[ROUGH DRAFT] Reduction of Statelessness

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it's not in violation of 57 GA § 1. Nothing in 57 GA § 1 prevents a person, who has entered and taken up residency illegally, from being expelled from a nation. Section one state that a nation can not force a "person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported against their will, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution, unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration or execution, torture, or other serious violations of their rights, whether by state or non-state entities."

Section 2 allows for a person to be expelled from a nation as long as said nation as long as said nation, "as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum"

As long as we send them to a nation or territory that accepts such individuals, we are not in violation of Refugee Protection Act.

[Zitrone]

Actually, it's not in violation of 57 GA § 1. Nothing in 57 GA § 1 prevents a person, who has entered and taken up residency illegally, from being expelled from a nation. Section one state that a nation can not force a "person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported against their will, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution, unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration or execution, torture, or other serious violations of their rights, whether by state or non-state entities."

Section 2 allows for a person to be expelled from a nation as long as said nation as long as said nation, "as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum"

As long as we send them to a nation or territory that accepts such individuals, we are not in violation of Refugee Protection Act.

Pretty sure that's still illegal, granted that refugees count as stateless individuals.
#57 states the following:

2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to or expelled a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

It would be discriminatory to deport someone from your nation solely based on the fact they lack citizenship, correct? The applicable definition to discrimination in this case is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." In this situation, you harbor prejudice against refugees, as otherwise being stateless alone wouldn't constitute deportation, and as refugees are stateless, the prejudice extends to them, which is illegal. You could, of course, deport most if not all stateless individuals to a receiving nation, if and only if they are deported for a seperate, internationally legal reason, and as such, the same laws you enact to deport stateless individuals must be applicable to those who do possess citizenship within your borders. If you wish not to follow that route, then you still cannot expel any stateless individual without at least a clause granting protection of refugees as established by #57. Furthermore, it also states that you cannot obstruct one's efforts to seek refuge in another nation. If sending them off with what they can carry is not enough for them to successfully seek a receiving nation, then that would technically be obstructing them, which is also established as illegal for refugees in Section 2.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually it's not illegal nor discriminatory. It has nothing to do with citizenship. It has to do with them entering our nation illegally. We treat all criminals the same. We depart anyone that has illegally entered and/or taken up residency illegally. If we allow refuges within our territory and let them take up residency, then they are their legally. There is no discrimination or prejudice against refugees. It's just as simple fact of has someone has entered a nation legally or not. And as section 6 of WA 57 states "With the exception of section 1, nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations in matters unrelated to refugee protection." It is our immigration policy to depart illegals with what they enter our nation with what they brought into our nation, then we are not in violation of WA 57.

Sending them off with what they can carry is enough for them to successfully seek a receiving nation. After all that's exactly what most refuges take with them. Now, we can deport them or execute them. We find it more humane to deport them.

[Zitrone]

Ah, forgive me. I was not aware on whether or not you accepted refugees as legal citizens, and I hastily assumed the latter. With that in mind, however, sending off refugees with as much as they can carry can not garuantee safe refuge in all cases, so you should attempt to make provisions ensuring that refugees can still leave safely in the event what they can carry with them is not enough to see them out of the country and into a receiving one.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ah, forgive me. I was not aware on whether or not you accepted refugees as legal citizens, and I hastily assumed the latter. With that in mind, however, sending off refugees with as much as they can carry can not garuantee safe refuge in all cases, so you should attempt to make provisions ensuring that refugees can still leave safely in the event what they can carry with them is not enough to see them out of the country and into a receiving one.

"Depends on the level of due diligence, for one. It also depends on whether or not those individuals manage to make it within the borders in the first place. The C.D.S.P. has a standing procedure to consider unauthorized entry into our water or airspace as a terroristic act, and to respond via Foreign Legion attack helicopter. Or destroyer escort, as the situation happens."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ah, forgive me. I was not aware on whether or not you accepted refugees as legal citizens, and I hastily assumed the latter. With that in mind, however, sending off refugees with as much as they can carry can not garuantee safe refuge in all cases, so you should attempt to make provisions ensuring that refugees can still leave safely in the event what they can carry with them is not enough to see them out of the country and into a receiving one.

"Depends on the level of due diligence, for one. It also depends on whether or not those individuals manage to make it within the borders in the first place. The C.D.S.P. has a standing procedure to consider unauthorized entry into our water or airspace as a terroristic act, and to respond via Foreign Legion attack helicopter. Or destroyer escort, as the situation happens."

'I must say that I am unclear on how these provisions interact with the definition of terrorism given in 25 GA', says Parsons.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Depends on the level of due diligence, for one. It also depends on whether or not those individuals manage to make it within the borders in the first place. The C.D.S.P. has a standing procedure to consider unauthorized entry into our water or airspace as a terroristic act, and to respond via Foreign Legion attack helicopter. Or destroyer escort, as the situation happens."

'I must say that I am unclear on how these provisions interact with the definition of terrorism given in 25 GA', says Parsons.

"Who said anything about the definition of terrorism as laid out by the General Assembly? Nations are able to have definitions more finely tuned."

[Kelssek]

In principle, this would be a worthy extension building on the Refugee Protection resolution which we are very proud of in this country. However we would note two crucial omissions which would be necessary for this to successfully attain its objectives.

Firstly, a clause is needed to prevent the stripping of nationality from people if it would render them stateless. Secondly, there should be provision specifically dealing with the case of foundlings; children whose parents are unknown. Adding a clause that such children should be considered to have been born in and nationals of the state in whose territory they are found would fix another important gap in this proposal.

Danica Crewell
Ambassador to the World Assembly

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Adding a clause that such children should be considered to have been born in and nationals of the state in whose territory they are found would fix another important gap in this proposal.

Yes, let's give parents a reason to abandon their children in our countries.

[Separatist Peoples]

Adding a clause that such children should be considered to have been born in and nationals of the state in whose territory they are found would fix another important gap in this proposal.

Yes, let's give parents a reason to abandon their children in our countries.

"That would certainly make our policy of chucking anchor babies out of our territory difficult."

[Wallenburg]

Yes, let's give parents a reason to abandon their children in our countries.

"That would certainly make our policy of chucking anchor babies out of our territory difficult."

Ogenbond shivers. "Interesting, Mr. Bell. I'll remember that. Anyway, I am currently reviewing this draft, and clause one still presents the problem that my predecessor has already referenced."

[Separatist Peoples]

"That would certainly make our policy of chucking anchor babies out of our territory difficult."

Ogenbond shivers. "Interesting, Mr. Bell. I'll remember that. Anyway, I am currently reviewing this draft, and clause one still presents the problem that my predecessor has already referenced."

"When you remember that, try not to forget that is a figurative chucking."

[Kelssek]

Yes, let's give parents a reason to abandon their children in our countries.

"That would certainly make our policy of chucking anchor babies out of our territory difficult."

I don't think you're understanding this point very well. Foundlings are children whose parents are unknown and cannot be determined. This obviates any "anchor babies" problem - which you might also eliminate through national-level citizenship legislation if that's something your country struggles with. And if parents are willing to abandon their children and cut off all ties because they think a (presumed) orphan in a foreign country has better life chances than the normal alternative, there's probably something much bigger going on.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think you're understanding this point very well. Foundlings are children whose parents are unknown and cannot be determined. This obviates any "anchor babies" problem - which you might also eliminate through national-level citizenship legislation if that's something your country struggles with. And if parents are willing to abandon their children and cut off all ties because they think a (presumed) orphan in a foreign country has better life chances than the normal alternative, there's probably something much bigger going on.

"Something much bigger and especially not our problem."

[Kelssek]

It really is not clear why you think this would be such a problem. If you can determine a child was abandoned by foreigners, you surely have evidence who the parents are, so they would not be a foundling. I would think most states already seek to prevent that as a routine matter of border control and/or law enforcement. The other scenario I might divine from this objection is that infants are walking -- crawling? -- into your country en masse which just seems kind of strange.

[Araraukar]

"That would certainly make our policy of chucking anchor babies out of our territory difficult."

OOC: Am I the only one who read this and had the mental image of using babies as anchors?

EDIT: Lol at Wallenburg's post below mine.

[Wallenburg]

"That would certainly make our policy of chucking anchor babies out of our territory difficult."

OOC: Am I the only one who read this and had the mental image of using babies as anchors?

OOC: https://elizabethnnewton.files.wordpres ... 496&crop=1