NationStates Jolt Archive

Another plan up my sleeve to keep everyone happy. Please comment on the following:

----

Repeal "Right of Emigration"

Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the intended purpose of the "Right of Emigration" was to simply to give citizens of member states the right to emigrate in pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or escape from war, persecution or injustice;

REGRETTING that the text of "Right of Emigration" could imply that a Member state would be able to:
– Interpret the list of exceptions as a single requisite for the waiver to be valid, whereas the original intention was that only one of the specified exceptions need be met, and;
– Prevent emigration of anyone simply by issuing a judiciary order, although the Assembly notes that this was unintentional but simply to combat crime;

FURTHER CONCERNED that there were no clear provisions to waiver the right of emigration to:
– Control any major health crisis such as an disease epidemic;
– Bring persons indicted for war crimes to justice, and;
– Prevent executive leaders of a member state from betraying the trust of its citizens by emigration.

CONFIDENT that the principle behind this resolution would be able to succeed even if a person was:
– Mentally incapable of making such decision to emigrate, or;
– Mandated to remain in the current country of residence to perform either professional or voluntary military service;

HEREBY repeals the "Right of Emigration".

----

Emigration

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

OBSERVING that in the countries of the World Assembly, people choose to emigrate from one country to another for many reasons such as:
– Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge or;
– Escape from war, persecution or injustice.

WHEREAS Emigration is defined as an act of a person or more leaving one country in order to settle in another, The World Assembly wishes to promote the right of emigration for such reasons.

The World Assembly therefore,

1. GENERALLY MANDATES that a citizen of a member state has a right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless at least one condition, as specified in Section 2, is true.

2. PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 only if at least one of the following conditions are true:
Part A: A person is currently:
– Undergoing either civil or criminal proceedings;
– Under penal servitude or is convicted of serious offences such as monetary fraud, certain sexual offences or human trafficking;
– Militarily interned during conflict or performing either professional or voluntary military service;
– In the position of office within the government of a member state;
– Below the age of maturity (as defined in their country of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians, or;
– Suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating.
Part B: A disease epidemic is active in a member state, whereas containment or quarantine would be required to control the spread of the disease.

In addition to the said sections,

3. WHEREAS a person has been indicted, charged or convicted of war crimes in a member state, it is not only specified that Section 1 be disregarded, but member states may wish to force the transportation of such persons to a certain country for prosecution or justice.

4. URGES member states to:
– Help refugees who are fleeing from hostile situations such as: natural disasters, war, persecution or oppressive/unethical governments with respect being given to Section 1 of this resolution.
– Help such refugees under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to countries that are more tolerant to them, and;
– Take action or enact appropriate measures to prevent refugees from becoming stateless.

5. EMPHASIZES that this resolution shall have no effect on legislation of member states concerning on immigration.

EMPHASIZES that this resolution will not alter policies member nations concerning immigration.

If it doesn't, then what does this proposal actually do?

Do you have Kivisto's permission for this?

The text is substantially different from UNR #198. I don't think Kivisto's permission is needed. (Maybe as a courtesy, but not to avoid a charge of plagiarism.)

UNR #198 didn't discriminate against the disabled: it dealt with those mentally incapable of making the decision to emigrate. That's a perfectly legal restriction in keeping with normal practice.

Scotchpinestan: how about fine-tuning the phrase to something like this:
"EMPHASIZES that this resolution will not alter policies of member nations, concerning entry into their nation."

QoD: I do have a very high amount of feelings towards disabled people, especially when it comes to trying to avoid unfair discrimination. However, as a compromise, I may add condition vi. of Section 2 to read some like:
"v. A person is legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence, due to a judicial ruling;
v. Anyone who poses a public health or security risk to the country of destination, or;
vi. Anyone who is mentally incapable of making decisions to leave their current nation of residence, on grounds for their safety;"


That means adjusting Section one to read:
"1c. It is illegal for a member nation to prevent a person from leaving their nation on grounds of disability or belief, unless the set conditions in Section Two are satisfied. However, it is recommended that assistance, from the relevant foreign affairs branch of the nation they are currently residing in, be provided when making a decision to emigrate."

Does this mean that a nation can't have a no admittance policy?

It should be designed such that the nation can still have a no admittance policy. Check post #1 now.

So, excuse me if I have read it wrong, one may migrate to a nation even against their countries wishes but the country they are fleeing to has no obligation to let them enter?

The mentioning of 'nation of choice' seems to ambiguous: it does appear that it cannot be guaranteed for every nation.

updated.

Slight wording change I'd suggest:
iii. A person is held as prisoner or war or otherwise interned during conflict;

Otherwise it will contradict my shiny proposal (2 approvals away from Quorum when I last looked) ;)

A very good proposal there and I have updated to your suggestion. Additionally, the phrase "the conditions in Section Two are satisfied" is strengthened to "the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied": that means that the person has to really meet those conditions, and not a scenario where the nation had simply rushed in a court order just to try to keep them in.

Scotchpinestan: how about fine-tuning the phrase to something like this:
"EMPHASIZES that this resolution will not alter policies of member nations, concerning entry into their nation."

My question stands: if this resolution doesn't affect nations' rights to secure their borders as they see fit, then what exactly does this proposal accomplish? It sounds to me like it's affirming the rights of the emigrant, but those rights are invariably determined by the country the person is immigrating to. And if that's not changing, then this proposal does nothing. Please enlighten me if I am misinterpreting things.

Respected Ambassador of Scotchpinestan,

I agree with you. It is the same concern I have. The esteemed representitive of Charlotte Ryberg has written this proposal with the interest of the immigrant leaving their country yet ignores them when it comes to entering a country for safety.

Sanctaria requests information on this.

I does appear that this resolution will need to cover both emigration and immigration. One option would be to reform this proposal such that all nations cannot deny entry unless there is justification that allowing so would pose a risk to public health, political stability or security.

I think such a resolution would be unpopular, though.

I like to be able to keep my borders controlled. They're open, yes, but I want to be able to throw the whole damn thing shut with the writing of a memo if I want to.

Or in simpler terms "Bla bla bla bla National Sovereignity Bla bla bla". I'm fine with granting the right to emigrate. It's a right to imigrate I would never support.

I does appear that this resolution will need to cover both emigration and immigration.
No, it really doesn't. Saying that nations have to allow their people to emigrate does not necessitate requiring other nations to let them in. In the freak circumstance that every single nation (70,000+) in the world suddenly barred entry, the right to emigrate would only have symbolic quality. But given such an occurrence lies outside the bounds of reasonable conceivability, it's irrelevant.

Just stick to emigration.

We do not feel we could support this resolution in its current form. While we are deeply concerned that the citizens of the w.a. should be able to move freely between nations we will not support the introduction of a statute which would insure the rights of settled persons to move freely where ever they wished while nomadic peoples have no such guarantee. This being the case since in nations where nomads have no rights to citizenship based on their not having a permanent address this resolution would not give them the right to avail of the consular services of their home nation should they need them.

This inspite of the vague "expression" of the desire for persons not to become stateless within the resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

No, it really doesn't. Saying that nations have to allow their people to emigrate does not necessitate requiring other nations to let them in. In the freak circumstance that every single nation (70,000+) in the world suddenly barred entry, the right to emigrate would only have symbolic quality. But given such an occurrence lies outside the bounds of reasonable conceivability, it's irrelevant.



On the contrary, it's very relevant, since a reasonable nation could be expected to wish to maintain control over its borders. And also because resolutions that do nothing are, with all due respect, despicable.

Well, the "Emphasizes" part clearly states that a country is allowed to keep its own immigration laws. You can close your borders if you so desire. Well, to the outside world, at any rate.

As well, I feel that a government should be allowed to manage its emigration laws as well. A nation with weak infrastructure might have a severe "bleeding" of educated workers emigrating to better-equipped counties; shouldn't the government be given powers to prohibit such activity, making its workers work within its borders and therefore improve it?

As well, if this is going to have to be voted on, I'd suggest doing something about "ii. A person is below the age of consent (variable by nation), who may lack the consent of those caring for them;" After all, a nation wanting to loop around this proposal could just pass a law that states that, in order to emigrate from the country, one must be over 65 (or something).

On the contrary, it's very relevant, since a reasonable nation could be expected to wish to maintain control over its borders. And also because resolutions that do nothing are, with all due respect, despicable.
That's cute, but utterly irrelevant seeing as this proposal doesn't relinquish control of a nation's borders while usefully doing something. So I will counter with my own comment, totally unrelated to the proposal at hand:

'Chicken risotto is probably a nicer meal than smoked salmon and pasta.'

ACCEPTING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly, people may migrate from one nation to another for many types of reasons, including, but not limited to:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution, conscription or injustice;

I would like some clalification on this resolution, especially on the word conscription. As WA members might know, in my nation conscription is compulsory for man over 18 and is clearly defined by law. I think migrating for reason of dodging a conscription order is wrong. May I suggest to remove the word conscription?

MapleLeafss;14028815']I would like some clalification on this resolution, especially on the word conscription. As WA members might know, in my nation conscription is compulsory for man over 18 and is clearly defined by law. I think migrating for reason of dodging a conscription order is wrong. May I suggest to remove the word conscription?
May I suggest not? Emigrating -- that is, renouncing your citizenship and leaving your country -- looks like a very reasonable reaction to a mandatory draft.

It's pretty irrelevant, in fact. That list is just an example, some reasons why people might want to emigrate. It is not in any sense a definition.

By the way, can we please stop using the word "migration"? We've already had plenty of arguments as to whether individual bits of the resolution apply to emigration, immigration or both, and frankly migration is what wildebeeste do across the Serengeti. When I first saw the title, I assumed this was going to be a variation on "On the Rights of Nomads".

I was simply using the same word 'Migration' as the title of this resolution. If you want to talk about immigration or emigration, you should change the title of the resolution..

MapleLeafss;14028888']I was simply using the same word 'Migration' as the title of this resolution. If you want to talk about immigration or emigration, you should change the title of the resolution..



What does the respected Ambassador think emigration and immigration are? They are merely forms of migration, honoured Ambassador, that is why the resolution is called what it is called.

yours e.t.c.,

What does the respected Ambassador think emigration and immigration are? They are merely forms of migration, honoured Ambassador, that is why the resolution is called what it is called.

Yes I agree that in the context of this resolution, emigration and immigration are forms of migration. Although migration is really a poor choice of word here. I was only answering to ambassador Gobbannaen who doesn't seem to get this concept and criticizing my use the the word migration.

May I suggest not? Emigrating -- that is, renouncing your citizenship and leaving your country -- looks like a very reasonable reaction to a mandatory draft.

Yes, if semeone renounces citizenship, they would renounce all the duties of my nation, including conscription. I was merely confused because the author says 'migrate' which doesn't suggest abandonning citizenship. May I suggest then to change 'migrate' to 'emigrate', then the preambule would be clearer.

Sasquatchewain, I have changed 'consent' to 'adulthood'. I cannot be too specific on age, as this was one of the pitfalls of the Prohibit child pornography proposal.

Additionally, the inclusion of conscription as a reason is justifiable, because a person has a right to pursue a career of their own liking without interference from the government.

In this case it is emigration (to leave a country) so I will use this word entirely.

Updated.

Thank you for clalifying the resolution by using the word emigration. It makes the resolution much clearer.

Article 2a should make it clear that legal proceding only apply in penal or criminal legal proceding.

Also you should use 'age of majority' instead of age of adulthood in article 2b.

MapleLeafss;14028888']I was simply using the same word 'Migration' as the title of this resolution. If you want to talk about immigration or emigration, you should change the title of the resolution..
Which I would do if I was the author of the resolution. Since I'm not, I made a general comment which I hoped might get a specific response from the author. The hint seems to have been taken, so let's not muddy the waters any more, OK?

On the revised proposal:

"1a" should be "1". Also I'm not happy about this list, since it omits so many discriminatory practices that it's essentially worthless. What about people who are denied emigration on the grounds of their gender or sexuality, for starters?

"2" should state that the right can be waived if any of the conditions are true, otherwise you risk some expensive lawyer arguing that all the conditions should be true.

"ii": the "(variable by nation)" bit should be explicit: "as defined in their nation of residence" perhaps?. Also, "who may lack" is the wrong construct, since it makes the rest of the phrase decorative justification. Try "and lacks" instead. "Those caring for them" is a bit dangerous too; how about "their legal parents or guardians"?

The first "v" should be "iv".

"vi" is ambiguous: what exactly do you intend this to do?

All of the "A person" starts here should be "The person", and similarly "Anyone who" should be "The person" too.

We can fix most of them: as for section 2(vi), I am thinking of a new phrase to replace it. Something like "The person who is mentally incapable of making such a decision".

I think that is good, So I have updated post #1.

We of New Sidhe are very pleased at the careful wording of this proposal, as it seems to expand and codify the rights of the individual, while not unduly infringing upon the sovereignty of the state, specifically forcing member states to grant immigration rights. (We plan to institute a policy of banishment in lieu of a death penalty and/or life imprisonment for capital crimes as soon as it becomes feasible, and this proposal seems as though it would not interfere with our ability to do so, nor would it force our good neighbors to accept these outcast criminals.)

MANDATES that:
1. It is a right of any person of a member nation, to leave their current nation of residence, regardless of any differences including, but not limited to: disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief, unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.

I've not taken time to see if anyone noted this but this only deals one way.. Out of a nation... as saw nothing but suggestions that nations help them leave. Thus we can support it that way just if you decide to make it a right to enter my nation we will withdraw support. As we have laws on the matter and if one follows those laws they are welcome to enter our nation. If they enter outside those laws they when caught are charged and will become criminals here. Two choices leave or get put up in a prison... where one has to work for what they get not have it handed to them. Once they choose to leave then if they come back we hang them, as no seconds here.

Verrie Meanie,
Minister of Justice Cavirra,
Chief Cook Joe's Pizza Shack

I've not taken time to see if anyone noted this but this only deals one way.. Out of a nation... as saw nothing but suggestions that nations help them leave. Thus we can support it that way just if you decide to make it a right to enter my nation we will withdraw support. As we have laws on the matter and if one follows those laws they are welcome to enter our nation. If they enter outside those laws they when caught are charged and will become criminals here. Two choices leave or get put up in a prison... where one has to work for what they get not have it handed to them. Once they choose to leave then if they come back we hang them, as no seconds here.

Verrie Meanie,
Minister of Justice Cavirra,
Chief Cook Joe's Pizza Shack



An unhealthy obsession with hanging seems to be the only actual policy position the doubtless benighted and harrowing nation of Cavirra holds.

How grim.

yours e.t.c ,

I did a minor word edit to section 1. It now reads 'It is a right of any person of a member nation, to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of any differences including, but not limited to: disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief, unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.'

I did a minor word edit to section 1. It now reads 'It is a right of any person of a member nation, to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of any differences including, but not limited to: disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief, unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.'

The punctuation there is definitely wrong, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it. The first comma must go, and the second should probably go after "including" except that makes the list read awkwardly. Since personally I'd delete the list, that's only a problem for you :)

"It is a right of any person of a member nation to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of any differences including (but not limited to): disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief, unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied."?

Problem is "but not limited to" is a minor phrase that should be bracketed by commas (or dashes), but the beginning of a list requires a colon. Perhaps rephrasing the whole thing to something like "...regardless of any differences such as: disability..."?

Yes, it is worth trying to tackle the grammar yet we already have a colon. My latest suggestion would be to word it like this:

1. It is a right of any person of a member nation, to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of any differences (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief), unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.

Although the colons are gone, we have grouped the examples between the parenthesis.

I does appear that this resolution will need to cover both emigration and immigration. One option would be to reform this proposal such that all nations cannot deny entry unless there is justification that allowing so would pose a risk to public health, political stability or security.


We would object to this approach respected Ambassador. What this would amount to is a freedom of movement treaty. We would fundamentally object to having the w.a. restructure our border control provisions. There are numerous other reasons for denying both access and egress to ones nations, "security" for instance does not include disallowing persons with criminal records from access to ones nation, or persons who have been declared bankrupt or declared persona non grata.

If this is to become a freedom of movement accord then we suggest that that become the central aim and let nations discuss how this could be achieved without grievously undermining national border control.

yours e.t.c. ,

I agreed earlier that Emigration would be the subject of this resolution. This is because it is not possible to create a resolution focusing on immigration, as policies of such differ at such myriad levels from nation to nation. For example, one nation may want people to migrate to their nation for economic prosperity but another may not want to allow too many people, while trying to control their population.

Besides, population growth is natural as billions of NS inhabitants spring to life in active nations, out of (insert method of birth here).

We think that people would object strenuously to there being no limit on immigration into our nation. It's not that we also wouldn't object -after all, we're still expanding and trying to make sure our own people are provided for- but that we utilize a program of societal introduction, preventing citizenship for immigrants, as well as military service, until they prove sufficiently adapted to our society. Most people tend to object to the program itself.

I agreed earlier that Emigration would be the subject of this resolution. This is because it is not possible to create a resolution focusing on immigration, as policies of such differ at such myriad levels from nation to nation. For example, one nation may want people to migrate to their nation for economic prosperity but another may not want to allow too many people, while trying to control their population.

Besides, population growth is natural as billions of NS inhabitants spring to life in active nations, out of (insert method of birth here).


Please excuse us honoured Ambassador Berlin, we were confused by an earlier post.

yours e.t.c. ,

If there are no other suggestions then I may be ready to put this up as a proposal.

for constitutional reasons we of axmanland must oppose this bill.

all citizens of Axmanland are technically chattels of the High King and must apply to the privy council for permission to relocate outside our borders.

I can't see this process as completely democratic but you have a point to make as far as political stability is concerned. However, it is possible that nations can empty out so fast that the government may consider it a threat to its very existence.

Consider: vii. The person(s) may cause a threat to political or social stability by emigration.

Now, by adding this as a valid waiver to section two, we run a risk of overflowing section two, which would eventually make it unreadable, so I may need to do some mergers.

Yep, I know how to do it. Post #1 updated. Please be assured that sex offenders come under a combination of condition one and four, so there is little chance of them escaping the law.

The World Assembly,

ACCEPTING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly, people may emigrate from one nation to another for many types of reasons, including, but not limited to:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution, conscription or injustice;

THEREFORE, the World Assembly shall implement the Right of Emigration as international law;

MANDATES that:
1. It is a right of any person of a member nation, to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of any differences (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief), unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.

2. Section One may be waived, only if any of the following conditions are true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (penal or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person is below the age of majority (as defined in their nation of residence), and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iii. The person is either held as prisoner of war, otherwise interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence, following a judicial ruling;
iv. The person who poses a public health or security risk to the country of destination, or;
v. The person who is mentally incapable of making such a decision.
vi. The person(s) may cause a threat to political or social stability by emigrating.

EXPRESSES that member nations are invited to, if they can:
i. Help people who are fleeing from hostile situations including, but not limited to: war (civil or wider area), persecution on grounds of belief or disability, or oppressive/unethical governments.
ii. Help such persons under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to nations that are more tolerant to them.

EMPHASIZES that:
- It is recommended that assistance, from the relevant foreign affairs branch of the nation they are currently residing in, be offered on making a decision to emigrate;
- This resolution will not alter policies of member nations, concerning entry into their nation, and;
- Steps should be taken to prevent emigrating persons from becoming stateless.

The item I highlighted is in conflict with Prisoners of War Accord, I think. Otherwise, I support it.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I realise I'm a bit late to the party, but some suggestions:

1. Perhaps "Right of Emigration" would be a better title, and would emphasise that this resolution deals with people coming out of a nation, rather than going in.

Of course, I expect that a usual crowd of yahoos who don't know the difference between the words "emigration", "migration" and "immigration" will vote against on the grounds that "why the hell must i allow anyone into my nation this is bad we nuke everyone who supports this (excessive sniper emoticons)"

2. iv. The person who poses a public health or security risk to the country of destination, or;

Not a big issue here, but in a resolution focused on emigration, this is dealing with immigration policies. The destination country is entitled to enforce its health and quarantine policies regardless, so this would seem superfluous as well.

3. vi. The person(s) may cause a threat to political or social stability by emigrating.

This seems like too big of a loophole to me, especially if we're dealing with political dissidents fleeing persecution. It's very easy for a country to reason that various acts of political opposition like criticising the government are a "threat to political stability", particularly if the dissident moves to somewhere with strong free speech or protest rights, where they can freely criticise and protest against that government. Or a homophobic society might wish to stop homosexuals from emigrating to more welcoming places because they are a "threat to social stability" bent on destroying the traditional family. I think this clause is far too open to interpretation, to the point of undermining the entire proposal.

The item I highlighted is in conflict with Prisoners of War Accord, I think. Otherwise, I support it.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

How?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

How?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Hold on...

*searches through papers*

I know it's here somewhere....

*keeps searching*

Hey! There's that pen I lost last month. I wondered what happened to it.

*searches just a bit more*

Found it!

PERMITS nations to engage in repatriation of civilian internees, PoW exchanges, or conditional repatriation of either
a) Civilian and military internees may be left at liberty, military internees under the condition that they do not attempt to leave the country in which they are currently present
b) Escaped PoWs of any belligerent force who make their way to a non belligerent nation are to repatriated

I could adjust this to "iii. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence, following a judicial ruling;", so this is now at military level only.

"Right of Emigration" is a title agreed already (as seen on post 1), hoping that a moderator could also change the thread title to match this. I may find it useful to post a definition of emigration, as I did with the NS-ICRC resolution.

I may think of removing section IV altogether, since this would be left to each nation to decide. OOC, all real nations would have the right to ban Gary Glitter, yet the UN did not force all UN members not to allow him. After all I intend for this to be a mild resolution.

I may be able to refine section IV by adding some words, such that:

3. vi. The person may cause a serious threat to peace by emigrating, such that it may cause civil war.

Done the updates to post #1, after thinking about it. I will do a submission if everyone is happy for me to do so.

There's still rampant comma abuse, and I'm not wildly keen on the resulting syntactic mish-mash, but that's minor. More seriously:

1. It is a right of any person of a member nation, to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of any differences (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief), unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.
"Differences" is not the right word. Perhaps "their status"?

ii. The person is below the age of majority (as defined in their nation of residence), and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
I know it's a hobby horse of mine, but "Age of Majority" is not a good phrase to use when you actually mean something a lot more specific. In this case, you mean the age at which a person can legally leave home (or however you want to put it).

iv. The person who is mentally incapable of making such a decision.
Delete "who".

EMPHASIZES that:
This is just horrid. You have three entirely separate things that you're trying to staple together under one heading, and they don't fit. One is a recommendation, one is a statement, and one is a fluffy wish. Treat them separately, preferably turning the fluffy wish into something more solid.

Yeah, I'd better start striking out the extra commas to save space.

1 now reads: It is a right of any person of a member nation to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.

2 ii is now: The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their nation of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;

And I suppose the fluffy wish is the stateless bit so I have changed it to: URGES Member Nations to take action on preventing emigrants from becoming stateless.

I've updated post #1 but I will also post the current revision here for your convenience:

Right of Emigration

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

The World Assembly,

ACCEPTING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly, people may emigrate from one nation to another for many types of reasons including, but not limited to:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution, conscription or injustice;

THEREFORE, the World Assembly shall implement the Right of Emigration as international law;

DEFINING Emigration as an act of leaving a country or region in order to settle in another.

MANDATES that:
1. It is a right of any person of a member nation to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless the conditions in Section Two are genuinely satisfied.

2. Section One may be waived only if any of the following conditions are genuinely true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (penal or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their nation of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iii. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence following a judicial ruling;
iv. The person is mentally incapable of making such a decision;
v. The person could cause a threat to national security by emigrating to share official secrets with other nations.

EXPRESSES that member nations are invited to, if they can:
i. Help people who are fleeing from hostile situations including, but not limited to: war (civil or wider area), persecution on grounds of belief or disability, or oppressive/unethical governments.
ii. Help such persons under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to nations that are more tolerant to them.

EMPHASIZES that:
- It is recommended that assistance, from the relevant foreign affairs branch of the nation they are currently residing in, be offered on making a decision to emigrate;
- This resolution will not alter policies of member nations, concerning entry into their nation, and;

URGES Member Nations to take action on preventing emigrants from becoming stateless.

God knows why I keep on responding to this, given that I really don't like the approach all that much. That said...

Yeah, I'd better start striking out the extra commas to save space.
I'd rather you struck out commas because they made your sentence mean something you didn't intend it to mean, personally. If you're that short of space, lose the line beginning with "THEREFORE", since that does absolutely nothing at some length.

2. Section One may be waived only if any of the following conditions are genuinely true:
[snip]
v. The person(s) may cause a serious threat to peace by emigration such that it may cause a war.
The more I think about this one, the more convinced I am that you need to be a hell of a lot more careful about saying exactly what you mean here. At the moment, a nation can say "If you emigrate, we will genuinely start a war with nation X, therefore by the resolution we're allowed to stop you. Nyah, nyah, nyah." It's a bit of a stretch, but since it's not exactly clear what you're trying to prevent with this I don't feel all that guilty about doing the stretching.

EMPHASIZES that:
- It is recommended that assistance, from the relevant foreign affairs branch of the nation they are currently residing in, be offered on making a decision to emigrate;
- This resolution will not alter policies of member nations, concerning entry into their nation, and;
This is still an unrelated recommendation and statement, stapled together as if they had anything to do with one another. It's lazy writing. So is the "EXPRESSES" bit, but at least those bullet points are vaguely related to one another.

Bascially, what I was thinking at once for section 2v, was if the president had chosen to emigrate from his country, then there would be a risk of anarchy which would in turn brew up a chance of civil war involving the insurgents and factions that were aiming for complete control. The consequences for these may include conscription of children into armies (bad), looting of villages (even bad) or genocide (disaster!).

You have taken a different viewpoint which is in fact a possibility. We have a case from a rather unstable country of the same region dated 1979: when President Ypres chose to emigrate to Pingont to join his two newly-wed wives with mutual agreement (since polygamy was illegal in his former country), numerous militants instantaneously saw an opportunity to seize the seat of the presidency. This resulted in one of the worst militant civil war for fifty years.

Since then, following restoration of civilian government, the president, while serving his term, cannot emigrate while serving, but now this appears to be covered by section 2iii: so on balance I have an intention of removing section 2v on grounds of fairness.

Since then, following restoration of civilian government, the president, while serving his term, cannot emigrate while serving, but now this appears to be covered by section 2iii: so on balance I have an intention of removing section 2v on grounds of fairness.
Oh. Once again, I've assumed a more sensible intent behind a clause than was actually there. In that case, you need to consider whether you need a clause to allow a nation to stop someone leaving for national security reasons (say, they know how to design a SuperWidgetBomb, which is not information you want to get out of the country).

The person that could cause a threat to national security by emigrating to share official secrets with other nations?

I have problems with iv. How would you define "mentally incapable"? If a nation can set the definition then the government can obviously define it in a way that makes the whole population "insane" and thus unable to migrate.

If they define the entire population insane, they also define the entire population as mentally incapable of taking legal responsibility for their actions, meaning no one can be prosecuted for any crime. That's kind of self-defeating.

OOC: "This country is perfect, and therefore anybody who wants to leave it must be insane..."

Well, the leader of a nation can declare a fleeing political rival as "insane" and prevent his escape. It does not have to be the whole population. Plus the government can place the rival in an "insane asylum" without prosecuting him.

Perhaps then a change of wording to "incapable of legal responsibility" might be in order, which would conveniently encompass minors as well.

Yes, that would be favorable than the previous statement. Question: Can we set the definition of insanity for every WA nation?

What if we don't like Illegal Aliens?

Yes, that would be favorable than the previous statement. Question: Can we set the definition of insanity for every WA nation?


We most sincerely hope not! At least not in a resolution supposedly dealing with migration rights. Even were the w.a. to try to legislate on the thorny and complex issue of mental health an actual definition of "Insanity" would be liable to create much controversy. We hope the authors of this resolution have the good sense to leave such a can of worms un-opened.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The person that could cause a threat to national security by emigrating to share official secrets with other nations?

That's an example of such, yes.

Updated at Post #53, Gobbannaen.

Let's turn out attention to Section 2 iv because there are concerns about the real definition of mental illness. It currently defines "a person that is mentally incapable of making such a decision". Now what worries me that even if I change it to define "a person that is incapable of legal responsibility", it could either be loosely a clone of 2 ii. or another loophole waiting to be found, where a military junta could declare dissidents as incapable of legal responsibility, too. On Urgench's comment, it would certainly be stupid to define mental illness because it would dilute the main objective of this resolution.

(It isn't really possible to tighten every bit of the resolution, after all English words have lots of meanings like that word 'set'.)

Getting rid of 2 iv. altogether could happen if many agree but I still remember QoD's quote where "UNR #198 didn't discriminate against the disabled: it dealt with those mentally incapable of making the decision to emigrate. That's a perfectly legal restriction in keeping with normal practice." (#4)

Updated at Post #53, Gobbannaen.
(OOC: conventionally if you use the nation's name, or in this case the adjectival form of the nation's name, you're deemed to be talking to the player. Since the player didn't address you out of character, he's a bit confused by this.)

(IC: ) I see the meaning of the words "that's an example of such" didn't dawn on you, ambassador. Sharing official secrets is only one way that national security could be compromised by a potential emigrant. If you're going to declare that it's the only one to matter, you're a braver woman than me. Also wrong, but hey, when has that ever mattered in WA legislation?

I'm not new to espionage, but people who emigrate to rogue nations in order to share official secrets is going to put innocent nations under serious threat of terrorism. They could also create the same effect through phone-tapping, internet as well.

If I leave the matter to individual nations to decide, resulting in the deletion of 2v., then I guess this would then a nations decision to prevent spies from emigrating would be considered to be covered under 2iii., on judicial rulings: but please, this resolution can't solve everything in the world other than banning emigration restrictions. And a thread title change to "Right of Emigration" would clarify things up.

I'm not new to espionage, but people who emigrate to rogue nations in order to share official secrets is going to put innocent nations under serious threat of terrorism.

You know, I really hate it when people try to paint Rogue Nations in a bad light.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative for The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I'm not new to espionage, but people who emigrate to rogue nations in order to share official secrets is going to put innocent nations under serious threat of terrorism. They could also create the same effect through phone-tapping, internet as well.

If I leave the matter to individual nations to decide, resulting in the deletion of 2v., then I guess this would then a nations decision to prevent spies from emigrating would be considered to be covered under 2iii., on judicial rulings: but please, this resolution can't solve everything in the world other than banning emigration restrictions. And a thread title change to "Right of Emigration" would clarify things up.

Now read what I wrote, which has very little to do with what you're wittering about.

I would agree to deleting 2iv and removing any restrictions concerned with mental welfare. Realistically, a nation should not care about insane or "special" people emigrating to other nations. Unless there is a hidden motive, a government should be glad if unproductive members of society move to another nation. So therefore, a government should not place restrictions on an individual based on the mental status of that person, whatever the definition may be.

That would be much more fairer to not worry about mental health or capacity as its parameters are defined from nation to nation.

Here's how section two stands as of now:

2. Section One may be waived only if any of the following conditions are genuinely true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (penal or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their nation of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iii. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence following a judicial ruling;
iv. The person could cause a threat to national security by emigrating to share official secrets with other nations.

How can I put this more clearly? Delete "by emigrating to share official secrets with other nations" from the end of (iv) if you are remotely serious about national security being an issue.

The person could cause a threat to global security by emigrating?

The person could cause a threat to global security by emigrating?

Yes. Sharing official secrets is an example of that happening, but it's only one example. Making out that it's the only example that matters is wrong.

Okay, done so that examples are not just limited to sharing official secrets but also other things like espionage and so on...

2. Section One may be waived only if any of the following conditions are genuinely true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (penal or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their nation of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iii. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence following a judicial ruling;
iv. The person could cause a threat to global security by emigrating.

If you are satisfied that we've covered on section 2, we can move on to the conclusing statements which may need working on (and I think so).

Here's my first shot at revising... it turns out that the "offer for help" clause seems to make things a bit complex:

EMPHASIZES that this resolution will not alter policies of member nations, concerning entry into their nation.

URGES Member Nations to take action on preventing emigrants from becoming stateless.

Migration for normal citizens, in certain amounts, that, we can agree with.

Yet allowing anyone to migrate does not benefit our country. That stands mainly for people with criminal records, as they should not be allowed to migrate into other countries for reasons of public safety. We must also make sure that migration laws prevent "brain drain". The legislation on migration should make it harder for people with higher than college education to migrate, as no nation can afford to lose intelligent work force. Working in other countries for a certain amount of time (such as six months, and then having to ask the government to allow longer work) is fine, yet migration would severely damage the nation's economic, scientific and educational progress.

Malov Cinn, Voltaggian minister of internal affairs.

I'd include civil proceding's as a reason to prevent migration. You probably want something preventing people migrating to avoid military service/conscription, too

Migration for normal citizens, in certain amounts, that, we can agree with.

Yet allowing anyone to migrate does not benefit our country. That stands mainly for people with criminal records, as they should not be allowed to migrate into other countries for reasons of public safety. We must also make sure that migration laws prevent "brain drain". The legislation on migration should make it harder for people with higher than college education to migrate, as no nation can afford to lose intelligent work force. Working in other countries for a certain amount of time (such as six months, and then having to ask the government to allow longer work) is fine, yet migration would severely damage the nation's economic, scientific and educational progress.

Malov Cinn, Voltaggian minister of internal affairs.
I am quite worried about barring smart people from emigrating because they do have the right to find opportunity anywhere in the world. Doing so would contradict the resolution itself, which aims to protect the right to emigrate for reasons of opportunity and ambition.

You probably want something preventing people migrating to avoid military service/conscription, too

There's only so many exceptions you can bung in before this resolution fails to meet its objectives. I don't think draft-dodging is sufficient reason to allow the prevention of emigration, especially if a war is imminent and the likelihood of the person being sent into combat and dying is quite high. If they're willing to face the social and legal consequences of their decision, and if their nation means so little to them they're not willing to participate in its defence, then let them out.

I am quite worried about barring smart people from emigrating because they do have the right to find opportunity anywhere in the world. Doing so would contradict the resolution itself, which aims to protect the right to emigrate for reasons of opportunity and ambition.

The resolution must not only protect the rights of people to migrate, but also the right of the state to keep people important to national interests inside the state.

Charlotte, the comma after "nations" in the EMPHASIZES clause is incorrect and mildly misleading.

The resolution must not only protect the rights of people to migrate, but also the right of the state to keep people important to national interests inside the state.

These two "rights" are pretty much opposed. As a representative of a liberal nation I'm siding with the individual unless there's a convincing national security case to be made. If a nation wants to avoid a "brain drain", surely it's up to that nation to create the conditions that make its smart people want to stay?

Expecting a developing nation which must feed its people to pay medical staff high wages is futile, yet if the law is passed, most of them will migrate for better wages. Those two rights may contradict each other, yet I believe a consensus still may be reached. Definately not by barring all smart people from leaving, but by giving less-educated people advantage at migrating (with lengthening waiting lines for the better-educated ones)

By all means this resolution must allow people to flee from conscription. It's a persons right to choose whether to fire guns or not.

A minor point on the introduction to section 2: "genuinely true."

As opposed to "falsely true"? One would think that "if any of the following conditions hold" or "if any of the following conditions are true" would suffice.

A greater matter is that section 2(iii) seems to contain a rather significant loophole. Let's say that this resolution passes, and comes into force in a nation that wants nothing to do with enforcing it. One of this nation's high courts rapidly passes a legal decision mandating all current residents of that nation remain within that nation until given express permission by that court/the Ministry of Emigration/Lord High Everything Else/the Pope.

Presto, said nation now is in adherence with the technical letter of this resolution, while enforcing none of its other provisions (since a single blanket ruling could be interpreted as meeting the criterion in 2(iii) ).

I guess I'm not quite sure what the second part of 2 (iii) is intended to cover that is not (or could be) covered by 2 (i).

By all means this resolution must allow people to flee from conscription. It's a persons right to choose whether to fire guns or not.

The laws this resolution will change must only mess with migration policies. If a person is listed for conscription, and it is in the laws of the country that conscription is mandatory, then the migration policy must not interfere with it.

I'm sorry but the line has to be drawn in terms of the WA's aims for human rights and my side of human rights is that conscription is not an acceptable reason for forcing a person to stay. It is absolutely certain that if you want more of your citizens to accept your national service you have got to offer an civilian alternative and boost the armies' morale, otherwise the civilians could be resentful.

Gobbannaen WA Mission, I've chopped off the offending comma. Dolfor, thanks for pointing out: I agree that 2iii is actually at risk of being abused so I have decided to chop that off too, and focus against people solely with criminal convictions. I am thinking of adding section 3 which goes something along the lines of: "Member Nations may choose to prevent a person from emigrating if they hold certain convictions which directly link to the harming of children or vulnerable people."

If that's okay, the structure would look like this:

---
Right of Emigration

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

ACCEPTING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly, people may emigrate from one nation to another for many types of reasons including, but not limited to:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution, conscription or injustice;

Therefore the World Assembly implements the Right of Emigration as international law;

Defines "Emigration" as an act of leaving a country or region in order to settle in another.

Mandates that:
1. It is a right of any person of a member nation to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless the conditions in Section Two are true:

2. Member Nations may choose to waive Section One only if any of the following conditions are true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (penal or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person holds certain convictions directly linking to the harming of young or vulnerable people;
iii. The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their nation of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iv. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence following a judicial ruling, or;
v. The person could cause a threat to global security by emigrating.

Expresses that member nations are invited to, if they can:
i. Help people who are fleeing from hostile situations including, but not limited to: war (civil or wider area), persecution on grounds of belief or disability, or oppressive/unethical governments.
ii. Help such persons under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to nations that are more tolerant to them.

Emphasizes that this resolution will not alter policies of member nations concerning entry into their nation.

Strongly urges Member Nations to take action on preventing emigrants from becoming stateless.

Thanking Gobbannaen WA Mission.

A quick note: these exceptions does not imply that this resolution is optional, but it turns out that Section three has the characteristics of section 2, so that's integrated.

2.v: A threat to global security? Not national security?

- Escape from war, persecution, conscription or injustice;

iv. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence following a judicial ruling, or;


Our country uses forced lifetime conscription as a legal punishment for some major crimes. Our leader wonders if this type of punishment will remain legal if this law would pass.

Our country uses forced lifetime conscription as a legal punishment for some major crimes. Our leader wonders if this type of punishment will remain legal if this law would pass.

i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (penal or criminal) legal proceedings;

That would seem to protect your chain gang, since they're under penal servitude. Personally I think it's a bad idea, but that's your problem :-)

ii. The person holds certain convictions directly linking to the harming of young or vulnerable people;
Which meaning of the word "convictions" do you intend? I think I'm probably going to object in any case, but I'd like to be sure.

Maybe I am talking too British, but I mean people who have been proven to have committed crimes relating to the harming of young and vulnerable people. I am realizing that something similar to travel bans or sex offender registers are in fact outside the scope of emigration so I think 2ii of post #89 will have to go.

I will now modify section 2v on request:

v. The person could cause a threat to global or national security by emigrating.

On Voltaggia's conscription concerns, conscription as a penalty for crimes would count as penal servitude so that will be legal. I matter about people who haven't committed any crimes fleeing conscription.

Couldn't this modification open up a loophole in regards to people fleeing conscription? Especially if there's a mass exodus it would be reasonable to argue that it threatens national security. And of course this brings the problem of abuse by governments for political purposes (opposition leader against the government fleeing = threat to national security) back into play again.

I matter about people who haven't committed any crimes fleeing conscription.

That brings an interesting notion - what if fleeing conscription is regarded as a crime by the state?

That would be a violation of human rights. But to make this happen I would have to control conscription by another resolution, which I'm thinking about.

Currently, no WA laws considers forced conscription as illegal.

v. The person could cause a threat to global or national security by emigrating.

I haven't liked this line, in all its variations, since reading the first post. If someone is dangerous enough to be that much of a threat to global or national security, then surely they'd be in jail.

What sort of scenarios is this line supposed to prevent?

Only one I can think of is scientists and others working on secret government projects. Making them prisoners within a nation's borders simply because of what they know is grossly unfair. A scenario I've thought up...

Scientist is working on secret project for a nasty dictatorship government. Testing time comes, and a group of civilians is brought in as guinea pigs. They are all killed. Scientist is horrified by this, and decides to get out of the country with his family. Under your proposal, the government of that nation would have the right to prevent him leaving under that clause.

I'd like to see that line disappear from the proposal.

A scenario I've thought up...

Scientist is working on secret project for a nasty dictatorship government. Testing time comes, and a group of civilians is brought in as guinea pigs. They are all killed. Scientist is horrified by this, and decides to get out of the country with his family. Under your proposal, the government of that nation would have the right to prevent him leaving under that clause.

I'd like to see that line disappear from the proposal.
I've argued for keeping it, because the inverse scenario is arguably worse. If a well-intentioned experiment goes awry, there would be no way of stopping a rather less than pure scientist heading out of the country to sell his knowledge of this lovely new bit of lethality to the highest bidder.

There must be some compromise which protects both nations and individuals as far as is reasonable, but I can't think of it.

Couldn't he do that still in the country though?

I agree it is a sticky problem. Risks locking the innocent in or letting the 'guilty' out. Maybe, as an idea, because it so complex, the whole thing could be left out of this proposal and some sort of 'morals of science' proposal could cover this question along with other contentious science related stuff.

If I took references to conscription out, would it make it a little better?

Yes. Conscription must be left out.

In that case the first preamble will be:

ACCEPTING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly people may emigrate from one nation to another for many types of reasons including but not limited to:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution or injustice;

i am sorry but history has shown us time after time. That immigrants come into countries, often they take jobs from the natives of those countries. Then Nazi-like parties take it upon themselves to eliminate the threat.

In britain for example we are a multi-culturalized society. But racism is becoming ever more apparent, the BNP (British National Party) has become more popular than what it ever has been history.

And often these immigrants or migrants bring over they're own type of mafia's which corrupt the system. I only see it from a working class mind and all i see through immigration is loss of jobs and if they become too powerful a possible civil war.

Sure, representative of Stonham. I assume those immigrants also eat babies and puppies?

Sure, representative of Stonham. I assume those immigrants also eat babies and puppies?

"M'mm, honey-glazed sucking-puppy... :)" mutters Borrin o Redwood, quietly.

did i say anything about eating babies and puppies? No i did not did i what a waste of a post u just sent.

"M'mm, honey-glazed sucking-puppy... :)" mutters Borrin o Redwood, quietly.

Don't forget about those marzipan babies (http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/R/C/ATT00074_sm.jpg).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Don't forget about those marzipan babies (http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/R/C/ATT00074_sm.jpg).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

They appear surprisingly real... but please this is a resolution about emigration only and I sincerely appreciate the change of the thread title to reflect this. Because this is only about emigration there is no possibility of the WA changing the member states' immigration policy... I've already taken out conscription.

We oppose any measure which would allow citizens to migrate from their native lands. It is the right, nay the duty, of the State to keep the nation's population in place so as to ensure a stable level of human resources for the pursuit of public works programmes and other necessary projects.

Perhaps you could accommodate us by altering your proposal to allow for the erection of border fences and minefields by governments who do not wish for their citizens to depart?

Whoa, that seems to go against the theory of free movement of people unless there is a pandemic and... hey, that's it: freedom of movement. I am realising that The Right of Emigration seems to be part of the Freedom of Movement principle. If the WA was to implement a resolution on the freedom of the movement of people, what do you like to see?

If the WA was to implement a resolution on the freedom of the movement of people, what do you like to see?
That is a terrible idea. It would allow people to move freely from one nation to another. How would you ever keep track of all of them? How would you arrest people if you didn't know where they were at all times? Additionally it is a cruel and inhumane concept. How will people know what to do if they are wandering about the globe, away from the guiding hand of The State?

We oppose any measure that allows freedom of the movement of people.

What about those who have high-paying jobs outside the country where they live? What if it was high-paying? The employers would be quite upset by tighter border controls. Therefore it wouldn't be good for the world economy.

Let's stick to emigration for now: I have discovered that military conscription is legal as defined by Resolution #23 so the WA has at some point declared military conscription or "servitude" legal.

Let's stick to emigration for now: I have discovered that military conscription is illegal as defined by Resolution #23 so the WA has at some point declared military conscription or "servitude" illegal.
The definition of 'forced labour' excludes:
- conscription or alternative required national service;
Try again.

Sorry, I've been so used to being opposed to conscription. Reworded.

But it does mean that it has to be taken out from the proposal.

I haven't liked this line, in all its variations, since reading the first post. If someone is dangerous enough to be that much of a threat to global or national security, then surely they'd be in jail.

What sort of scenarios is this line supposed to prevent?

Only one I can think of is scientists and others working on secret government projects. Making them prisoners within a nation's borders simply because of what they know is grossly unfair. A scenario I've thought up...

Scientist is working on secret project for a nasty dictatorship government. Testing time comes, and a group of civilians is brought in as guinea pigs. They are all killed. Scientist is horrified by this, and decides to get out of the country with his family. Under your proposal, the government of that nation would have the right to prevent him leaving under that clause.

I'd like to see that line disappear from the proposal.

There are perhaps more realistic scenarios that are warrant it's inclusion. To use a few OoC examples, I think it would be pretty reasonable to prevent a former head of the CIA from migrating to the USSR during the Cold War, or a allied general with a bigot classification during WWII being prevented from migrating to Nazi Germany.

Furthermore, I feel that ongoing civil cases would be a reasonable reason to restrict movement, along with penal and criminal procedings. One doesn't want someone who is being sued for incompent railway mainatence after 200 people died fleeing, for example...

There are perhaps more realistic scenarios that are warrant it's inclusion. To use a few OoC examples, I think it would be pretty reasonable to prevent a former head of the CIA from migrating to the USSR during the Cold War, or a allied general with a bigot classification during WWII being prevented from migrating to Nazi Germany.

That's why I kept it. I've had enough nightmares about the whole of the WA community being blown up by Dr. Evil.

Furthermore, I feel that ongoing civil cases would be a reasonable reason to restrict movement, along with penal and criminal procedings. One doesn't want someone who is being sued for incompent railway mainatence after 200 people died fleeing, for example...

You suggestion is acceptable and has been incorporated in section 2i. That should be less trouble for relatives of victims or survivors.

The latest revision is as follows at the moment:

OBSERVING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly, people may emigrate from one nation to another for many reasons including, but not limited to:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution or injustice;

Therefore the World Assembly implements the Right of Emigration as international law;

Defines "Emigration" as an act of leaving a country or region in order to settle in another.

Mandates that:
1. It is a right of any person of a member nation to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless the conditions in Section Two are true:

2. Member Nations may choose to waive Section One only if any of the following conditions are true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person holds certain convictions directly linking to the harming of young or vulnerable people;
iii. The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their nation of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iv. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence following a judicial ruling, or;
v. The person could cause a threat to global or national security by emigrating.

Expresses that member nations are invited to, if they can:
i. Help people who are fleeing from hostile situations including, but not limited to: war (civil or wider area), persecution on grounds of belief or disability, or oppressive/unethical governments.
ii. Help such persons under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to nations that are more tolerant to them.

Emphasizes that this resolution will not alter policies of member nations concerning entry into their nation.

Strongly urges Member Nations to take action on preventing emigrants from becoming stateless.

Thanking Gobbannaen WA Mission.

Ambassador Berlin, we approve of this resolution and see no major flaws. Good luck!

We approve this if we have not already. Increased immigration would be good for our nation.

Yes indeed it would be good for most nations, however may I ask does this include threats from the original country the subject comes from?

Cheers honourable ambassadors!

Yes indeed it would be good for most nations, however may I ask does this include threats from the original country the subject comes from?

Yup, as long it is within the boundaries of the WA. As always: Resolutions always applies to WA members only! The WA cannot interfere with affairs of a non-member state.

The latest version:

Right of Emigration

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

OBSERVING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly, people may emigrate from one nation to another for many reasons including, but not limited to:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution or injustice;

Therefore the World Assembly implements the Right of Emigration as international law;

Defines "Emigration" as an act of leaving a country or region in order to settle in another.

Mandates that:
1. It is a right of any person of a member nation to emigrate from their current nation of residence, regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless the conditions in Section Two are true:

2. Member Nations may choose to waive Section One only if any of the following conditions are true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person holds certain convictions directly linking to the harming of young or vulnerable people;
iii. The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their nation of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iv. The person is either militarily interned during conflict; or legally mandated to remain in the current nation of residence following a judicial ruling, or;
v. The person could cause a threat to global or national security by emigrating.

Expresses that member nations are invited to, if they can:
i. Help people who are fleeing from hostile situations including, but not limited to: war (civil or wider area), persecution on grounds of belief or disability, or oppressive/unethical governments.
ii. Help such persons under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to nations that are more tolerant to them.

Emphasizes that this resolution will not alter policies of member nations concerning entry into their nation.

Strongly urges Member Nations to take action on preventing emigrants from becoming stateless.

Thanking Gobbannaen WA Mission.

I am ready to put in my first attempt soon when everyone is ready. Are you happy with the current version?

I am ready to put in my first attempt soon when everyone is ready. Are you happy with the current version?

Despite a few style problems, we only have one problem. The clause "Emphasizes that this resolution will not alter policies of member nations concerning entry into their nation" states that nations can refuse immigrants entry. We feel that it is contradictory to state that a person may leave their nation, but they aren't guaranteed to be able to go anywhere.

However, we realize that this is a resolution on the right of emigration, rather than immigration. We hope that, at a future time, Ambassador Berlin might write a resolution on the right of immigration, so that the spirit of this resolution might be more influential.

That being said, if the delegation of Charlotte Ryberg decides to submit this resolution in it's current form, and if it comes to vote, then the delegation of Glen-Rhodes will offer it's complete support in favor of its passing.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Sure thing. I am thinking about a resolution about the rights of refugees, if it hasn't been written yet. Anyone in favour of it?

Okay, so whilst I am thinking of that I have to merely urge member states at least to help refugees for now.
Right of Emigration

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

OBSERVING that within the boundaries of the World Assembly, people may emigrate from one country to another for many reasons such as:
- Pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge, or;
- Escape from war, persecution or injustice.

Defines "Emigration" as an act of leaving a country or region in order to settle in another.

The World Assembly,

1. Mandates that it is a right of any person of a member state to emigrate from their current country of residence, regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) unless the conditions in Section 2 are true.

2. Member states may choose to waive Section 1 only if any of the following conditions are true:
i. The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings;
ii. The person holds certain convictions directly linking to sexual offences;
iii. The person is below the age of maturity (as defined in their country of residence) and lacks the consent of their legal parents or guardians;
iv. The person is either militarily interned during conflict or legally mandated to remain in the current country of residence following a judicial ruling, or;
v. The person is suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating.

3. Urges member states to:
i. Help people who are fleeing from hostile situations such as: natural disasters, war, persecution (on grounds of belief or disability) or oppressive/unethical governments;
ii. Help such persons under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to countries that are more tolerant to them, and;
iii. Take action to prevent emigrants from becoming stateless.

4. Emphasizes that this resolution will not alter policies of member states concerning entry into their nation.

I realize I'm sort of popping in late in the game, but here's a few comments anyway. Act on or ignore them as you wish, and apologies if I'm echoing any previous speakers: I'm in a bit of a hurry today and didn't get a chance to read the minutes.

Not sure why states would want to or be allowed to ensure that sexual predators, child labor and assisted suicide advocates, and all the other people who might be made to fit into 2.ii stayed within their borders, especially when harmful individuals would seem to be covered in 2.iv. 2.v is pretty open to interpretation, which could be a problem, but it's hard to get around that without cutting things out of the definition you might want in there. Also, are you intending to imply that, as a right, the government is responsible for financing the emigration of persons with insufficient resources to do so themselves? Maybe you prefer to leave it ambiguous, but I personally wish it was clarified one way or the other.

Those things said, I'm prepared to approve and vote in favor of the resolution as it stands. The right to emigrate is a critical human rights issue guaranteed by the Xanthalian Federal Constitution, and I'm pleased to see it before the World Assembly. I just wonder if the potential exclusions and financial roadblocks could be narrowed slightly.

Riley Fluffer
Representative, Delegate, etc.

Not sure why states would want to or be allowed to ensure that sexual predators, child labor and assisted suicide advocates, and all the other people who might be made to fit into 2.ii stayed within their borders, especially when harmful individuals would seem to be covered in 2.iv. 2.v is pretty open to interpretation, which could be a problem, but it's hard to get around that without cutting things out of the definition you might want in there. Also, are you intending to imply that, as a right, the government is responsible for financing the emigration of persons with insufficient resources to do so themselves? Maybe you prefer to leave it ambiguous, but I personally wish it was clarified one way or the other.

Part 2ii was inspired by the fact that in real-life, some countries ban sex offenders from travelling abroad to prevent them from committing sex crimes there. Tackling such crimes would be very important, and it supplements 2iv, which is a general rule on judicial ruling against any person and military interment and similar (so that a country's government can keep genocide convicts from emigrating forever).

I might think about revising 2ii a little to narrow it down to sex offenders: see what you think below:

2ii. Member states may choose to waive Section 1 only if the person holds certain convictions directly linking to sexual offences.

Part 2v is to do with preventing terrorism and of course for example, to stop people from smuggling secrets to a rogue nation bent on destroying the world. Perhaps consider:

2v. Member states may choose to waive Section 1 only if the person is suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating.

Travel bans against a person from another nation (like OOC, banning Mugabe from the EU) won't be affected since the draft states that it will not alter policies of member states concerning entry into their nation.

That's all well and good. I'll assume from your silence on the issue that you don't want to clarify the funding aspect.

Riley Fluffer

Sorry, I forgot about that. The funding would be up to the government but obviously they may need to dig into their coffers anyway if they need to help people who are fleeing from hostile situations, facilitate safe travel and take action to prevent emigrants from becoming stateless: in terms of funding this is quite ambiguous as member states have their own approach to these situations so it would be on balance best left to them to decide.

Very good, very good. Well, barring any unexpected substantive changes to the text, you have my support, Ambassador.

Riley Fluffer

Apart from your suggestions, that should be about it and it should be ready once my exams are over (31 January at least). I wish to hear from other ambassadors whether they are happy with the current version as seen on post #1 and #127 before it is sent in as a proposal. Thank you.

I am happy with the current proposal, honorable Ambassador Berlin. You have the support of the Harmonious Treefolk.

I am pursuing a second attempt at this this draft and although the last post is four months old it is being appended for a reason.

Taking over from Ms. Berlin I think it may be necessary to mention WA #6 in Section 3i so member states know that the safety of Humanitarian Transport must be respected. Now this is not a house of cards violation because it is only section 3i that mentions it and overall the rest of this resolution remains independent. Should #6 be repealed it will still function at a reduced level. Alternatively I can just mention Section 2 so this would function independently, entirely.

Finally, we are still talking in the context of emigration.

From post #124 may I clarify that member states on their own can interfere with non members. It is the WA can't interfere in general.

Comments welcome.

Okay WA Delegates, I decided to give my second try at this emigration rights resolution and I hope it shouldn't be too bad. I only 53 approvals now and hopefully you can trust me that it is not going to affect your immigration policy, plus you can still keep your bad guys in your prison. No more complaints about prisoners saying that he has the right to leave your nation when he's actually trying to commit another crime!

Plus since it's mild the WA makes recommendations to help refugees to safety without being stateless. If it reaches quorum I will add an FAQ to make you even more confident.

The resolution can be approved here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=emigration), or at http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=emigration.

Cheers everyone.

This resolution does not do anything. Give it some teeth and we will talk.

An Affirmation is an alternative word to Confirmation so in effect the WA is confirming that any person of a member state has the right to emigrate. Therefore this is a functioning clause.

Part 2ii was inspired by the fact that in real-life, some countries ban sex offenders from travelling abroad to prevent them from committing sex crimes there. Tackling such crimes would be very important, and it supplements 2iv, which is a general rule on judicial ruling against any person and military interment and similar (so that a country's government can keep genocide convicts from emigrating forever).I guess 2d makes this moot, but at first glance 2b seems unnecessarily specific (why just sexual offenders as opposed to all others?) Not sure I'm going to approve it, but I would probably vote for it if it got there.

-Raymond Gardner, Plutonian delegate

Apologies if this has been asked before, but how does this proposal prevent nations from simply declaring existence to be a crime, starting (nominal) legal proceedings against everyone, and keeping everyone in? Or even just keeping one person in, which goes against the whole point of the proposal.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

Post number one is the updated version for those hunting for the working one.

Raymond Gardner, I have emphasized on the subject sex offenders because I wanted to make it clear that offenders of this crimes should not be expected to be let by countries to go to other countries to commit the same crimes again. This is backed by the fact that not all member states sentence sex offenders to life, although they may still want to impose a travel ban against them (OOC, observe the Gary Glitter case).

Douglas Moore, this is quite a paranoid view, it would only be the most, most oppressive government ever in the world who would dare do that. I hope that experienced players of member states will see this clause as a way to stop ex-criminals from trying to commit crimes abroad. I also note the countries in the Assembly have different judicial systems and I cannot cater for all of them in one swoop.

A well-written and solid proposal, I have asked my delegate for TNP to endorse it.


Nigel S Youlkin
WA - Ambassador.

I thank you for your support and humbly encourage all active delegates to give support to this proposal.

Douglas Moore, this is quite a paranoid view, it would only be the most, most oppressive government ever in the world who would dare do that. I hope that experienced players of member states will see this clause as a way to stop ex-criminals from trying to commit crimes abroad. I also note the countries in the Assembly have different judicial systems and I cannot cater for all of them in one swoop.

Well it would only be a very oppressive government that would ban people from emigrating, too, no? So even if the only people who can get around this resolution are very oppressive governments, then that means that anyone who would even be affected by this resolution could just get around that.

Furthermore, the legal proceedings wouldn't actually have to be oppressive, they could just be a technicality used to get around this resolution.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

This proposal is only about emigration. It wasn't designed to tap into your justice system.

Yes, our WA representative Super Chechnya will be voting for this. The kingdom also wants to see the return of coordinating relief aid.

Well it would only be a very oppressive government that would ban people from emigrating, too, no? So even if the only people who can get around this resolution are very oppressive governments, then that means that anyone who would even be affected by this resolution could just get around that.

Furthermore, the legal proceedings wouldn't actually have to be oppressive, they could just be a technicality used to get around this resolution.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

That's human rights, Douglas Moore. I understand you, but of course in today's world there is a conflict of ideals like me being a utopia and another being a dystopia.

(NB: Probably in response to Douglas Moore) This proposal is only about emigration. It wasn't designed to tap into your justice system.

Yes, our WA representative Super Chechnya will be voting for this. The kingdom also wants to see the return of coordinating relief aid.

And I saw him in the new forum today, and you. Thanks for your support!

The point of which being what, exactly? You've just needlessly forked the proposal when there was no reason not to continue discussion here.

Okay, that was my error and a mistake and I apologise without condition. I apparently got too excited about the forums returning directly to NationStates but now I realise that the Jolt Forum isn't going anyway.

Congrats on quorum! Big days will arrive in a matter of hours.

Well it would only be a very oppressive government that would ban people from emigrating, too, no? So even if the only people who can get around this resolution are very oppressive governments, then that means that anyone who would even be affected by this resolution could just get around that.

Furthermore, the legal proceedings wouldn't actually have to be oppressive, they could just be a technicality used to get around this resolution.


This is only too true. This resolution is a farce, as such Osgarna will vote against it.

Use the At-Vote thread for comments on this proposal, please. There's no need to use the drafting thread.