have a shared citizenship? This proposal would effectively force those non-member nations to grant citizenship to these immigrants, too... and might it therefore be defined as 'Illegal'?
(OOC: for example, at least some cases where nations use either diplomatic missions or semi-autonomous territories as "WA puppets"...)


Borrin o Redwood
Regional Delegate to the World Assembly,
International Democratic Union
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed


__________________________________________

(OOC: Seriously, why not work on an 'Emigration Rights' proposal instead? That would be a LOT less contentious...)

(Just picking one point at random...)

Why should someone with an infectious disease necessarily be discriminated against? If they're actually carrying a contagion, maybe there's cause for quarantining them, but if it's simply something such as HIV, there's no guarantee they will transmit it to anyone else. Laws like this will only abet discrimination against such individuals, thereby increasing a highly counterproductive stigma.

(I should note, though, that as a nation we adore this proposal and will probably end up invading anyone who votes against it.)

-- Samantha Benson
etc. etc.

As a nation with almost open borders we can agree on most what is being said. But I cannot understand this sub-clause for denying an immigrant:
"c. Carry a highly infectious or deadly disease that cannot be treated by the medical community"
If it would be infectious AND deadly, I can understand it. If only highly infectious I agree.
But if someone has a deadly non infectious disease, what is the problem for being an immigrant? If only able to live a few months, than there is no reason for becoming an immigrant. But with several deadly diseases you can live 20 years.
I think this sub-clause could be
"Carry a highly infectious disease or a infectious deadly disease that cannot be treated by the medical community"

You're right, it doesn't quite follow the way I have it written. I will adjust the wording in light of Ms. Benson's comments.

And I think that because there is no "2." the "1." can go away in Article II. Nation’s Rights.

Naturally. I only had it in there because I'm still considering adding to that clause at a later date.

I would suggest rewriting it a bit. My English is sadly bad. But I think that you cannot put in a sentence that you can deny an immigrant if they do something. It will be "immigrants" and "they" , or "an immigrant" and "he or she". Best is in singular, because otherwise every nation can deny immigrants simple because always some immigrants have a infectious deadly disease of want to do harm to the nation they wants to go. I think sub-clause b and c needs also the "he or she" or "the immigrant" as the first words.

*snipped*

I think I see what you're saying, but your suggestions adds unnecessary wording to the clause. There's a colon at the end of that sentence for a reason; it starts a list relating to the previously mentioned immigrants.

In article III clause 2 is an A. but not a B. so it has to be like this I think: "2. Destination countries must enact immigration and citizenship procedures that begin no later than one month after initial applications, and last no longer than two years. Such procedures include verification of identity and place of origin, background checks, issuing of identification and the fulfilment of the legal requirements of the destination country,"

I think I will support this proposal. Wish you success on it.

Regards

I'll take these suggestions into consideration. Always looking at improving, you know.

NO. Giving people the right to emigrate if they don't like how their current nation works is one thing, and might be justifiable as a fundamental 'sapient right', but forcing specific governments (i.e. any that want to keep their nations within the WA) to let people in goes too far against national sovereignty for my government to be at all happy with it.[QUOTE]

As I mentioned, this doesn't "force" nations to let people in willy-nilly. It guarantees the right to free movement, while restricting that movement in the interest of security and collective safety.

And if your nation has a problem with allowing benign, non-threatening people to immigrate to your country without threat of prejudice, quota, or prohibitively long application periods, you probably wouldn't be happy with the rest of the legislation the WA would pass.

[QUOTE](Then again, clause II.1.d. would probably still allow nations set strict limits on the total numbers of immigrants allowed; and to require that these already speak an appropriate language; and, maybe, to already have a job lined up... We still don't like this proposal, but that bit of it we could work with to mitigate the general effects...)

No. We aren't going to set language limits, or take economics into consideration. You have an ample opportunity to learn the language once you get there, and if your government feels it's important there's nothing stopping you from instituting training and language programs for immigrants.

Clause II.1.d is intended to be used for purposes of protecting the public peace. The examples that came to mind when writing were: a nation that has no room for more people, a nation whose government has just collapsed, a nation fighting a bloody civil war, etc. I will have to strengthen it to prevent governments from excluding entire classes of people based on imaginary terms.

Some particular points that it might be wise for you to consider:

A/ What about those countries where there's no such thing as citizenship in the nation as a whole, because that 'nation' is a federation or confederation and citizenship is granted separately by & in each of its primary political subdivisions instead?
For example, 'Bears Armed' itself, where the gift of citizenship is legally in the paws of the separate Clans and Free Septs.

The draft mentions citizenship exactly twice, and always subordinate to the phrase "permanent legal resident." We included this phrase because we know you've brought it up before- the definition of an immigrant in our text is "a person who, for various reasons, seeks to leave their country of origin for another and become a permanent legal resident." Mentions of citizenship are only included to address the issue of speed and fairness in application thereof.

B/ What about any nations in which citizenship isn't granted automatically granted even to natives, and the procedure for those natives who do seek it currently takes longer than two years?
(OOC: for example 'St Edmund', where about 2½ years of 'national service' are required, although admittedly that nation is currently not a WA member...)

This legislation does not prevent nations from having a tiered system, but it does require that immigrants be given legal resident status within two years, maximum.

C/ What about cases where a WA member nation and one or more non-member nations have a shared citizenship? This proposal would effectively force those non-member nations to grant citizenship to these immigrants, too... and might it therefore be defined as 'Illegal'?
(OOC: for example, at least some cases where nations use either diplomatic missions or semi-autonomous territories as "WA puppets"...)

This text will have nothing to do with wank. Period.

(Just picking one point at random...)

Why should someone with an infectious disease necessarily be discriminated against? If they're actually carrying a contagion, maybe there's cause for quarantining them, but if it's simply something such as HIV, there's no guarantee they will transmit it to anyone else. Laws like this will only abet discrimination against such individuals, thereby increasing a highly counterproductive stigma.

(I should note, though, that as a nation we adore this proposal and will probably end up invading anyone who votes against it.)

-- Samantha Benson
etc. etc.

We see your point. Our concern was how to handle carriers of communicable diseases like influenza, malaria, ebola, and other such ailments that cause a severe danger to other people. Diseases like HIV may be infectious, but they only pose a danger during sexual activity. We'll rewrite, though, to make it more clear.

Thank you all for the suggestions. You'll see an updated draft later tonight.

N.T.
etc.

As I mentioned, this doesn't "force" nations to let people in willy-nilly.

Actually it does. I.1 says:

1. Any legal resident of a WA nation shall have the right to immigrate to another WA nation and seek citizenship or resident status in good faith and without malicious intent,

You don't have to give them citizenship or residence, but you do have to let them in.

Beyond that, this is looking pretty good.

We must agree with the concerns of other representatives about Article I Clause 1. The right to control one's borders is a fundamental one, and any attempt to strip that right away from WA nations will be a non-starter for Scotchpinestan.

We also are concerned with the first two clauses of Article III. Many nations require a legal immigrant to be in the country for a number of years BEFORE the immigrant is eligible for citizenship. Forcing these nations to overhaul their immigration laws (when there is usually a very good reason why such laws are in place) does not sound like a wise idea.

Actually it does. I.1 says:

You don't have to give them citizenship or residence, but you do have to let them in.

Beyond that, this is looking pretty good.

The short answer is, yes.

The long answer is yes, but we provide for a series of exceptions that allow nations to deny entry to a certain class of immigrants- the dangerous, the infectious, the improperly applied, etc. etc.

Philosophically, we feel there is no legitimate reason to prevent utterly benign and good-intentioned people from entering a country in search of a better life or job.

We must agree with the concerns of other representatives about Article I Clause 1. The right to control one's borders is a fundamental one, and any attempt to strip that right away from WA nations will be a non-starter for Scotchpinestan.

Alright, did delegates not read the "Nation's Rights" part? Because the wording, verbatim, is " Nations may deny an immigrant's entry if:" and then goes on to give a list of situations where it can be done.

How is that "stripping away" border sovereignty?

We also are concerned with the first two clauses of Article III. Many nations require a legal immigrant to be in the country for a number of years BEFORE the immigrant is eligible for citizenship. Forcing these nations to overhaul their immigration laws (when there is usually a very good reason why such laws are in place) does not sound like a wise idea.

We have passed legislation that has completely changed the way some nations have run their countries. The preceding UN was famous for creating bureacracy and radically changing the national governments of member states.

My government does not believe that changing immigration procedures in the interest of fairness and expedience is a big thing to ask. If member states don't like the World Assembly forcing them to change their laws every time a resolution passes, maybe they shouldn't be members.

I have updated the draft text incorporating some suggestions, but my wording may need work. Please attend, ye grammarians and literati.

N.T.
etc.

NO. Giving people the right to emigrate if they don't like how their current nation works is one thing, and might be justifiable as a fundamental 'sapient right', but forcing specific governments (i.e. any that want to keep their nations within the WA) to let people in goes too far against national sovereignty for my government to be at all happy with it.

As I mentioned, this doesn't "force" nations to let people in willy-nilly. It guarantees the right to free movement, while restricting that movement in the interest of security and collective safety.
As the head of Gobbannaen World Assembly Missionery has already pointed, out, yes, it does: Clause I.1.

And if your nation has a problem with allowing benign, non-threatening people to immigrate to your country without threat of prejudice, quota, or prohibitively long application periods, you probably wouldn't be happy with the rest of the legislation the WA would pass.Where it meddles with our internal policies, and would force a major alteration in our constitution (by transferring power over any matter from the separate Clans and Free septs, acting individually, to the High Council of Clans, as this proposal would...), no, we wouldn't be happy with such legislation... and, as we are doing here and now, would try to discourage its passage.
If it passes legislation that would go further in that respect than the Confederated Clans are willing to accept then, of course, we would have no choice but to leave this organisation.

No. We aren't going to set language limits, or take economics into consideration.I see. No concern for the practicalities of the matter at all.
So if you're not going to "take economics into consideration" then you wouldn't be concerned with the fact that some nations actually might not have the room or resources to house many immigrants without unfairly worsening the living conditions of their current inhabitants...

You have an ample opportunity to learn the language once you get there, and if your government feels it's important there's nothing stopping you from instituting training and language programs for immigrants.And what are you living on, before you've learnt enough of the local language to get a job, if the host nation's government isn't allowed to make your bringing in enough cash (or supplies) to get by during the learning period a possible condition of entry? Many nations don't even have welfare systems for their natives, let alone for any immigrants who've just wandered in and haven't yet been granted that nationality. (Yes, there are some 'welfare' schemes in Bears Armed, but they're run by the separate Clans and Free Septs and are only for members of the specific groups concerned... and, in any case we're not just talking about how this proposal would affect Bears Armed alone, are we?) Are you mandating the creation of government programmes to support them, regardless of the economic conditions of the nations involved?

Clause II.1.d is intended to be used for purposes of protecting the public peace. The examples that came to mind when writing were: a nation that has no room for more people, a nation whose government has just collapsed, a nation fighting a bloody civil war, etc. I will have to strengthen it to prevent governments from excluding entire classes of people based on imaginary terms.As has been said before in the halls of this organisation, and those of its predecessor, "The law means what the law says"... even if that isn't what its author intended it to mean. Under the original wording, decisions about what would count as destabilising were left to the national governments, as long as they followed the non-discrimination rules elsewhere in the text, with no WA agency given any right to hear appeals... and I'd argue that setting criteria such as I mentioned would thus have been perfectly legal. If you change it then we'll see...
However, I am glad to see that at least you would accept a nation simply not having room for more people as adequate grounds for limits: Given your earlier remark about ignoring economics, I'm pleasantly surprised by this point.

The draft mentions citizenship exactly twice, and always subordinate to the phrase "permanent legal resident." We included this phrase because we know you've brought it up before- the definition of an immigrant in our text is "a person who, for various reasons, seeks to leave their country of origin for another and become a permanent legal resident." Mentions of citizenship are only included to address the issue of speed and fairness in application thereof.
This legislation does not prevent nations from having a tiered system, but it does require that immigrants be given legal resident status within two years, maximum.
In that case perhaps Article III.2 should be modified, as its current wording
2. Destination countries must enact immigration and citizenship procedures that begin no later than one month after initial applications, and last no longer than two years, definitely seems to say that it must be possible for immigrants to acquire 'citizenship' -- rather than just 'legal resident status' -- within two years and one month of their initial application.

Incidentally, wouldn't allowing this period to exclude any time during which certain immigrants might happen to be interned as 'enemy aliens' make sense?

This text will have nothing to do with wank. Period.The legal existence of such puppets has been recognised by this organisation and its predecessor (OOC: and by the Mods) for a long time, so that even if you choose to ignore them because you dislike the concept the rest of us are certainly free to disagree with you about it. Is your nation still a member of the 'Antarctic Oasis'?
*(checks that point)*
Yes, it is. In that case, considering the identities of some of the nations that have historically employed such puppets, had you realised that you are condemning a number of your own region's members -- including both its founder and its current delegate -- as 'wankers'?

The long answer is yes, but we provide for a series of exceptions that allow nations to deny entry to a certain class of immigrants- the dangerous, the infectious, the improperly applied, etc. etc.But not those who would be an economic burden on the nation, or who would have no intention of assimilating into the native culture.

Philosophically, we feel there is no legitimate reason to prevent utterly benign and good-intentioned people from entering a country in search of a better life or job.But this proposal wouldn't only be a piece of philosophy, it would be a law with real effects... and the proposal wouldn't actually let us limit immigration to "utterly benign and good-intentioned people" -- if there are any such beings -- anyway.

Alright, did delegates not read the "Nation's Rights" part? Because the wording, verbatim, is " Nations may deny an immigrant's entry if:" and then goes on to give a list of situations where it can be done.Which, as has already been pointed out, does not include
"They would be an economic burden;"
"They seem unlikely to assimilate;"

We have passed legislation that has completely changed the way some nations have run their countries. The preceding UN was famous for creating bureacracy and radically changing the national governments of member states.And for passing many pieces of legislation that were so badly-written, or so offensive to many member-nations, that they were subsequently repealed again.
And if we're talking precedents then there were nations who argued against such legislation in those days, so there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do so now.

My government does not believe that changing immigration procedures in the interest of fairness and expedience is a big thing to ask.And I have already pointed out that, for my government in particular, such a change im immigration procedures would require a major -- and highly unlikely -- change in our nation's constitution.

If member states don't like the World Assembly forcing them to change their laws every time a resolution passes, maybe they shouldn't be members.
OOC: As has been pointed out MANY times before this, this organisation is NOT just for 'IntFeds': Those of use who believe it should basically confine its legislative activity to those matters that involve interactions between nations, rather than meddling with the member nations' internal affairs, are just as entitled to join it and to argue our case...
(Yes, I do realise that immigration arguably falls into the "interactions between nations' category, but in my opinion the current proposal still goes too far in telling nations whom they must accept within their borders...)

I see. No concern for the practicalities of the matter at all.
So if you're not going to "take economics into consideration" then you wouldn't be concerned with the fact that some nations actually might not have the room or resources to house many immigrants without unfairly worsening the living conditions of their current inhabitants...

First, I would like you to read the revised text and see if it answers any of your concerns.

Second, I believe that not having enough resources to feed people would fall under "destabilising the country."

And what are you living on, before you've learnt enough of the local language to get a job, if the host nation's government isn't allowed to make your bringing in enough cash (or supplies) to get by during the learning period a possible condition of entry? Many nations don't even have welfare systems for their natives, let alone for any immigrants who've just wandered in and haven't yet been granted that nationality. (Yes, there are some 'welfare' schemes in Bears Armed, but they're run by the separate Clans and Free Septs and are only for members of the specific groups concerned... and, in any case we're not just talking about how this proposal would affect Bears Armed alone, are we?) Are you mandating the creation of government programmes to support them, regardless of the economic conditions of the nations involved?

Maybe you should read the text. Nations are permitted to institute language and employment training programs. Nations are no required to do so.

As has been said before in the halls of this organisation, and those of its predecessor, "The law means what the law says"... even if that isn't what its author intended it to mean. Under the original wording, decisions about what would count as destabilising were left to the national governments, as long as they followed the non-discrimination rules elsewhere in the text, with no WA agency given any right to hear appeals... and I'd argue that setting criteria such as I mentioned would thus have been perfectly legal. If you change it then we'll see...
However, I am glad to see that at least you would accept a nation simply not having room for more people as adequate grounds for limits: Given your earlier remark about ignoring economics, I'm pleasantly surprised by this point.

The text and it's exceptions were left deliberately wide to allow for a variety of cases that cannot be forseen by this organization. I am not a believer in making legislation so airtight that nations have to come up with ridiculous legal loopholes to avoid harming themselves, which is why nebulous phrases like "destabilize the country" or "violent background" are included.

We specifically didn't create a bureacratic body to hear appeals simply because there isn't any reason to. Since you seem to be arguing a NatSov position, I thought you might like that part.

In that case perhaps Article III.2 should be modified, as its current wording
definitely seems to say that it must be possible for immigrants to acquire 'citizenship' -- rather than just 'legal resident status' -- within two years and one month of their initial application.

Again, I don't see what the problem is. Do you have a wording change to suggest, or are you just whinging?

Incidentally, wouldn't allowing this period to exclude any time during which certain immigrants might happen to be interned as 'enemy aliens' make sense?

No, but you raise a point. I had an exception for war refugees and others earlier in the text, but I'll exclude PoWs and other detainees from the definition of "immigrant" in my next draft.

And naturally, if "enemy aliens" happen to be violent, you can exclude them regardless. Which, again, is what the text says.

The legal existence of such puppets has been recognised by this organisation and its predecessor (OOC: and by the Mods) for a long time, so that even if you choose to ignore them because you dislike the concept the rest of us are certainly free to disagree with you about it. Is your nation still a member of the 'Antarctic Oasis'?
*(checks that point)*
Yes, it is. In that case, considering the identities of some of the nations that have historically employed such puppets, had you realised that you are condemning a number of your own region's members -- including both its founder and its current delegate -- as 'wankers'?

Your superfluous points about my region of origin notwithstanding, I fail to see your point. Yes, it is possible to avoid the effects of legislation on your primary nations by constructing a legal entity to take it's place in the World Assembly. For all intents and purposes, it is those "nations" that are in the WA, not their puppetmasters.

So I can't very well expand the scope of the legislation to affect those nations that choose not to participate fully in this body without running the risk of metagaming. They can deal with the issues, not the World Assembly. As far as I'm concerned, they can deal with whatever comes down the legal pipe.

But not those who would be an economic burden on the nation, or who would have no intention of assimilating into the native culture.

"Economic burden" is an unqualified phrase that hints at racial discrimination. It's like saying "we can't let poor Bigtopian people in, they're all lazy and it'll be bad for business." Your second point smacks of nationalistic fearmongering, like saying "we can't let those silly Bigtopian people in, they have strange customs and won't become part of our society."

Those are two exceptions I will never have in this legislation. My government, which represents a nations of myriad ethnic and social groups, believes strongly that culture is dynamic and developing, and that increased interaction between peoples enrichs and develops it. We won't support isolationism.

But this proposal wouldn't only be a piece of philosophy, it would be a law with real effects... and the proposal wouldn't actually let us limit immigration to "utterly benign and good-intentioned people" -- if there are any such beings -- anyway.

Your cynicism is noted, as is your lack of helpfully constructive comments.

And for passing many pieces of legislation that were so badly-written, or so offensive to many member-nations, that they were subsequently repealed again.
And if we're talking precedents then there were nations who argued against such legislation in those days, so there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do so now.

And I have already pointed out that, for my government in particular, such a change im immigration procedures would require a major -- and highly unlikely -- change in our nation's constitution.

Then perhaps you should be one of those nations that creates a massive legal loophole in order to avoid instituting policies that will reduce racial discrimination and expedite immigration applications. Immigrants are not dirty foreign people looking to leech off your government, they are not abstract concepts that you can restrict to a certain number per year.

They are just people looking to find a better life for themselves, and should be treated as fairly as you would your own people.

N.T.
etc.

OOC: As has been pointed out MANY times before this, this organisation is NOT just for 'IntFeds': Those of use who believe it should basically confine its legislative activity to those matters that involve interactions between nations, rather than meddling with the member nations' internal affairs, are just as entitled to join it and to argue our case...
(Yes, I do realise that immigration arguably falls into the "interactions between nations' category, but in my opinion the current proposal still goes too far in telling nations whom they must accept within their borders...)

OOC: I have been here just as long as you have, so spare me. I am estabilishing that this resolution has IntFed leanings. But, I specifically requested that comments be restricted to helpful and constructive. If you don't like the way the proposal is written, either go away and plot against it or give me some concrete suggestions on how to make it more palatable. I'm not going to read your mind.

OOC:

I will be posting an updated draft sometime this weekend; I'm moving into a new house and back to uni so it might come later than sooner.

I've dug out Kivisto's old Emigrant's Rights proposal for some inspiration and help. Please let me know any suggestions for improvement or word clarification.

We strongly suggest you take the principles expressed in the old Kivistan document to heart. Expressly, the reason why it only grants the right of people to leave their nation, and not the right of anyone to enter any other. It is the absolute imperative of national governments to assume full responsibility for anyone they allow to enter into their borders, to insure the safety of their citizens, and it is for this reason that the right of nations to deny entry to anyone, for any reason, cannot be compromised. The World Assembly can trample upon any national rights you can think of, and it has, and surely will in the future, but Ausserland, a friend to the sovereigntist movement but never a foe of Human Rights, always contended that the right of nations to seal off their borders to anyone they see fit was absolute. Why? because it would set an extremely dangerous precedent if the World Assembly suddenly declared itself the arbiter of member states' borders, for whatever reason. The World Assembly has no business forcing nations to accept immigrants they don't want to accept, or even to set the acceptable parameters by which nations can refuse to accept entrants. Preventing discrimination is all well and good, but compromising the right and duty of member states to track all who enter and deny anyone who could potentially pose a threat could lead to the enactment of less-sensible policies down the road. Trample upon our domestic operations all you like, even tell us we have to Let Your People Go! if they want to, but leave our borders alone.

Have you also considered the restrictions on leaving, as expressed in Emigration Rights, particularly for those on criminal probation, those under court subpoena, the mentally ill, etc., etc.?

(I should note, though, that as a nation we adore this proposal and will probably end up invading anyone who votes against it.)Give us a reason. We dare you.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
National Security Adviser

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota applauds and salutes the Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed in their opposition to such a poorly written and frankly offensive proposal. The right to control borders and immigration is paramount to the independence and security of any free state, and we will oppose any attempt to take that right away from us.

Wataru Nishii, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Grand Holy Empire of Imota

We strongly suggest you take the principles expressed in the old Kivistan document to heart. Expressly, the reason why it only grants the right of people to leave their nation, and not the right of anyone to enter any other. It is the absolute imperative of national governments to assume full responsibility for anyone they allow to enter into their borders, to insure the safety of their citizens, and it is for this reason that the right of nations to deny entry to anyone, for any reason, cannot be compromised. The World Assembly can trample upon any national rights you can think of, and it has, and surely will in the future, but Ausserland, a friend to the sovereigntist movement but never a foe of Human Rights, always contended that the right of nations to seal off their borders to anyone they see fit was absolute. Why? because it would set an extremely dangerous precedent if the World Assembly suddenly declared itself the arbiter of member states' borders, for whatever reason. The World Assembly has no business forcing nations to accept immigrants they don't want to accept, or even to set the acceptable parameters by which nations can refuse to accept entrants. Preventing discrimination is all well and good, but compromising the right and duty of member states to track all who enter and deny anyone who could potentially pose a threat could lead to the enactment of less-sensible policies down the road. Trample upon our domestic operations all you like, even tell us we have to Let Your People Go! if they want to, but leave our borders alone.

Have you also considered the restrictions on leaving, as expressed in Emigration Rights, particularly for those on criminal probation, those under court subpoena, the mentally ill, etc., etc.?

I see your points, and while I don't agree with all of them I'll make an effort to incorporate them into the next draft.

I don't agree with the honored Ausserlander's statement that the right to seal borders is absolute; but then I don't agree that completely open borders are the best thing either. This will become a bill about both emigrants and immigrants, to handle both sides of the equation.

N.T.
etc.

(IC, ie, not as mod)

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota applauds and salutes the Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed in their opposition to such a poorly written and frankly offensive proposal.

If you think it's poorly written, now is the time to improve the writing, Ambassador Nishi. If it's frankly offensive, turn your eyes away.

The right to control borders and immigration is paramount to the independence and security of any free state, and we will oppose any attempt to take that right away from us.

Should make for an interesting debate -- when it's debated. Right now it's just drafting.


-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota applauds and salutes the Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed in their opposition to such a poorly written and frankly offensive proposal. The right to control borders and immigration is paramount to the independence and security of any free state, and we will oppose any attempt to take that right away from us.

Wataru Nishii, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Grand Holy Empire of Imota

Dear Wataru Nishii and others,
I do understand that you are against such proposal. But because you are a member of the WA you are not a free state. The WA can enforce any law on your country if the majority of WA nations supports it.
If you want to be a free state you are free to leave.

Not that I want you out, but I am a bit tired to hear the argument about the rights of a free nation every time.

The WA nations are forced to follow what the majority decides, if we like that or not. I would like to see arguments on improvements of proposals or arguments against proposal, but arguments against proposals must no be against the idea of making the WA a real association. If a nation doesn't like a world association it better be not member of it.
Of course we can (and probably will) disagree on what issues we want resolutions.
Regards

Dear Wataru Nishii and others,
I do understand that you are against such proposal. But because you are a member of the WA you are not a free state. The WA can enforce any law on your country if the majority of WA nations supports it.
And unless and until the WA actually passes that law, we have a right under the organisation's own rules to argue against it.
Are you seriously suggesting that all member nations should automatically accept everry proposal for international legislation that anybody produces!?! If so then you do indeed seem to be a verrry 'weird' sort of "anarchist"...


First, I would like you to read the revised text and see if it answers any of your concerns.
As you are now promising another revision, with some change in theme, I shall wait for that before making many more comments.

The text and it's exceptions were left deliberately wide to allow for a variety of cases that cannot be forseen by this organization. I am not a believer in making legislation so airtight that nations have to come up with ridiculous legal loopholes to avoid harming themselves, which is why nebulous phrases like "destabilize the country" or "violent background" are included.And when I mentioned some ways in which my government would prrobably interpret those terms in the event of this proposal becoming law, perrfectly rreasonable ones to ensure that immigrrants would be capable of fitting in and supporrting themselves, you then blithely dismissed the criteria that my goverrnment would use as "imaginary" and thrreatened to tighten the worrding to prrevent such policies.

In that case perhaps Article III.2 should be modified, as its current wordingdefinitely seems to say that it must be possible for immigrants to acquire 'citizenship' -- rather than just 'legal resident status' -- within two years and one month of their initial application.Again, I don't see what the problem is. Do you have a wording change to suggest, or are you just whinging?Prroblem was, you claimed prroposal would only forrce us to allow legal rresidency by immigrrants but had included clause saying that "Destination countries must enact immigration and citizenship procedures that begin no later than one month after initial applications, and last no longer than two years" which clearrrly stated that we would be forrced to grrant them citizenship too rregrdless of any constitutional prroblems that that would entail. Suggested change of worrding: Drrop all use of terrm 'citizenship', except prrhaps to ban unfairr discrrimination in that rrespect.

I fail to see your point. Yes, it is possible to avoid the effects of legislation on your primary nations by constructing a legal entity to take it's place in the World Assembly. For all intents and purposes, it is those "nations" that are in the WA, not their puppetmasters.(OOC comment: Aren't those puppets and their masters rather likely to have full mutual citizenship with each other? That draft of your proposal would have given people from other WA nations a right move into those puppets and then claim citizenship there -- at least in theory, although of course many of them occupy such limited territories that they could reasonably exclude immigrants on the grounds of "no room" -- which would then automatically make them citizens of the masters too...)

But not those who would be an economic burden on the nation, or who would have no intention of assimilating into the native culture."Economic burden" is an unqualified phrase that hints at racial discrimination. It's like saying "we can't let poor Bigtopian people in, they're all lazy and it'll be bad for business."
Try to paw-wave economic concerrns aside though you did, the simple fact is that some immigrrants would be economic burrdens on some nations. People who did not brring enough rresouces to live on with them when they immigrrated and cannot yet speak local language well enough to find worrk -- if suitable worrk for them exists therre, anyay -- must eitherr starrve (in which case you forrcing those nations to admit them has irritated those nations without helping those people), re-emigrrate (in which case you forrcing those nations to admit them has irritated those nations without helping those people), be supporrted by the locals (in which case, clearrrly, they arre burrden for at least a while) or turrn to crrime... and in latterr case, not only arre they burrden but they can then be expelled and legally rrefused rre-admission so that again you forrcing those nations to admit them has irritated those nations without helping those people.
Your second point smacks of nationalistic fearmongering, like saying "we can't let those silly Bigtopian people in, they have strange customs and won't become part of our society."

Those are two exceptions I will never have in this legislation. My government, which represents a nations of myriad ethnic and social groups, believes strongly that culture is dynamic and developing, and that increased interaction between peoples enrichs and develops it. We won't support isolationism.
*(Borrin simply growls at this statement...)*

"RRRRAARRGH!!!"

(OOC: Ursines, although more sociable with each other than non-sapient bears, are still inherently quite territorial not just culturally but biologically too... They are generally capable of accepting their country's long-term resident minorities (most of whom do share their own basic culture), and Ursine refugees from persecution elsewhere, and some small-scale immigration by humans or others [for example, in recent years, refugees from the collapse of the former nation of 'Ceorana'... part of which has since, by the wish of most of its inhabitants, become an Ursine protectorate] but the idea of letting large numbers of non-Ursine outsiders [with differing cultures] in as well is inherently anathema to them. This is a point on which Borrin and his government will NEVER agree with you. [End OOC comment])

Immigrants are not dirty foreign people looking to leech off your government, they are not abstract concepts that you can restrict to a certain number per year.
They are just people looking to find a better life for themselves, and should be treated as fairly as you would your own people.
"Dirrty" I did not say, and implying that I did is just unjustifiable 'ad ursinem' attack for which you should apologise. Forreign they obviously arre. Leach off of ourr society they would not, no, because ourr society does not tolerrate parrasites: That complaint about lack of thinking about economic aspects of dealing with immigrrants in yourr drraft was mainly meant on generral terrms.
If people want betterr lifes for themselves, maybe they should try to imprrove nations in which they arre alrrready native?

Borrin o Redwood
Regional Delegate to the World Assembly,
International Democratic Union
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed


_____________________________________________

(OOC: The extra 'r's in many words above were intentional: When Borrin gets irritated his Ursine accent tends to get heavier...)

Dear Wataru Nishii and others,
I do understand that you are against such proposal. But because you are a member of the WA you are not a free state. The WA can enforce any law on your country if the majority of WA nations supports it.
If you want to be a free state you are free to leave.

Not that I want you out, but I am a bit tired to hear the argument about the rights of a free nation every time.

The WA nations are forced to follow what the majority decides, if we like that or not. I would like to see arguments on improvements of proposals or arguments against proposal, but arguments against proposals must no be against the idea of making the WA a real association. If a nation doesn't like a world association it better be not member of it.
Of course we can (and probably will) disagree on what issues we want resolutions.
Regards

Your Excellency appears to be missing the point of this opposition. It is not the goal, as far as I can see it, to oppose internationalism. Krioval is noted for supporting many proposals to come across this organization's attention. However, when it comes to territorial integrity, it is Krioval's firm belief that nations have the right to manage their own land as they see fit. This is reinforced by our frequent opposition to environmental resolutions.

I believe that the purpose of the World Assembly is to deal primarily with issues that have a large international component, and to occasionally dabble in some pro-individual rights legislation. The former would include trade proposals, diplomatic proposals, and matters related to war or international disputes. The latter is supported by Krioval because our citizens often travel abroad and I must advocate for their safety and for the protection of their rights when they choose to do so.

Telling me that I should either accept most everybody who wishes to enter Krioval, or else create a byzantine form of legislation to bar specific individuals, is both abhorrent and unnecessary. Changing the aforementioned proposal to allow for unrestricted ability to depart one's home country and to encourage, or even mandate, more transparency in national immigration policies, would be met with Krioval's support. Until that point, I must oppose this proposal.

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

The Kingdom of Hapaland stands in opposition to this bill. His Majesty the King believes that all nations have the sovereign right to control their own borders. Any breach of that right will decrease the standard of living and endanger the Hapa people.

And unless and until the WA actually passes that law, we have a right under the organisation's own rules to argue against it.
Are you seriously suggesting that all member nations should automatically accept everry proposal for international legislation that anybody produces!?! If so then you do indeed seem to be a verrry 'weird' sort of "anarchist"...
Dear Borrin o Redwood,
No doubt that we are verrrrrrrry wierrrrrd anarrrrchists. That being said I totally agree with your remarks. I only said by entering the WA a nation is not a free state any more. The rules of the WA are implied. Of course it is very wise to argue against certain proposals which are against your believes, but not by telling you are a free state. (And people are just repeating the free state as argument over and over again, if you want to be a real free state, no problem, it can be outside the WA.) I really do not want that the WA will regulate the nations in every inch. I really want a good debate on which proposals are wanted or not. And I do think that not wanting your freedom
further diminished is a good argument. But that you were a free nation before the proposal was made, and that you will not be a free nation after the proposal would be a approved resolution is rubbish. There are some WA resolutions (fair trial and others) that binds you on your national level already. That is the point I make. And I do understand that lots of nations oppose such resolutions and that is their right (and duty).

Your Excellency appears to be missing the point of this opposition. It is not the goal, as far as I can see it, to oppose internationalism. Krioval is noted for supporting many proposals to come across this organization's attention. However, when it comes to territorial integrity, it is Krioval's firm belief that nations have the right to manage their own land as they see fit. This is reinforced by our frequent opposition to environmental resolutions.

I believe that the purpose of the World Assembly is to deal primarily with issues that have a large international component, and to occasionally dabble in some pro-individual rights legislation. The former would include trade proposals, diplomatic proposals, and matters related to war or international disputes. The latter is supported by Krioval because our citizens often travel abroad and I must advocate for their safety and for the protection of their rights when they choose to do so.

Telling me that I should either accept most everybody who wishes to enter Krioval, or else create a byzantine form of legislation to bar specific individuals, is both abhorrent and unnecessary. Changing the aforementioned proposal to allow for unrestricted ability to depart one's home country and to encourage, or even mandate, more transparency in national immigration policies, would be met with Krioval's support. Until that point, I must oppose this proposal.
Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval
Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-[i]kan and others,
I do not think that I missed the point, see what I said before.
And I do think that the right to govern your nation as you like is somewhat crippled by the WA. As the WA is very good in getting international issues settled, it can, and does, interfere in your national organisation too. So I understand that you want the freedom to manage your own society. That is fine by me, I think somewhat the same. And that being said I totally understand why you are against this proposal. I do disagree on this with you, because my nation has open borders, but every one who enters my nation is under our laws (and of the WA). So for me this resolution is fine, and I think that it is normal that you will be against this resolution as it is now. The author can try to get your approval by making changes. And I do think it should be wise, because I think most nations will think like yours. It do not think that I stop my support once it is changed the way you want it. It will be not as strong as I wanted, but better to have a half glass, than an empty bottle.

Regards

We will say we have not read the full proposal and have not listened to all the debate on it here. We did get down to these:

1. Any legal resident of a WA nation shall have the right to immigrate to another WA nation and seek citizenship or resident status in good faith and without malicious intent,Define legal resident in a simple way? As many nations require certain things to become such and far more to become a citizen of that nation.
2. Immigrants may not be denied entry to a country on prejudicial grounds; such as race, religion, sex, or similar association,Would you walk into a bar where it is well known they hate 'your kind' and don't want them in the bar. Only a fool goes where they are not wanted and those folks that go to the bar and make the rules have the same rights as any fool might have who comes in the bar. So who's rights are greater... the fools who want the folks in bar to change and let him be one of the 'boys or gals' or the 'boys and gals' who worked hard to open a place for folks like them away from fools.
3. Immigrants are entitled to speedy and fair processes when applying for resident status, citizenship, entry visas, and similar legal devices.Is getting five years of our basic education and then two years of public service 'fair process'. Here to become a legal citizen children start school at age five and get five years of basic courses... then go into National Service for two years.. so seven total years to become a full citizen as at age ten they have limited rights of citizenship but must complele the two years National Service.....

NS is military service or public service learning some skill to protect the nation in event they are called to do it. This NS skill often goes along with their life profession so they continue to impove and stay up on it.. We are also a government based on religion so our laws don't separate church, state, and court. As each has a place in how things are run here in their general areas of duty.

Will try and read more on this later but now wives are calling time to go to a family reunion and I must all six of them happy or my life is in the 'dog house'.

ZW

because my nation has open borders, but every one who enters my nation is under our laws (and of the WA). Then if you have any laws that limit or restrict entry those borders are not as open as this proposal makes them. As most laws are pointed away from those that write them and toward those that don't like them. Drugs, prostitution, abortion, and a host of other laws dealing with these issue limit or restrict entry into your county. This would open the door and you could not keep drugs, prostitution, or abortions out of your nation if you allow in those who want them and then hand over writing laws to them. All they have to do is gain power and take over... then you will be imigrating and they running the place... thus you may find yourself a slave to those you let in and handed freedoms they should not have gotten.

ZW

No, we do not have laws, except for WA laws maybe, that restricts entry for persons to our nation. But you are right for all kinds of things we have borders (cars for example are forbidden). And in our history it never happened that so much people came in that they changed our laws in a way the old majority didn't like. The free debate, the old laws, some time needed to make changes in our laws (last years only new laws were introduced when all thought it was useful). No we didn't became slaves, we will not (and it is forbidden to enslave people in our laws). Yes we changed, but slowly. And sorry abortion is already legal in our nation, and for drugs they are legal to use, but if you make problems after the use of drugs, you have a problem because that is against our laws. Prostitution is legal, but pimps are illegal. And luckily there is hardly any prostitution, because of our education system. The big problem with crime is gambling, because it is not allowed, but I think it will be legal again soon.

I really think our borders are much more open than this proposal will make, if ever approved, I doubt that.
Regards

I'm putting this on the back burner for now, but when it comes back to the front it will have simmered and matured into a completely rewritten and delicious resolution.

We were wondering if this resolution might secure the rights of immigrants to appeal any decisions made on there applications by their host nation? We mean of course an appeal within the host nations legal sytem, and not to any outside body.

yours e.t.c. ,

I would welcome the new proposal. I want to give you an extra idea. In Article 1, clause 2 is stated: "Immigrants may not be denied entry to a country on prejudicial grounds; such as race, religion, sex, or similar association,"
I totally agree with this, but it would be impossible for theocracies because I think they (sadly) have the right to impose a religion on someone. So it could be that on this clause the proposal would be illegal. But I hope I am wrong on this.

Regards