NationStates Jolt Archive

Crimes Against Immigrants

The governmental theory behind this is that even though nations have perfect right to self-determination in setting their own immigration laws, there needs to be a special international effort to condemn crimes against immigrants, mainly through education. There also needs to be special international protection of illegal immigrants who otherwise are without advocates in a strange new country. These illegal immigrants fall under world assembly protection because they would be represented by their home nations in which they are citizens, but these home nations likely have little access to the court system of the member nation involved.

Note that the World Assembly does not outlaw the punishment of these illegal immigrants for their crimes, but protects them from predatory practices member nations might effect, since these illegal immigrants are more susceptible to that given the situation they are in.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the tendency for the formation of ethnic groups, groups made up of people that share heritage or language,

SEEING that situations juxtaposing different ethnic groups can create tension between these groups, especially in the case of immigrants to a nation,

NOTING the bearing this issue has on the international community, especially the World Assembly, as it deals with the crossing of international boundaries,

STANDING BY the need for all--criminals, immigrants and ethnic minorities--to be treated and sentenced fairly:

NOTING that much mistreatment of immigrants is rooted in immigrants’ lack of understanding of a nation’s laws, language(s) and culture:

1. ESTABLISHES the “World Assembly Immigration School” (WAIS) and CHARGES the WAIS with the education of immigrants in the laws, language(s) and customs of their new member nation, AND the education of potential emigrants with the same for their new nations, AND the education of each participating member nation’s populace as to the culture of that nation’s immigrant groups;

2. AUTHORIZES the WAIS to set up a branch in each member nation that requests a branch, under the management, censorship, and upkeep of said member nation; PROVIDES staff, curriculum and funding for this staff and curriculum--as agreed upon with the member nation--for each branch;

3. RETAINS the right to withdraw WAIS branches for a period of time or indefinitely from a member nation that the WAIS sees as abusing the school or using it for purposes other than fostering understanding and tolerance of immigrant groups, or as seen necessary due to funding shortages in the World Assembly;

4. REAFFIRMS member nations’ right to set immigration requirements and to process or vet potential immigrants, yet RECOGNIZES immigrants as having a societal disadvantage and as being more likely targets of crimes, especially violent crimes;

5. CONDEMNS all crimes against immigrants committed on the basis of their immigrant status and PUBLISHES internationally accounts, statistics, and other information regarding crimes against immigrants in member nations, with the purpose of warning potential immigrants of intolerant cultures;

6. REQUIRES that member nations extend, if they have not already done so, protection to legal immigrants equal to that extended to other citizens, especially protection of property, life, wellbeing and opportunity for economic prosperity;

7. DISALLOWS in member nations corporal punishment of those convicted of illegal immigration, AS WELL AS execution, lengthy jail sentences and other extreme punishments for such convicts; SEEING that these are inhumane and unequal to the crime committed; and SEEING that illegal immigrants are not citizens of the member nation they have entered and they likely have no advocate beyond the World Assembly--and are thus likely targets of extreme punishment by the member nation's jurisprudence;

8. REQUIRES member nations to offer reasonable sustenance and protection to those charged with illegal immigration until they are either cleared of those charges or deported, and REQUIRES member nations that deport illegal immigrants to arrange, in cooperation with the home nation of which the accused is a citizen, safe and humane transportation of the accused.Ideas, comments?

We find this resolution very interesting. It is in the main well written and extremely apposite.

We are a little concerned with clause 5 which seems to behalf innoperative and half the creation of a central statistics department.

Are we to understand that the aim of this resolution in creating the W.A.I.S. is assimilation of immigrants into their new home nation? As opposed to integration that is.


yours e.t.c. ,

First obvious question: what category and strength is this?

STANDING BY the need for all--criminals, immigrants and ethnic minorities--to be treated and sentenced fairly:

I'd rephrase this. As it stands it's an open invitation to misinterpretation, appearing to bracket criminals, immigrants and ethnic minorities together. If you want a list for emphasis, maybe a list of pairs of opposites would be best -- "criminal and law-abiding, immigrant and native," that sort of thing, though that's still somewhat vulnerable to the same misreading.

2. AUTHORIZES the WAIS to set up a branch in each member nation that requests a branch, under the management, censorship, and upkeep of said member nation; PROVIDES staff, curriculum and funding for this staff and curriculum--as agreed upon with the member nation--for each branch;
Sorry, this strikes me as a lovely but utterly ineffectual idea. It provides funding for nations that are essentially doing the right thing already, and does nothing to blunt the predatory practices of the others. And that's before we get onto the question of where this funding is coming from.

I fully support the idea of WAIS, but if you aren't going to guarantee that it's there for immigrants to use and isn't gagged by the local government then it's not a protection.

[...]and PUBLISHES internationally accounts, statistics, and other information regarding crimes against immigrants in member nations, with the purpose of warning potential immigrants of intolerant cultures;
This is admirable. Just to nit-pick, who is compiling these statistics? Nations aren't obliged to provide them, and WAIS can't do any reliable stat-gathering anywhere it hasn't been invited in.

6. REQUIRES that member nations extend, if they have not already done so, protection to legal immigrants equal to that extended to other citizens, especially protection of property, life, wellbeing and opportunity for economic prosperity;
Harking back to that list, I'm wondering whether the focus on immigrants isn't a bit of a red herring. The underlying tension you brought up earlier is between ethnic groups rather than immigrants per se, and logically the protections are needed by the ethnic groups rather than just the immigrants. That said, I accept that immigrants are more than usually vulnerable, so I'm not going to protest too much.

The big problem is that I think you'll find this starts blurring the category. WAIS is an education and support provision, while this is much more squarely an issue of human rights. I like both of them as concepts, but marrying them together in one resolution might be hard to do legally.

7. DISALLOWS in member nations corporal punishment of those convicted of illegal immigration, AS WELL AS execution, lengthy jail sentences and other extreme punishments for such convicts; SEEING that these are inhumane and unequal to the crime committed; and SEEING that illegal immigrants are not citizens of the member nation they have entered and they likely have no advocate beyond the World Assembly--and are thus likely targets of extreme punishment by the member nation's jurisprudence;
This will definitely lose you votes. I'm all for it, but rather a lot of nations seem to take a dim view of being told not to kill people.

As a secondary matter, I would very much like to deal with sentencing in an over-arching manner some day, and having sentences dealt with piecemeal in other resolutions would be a bit of a problem then. You've actually enunciated the principles that any proposal we came up with would be working from, so there's a good chance it'll all work anyway, but I still worry.

::There is some agitation in the Gobbannaen delegation as a flunky runs in and passes Cerys a note. She doesn't look pleased at it::

Sigh. Apparently Gobbannium would be opposed to the blanket banning of execution. When I find out what the morons at home are up to, I'll let you know.

What an original idea for a proposal.
7. DISALLOWS in member nations corporal punishment of those convicted of illegal immigration, AS WELL AS execution, lengthy jail sentences and other extreme punishments for such convicts;
I think this should be rephrased to be disallowing said punishments exclusively for the crime of illegal immigration. If someone illegally immigrated and then went on an axe murder spree, and was found guilty both of illegal immigration and of axe murdering (perhaps the former conviction was gained while evidence for the latter was being collated, in a nation with short pre-charge detention limits) then the punishments would seem to be precluded, even though most people wouldn't object to lengthy jail terms for axe murderers.

Maybe the WAIS could also be charged with conducting, in consort with the particular nation, community projects to help with integration or assimilation (I get the two mixed up).

OOC: For example, some of my friends have been involved in theatre projects that try to help groups of immigrant and native children from different cultural backgrounds mix through theatre. Especially when they don't share a common language, it can be a good way of learning about each other. I know there's something similar for art, and there are probably projects like it using music, or sport, or whatever.

Finally, in "Prevention of Torture", we declared victims of torture had refugee status, and have done the same in our anti-slavery proposal. Does that need to be borne in mind with respect to Clause 4?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

What an original idea for a proposal.

I think this should be rephrased to be disallowing said punishments exclusively for the crime of illegal immigration. If someone illegally immigrated and then went on an axe murder spree, and was found guilty both of illegal immigration and of axe murdering (perhaps the former conviction was gained while evidence for the latter was being collated, in a nation with short pre-charge detention limits) then the punishments would seem to be precluded, even though most people wouldn't object to lengthy jail terms for axe murderers.

Maybe the WAIS could also be charged with conducting, in consort with the particular nation, community projects to help with integration or assimilation (I get the two mixed up).

OOC: For example, some of my friends have been involved in theatre projects that try to help groups of immigrant and native children from different cultural backgrounds mix through theatre. Especially when they don't share a common language, it can be a good way of learning about each other. I know there's something similar for art, and there are probably projects like it using music, or sport, or whatever.

Finally, in "Prevention of Torture", we declared victims of torture had refugee status, and have done the same in our anti-slavery proposal. Does that need to be borne in mind with respect to Clause 4?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria


Well esteemed Ambassador we might be able to dispell your confusion, Assimilation consists in having immigrants educated into the culture they have emigrated to, in the process having them loose some of their own cultural uniqueness, the idea being to make them less obviously foreign and different this meaning that they will be less of a target for mistrust or animosity.
Integration is more holistic, it seeks to not only educate immigrants about the culture they are being adopted by, but it more importantly prepares the adoptive culture to be augmented by the cultural diversification of immigration. In most cases the effect of intigration is to allow cultural heterogeneity whereas the goal of assimilation is to create a theoretical mono-culture.

Our government would support integrationist methods of dealing with immigrants and oppose assimilationist approaches.

yours e.t.c.,

I strongly support Mongkha, khan of Kashgar, ambassador to the World assembly for the Empire of Urgench with his remarks.
Also I will support the proposed resolution. But maybe the Gobbannaen WA Mission brought some ideas to get more support and less nations against it.

But being an anarchist I would say try first the strong one, if defeated make a nicer one for the nations who are more on their self and have civil rights not on superb or higher.

Good points, let's see if I can respond to a few. I think I'm going to have to rely on a lot of RL examples (sorry), just because they're more widely understood than PC's immigration situation.
[...]and PUBLISHES internationally accounts, statistics, and other information regarding crimes against immigrants in member nations, with the purpose of warning potential immigrants of intolerant cultures;

This is admirable. Just to nit-pick, who is compiling these statistics? Nations aren't obliged to provide them, and WAIS can't do any reliable stat-gathering anywhere it hasn't been invited in.From the discussion with the UNABS, it suddenly seems very impractical to gather statistics, much less stories, from all over the WA--and then solve the problem of how to get them. I think I'll nix that part.

Rather, perhaps the WA can classify member nations in which crimes against immigrants are regularly committed, or are relatively uninvestigated as "immigrant intolerant" or some other term...That would still kind of dodges the question of how the WA's gonna know about all this (personally, I nominate the gnomes). But perhaps it would be more direct in getting what I want: that it's clear which nations are not safe to emigrate to.

2. AUTHORIZES the WAIS to set up a branch in each member nation that requests a branch, under the management, censorship, and upkeep of said member nation; PROVIDES staff, curriculum and funding for this staff and curriculum--as agreed upon with the member nation--for each branch; Sorry, this strikes me as a lovely but utterly ineffectual idea. It provides funding for nations that are essentially doing the right thing already, and does nothing to blunt the predatory practices of the others. And that's before we get onto the question of where this funding is coming from.

I fully support the idea of WAIS, but if you aren't going to guarantee that it's there for immigrants to use and isn't gagged by the local government then it's not a protection.The main benefit of a school such as this (national or international) is to provide learning for immigrants interested in integration in their own language. For immigrants who already speak the language, the benefit would only be in the know-how of the nation's laws that are concentrated in one area and made free.

The main benefit of having a WA backed institution of this kind (which, like you say, is something some nations are already doing themselves) would be the WA's ability to act as a network. The supposition is that the WA has a superior ability to provide native language speakers for such a school.

An example of this is where I live in RL, Columbus Ohio. In Columbus, there are good numbers of latino immigrants. Frankly, they have a good local network, and there are a multitude of opportunities for them to learn english as a second language and for them to learn about the nation's laws (especially immigration laws). This is because there’s a good number of them, and because Mexico (the country of origin for many of them) is right next to the US, hence there's a pressing need and practical need for people in the US to know spanish, and thus there are larger numbers that can speak spanish, and thus be able to provide english classes to spanish speakers.

However, there is another community of immigrants in Columbus: immigrants from Somalia. These immigrants equally need to learn english, and learn about US laws...These immigrants, however, are fewer in number, and come from a nation further away, and there is less of a pressing need for US citizens to know Somali, their native language. Thus, it is unlikely there are many in Columbus that speak Somali. Thus, it is hard for them to have access to a school that would teach them english from their native language, or teach them about US laws in their native language. If there were a WA in which both the US and Somalia were members that had the charge to network language skills from Somalia to the US, I think it would be of benefit to that immigrant group in its quest for integration.

So perhaps the WAIS, or whatever WA organization this proposal would set up, would be primarily concerned with networking the skills of teachers from native countries to immigrants in other countries. If this were the focus, then we can even scrap the idea of running WAIS schools in individual nations: it would simply provides teachers for a member nation in the member nation's quest to support immigrants in integration. And, additionally, these teachers could teach citizens about the culture of the immigrants.

This would be done, I suppose, through temporary visas, and we'd have to consider what kind of protection, if any, we're giving the visiting teacher. And what would be the venue in which he taught? And would there need to be a certain threshold of quality for the national WAIS-like school or program before the WA worked to network a teacher to it?
6. REQUIRES that member nations extend, if they have not already done so, protection to legal immigrants equal to that extended to other citizens, especially protection of property, life, wellbeing and opportunity for economic prosperity; Harking back to that list, I'm wondering whether the focus on immigrants isn't a bit of a red herring. The underlying tension you brought up earlier is between ethnic groups rather than immigrants per se, and logically the protections are needed by the ethnic groups rather than just the immigrants. That said, I accept that immigrants are more than usually vulnerable, so I'm not going to protest too much.My supposition when writing was that immigration problems arise when immigrants are of a differing ethnicity from the majority. Wait, let me back up.

There are two problems that the WA might be able to address, and those problems are what I was looking for in this resolution:

1) Integration
2) Hate crimes against immigrants

With regard to hate crimes, I'm pretty sure the main risk is when the immigrants come from a distinct ethnic background. Hate crimes against immigrants arise from misunderstanding of the 'alien' culture from which an immigrant comes and thus the persecution of that person for being different. This usually doesn't happen when cultures are similar. In RL, the US and Europe...German, French and Italian immigrants to the US are rarely involved in hate crimes, to my understanding--whereas those from many parts of Africa, China, the Middle East and Latin America may full well be involved in hate crimes.

I figure this has to do with a couple of things. First, in the case of Europe, it's more likely for the immigrant to know at least some English--it's something I'm proud of Europeans for, their penchant for knowing more than one language. Second, European government, religion, commercial products, and culture are not only relatively known entities to US citizens, but they're in many ways similar to US government, religion, commercial products and culture. Because of the proximity of culture and the connections commercially and racially (since so many US citizens have European ancestry), it is easier for European immigrants--that is, they aren't the targets of many hate crimes.

Sorry, that's a long aside, I just wanted to explain my train of thought.

Perhaps the "ethnicity" referred to in the preambulatory clauses is the wrong measurement. 'Alien' cultures, government and religions are just as guilty in causing the divisions that perpetuate hate crimes. That these are often related to ethnicity is beside the point. I'll have to re-term the preambulatory clauses.

Yes, I think it reasonable that the WA require it's members to grant all citizens equal rights to protection. They can't make someone a second-class citizen just because he's newly immigrated. If they don't want to give full rights to an immigrant they can either deny him legal entry (deportation) or give him a temporary 'resident' status. I don't think it's an international issue to tell nations who they must admit enter their country, or what one must do to be a citizen. But it is not within a nation's right to call an immigrant "a citizen" and not legally protect him equally as other "citizens".

Speaking of international jurisdiction, there's another area of possible legislation for this proposal:

3) Deportation and extradition rights.

I feel it beyond the scope of this proposal to set down rules for extradition of a resident or illegal immigrant, or for there to be a guarantee of a fair trial (that's just not the thrust of this) for one suspected of illegal immigration. But there could be some protections of human rights in the deportation process that could be upheld by the WA, such as humane transportation--including food and water for the trip if it’ll take more than a few hours, right to communicate with family or friends in the home nation (with the object of informing them of the deportation and arranging for the immigrant's return to home) or the right to be transported to a family or friend rather than left in the middle of the desert on the border...etc. All these I could see as being within the scope of the WA, since they involve citizens changing hands between nations.

There would be latitude still for member nations to negotiate extradition and immigration individually with its neighbor nations. That's not what I'm talking about mandating. Rather I’m talking about mandating some basic protections from abuse of illegal immigrants as they are moved back to home.

Likewise, since we’re talking about citizens from one country being in another country, the WA should, I feel, extend the same humane treatment mandates to those held in prisons awaiting trial or sentencing or deportment.
The big problem is that I think you'll find this starts blurring the category. WAIS is an education and support provision, while this is much more squarely an issue of human rights. I like both of them as concepts, but marrying them together in one resolution might be hard to do legally.I'm starting to think so...I'll redraft the proposal, with the focus being on facilitating integration. The idea being that through help on integration to help ease hate crimes. It would be under Human Rights (of what strength I know not) so both the WAIS clauses (practically increasing respect of human rights in a society through education) and the clauses to give rights to immigrants (legally protecting those rights through international mandate).

7. DISALLOWS in member nations corporal punishment of those convicted of illegal immigration, AS WELL AS execution, lengthy jail sentences and other extreme punishments for such convicts; I think this should be rephrased to be disallowing said punishments exclusively for the crime of illegal immigration. If someone illegally immigrated and then went on an axe murder spree, and was found guilty both of illegal immigration and of axe murdering (perhaps the former conviction was gained while evidence for the latter was being collated, in a nation with short pre-charge detention limits) then the punishments would seem to be precluded, even though most people wouldn't object to lengthy jail terms for axe murderers.
That's what I had in mind, and I thought my wording was specific enough...Looking on it now, I can see that it isn't. I'll be more specific, disallowing those inhumane punishments "for the crime of illegal immigration".

Maybe the WAIS could also be charged with conducting, in consort with the particular nation, community projects to help with integration or assimilation (I get the two mixed up).

OOC: For example, some of my friends have been involved in theatre projects that try to help groups of immigrant and native children from different cultural backgrounds mix through theatre. Especially when they don't share a common language, it can be a good way of learning about each other. I know there's something similar for art, and there are probably projects like it using music, or sport, or whatever.This is an excellent idea…I wonder how would it be put into text, though.

My nation wholly support this resolution with your proposed changes.
I think article 6 "REQUIRES that member nations extend, if they have not already done so, protection to legal immigrants equal to that extended to other citizens, especially protection of property, life, wellbeing and opportunity for economic prosperity;" is important step forward. But I think protection and right extended to legal immigrant is not enough. It should also be clear that legal immigrants should be made aware of their duty and responsibility as new habitant to my nation, notably legal immigrant should respect all local laws with same consequence as citizen for breaking them.

Also I think it's important for illegal immigrant to be quickly dealt with and have mechanism in place to quickly deport them to their original country.

So, based on some of the comments made (namely those from Urgench, QuoD, the Gobbannaen WA Mission, and MapleLeafss): I see the proposal best helped by reworking it with three things in mind: Intergration is the goal, including use of the arts, music, sports and any other cultural connection the WAIS, if included, is to function to network native speakers to nations that otherwise couldn't get them the WA should protect the rights of those crossing international borders due to deportation.

Intergration is the goal, including use of the arts, music, sports and any other cultural connection
Just to be clear, this isn't an absolute demand. If it can't be accommodated, that's reasonable.

However, we would like clarification on Clause 4, with regards to the ability of the WA to classify people as 'refugees'.

I'm not sure about the WAIS bits. It seems a bit too much of an imposition, and perhaps better dealt with on a national level as to how countries wish to integrate (or indeed not - some countries may welcome the cultural diversity). It's just a bit...hmmm...for my liking

I would change the language of clauses 7&8 to set up a court that sentences those convicted of illegal immigration and only that so that there can be no question of fair/foul play. Just my 2 cents.

Most respectfuly,
Mitchell Rapp