NationStates Jolt Archive

Right of Emigration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

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

Description: 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. AFFIRMS the 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. PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 only if any of the following conditions are true:
a) The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings;
b) The person holds certain convictions directly linking to sexual offences;
c) 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;
d) The person is either militarily interned during conflict or legally mandated to remain in the current country of residence following a judicial ruling or;
e) The person is suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating.

3. ENCOURAGES member states to:
a) 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.
b) Help such refugees under these situations to travel safely and swiftly to countries that are more tolerant to them, and;
c) Take action or enact appropriate measures to prevent refugees from becoming stateless.

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

---------------------------------------------------------------

Guten Tag to the honoured ambassadors and fans of the World Assembly live from Antjepolis, Charlotte Ryberg! We can now proudly present you a resolution that guarantees the right of a citizen within the realm of WA to migrate for economic ambition or simply refuge and sanctuary. My tribute goes to the late Kivistan un bordello for the original UN Resolution 198 (http://www.nationstates.net/74788/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=197), with some lessons learnt: this time the WA makes it clear that the right is affirmed regardless of status whether they're disabled or not. But in the time where terrorism is big news both in and out of character it now makes the threat to security is an acceptable criteria for not allowing a person to leave a nation.

It took four months to develop and a failed attempt to get here.

You can begin voting at the next server update at around 9am to 10am BST.

Resolution notes:

An Affirmation is an alternative word to Confirmation (Ms. Harper must have been reading the Bloomsbury English Dictionary, ISBN 0-7475-6243-1, during development) so in effect the WA confirms that any person of a member state has the right to emigrate. Therefore this is a functioning clause because the WA has therefore declared the right of emigration to be law as the purpose says, so the member states auto-ratify it upon passage. A resolution with a simple purpose to realise the freedom of resettlement.

I have emphasized on the subject of sex offenders because I wanted to make it clear that offenders of such 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).

To think that nations are going to then simply declare existence to be a crime to stop them emigrating is a rather paranoid view: it would only be the most oppressive government ever in the whole wide world who would dare to 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 if there was the risk of that. I also note the countries in the Assembly have different judicial systems and I cannot cater to fit all of them in one swoop, but I have done my best.

Finally, may I apologise for the fact that I can't resist voting for all of the above probably because of the recent influx of bizarre multiple-choice polls. If your are wondering about familiar faces option, those mentioned are only examples. Limitations in the length of Polls answers (100 characters) meant that I could not include everyone. However I still continue to acknowledge everyone's existence.

Cheers everyone! Now roll the credits....


Glen-Rhodes, Puchi, Buffett and Colbert, Wilkshire, Kent Students, The Artic Republics, Xanthal, Bordoria, Sionis Prioratus, Kabanatuanistan, Kumatous, 0lletsoc, New Derrikia, Kingsley Bedford, Esthuaivia, United Ohio and NKY, Justorica, Cachette de Lions, The Derrak Quadrant, Elfdust, Sydia, Ventei, Todd McCloud, The way of Tao, Trektopolis, Alligator to water, Sancte Michael, New Portage, Black Rhino, Aegara, Alandachtler, Chuck Norris Haters, Vartican, Wanjunia, SkillCrossbones, Elliestan, The Jacksons of Mize, Gwenstefani, Razril Island, East Hylia, L2, Helertia, Tomamaria, Chulalongkorn, Libdonia, Canadadopolis, Belarum, Xportania, Varchavianka, Kknight, Memorak, Nonpartisan Sheeples, Seranil, Ascendas, GJD, The Happy Apple, Floreria

The Holy Empire of New Illuve has decided to vote against this Proposal. The conditions laid out under Article Two are not sufficient in Her view to allow for voting in favor.

As it is written, the right to emigration is not suspended for those currently serving either in a military role, or who have an obligation to fulfill a military role. In addition, there is also no suspension of the right to emigration where such emigration would break contractual agreements - freely and/or lawfully entered into.

One can also consider reasonable restrictions on the right to emigration where the effect would be to leave under-aged children alone, or a spouse unable to support him- or her-self without aid.

As it is not possible to alter the Proposal now that it is at vote, She has cast her vote accordingly.

The Ubuntu States have voted against this Proposal. Section two doesn't include disease or the spread of zombies...

This is an excellent idea for legislation and badly needs passing, though possibly not in its present form. The Holy Empire of New Illuve brings awareness to some important matters, as well as Ubuntu States. Beyond that, I have a solitary concern of my own.

"1. AFFIRMS the 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. PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 only if any of the following conditions are true:
a) The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings;
b) The person holds certain convictions directly linking to sexual offences;
c) 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;
d) The person is either militarily interned during conflict or legally mandated to remain in the current country of residence following a judicial ruling or;
e) The person is suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating. "

Section one probably shouldn't list a variety of prejudices since past resolutions have already made them illegal. This is superfluous and, from what I've learned lately, also illegal.

Not to mention that, due to the superfluous nature of Section One, Section Two now seems to permit exceptions for descrimination to occur. Obviously this is not intended, but it still in fact does so.

Section one probably shouldn't list a variety of prejudices since past resolutions have already made them illegal. This is superfluous and, from what I've learned lately, also illegal.

The list given in section one is simply of examples, and thus does not contribute to legality or illegality of itself. We are much more concerned with Ms Harper's opinion in section 2 that she has enumerated all possible national security reasons for denying a person emigration rights.

There is also the grammatical matter involved in the wording of Article 1 ("unless the conditions in Section 2 are true") which requires ALL of the five stipulated conditions to be true.

This is a necessary consequence of the use of the plural in "conditions". Although the intention was surely that only one of the five conditions needed be true, the fact is that "conditions" will only be true if all five are (through the use of the definitive article 'the' in conjunction with 'conditions'). The net effect is that, excepting extremely rare situations - rare enough that no person will probably ever meet them - there are no exceptions to the right of emigration.

A better wording would have been "unless any of the conditions" or (less clear but still marginally acceptable) "unless conditions in Section 2 are true."

There is also the grammatical matter involved in the wording of Article 1 ("unless the conditions in Section 2 are true") which requires ALL of the five stipulated conditions to be true.
Article 2 does use the correct wording, which while making a bit of a grammatical mess of things does clarify matter.

The honored ambassador of Gobbannium is, unfortunately, incorrect. Through the use of the definitive article and the plural, the conditions set out in Section 2 are a logical AND statement. As such, all must have a truth value of "TRUE" in order for the statement to be true. If even one of the conditions is FALSE then the conditions in Section two is logically FALSE and thus the test in Article 1 is not met - and thus no restrictions on emigration can be placed on the person.

By using the word 'any' the statement becomes a logical OR statement which simply requires at least one of the conditions in Section 2 to be true in order for the statement to have a TRUE truth value - and thus meet the Section 1 test.

Unless the honored ambassador wishes to imply that the purpose of this Proposal is to make restricting emigration nigh unto impossible. In that case, the Holy Empire must agree with the honored ambassador.

You have a good point to make. Whilst still standing by my original plan it appears the some nations can lose stability of military commandants went AWOL. But the opposition to this argument is of course conscription, and people being forced to serve the army against their will concerns me. On balance I have been forced to drop conscription as this is a human rights resolution.

I wish to point out that resolutions are not computer programs or modules. The phrase "unless the conditions in Section 2 are true" means with flexibility at least one of the conditions of Section 2, as phrased as "any of the following conditions are true", are true. I know NationStates is a computer game but you should imagine WA resolutions as if they were written by ambassadors, not computer programmers although I cannot deny that even the best ambassadors make mistakes.

On the subject of disease, a person infected with a disease may want to emigrate to a very lonely island to save the world. But if not then this is a matter of immigration which is unfortunately, controversial yet a compromise is yet to be reached. I don't know about Zombies other than science fiction movies.

Again, I find the Representative of New Illuve to be correct.


The list given in section one is simply of examples, and thus does not contribute to legality or illegality of itself. We are much more concerned with Ms Harper's opinion in section 2 that she has enumerated all possible national security reasons for denying a person emigration rights.

Examples or not, this is a House of Cards violation, as it has been expressed to me. Furthermore, considering past legislation, one should never consider any of the given examples to in any way contribute to ones 'status.' This goes without saying, and therefore should not be said. In this particular instance.

How exactly is it a House of Cards violation?

And why is it now that you're suddenly so concerned with upholding the rules?

For the most part, this resolution doesn't refer to emigration but asylum, though I suppose the term will suffice. However, more importantly, any dictatorship with any sense (a contradiction in terms, but still) will merely initiate legal proceedings, imprison, charge with a sexual offense, get a judical ruling mandating that someone stay in the country and/or invent evidence of intent to commit espionage or terrorism. So, unless the government of their country of residence agrees that they can leave, they don't have a right to emigrate at all. This resolution also mandates very little to actually be done other than a pointless statement that they have the right. Overall then, if passed, it will basically do nothing. There is a great opportunity in this legislation but, in it's current form, this is wasted. Therefore, despite our nation's continuing commitment to civil rights, we shall be voting against this resolution.

How exactly is it a House of Cards violation?

And why is it now that you're suddenly so concerned with upholding the rules?

I've always been concerned with upholding the rules. It has only become recently clear to me what the rules, in fact, say. (Also, oocly, I now understand the game-coding better.)

"1. AFFIRMS the 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."

The list of examples are all causes for descrimination. Descrimination is already illegal. If descrimination became legal again this section would gain merit, but it would also present a conflict in law. In that sense, this does not stand alone, and is therefore a House of Cards violation.

Unless, of course, the Representative is so snide that he thinks only I should follow the rules.

FURTHERMORE, and by complete accident I'm sure, Section 2 goes on to permit exceptions to Section 1, while Section 1 is already made legal elsewhere and is not subject to exception.

Unfortunately the relationship between Section 1 and 2 is insufficiently expressed. It would legally permit one to deny the right of emigration to, for example, a convicted sexual offender BECAUSE he is gay.

"2. PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 only if any of the following conditions are true:"

It has only become recently clear to me what the rules, in fact, say.It must not have become clear enough, as you obviously have no idea what a House of Cards violation is:


House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

You have a good point to make. Whilst still standing by my original plan it appears the some nations can lose stability of military commandants went AWOL. But the opposition to this argument is of course conscription, and people being forced to serve the army against their will concerns me. On balance I have been forced to drop conscription as this is a human rights resolution.

I wish to point out that resolutions are not computer programs or modules. The phrase "unless the conditions in Section 2 are true" means with flexibility at least one of the conditions of Section 2, as phrased as "any of the following conditions are true", are true. I know NationStates is a computer game but you should imagine WA resolutions as if they were written by ambassadors, not computer programmers although I cannot deny that even the best ambassadors make mistakes.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would like to point out that conscription is not (always) the only option for being in military service. In many nations, military service is an acceptable employment opportunity - which, as one of the terms of employment - agreeing to stay in employment for a certain number of years, or until certain conditions are met. Generally speaking, all parties involved in this case would have knowingly and voluntarily entered into the contract and may expect the other party to uphold the obligations contained within it.

But widen the situation to an employer that pays for an employee's expensive education, in return for a certain number of years of exclusive employment. This proposal, as written, allows no recourse for a nation to forbid emigration in this case - except by requiring exit visas in a process that avoids the question of emigration completely.

As for the second point from the honored ambassador: to paraphrase what has been said elsewhere - "the law means what the law says." This proposal requires the conditions as set forth in Section Two to be true. Any and all flexibility to be read in a Proposal must be contained in the Proposal lest meaninglessness results due to no rigidity in the Proposal.

Consider this example: "we're not discriminating because the person is homosexual; we're discriminating because this person is sexually aroused by someone of the same sex."

This proposal sets out that the conditionS in Section Two must be met. Not one (although it could be argued that two or more would be sufficient) but at least two. That's what the Proposal says, and there is no room left for interpretation.

The end result is that those nations with legitimate reasons for restricting emigration are going to have to use methods and procedures that will result in more injury than this Proposal is attempting to rectify, and will inevitably reach those people that shouldn't be reached. One may have the right to emigrate - but if there is no right to an exit visa then how useful is that? And to ensure that fathers don't leave their families unfed when they leave for another nation, all people will have to get exit visas....

Allowing Resolutions to be read with a flexibility not contained in them is a very dangerous position to hold. No, a Resolution is not a computer program but it does set out what is and what is not allowed. The general understanding is that something not outlawed is legal - but the concept of 'reading flexibly' removes that certainty. What, exactly, does the Resolution mean? It will depend on who is being asked, and what the motives and philosophy of that person is.

That is not a situation the Holy Empire of New Illuve would wish to be in.

As a matter of interest what criteria was used to define the term "Familiar Faces" in the poll question containing that phrase, and why would the contribution of the honoured and esteemed delegations of Glen Rhodes, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Quintessence of Dust, and Charlotte Ryberg be so much more familiar than any other delegation's


Yours,

As a matter of interest what criteria was used to define the term "Familiar Faces" in the poll question containing that phrase, and why would the contribution of the honoured and esteemed delegations of Glen Rhodes, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Quintessence of Dust, and Charlotte Ryberg be so much more familiar than any other delegation's

Sir, These are only examples. Limitations in the length of Polls answers (100 characters) meant that I could not include everyone. However I still continue to acknowledge your as one of the finest WA contributors. Trust me.

Yours,

It must not have become clear enough, as you obviously have no idea what a House of Cards violation is:

I know NationStates is a computer game but you should imagine WA resolutions as if they were written by ambassadors, not computer programmers although I cannot deny that even the best ambassadors make mistakes.

So... basically... if a representative is established and respected they are permitted a certain level of deviance, while I am not.

Lets assume this is not a House of Cards violation because it didn't actually contain any mentioning of past resolutions though it clearly involves them. What about the rest of what I said?

This is illegal. If I had wrote it, it would not be at quorom.

Sir, These are only examples. Limitations in the length of Polls answers (100 characters) meant that I could not include everyone. However I still continue to acknowledge your as one of the finest WA contributors. Trust me.

Yours,


O.O.C. I was really only kidding :p

Maybe a horizontal line added to the actual end of the text on the first post might help.

So... basically... if a representative is established and respected they are permitted a certain level of deviance, while I am not.

Lets assume this is not a House of Cards violation because it didn't actually contain any mentioning of past resolutions though it clearly involves them. What about the rest of what I said?

This is illegal. If I had wrote it, it would not be at quorom.You assume too much if you actually think the moderators are going to go out of their way to delete an otherwise perfectly legal resolution over a clause that is simply worded unfortunately. It's already clear from the language what the author meant, and if the supposed Contradiction had been reported beforehand (which is when you're supposed to report illegalities, since nothing can be done once something is at vote), the mods would have given the document and its challenge as fair a hearing as they would have any other. Quit playing martyr, or else you'll make the "bias" the mods have against you a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For the record, the Federal Republic is opposed to this resolution.

You assume too much if you actually think the moderators are going to go out of their way to delete an otherwise perfectly legal resolution over a clause that is simply worded unfortunately. It's already clear from the language what the author meant, and if the supposed Contradiction had been reported beforehand (which is when you're supposed to report illegalities, since nothing can be done once something is at vote), the mods would have given the document and its challenge as fair a hearing as they would have any other. Quit playing martyr, or else you'll make the "bias" the mods have against you a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For the record, the Federal Republic is opposed to this resolution.

Am I assuming too much? Or am I working with the information I have been given? Am I simply suggesting that the very same rules should apply to everyone?

"The law does what the law says." (Sorry if I'm wrong, but I think credit for this quote goes to Bears Armed)

I am not at all trying to be a martyr or describe myself as a victim of any kind. In fact I embrace the responsibility to politically support my own views. I simply can not do that within a prejudiced system.

I do not in any way blame the mods. I find their choices in censorship to be a little... odd... but place full blame on members of the Assembly. This resolution, as well as this arguement, does not coincide with what was so strenuously ironed out over the past two days.

And for our record, the Mind will abstain on this resolution. I'll wait and see what the rest of the Assembly says, and whatever the direction the water flows around the resolution, I will either keep it or repeal it out of my own blood, sweat and tears to the wishes of the people.

I believe Ms. Ryberg's sentiments to be extremely generous on this matter. Furthermore, since I keep getting dragged into pointless debate, I'd like to take this time to express to her my admiration for the work she had done for this Assembly.

It is not difficult to take the small amount of personal knowledge I have on Ms. Ryberg and extrapolate the wonderful intentions of this Resolution. I see the heart of the matter and agree completely with its essence.

Some of the wording is unfortunate, however, as it will innevitably lead to perfectly legal misinterpretations and, as such, circumvention of legality in matters of past resolutions as well as the one presently under consideration.

We wonder what Ms. Ryberg might mean by 'water flowing around the resolution,' because it could easily be construed to imply that "If it passes, it passes, and if it doesn't, it doesn't." Which goes without saying. To be more precise, I wonder how Ms. Ryberg might find merit for a repeal other than in the failure of her present resolution, which would render a repeal moot.

Since this is her resolution, and is expressing her interests (while we may vote on it,) if any points have been made to make Ms. Ryberg reconsider something of her Resolution, she should act now. Perhaps it is not legal/possible to withdraw the resolution, but it is certainly possible to discredit it in favor of a few technical changes.

The delegate from The Imperial Court of the Atacotti would like to explain his reasons for a vote against.

First we believe that the spirit of this resolution is noble. The matter of emigration to escape persecution, starvation, war, and for political asylum are basic rights that human's should have access to.

However we the Atacotti are not comfortable with a free pass for all WA citizens to emigrate for whatever reasons. Even with the exceptions listed the Atacotti believe that the resolution would be open to abuse on the part of individuals, organised crime, and governments.

Therefore whilst applauding the sentiments the Atacotti have voted against the motion.

The benefits far outweigh the alleged potential problems that may be caused. I tend to discredit ad absurdum arguments, and I haven't yet seen a convincing description of potential abuse. Furthermore, the resolutions text is quite simple and I have doubts that the fear of widespread, severe misinterpretations is reasonable.

That said, I've voted for this resolution.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Wow. This is actually a pretty lame proposal. The fact the WA needs this put to a vote is beyond me. I am all for the proposal, but why was it needed in the first place? What is happening in your countries that require this proposal as a must? Kayoria stands tall and allows its citizens to come and go as they please. Along with any newcomers, of course. Contractual agreements are not big enough to force a person to stay. It's a business risk and every business makes takes them.

The benefits far outweigh the alleged potential problems that may be caused. I tend to discredit ad absurdum arguments, and I haven't yet seen a convincing description of potential abuse. Furthermore, the resolutions text is quite simple and I have doubts that the fear of widespread, severe misinterpretations is reasonable.

It is agreed that the benefits far outweigh the potential problems. It simply does not matter. What Dr. Castro realizes but, in this case, excuses is that the cited points of discrepancy provide advantage for illegal behavior. Whether or not the good Doctor is satisfied with my example is not the issue. This resolution is illegal.

The Colony of Mooby The Yellow must reject this proposal. We do not feel that it is right to discriminate against any person, regardless of what that person has done in the past.

Thus, we must take issue with this clause:
"b) The person holds certain convictions directly linking to sexual offences;"

This is an abomination of the human right to autonomy. If sex offenders have served their punishment and are now living free in society, they should have the same rights as everyone else in that society. We will not support any resolution that allows member nations to discriminate against this group.

We would, however, permit the transfer of criminal records along with the emigration, as long as they are not used to discriminate. Our nation feels that this would be a fair compromise to allow the new nation to appropriately manage new immigrants.

As it stands, we reject the proposal.

Sexual offences is a very serious issue and once a person is convicted of crimes like rape or paedophilia then nations would certainly loose trust in that person and therefore refuse to admit the convict.

Most nations will have preventative measures post imprisonment such as travel bans against convicted sex offenders and that is actually okay if it keeps the citizens of that country confident. That is why section 2b is there. Though, this is not compulsory if you don't want to use it, but you are still required to recognise ordinary persons right of emigration.

It is agreed that the benefits far outweigh the potential problems. It simply does not matter. What Dr. Castro realizes but, in this case, excuses is that the cited points of discrepancy provide advantage for illegal behavior. Whether or not the good Doctor is satisfied with my example is not the issue. This resolution is illegal.

I can neither agree nor disagree with an argument that hasn't been put forth. Furthermore, you have already been told that the resolution is not illegal. Perhaps some more studying of the rules is in order?

Simply reiterating what an existing resolution says does not make any kind of grounds for illegality. The purpose of House of Cards is to prevent resolutions relying largely on existing ones, not to prevent resolutions from being in agreement with each other. To be more clear, if the discrimination law was repealed, this emigration law would not be compromised, because it does not say "regardless of their status as put forth in the Charter of Civil Rights".

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I can neither agree nor disagree with an argument that hasn't been put forth. Furthermore, you have already been told that the resolution is not illegal. Perhaps some more studying of the rules is in order?

Simply reiterating what an existing resolution says does not make any kind of grounds for illegality. The purpose of House of Cards is to prevent resolutions relying largely on existing ones, not to prevent resolutions from being in agreement with each other. To be more clear, if the discrimination law was repealed, this emigration law would not be compromised, because it does not say "regardless of their status as put forth in the Charter of Civil Rights".

Absolutely Doc. I always write resolutions that are independent although Dr. Castro, there are plans to improve it better according to the opinions of others and I'll tell you how it will work on Tuesday.

Simply reiterating what an existing resolution says does not make any kind of grounds for illegality. The purpose of House of Cards is to prevent resolutions relying largely on existing ones, not to prevent resolutions from being in agreement with each other. To be more clear, if the discrimination law was repealed, this emigration law would not be compromised, because it does not say "regardless of their status as put forth in the Charter of Civil Rights".

I've already said that the issue of 'House of Cards' should be put aside. I believe it is applicable, but perhaps not broad enough to warrant consideration in this very matter. So lets drop it. I'm getting real tired of being the only one to ever apologize or admit fault of any kind. I look forward to hearing replies to that exact sentence. The overwhelming reason that my arguements are not understood originates from my assumption that people joining the debate are aware of what I said to other people on the matter. I don't give a damn.

"if the discrimination law was repealed, this emigration law would not be compromised,"

A more true statement has never been said. This emigration law, however inadvertantly, compromises whatever resolution banned descrimination in the first place. Through a tragic miswording in regards to the relationship between Section 1 and Section 2, Section 2 hereby grants causes to descriminate.

I'm tired of hearing how negligible this may be. Or what sort of 'intentions' Ms. Ryberg had when she wrote it. These were all arguements that I made use of to no avail, and I don't see how they are any more relavent here.

The only way this resolution, as it now sits, could ever be legal was if the descrimination law was repealed.

Any arguement to the contrary is blatant disregard of law. How this proposal ever reached its present status is beyond me. Representatives should be more professional than to display such overt favoritism.

My only issue with this resolution is that it has a major loophole that destroys its purpose:

"d) The person is either militarily interned during conflict or legally mandated to remain in the current country of residence following a judicial ruling" (Right of Emigration Proposal)

A "judicial ruling" can mean anything depending on a nation's governing style (e.g. a dictator's say-so can be considered a "judicial ruling"). I support the right of people to emigrate, so I would support the idea; however, your resolution unfortunatley has this appeasement loophole that renders it ineffective in application.

As read and spoken of here there is a serious flaw in this resolution, that the creator has brushed off as not serious, and that would be section 2 in its entirety.

Yes, nation's may pass "life" as being a crime in only the most oppressive of states, but those are the states that people would be leaving from foremost.

Also, "age of consent" should not hold, as many refugees are children without guardians because of either diaspora, limited personnel, or cultural acceptance of such. Imagine as a real world situation the many child headed households found in Sudanese refugee camps. Twelve year-olds are given complete authority over their "household" because their is no one else.

The High Council of Les Gens Libres therefore does not support this resolution.

Sunlumo has voted for this proposal but may withdraw its vote unless the 2 d questions other nations have raised can be adequately answered.

-The people of Sunlumo

This is silly. I am constantly amazed at how many nations promote needless legislation, further removing rights and/or liberties that should remain with the people or govenment of that land. Albeit, this bill doesn't override the member nation's law, it further goes to show how pointless this bill is. As a world assembly, it is a great utility to be able to openly communicate with so many different nations. In saying that, we should continue to embrace and build those relationships, but respect the fact that we do not all share the same views. Who are we to impose our will upon another country?
As for the subject at hand...I would suggest we promote the freedom of every individual to live his/her life as best as he/she sees fit. My country will attempt to embrace people from all walks of life from every corner of the planet (within the constraints of our law).

Following new legislation in The World Assembly, descrimination is conditionally legal.

I've had a word this morning with the Foreign Minister to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg and he was not be convinced that section 2d would be used in such a silly way, as Dr. Castro suggests. He pointed out that that provision would be a deterrent to people who would be willing to murder or sex offend overseas then expect to get away with it, but he admitted that we are living in a world of complete paranoia where it seems political correctness was the order of not days, weeks, months but even years. The era of simplicity seems to be lost in the World Assembly!

He was critical of the comments made by the member state of Absolvability on the accusations made on a perfectly legal resolution which had a category of best fit since this was to ban member states from keeping ordinary people in like PoWs. However, there is no doubt that compromises have to be made for security and safety of the member states. It would be times better to exempt the right against prisoners or war criminals rather than facing a pandemic of criminals being mentioned on Funen's Most Wanted.

However, Charlotte has informed me that she has tapped into virtually every line of your communication in the World Assembly and overall she was very unhappy about how section 2d could be used to trap member citizens like prisoners of war as the wording stands. Although she understood my and my predecessors intention to to combat crime whilst trying to increase human rights she asked me to think why I let some of Ms. Berlin's previous poorly worded phrases through. She also asked me on why I was able to allow professional and voluntary military service people to go AWOL.

For this record Charlotte Ryberg herself has ordered me to place the country's vote against and in addition has ordered me, should this resolution pass, to write and submit a repeal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566460) under the name of Charlotte Ryberg then explain to the World Assembly here on why this original resolution had got so far with shortcomings.

However, I have to blame the fact that there was little involvement or feedback from many World Assembly members during the drafting process other than a few.

Yours,

*snip*

It should be mentioned that the Charter of Civil Rights never intended to, nor does it, extend full civil rights to criminals. Indeed, it allows states to discriminate if such discrimination serves a compelling practical purpose, or if such discrimination is fair and reasonable; for example, you need only look to various affirmative actions programs that discriminate to reverse the effects of past discrimination. It would be very naive to suggest that preventing criminals from leaving a country is unreasonable. It would be plain dumb to suggest that not allowing people undergoing criminal or civil trials to leave a country is not serving a compelling practical purpose.

All the provisions provided in Section 2 are reasonable and fair, and all of them serve a compelling practical purpose. You have yet to provide any argument at all that says that they aren't. Throwing around allegations of illegality without providing solid evidence will just result in you being shunned.

If Ambassador Harper decides that the current wording of Section 2d is serious enough to warrant a self-issued repeal, then I will support her in that. However, because of the relatively supporting relationship between Charlotte Ryberg and Glen-Rhodes, I certainly will defend the legality and intention of the current resolution at vote.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I got a phone-call from one of the Janitors of the World Assembly. She thinks the Assembly had former zoo chimpanzees employed as proposal editors.

The Kingdom of Nolza is not yet a WA member but will decide to vote FOR this resolution because it finds it sufficent and correct, because it will give it's citizens more freedom, which Nolza encourages and wants.

For this record Charlotte Ryberg herself has ordered me to place the country's vote against and in addition has ordered me, should this resolution pass, to write and submit a repeal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566460) under the name of Charlotte Ryberg then explain to the World Assembly here on why this original resolution had got so far with shortcomings.With this in mind, we too have cast our vote against this resolution and will support a repeal if necessary.

--Plutonian delegate Raymond Gardner

However, I have to blame the fact that there was little involvement or feedback from many World Assembly members during the drafting process other than a few.Excuse me?

Of all the arrogant bluster you've come out with since taking the place of your predecessor, who I recall being equally unchallenged by modesty, surely this takes the biscuit, as well as the cake, the danish, the croissant and the fruit roll-up.

The responsibility for this proposal is one person's, and one person's alone: yours. You took on that responsibility when you submitted it. To "blame" everyone else is rank obfuscation, indicative of the frivolity with which what you approach the sober task of writing legislation.

I also note your list of "The Elite of the WA" made no mention of anyone else: when you credited yourself among the "Best of the Elite" for 'writing' two resolutions, you didn't seem to acknowledge all those who did, on those occasions, contribute to the draft (including the people who actually wrote them before you yoinked them and slapped your name atop). While I know this proposal is yet another example of you taking someone else's work and resubmitting it with a couple of trails of tinsel for disguise, it is your responsibility.

I have never been more disgusted with the behaviour of someone I grimace at calling 'a fellow Ambassador'.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

I already removed the list as you requested earlier and I apologise if it has offended you.

Yours,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve has decided to vote against this Proposal. The conditions laid out under Article Two are not sufficient in Her view to allow for voting in favor.

As it is written, the right to emigration is not suspended for those currently serving either in a military role, or who have an obligation to fulfill a military role. In addition, there is also no suspension of the right to emigration where such emigration would break contractual agreements - freely and/or lawfully entered into.

One can also consider reasonable restrictions on the right to emigration where the effect would be to leave under-aged children alone, or a spouse unable to support him- or her-self without aid.

As it is not possible to alter the Proposal now that it is at vote, She has cast her vote accordingly.Ouch!
I was going to vote 'For', but you now have me re-thinking this...

We have voted against this proposal, its language is in places rather unclear and in some places nonsensical.

This would have been enough, but the distinctly unedifying debate which has accompanied it has completely decided us against this statute.

This is yet another tiresome example of a law which was not properly reviewed before its submission for approval and we are irritated that a repeal will now be almost instantly necessary.


Yours,

This is yet another tiresome example of a law which was not properly reviewed before its submission for approval and we are irritated that a repeal will now be almost instantly necessary.

Not properly reviewed? The drafting session started in September of last year. That's eight months ago!

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Not properly reviewed? The drafting session started in September of last year. That's eight months ago!

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia



We never said the drafting process was too short, we said that the resolution had not been properly reviewed. The difference is profound.


Yours,

As it is written, the right to emigration is not suspended for those currently serving either in a military role, or who have an obligation to fulfill a military role. In addition, there is also no suspension of the right to emigration where such emigration would break contractual agreements - freely and/or lawfully entered into.
Exactly, which is why I have enthusiastically voted For this proposal. I will sit back and watch in glee as my foes armies are decimated by mass desertions.

We never said the drafting process was too short, we said that the resolution had not been properly reviewed. The difference is profound.It really is not, though. There has been plenty of time for all delegations to properly review the resolution. If they did not take advantage of that time, then why should Ambassador Harper suspect that the resolution hasn't been properly reviewed, and why shouldn't have she submitted it?

To support Ambassador Harper's decision to repeal the resolution, I suppose I will withdrawl my vote. I will not extend a vote against, however.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

It really is not, though. There has been plenty of time for all delegations to properly review the resolution. If they did not take advantage of that time, then why should Ambassador Harper suspect that the resolution hasn't been properly reviewed, and why shouldn't have she submitted it?

To support Ambassador Harper's decision to repeal the resolution, I suppose I will withdrawl my vote. I will not extend a vote against, however.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia


Honoured Ambassador Harper could easily have actively sought the review and editing abilities of other delegations, either she did not do this or she ignored their advice.

This statute is not a statute which shows the marks of good editing and review despite its long gestation period.

Dr Castro it is not the job of other delegations to prevent the delegation of Charlotte Ryberg from making mistakes, that is its own business.


Yours,

Sexual offences is a very serious issue and once a person is convicted of crimes like rape or paedophilia then nations would certainly loose trust in that person and therefore refuse to admit the convict.

Most nations will have preventative measures post imprisonment such as travel bans against convicted sex offenders and that is actually okay if it keeps the citizens of that country confident. That is why section 2b is there. Though, this is not compulsory if you don't want to use it, but you are still required to recognise ordinary persons right of emigration.

"Lose trust?" This is about emigration rights, not a relationship. I find it hard to take your argument seriously when you fail to mention "losing trust" in con artists, thieves, stalkers, murders, and other previously convicted felons.

That's why our nation supports making criminal records available to the new country, but opposes restricting free adults who are no longer incarcerated from traveling.

This proposal reeks of discrimination towards those previously convicted of sexual crimes, characteristic of the overbearing moral obsession that this colony freed itself from in its emancipation from its parent country.

In a prepared statement, Patrexan Ambassador to the World Assembly, Sir Hugh Gregory, OPE stated, "With regard to the resolution currently before us, His Majesty's Government has judged that it interferes with the sovereign rights of member states in an unnecessary fashion. Consequently, Patrexes has deemed it expedient to vote against this resolution."

The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. I have just returned from a refreshing vacation on McClanahan IV, the resort world, and have never felt stronger or been more confident in my ability to oppose bad proposals.

Ahem.

The All-Order is opposed to this poorly-formulated, loophole-ridden piece of garbage that passes for 'legislation.'

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/Bea_Arthur.jpg

Wens Foroun
Ambassador, All-Order of Allech-Atreus

The Nation of World Democray accepts this proposal and stronly supports it. Btu not very strong. A good argument could win me. But this promotes the right of the common person to escape horrible things and be in their conquest for the "pursuit of happiness". But I have to say there are more serious issues to deal with here.

Again if you want it, I'll repeal it. I've already prepared the repeal text here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566460).

as wildlife already hasThis strikes me as an utterly bizarre clause...yes, I can see the purpose, but it might need tweaking.

For this record Charlotte Ryberg herself has ordered me to place the country's vote against and in addition has ordered me, should this resolution pass, to write and submit a repeal under the name of Charlotte Ryberg then explain to the World Assembly here on why this original resolution had got so far with shortcomings.

However, I have to blame the fact that there was little involvement or feedback from many World Assembly members during the drafting process other than a few.

Wow. How very... dignified. I can assure Ms. Ryberg that she'll have my support when the time comes. I'm impressed, if not amazed, by her objectivity on a matter that she alone has cause to be biased for. I also wonder how it's possible that the good Dr. Castro could continue being such an ardent crusader despite this fine example.

It should be mentioned that the Charter of Civil Rights never intended to, nor does it, extend full civil rights to criminals. Indeed, it allows states to discriminate if such discrimination serves a compelling practical purpose, or if such discrimination is fair and reasonable; for example, you need only look to various affirmative actions programs that discriminate to reverse the effects of past discrimination. It would be very naive to suggest that preventing criminals from leaving a country is unreasonable. It would be plain dumb to suggest that not allowing people undergoing criminal or civil trials to leave a country is not serving a compelling practical purpose.

I don't recall saying that criminals should be allowed to escape persecution. In my personal opinion, criminals are also entitled to a non-discriminatory judicial system, but that is for each Nation to decide. My point isn't at all local to the treatment of criminals. Simply that, according to this Resolution, if you are a criminal it suddenly becomes POSSIBLE to be discriminated against for various other reasons. I'm not going to explain it all again, since I suspect Dr. Castro understood my arguement from the very beginning and is either intentionally being difficult or trying to pave law with good intentions.

Though, while criminals are at discussion, let me say one more thing. Obviously anybody involved in the due process of law shouldn't be allowed to escape justice. As far as criminal histories go, however, I think this is not proper basis for exclusion from the right of emigration. This should be an issue of immigration.

Draft text:


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... generally, the right to emigrate as free as a bird.

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 that was simply to combat serious 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 persons in positions of office within the government from betraying the trust of its citizens by emigrating.

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".

Draft text:


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... generally, the right to emigrate as free as a bird.

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 that was simply to combat serious 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 persons in positions of office within the government from betraying the trust of its citizens by emigrating.

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;

SEEKING the opportunity to introduce a more effective and a clarified version of this resolution into the Assembly to subdue confusion;

HEREBY repeals the "Right of Emigration".

The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this! We are appalled that the author would post the text of a repeal in her own "At Vote" discussion.

Make up your mind, ambassador Harper. If you thought the resolution was unacceptable why did you submit it in the first place?

Do the Aundotutunagirian People also think it is necessary to follow through on every venture regardless of new findings?

I shall accept the responsibility of not having taken part in the original draft discussion, not Ms. Harper. I think her present intentions are a world benchmark for credibility, enlightenment, and self-inspection that other members of this Assembly would be wise to emulate.

Some representatives do not wish to sacrifice a few extra weeks in order to provide a more foolproof resolution. Others of us, clearly, would rather do it the right way.

Do the Aundotutunagirian People also think it is necessary to follow through on every venture regardless of new findings?
And just what the hell does that mean?

The question means very little without an answer, good sir. By the tone of your reply I think you gather fully well the meaning. Your invitation for further explaintation is arguementative in nature. I'm sure, by this point, I've proven myself to be a plain speaker. So do not ask me to be more frank, or you might get the very insult you deny having understood.

Rest assured, however, that I do not presume to know the minds of the Aundotutunagirian People. I think the representative should examine the way in which he speaks for them.

Wow. How very... dignified. I can assure Ms. Ryberg that she'll have my support when the time comes. I'm impressed, if not amazed, by her objectivity on a matter that she alone has cause to be biased for. I also wonder how it's possible that the good Dr. Castro could continue being such an ardent crusader despite this fine example.I find Ambassador Harper's willingness to bend and sway at the mere sign of opposition an undesirable trait, but it's her choice to decide whether or not she supports the resolution's text.

I don't have a problem with it, namely because I don't see the point to worrying over 2d. Speaking inclusively, if it's such a bother that members of your military are legally able to emigrate, then get your judicial system to rule that they waive their right to emigration while serving. The same goes for contracts that require persons to stay in a country. Worrying over whether or not a court is going to rule that existence is a crime is absurd. Arguments that a court could rule that a person does not have the right to emigrate, based on cultural traits, is nulled by the Charter of Civil Rights.

New Illuve's example of "we're not discriminating because the person is homosexual; we're discriminating because this person is sexually aroused by someone of the same sex" is nonsensical because being sexually aroused by someone of the same sex is the definition of homosexuality.

What you have left are grammar & mechanics police in a fit because 'the' and 'conditions' are placed next to each other.

That being said, I don't take it upon myself to be objective or an outstanding example of class and dignity, so your comments are more likely to affect my opposition more than myself.
I don't recall saying that criminals should be allowed to escape persecution. In my personal opinion, criminals are also entitled to a non-discriminatory judicial system, but that is for each Nation to decide. My point isn't at all local to the treatment of criminals. Simply that, according to this Resolution, if you are a criminal it suddenly becomes POSSIBLE to be discriminated against for various other reasons. I'm not going to explain it all again, since I suspect Dr. Castro understood my arguement from the very beginning and is either intentionally being difficult or trying to pave law with good intentions. You are certainly correct. I do understand your argument. You don't seem to understand mine, though, because my argument wasn't solely in regards to criminals. If you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't be moaning over some clause in this resolution that makes it possible to discriminate, you'd be questioning the exclusionary language in the Charter of Civil Rights that makes it possible to discriminate.
Honoured Ambassador Harper could easily have actively sought the review and editing abilities of other delegations, either she did not do this or she ignored their advice.
I think this begs the question of who a proposal has to go through before it's considered properly reviewed. Plenty of delegations offered their criticisms during the drafting session, and Ambassador Berlin usually worked their suggestions in to the proposal. I must digress, though, before the word 'elite' starts being flung around uncontrollably.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I think we understand eachother perfectly, Dr. Castro, and I'll certainly examine the Charter of Civil Rights at my earliest possible convenience (though I already have several times, and thought I understood it.)

However, this is an evasive point to make, since one problem precipitating another does not excuse the latter. It is also this evasive style that had made me doubt your understanding. For that, I apologize.

I think we understand eachother perfectly, Dr. Castro, and I'll certainly examine the Charter of Civil Rights at my earliest possible convenience (though I already have several times, and thought I understood it.)

However, this is an evasive point to make, since one problem precipitating another does not excuse the latter. It is also this evasive style that had made me doubt your understanding. For that, I apologize.

Apology accepted, I guess, even if I don't see the need for an apology. To make it easier for you, these are the clauses I am referring to:

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.
Discrimination is permitted if it serves a compelling practical purpose. (OOC: The US uses this method.)
a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.
Discrimination is permitted if it is fair and reasonable; heavily relates to the above. (OOC: The US also uses this method.)

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I am listening to your opinions, you are very lucky to have an ambassador that listens to the opinions of others and considers it during vote, any time in fact. I have tried my best to do what I can for humanity yet some of you expresses strong concerns about the very tiny detail. What better can I do for you other than creating a resolution that said from now on everything is perfect?

I am going to improve this resolution so you will be happy that it will have no loopholes. We have learned from our mistakes and it can be hope that we can repair the fractures that threatens to tears the whole Assembly apart.

So do not ask me to be more frank, or you might get the very insult you deny having understood.
Could you be more frank?

Rest assured, however, that I do not presume to know the minds of the Aundotutunagirian People. I think the representative should examine the way in which he speaks for them.
I think you should mind your own business, ambassador.

I'm afraid our temporary understanding might suffer massive regression.

-Smiles good naturedly,- I see what you mean when you said that I should examine the CoCR. And you've skillfully highlighted that which I'm sure I would've. "Compelling practical purposes," is a subjective statement, I'm probably expected to say. And I'm afraid I must oblige, since I believe it to be so. But this is not what I take issue with!

Examine again the relationship between Section 1 and Section 2 of Ms. Harper's resolution.

1. AFFIRMS the 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.

And then Section 2 goes on to list a number of 'compelling practical purposes.' Unfortunately, Section 1 made mention of only 'unreasonable' causes for discrimination. Therefore, if there is a compelling practical purpose, then by law, one can call into effect an unreasonable discrimination.

Lets use the CoCR's example.

such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

By Ms. Ryberg's resolution, one could hire only WHITE women to work with battered women. Understand?

Could you be more frank?
Always.
I think you should mind your own business, ambassador.
I think that anything you say in the World Assembly is my business.

I think that anything you say in the World Assembly is my business.
Ah but that's not what you said, is it? You said:
Rest assured, however, that I do not presume to know the minds of the Aundotutunagirian People. I think the representative should examine the way in which he speaks for them.
This implies that you imagine you have some sort of stake in the relationship between myself and the People of Aundotutunagir. You do not. If I fail in the way in which I speak for them, the People of Aundotutunagir will replace me as ambassador. That is none of your business.

Unfortunately, Section 1 made mention of only 'unreasonable' causes for discrimination. Therefore, if there is a compelling practical purpose, then by law, one can call into effect an unreasonable discrimination. No, one cannot. De jure discrimination has to both have a compelling practical purpose and be fair and reasonable. For your example provided, I direct you to the various affirmative actions laws used throughout the world as a basis for fair and reasonable discrimination. Currently, your example is in violation of the Charter of Civil Rights. It makes races too decisive a factor in employment, even if there's a compelling interest to correct past wrongs or create diversity (assuming caucasian females were the object of past discrimination).

If the damned rules didn't prevent it, I would create a high court to settle these issues.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I never said you failed in the way you spoke for them. I might've implied it. Then again, maybe you got the idea yourself when you read my question. Maybe it brought to mind a mistake you'd made and you'd like to apologize for it.

It's remarkable how much can be construed from a simple question (that still has not been answered, I might add.)

Currently, your example is in violation of the Charter of Civil Rights.

Of course my example is in violation of the CoCR. You're being evasive again, Doctor. I have maintained from the very beginning that this resolution is illegal. You just admitted to it without admitting to it.

Of course my example is in violation of the CoCR. You're being evasive again, Doctor. I have maintained from the very beginning that this resolution is illegal. You just admitted to it without admitting to it.

How so? Your example did not relate to this resolution by a single iota.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Maybe it brought to mind a mistake you'd made and you'd like to apologize for it.

I do not make mistakes and I do not apologize. Is there some point to these inane statements of yours?

I just showed you how the present resolution could be used against the already established CoCR. Therefore it is illegal.

I don't mean to seem impatient, but I feel like repeating myself would be an insult to the good Doctor's intelligence as well as my time management.

Thankfully our discussions are being recorded. I think you should consult the stenographer and then you'll see.

I do not make mistakes and I do not apologize.

Then let me apologize, good sir. I thought I was speaking to a meer Representative. I am obviously speaking to a god.

I just showed you how the present resolution could be used against the already established CoCR. Therefore it is illegal. Supply an example that actually applies to this resolution, then you can try and claim that it contradicts the Charter of Civil Rights. Emigration has nothing to do with employment. Your argument is so convoluted, it's hard to tell what you're arguing about anyways.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I am obviously speaking to a god.
And now you blaspheme...

*Hiriaurtung Arororugul turns to an aide*

"Go to the stables and fetch my swiftest charger. We may need to drag this heathen by his heals and then feed him to the crows in the traditional manner. And bring along my skinning implements, the good ones."

Who said anything about employment? Good lord, TRY to keep in mind that an example is ONLY an example. Take what I demonstrated and apply it to emigration. Our discussions would go a lot more smoothly if you would assume that I know what I'm talking about and try to study my words for a little longer.

Ms. Ryberg already seems to understand all of this. It really is only because I respect you that I'm going to try to say this once more.

CoCR= thou shalt not discriminate unless there is a compelling practical purpose

Right of Emigration, Section 1= list of unreasonable purposes for discrimination

Relationship between Section 1 and Section 2= if section 2 applies then section 1 doesn't have to

Section 2= compelling practical purposes

Since Section 1 is in complete accordance with the CoCR it can not be waived. A resolution can not waive another resolution without a repeal.

*snip*
You are severely oversimplifying things. 2a-e provide for fair, reasonable, and practical instances of discriminating against a person by denying their right to emigrate. Your argument falls apart when it attempts to dictate that if one of those things serves a compelling practical purpose, then it cannot also be fair and reasonable.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

While still honoring the noble thoughts behind this resolution, the parliament of the Liberal-democratic Republic of Cworalia decided to vote against this resolution.

In the eyes of this parliament, passing this resolution will open doors to criminals. By passing that resolution, the World Assembly will allow criminal organisations to freely move from one country to another, making it almost impossible to ever capture them.

Before passing such resolutions, the World Assembly should first make sure that no criminals can get through. Who can guarantee that they will all be detected if they want to flee to other nations?
Thus, the democratically elected government of Cworalia feels unable to vote for this resolution. However, if this resolution will be passed, Cworalia will accept it, since then it's the will of the people.

At the end, we want to remember you that german is the most-spoken language in Cworalia, and that even the government-officials are having little problems with speaking and writing english. We hope that you can accept that little fact. =)

The Confederacy of Sol-III has decided to vote against this proposal due to it's disagreement with section 2. A nation should not be able to forbid people to leave it's borders for ANY reason. As this proposal stands, a country may, for example, quite easily accuse a citizen of absurd crimes in order to prevent them from leaving. Also, even if someone is legitimately accused of a crime, that person should be allowed to leave, possibly in the hope of finding a society which has values they agree with. We take the right of emigration to be a fundamental right without any exceptions.

I just showed you how the present resolution could be used against the already established CoCR. Therefore it is illegal.

I don't mean to seem impatient, but I feel like repeating myself would be an insult to the good Doctor's intelligence as well as my time management.

Thankfully our discussions are being recorded. I think you should consult the stenographer and then you'll see.

I fail to see the point behind your crusade to get this resolution declared illegal. Even if you're successful, the mods can't delete it at this point, and "it's illegal" isn't a valid repeal argument.

e) The person is suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating.

What is preventing countries from saying that everyone is slightly "suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts by emigrating." This is completely for them to control, and a loophole I'm surprised to find uncorrected.

The honored ambassador of Gobbannium is, unfortunately, incorrect. Through the use of the definitive article and the plural, the conditions set out in Section 2 are a logical AND statement. As such, all must have a truth value of "TRUE" in order for the statement to be true. If even one of the conditions is FALSE then the conditions in Section two is logically FALSE and thus the test in Article 1 is not met - and thus no restrictions on emigration can be placed on the person.
While it is poor grammar -- but then, we agree with the honoured ambassador that any reading of this resolution is doomed to such a fate -- we would contend that "the conditions in section 2" could be taken to mean the solitary condition of section 2 proper, [i]viz.[i] that any one of its subconditions are true. We freely admit that this is unsatisfactory.

More importantly, the fact that we can have this discussion with some degree of justification on both sides and no clarity at the end is itself indicative of the poor quality of what has been laid before us. On that matter, we believe that we are of one mind.

For this record Charlotte Ryberg herself has ordered me to place the country's vote against and in addition has ordered me, should this resolution pass, to write and submit a repeal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566460) under the name of Charlotte Ryberg then explain to the World Assembly here on why this original resolution had got so far with shortcomings.

However, I have to blame the fact that there was little involvement or feedback from many World Assembly members during the drafting process other than a few.

The delegation of the Principalities formally despair. Really, we do. We gave up commenting on the draft months ago, for two reasons. First, the honoured ambassador seemed to have the fixed idea that tinkering with the style of the resolution would in some way address the flaws of substance that we raised, and second, that this appeared to be the only fixed idea the ambassador had. While a degree of flexibility is an admirable trait in legal draftsmanship, having a mind so open that one's brains are in constant danger of dribbling out of one's ears is not.

We're perfectly fine with the proposed repeal, except for this clause:

SEEKING the opportunity to introduce a more effective and a clarified version of this resolution into the Assembly to subdue confusion;

If the debacle of having to propose a repeal in the same at-vote thread as your original resolution, before the freaking thing has even passed, due to its inherent and glaring flaws, has not convinced you of the wisdom of leaving the issue of emigration to individual member states, apparently nothing will.

We'd be perfectly happy, assuming this resolution passes and is then repealed, to never have the issue of emigration revisited again by this Assembly.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I acknowledge all the comments by the fellow ambassadors and there's no need to get in a tizz.

Noting of my mistakes, The tit for tat arguments have brought this whole resolution into a massive tangle in which I cannot see a clear direction for this issue. The fact that there is no formal resolution for the aspect of refugees, and the loss of the CRA (#5) and a plethora of silly resolution by some random nations and bureaucracy really drives me mad. I got to tighten my act and fill the missing gaps by cleaning the mess that already exists, like there is no need for the WA to tap into trivial issues.

I've been a bit too flexible with you and I know now. I have to tighten my act.

Please, I really apologise for the mistakes I have done, I will correct it by repealing this and please forgive me.

The Government of the Democratic Republic of Frattastan decided to vote against this resolution.


2. PERMITS member states to waive Section 1 only if any of the following conditions are true:
a) The person is either under penal servitude or undergoing (civil or criminal) legal proceedings;

The person can be under penal servitude or under legal proceedings for crimes that don't compromise the right of asylum (political crimes, apostasy, draft resisting); if the person is sent back to his country, it can be subjected to capital punishment, contrasting with Frattastan legislation, who refuses this punishment; maybe the person hasn't (or hadn't) sufficient rights of self-defense in the legal proceeding.

I am here to inform everyone my decision to against the newest resolution. When I first read it, I believe I was just like everyone, got trick by it. It does sound like a good resolution to help people to leave the country they didn't like.
However, if you have a close read, section 2 completely negates the purpose of the resolution.
None of clauses are well defined, it pretty much says, if the government doesn't want you to leave, you can't leave. It's a stupid resolution. Let me give you few examples: I can define the maturity in my country as age 135 (satisfied clause 2c), I can say I suspect you are a spy (2e), then you can't leave according to the resolution. This resolution is meaningless, if we want a resolution about emigration, we need a better defined resolution than the current one.

The Commonwealth prefers the rights of emigration be defined by the state rather than the WA. Thus, we have voted against it.

Long live the Sovereign,
Ambassador Han

OOC:

You might want to know a bit more about me, which may explain why this resolution went horribly wrong and in which I have been reluctant to tell for some time, in fear that you might tease me. I have Asperger Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome), which is a kind of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) where I have difficulty in social interaction and restricted empathy, yet you shouldn't tick me off because I am generally intelligent in maths, computing, gaming and creative arts, humorous (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaggers/3403964346), and most important of all my interest the improvement of world society both in and out of character. I do have stereotyped patterns of behaviour and interests such as the addiction to the brutalist architecture of the 1960s collecting these (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaggers/3432491958/) or having a keen interest in these (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaggers/3304616566/) trains... and one of them is indeed using NationStates and the World Assembly to feel as if it was my own world where I could improve the world from my experiences. The population may be a statistic but I feel as if they were real people.

I wrote a resolution about emigration because I wanted people to be under less control of the governments for which I always have concern about. I also wanted to see ways in which people both in and out of character can enjoy their life without being oppressed. I have an imagination that humans would have the freedoms of birds in nature, minus the bad things like crime and war. It is based on a very traumatic experience in my childhood, where in I was taken into care from London into Devon from my mother in October 2002 by Islington social services because they felt I was mad... but I am not, because I knew I could put my imagination into reality, full size or in scale, such as an old tram model (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaggers/3423798515), which I made when I was just 10 years old.

I am still in Devon against my will, but running my Nation as part of the North Devon NationStates club (Funen) to pass the time... but now look how far I have succeeded in real life: I have 3 A-levels and now I have been invited to study for a diploma in iMedia. Yes, I wish I could return to my home town soon, as many people in the real world such as Darfur or Zimbabwe would want to and I wish it could happen soon. You can criticize the proposals or reoslutions of mine, but you can't tick me off just because I have Autism.

Thank you.

Yours,

OOC: That's a sympathy inspiring tale, but I don't see where it has to do with your resolution. Your resolution is excellent. It's about two words away from being perfect, in fact. I hope I didn't offend you while I was debating with your supporters.

If anybody has seemed to attack you personally, rest assured, it's probably just part of their 'RP.' I don't think you needed to explain your real life situation. However, I do now have an appreciation for your circumstances. Congratulations for succeeding in the face of adversity.

The good but slightly unwholesome Senator Sulla leans back in his chair, reaches under his desk and pulls out a very large empty Fine Yeldan Pickle Jar(TM), and places it on the corner of his desk. he then reaches into a side drawer and pulls out a Fine Yeldan Cigar(TM), about the size of a small kosher salami. after cuttingthe end, and firing the bad boy up he takes a few contemplative puffs thus causing fragrant clouds of blue smoke to waft over the Palentine delegation. Finally he looks out at the expectant delgates in the festering snakepit and brgins to speak,

"You lucky sods! I wish I could sit here all day and listen to hear myself speak. I'd like to first state that the Palentine opposes this resolution. We find it meaningless, useless, and a waste of time. However, even though I am slightly unwholesome, I am quite willing to allow myself to be swayed to vote yes. Arguements will not do the trick, though. No my friends, as you all know, I have any number of expensive, unhealthy, and unsavory hobbies. Furthermore, the great Bar-Lord Neville has given me some broad hints that I should pay on my bar tab. So therefore I am going to offer my vote for sale. The largest bribe...err...financial inducement gets my vote, and all offers are non-refundable. As a wise man once said, In God we trust, all others must pay cash!"

Nigel S Youlkin the USoP ambassador shakes his head and stands up

I must confess that I rise today to cast my vote as confused. Does the honorable delegate from Charlotte Ryberg wish to repeal immediately after passage?

The Technocratic Union of the Republic of Othere deems it neccesary to vote against this proposal.

The reason specified is the lack of emmigrant discrimination available to the government in Section 2.

The Republic of Othere has no room for the emergence of a religious or cultural minortiy at this stage in its development.

Nigel S Youlkin the USoP ambassador shakes his head and stands up

I must confess that I rise today to cast my vote as confused. Does the honorable delegate from Charlotte Ryberg wish to repeal immediately after passage?

I will do so on the request of the ambassadors I know well. The replacement, if I wish to do so, will be much more tightened and clearer in future. It was legal this time, it will remain so next time. I think a convention on Refugees will also be needed too.

Yours (sigh),

If that is the case I rise to revise and append my vote to Against this measure.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

If the measure is to be repealed by the author immediately after, then I suggest we forego the formality and TG the larger delegates to vote against.

WYMP

If the measure is to be repealed by the author immediately after, then I suggest we forego the formality and TG the larger delegates to vote against.

WYMP

I've already sent my esteemed college a TG.

I have a feeling IMHO that it is the consortium (not naming anyone) of small non delegates that seem to sway the vote and some are not always active 24/7, but as it stands we are outnumbered by 2 to 1 with only... only 24 hours to go.

Or am I being pessimistic?

I have a feeling IMHO that it is the consortium (not naming anyone) of small non delegates that seem to sway the vote and some are not always active 24/7, but as it stands we are outnumbered by 2 to 1 with only... only 24 hours to go.

Or am I being pessimistic?


The larger regions wont vote until the last minute. They usually poll their nations before casting their votes. So, you may have time. Since the larger resions carry more votes, it's easier to change the vote split.

Way back when this resolution was first proposed, I mentioned a factoid that went relatively unnoticed at the time, but it still true:

The rights of the emigrant are invariably determined by the state he/she immigrates to.

This resolution doesn't change that fact. As such, the region of Equinox has overwhelmingly directed me to vote AGAINST this resolution, which, if it passes, may well go down as one of the most worthless in history.

I think, this highlights how many loopholes and corruption the WA (as a whole) has. It has no convention on refugees and no action to tackle climate change, and I think the paranoia that is happening here has wrecked the harmony of the debate.

If our honoured delegate Charlotte Ryberg is forced to repeal the current revision then this is because of paranoia, yet resolution #46 makes absolutely no reference to the CoCR and its completely standalone. It can survive without the CoCR but yes, it was just two words from being perfect.

The player to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg may has Asperger's, as she stated, but you can't tick her off for difficulty in social interaction and restricted empathy, because of Autism.

The player to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg may has Asperger's, as she stated, but you can't tick her off for difficulty in social interaction and restricted empathy, because of Autism.

O.O.C. No one actually has, and I certainly only have sympathy for Charlotte Ryberg. It's not Charlotte Rybergs social skills which are at fault, it's this resolution which is.

This is acceptable to us.

The Democratic Nation of Batterson adamantly opposes this resolution. There are several cases were the W.A. is trying to overstep it's boundaries, and this is one of those cases.

1. If this resolution is passed, people would flock to power house nations and would leave the industrializing nations behind. This would cause the smaller nations to sink.

2. If this resolution is passed, nations would be forced to follow more W.A. regulations. I can't run a nation when it's basically ran by the W.A.! Let's keep loose restrictions on our nations. The decision should be left to us.

Some nations can handle large amounts of immigration and some can't. Some nations can handle large amounts of emigration and some can't. Again, reiterating what was written in section two, let's keep this type of legislation up to the individual nation. Every nation has different policies and this is a case were the W.A. should keep it's big nose out of.

2. If this resolution is passed, nations would be forced to follow more W.A. regulations. I can't run a nation when it's basically ran by the W.A.! Let's keep loose restrictions on our nations. The decision should be left to us.

Some nations can handle large amounts of immigration and some can't. Some nations can handle large amounts of emigration and some can't. Again, reiterating what was written in section two, let's keep this type of legislation up to the individual nation. Every nation has different policies and this is a case were the W.A. should keep it's big nose out of.

I remind the delegate from Batterson that WA nations are required to follow ALL W.A. Resolutions. The WA doesn't run your country it does however provide a guideline for you to run it with. If you disagree, the door is behind you. It does close fast... so be careful it doesn't hit you.

Whilst I am in favour of this as a basic right, I do feel there are valid reason not included in this resolution for preventing emigration. Namely those serving in the armed forces (though I suspect that, as they would be deserting, a case could be made this being in violation of 2a...tricky one) and those liable for national service

The great nation of Cworalia strongly agrees with the reasons mentioned by the democratic nation of Batterson.

There are so many reasons against these resolution... We think a repeal-vote will be needed if this resolution will be accepted.

I am doing that tonight, around 10pm

This resolution does not define "sexual offences." For this reason, Lapi has decided against its passing.

This is the official position of the international affairs office of Lapi.

Cworalia wants to thank the nation of Charlotte Ryberg for taking action against this resolution.

Our nation strongly supports any repeal actions against this resolution. We are glad to see that so many nations are thinking the same about this resolution as we do.

We suggest the representative from Cworalia should read the entire debate. You might find while we are voting the same as you, it is not for the same reason.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

The resolution Right of Emigration was passed 3,011 votes to 1,673 but don't panic, my repeal will be submitted once the confirmatory telegram is posted by the system, As soon as possible. It will be wise not to rush.

Does the following text look good?

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".

Good luck. This is going to be interesting.

Good luck. This is going to be interesting.

Never a dull moment on the WA floor.

Okay, it's ready for endorsement.

Yours,

The same link I suppose: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=emigration.

It seems unlike other resolution writers Ms. Sarah Harper has actually listened to the experienced writers than insisting that resolution #46 works. IMHO Ms. Harper should be focusing on the rights of refugees instead. That would be much better.

It seems unlike other resolution writers Ms. Sarah Harper has actually listened to the experienced writers than insisting that resolution #46 works.It's because she didn't listen that we're in this mess to begin with. The fact that she immediately submitted her repeal without submitting to a draft session first doesn't exactly inspire confidence, either.

I regret that as an ambassador have been acting quite awful for the last few days and I do apologise to the World Assembly for all the inconvenience. The repeal had to be rushed to end this chaos, hoping that the whole chaos would end soon.

GHR, anyone?

Yours,

See my region and myself voted Against your original proposal based on the fact that it really didnt do anything other than Urge and Encourage.

A peeps that I know of who voted for it, voted based on the aforementioned reason. I know the Harper delegation has the wherewithall to get a repeal done, but getting votes to stike out a law that does nothing will be a tall task.