[Legality Challenge] International Immigration Standard

[Glen-Rhodes]

Regardless of one's personal views, it's simply not fair to potential authors to read a right of immigration into COCR.

Nobody's reading a right of immigration into CoCR. This is where the misunderstanding of what equal protection means comes into play! You <snip>'d my entire response about this, by the way. There doesn't have to be a universal right to immigration in order for a member state to be violating CoCR when it come to immigrants. If a member state is denying entry to all immigrants (whether they hold green cards or not) based on their religion, that's a violation of CoCR. Not because there's a universal right to immigration (there isn't), but because the determination for denying an immigrant is their religion. That is textbook discrimination. Muslim immigrants (for the sake of argument) aren't being treated the same as similarly situated people, aka other immigrants, and the reason for that is because those other immigrants aren't Muslim.

All of that makes this proposal illegal because the proposal is saying that member states can wholesale refuse entry to immigrants for any reason, and with impunity. CoCR says you can't discriminate based on religion, nationality, etc., but this proposal is saying you can, by virtue of the fact that it doesn't include any exceptions to its "without need to explain to the international community" (aka, "with impunity") clause. There's no requirement for member states to establish that they have a compelling practical purpose to deny entry to classes of immigrants, either. For the proposal to be legal, it would have to recognize that existing international law restricts the reasons why member states may deny entry to immigrants.

[Christian Democrats]

If a member state is denying entry to an immigrant because of their race, that's a clear violation of CoCR.

No, it's not. An individual who has not entered a nation is not protected against that nation under COCR.

If a member state is denying entry to all immigrants (whether they hold green cards or not) based on their religion, that's a violation of CoCR.

Same as above.

[Calladan]

If a member state is denying entry to an immigrant because of their race, that's a clear violation of CoCR.

No, it's not. An individual who has not entered a nation is not protected against that nation under COCR.

If a member state is denying entry to all immigrants (whether they hold green cards or not) based on their religion, that's a violation of CoCR.

Same as above.

Maybe I am missing something here, so perhaps if you could explain your comments in relation to these three situations....

(Please note - these are ALL hypothetical and I am not suggesting you would do ANY of this in real life, so to speak. I am just using them as examples, so please do not take offence or say "that would never happen" unless the actual physical circumstances are wrong!)

A : Mr Smith from Smithlandia flies in to an airport in your country. He deplanes, comes up to customs and immigration and at that point your immigration staff want to turn him away based on this new proposal because your Leader recently banned everyone from Smithlandia (because s/he hates Smithlandians).

At this point, Mr Smith is inside your country, so - from what I understand of CoCR, your nation has a duty to abide by that resolution and all the Clauses therein.

B : Mrs Minkle of Misthaven comes to your country by boat, and docks at Portdown Docks. She gets off the boat and comes up to custom and immigration, and which point your immigration staff want to turn her away because (under this new proposal) your Leader banned everyone from Misthaven because s/he hates Elves.

At this point, Mrs Minkle is inside your country. So - see "A".

C : Miss Googliebear of Monsterland drives up to a border-crossing point on the border you share with another country. Your leader has banned everyone from Monsterland because s/he hates people with seven eyes. Now - I am not certain is miss Googliebear would be inside your country or not, but given that the country you share a border with would probably not like YOUR government agents acting on THEIR side of the border, I suspect that she probably would be.

So again - see "A".

Given this, I would argue that any immigrant that comes to your country must logically BE In your country when they are turned away, which means your nation HAS to fulfil their rights under CoCR because of the "where they are currently present" part of the first clause.

(Note - I accept this does not apply to people from outside The WA, but that has always been the case and I have no issue with that).

[Calladan]

Sorry about the double post, but I have a question that I think is probably important, and I didn't want it to get mixed up with the debate about location and whether or not you are in a country or not in a country.

This is more of a general question about past/passed Resolutions :-

Are the Clauses of a resolution intrinsically linked, or should they be interpreted on their own merit, without reference to the other Clauses in that Resolution?

The reason I am asking :-

Clause 1a of CoCR relates to the location of a citizen (so that they are either protected by the nation they inhabit or the nation they are currently in), which is being seen as suggesting that Nation A may, in fact, not have a duty to follow CoCR for citizens that are not currently within their borders (as strange as that sounds) - Clause 1c makes NO mention of geographical location when requiring that ALL WA members not be discriminated against.

So - depending on the answer to my question, I would argue that my original point was valid :- a blanket ban on a nation is illegal under CoCR, whether or not the person is in your nation or not (because discrimination based on nationality definitely falls within the scope of 1c, since it is one of the items listed there), excepting for the compelling practical purpose clause (which the proposal and drafting thread doesn't seem to have any intention of honouring).

[Bears Armed]

In any case, the fact that existing legislation already allows member nations to turn people away if they don't have a valid visa -- which presumably they would be expected to obtain before reaching the nation's borders -- might also need to be taken into account...

[Sciongrad]

If a member state is denying entry to an immigrant because of their race, that's a clear violation of CoCR.

No, it's not. An individual who has not entered a nation is not protected against that nation under COCR.

Not true. CoCR states that "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..."

In my opinion, this does not read as a proscription against discrimination by a government against the inhabitants of its territory but rather precludes the possibility of a member nation discriminating against any inhabitant of a member nation. All inhabitants of member states means every single person that inhabits a WA member nation and therefore, CoCR protects against discrimination by a member nation against anyone in the WA. Discrimination in immigration against non-member state refugees is still permissible under GAR#35, but as it's currently written, this proposal violates the contradiction rule.

[Christian Democrats]

Again, I disagree.

Section 1(a): "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

• Nations owe equal protection to their own inhabitants and to foreign WA citizens present in their nations.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

Section 1(b): "All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

• A right to immigrate is not secured by international law, and it would not be secured by national law either.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

Section 1(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."

• As I said above, discrimination is treating similarly situated people unequally or arbitrarily.
• Inhabitants and foreigners are not similarly situated when it comes to residence.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

(EDIT: Moreover, the natural interpretation of this clause is protecting people against their own governments.)

If an individual enters a nation without a visa, that's a violation of the national law. Therefore, the national government may deport him, provided it follows the same procedures (i.e., due process) for deporting all individuals guilty of illegal entry.

[Calladan]

Again, I disagree.

Section 1(a): "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

• Nations owe equal protection to their own inhabitants and to foreign WA citizens present in their nations.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

Section 1(b): "All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

• A right to immigrate is not secured by international law, and it would not be secured by national law either.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

Section 1(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."

• As I said above, discrimination is treating similarly situated people unequally or arbitrarily.
• Inhabitants and foreigners are not similarly situated when it comes to residence.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

(EDIT: Moreover, the natural interpretation of this clause is protecting people against their own governments.)

If an individual enters a nation without a visa, that's a violation of the national law. Therefore, the national government may deport him, provided it follows the same procedures (i.e., due process) for deporting all individuals guilty of illegal entry.

So a reasonable interpretation of CoCR is that nations ARE allowed to discriminate on ANY grounds (race, sex, creed, colour - whatever pops into their heads no matter how arbitrary and reductive it might be) as long as they do it to citizens of The World Assembly who are situated outside of their borders?

To me that seems like an unlikely and somewhat strange reading of how CoCR should be viewed.

[Christian Democrats]

Again, I disagree.

Section 1(a): "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

• Nations owe equal protection to their own inhabitants and to foreign WA citizens present in their nations.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

Section 1(b): "All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

• A right to immigrate is not secured by international law, and it would not be secured by national law either.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

Section 1(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."

• As I said above, discrimination is treating similarly situated people unequally or arbitrarily.
• Inhabitants and foreigners are not similarly situated when it comes to residence.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

(EDIT: Moreover, the natural interpretation of this clause is protecting people against their own governments.)

If an individual enters a nation without a visa, that's a violation of the national law. Therefore, the national government may deport him, provided it follows the same procedures (i.e., due process) for deporting all individuals guilty of illegal entry.

So a reasonable interpretation of CoCR is that nations ARE allowed to discriminate on ANY grounds (race, sex, creed, colour - whatever pops into their heads no matter how arbitrary and reductive it might be) as long as they do it to citizens of The World Assembly who are situated outside of their borders?

To me that seems like an unlikely and somewhat strange reading of how CoCR should be viewed.

I don't believe so. It's the most natural interpretation of the resolution based on its words. I might be inclined to agree with you if COCR said "people" or "individuals," but it says "inhabitants."

[Bananaistan]

"All inhabitants of member states". It seems to me that this means anybody anywhere in the WA cannot be discriminated against under the grounds listed in clause 1(c) by anyone else anywhere in the WA. It doesn't mention anything about only applying to their own national government nor is it qualified as only applying to their own nation or the nation they inhabit.

I'm inclined to agree with Sciongrad. Once a person is an inhabitant of any WA member state, no WA member state can deny them a VISA based solely on their nationality regardless of whether they are at that member state's borders or still at home, unless there is some compelling practical purpose. Therefore, the proposal is illegal for contradiction as it establishes a fully unqualified right of member states to deny entry to anyone based on their nationality without any need for there to be compelling practical purposes.

[Sciongrad]

Section 1(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."

• As I said above, discrimination is treating similarly situated people unequally or arbitrarily.
• Inhabitants and foreigners are not similarly situated when it comes to residence.
• Therefore, denying visas to foreign WA citizens not present is not illegal under this provision.

(EDIT: Moreover, the natural interpretation of this clause is protecting people against their own governments.)

If an individual enters a nation without a visa, that's a violation of the national law. Therefore, the national government may deport him, provided it follows the same procedures (i.e., due process) for deporting all individuals guilty of illegal entry.

Section 1a and 1b are not relevant to the question here. In fact, it is exactly because section 1c, unlike sections 1a and 1b, fails to specify that the discrimination cannot be from the government of the nation in which the inhabitants are currently present that we know it is conferring a general right on the inhabitants of all member nations to be free from discrimination.

Your argument, then, relies on the idea that different groups can be treated differently under the law. This is only possible where compelling, practical purposes necessitate it. Let's assume that immigrants and refugees qualify and can receive special, legally sanctioned differential treatment. The treatment must be uniform and still can't violate any of the enumerated forms of discrimination. For example, if you argue that CoCR permits discrimination against immigrants, that is a stretch, but it certainly cannot be argued that CoCR permits discrimination against only black immigrants, which the resolution in question clearly contemplates. So even if one were to accept that CoCR permits treating immigrants unfairly, which clause 1c quite clearly, in my opinion, precludes, the differential treatment of different classes of immigrants permitted by the proposal in question still contradicts CoCR.

This is pretty open and shut, in my opinion.

[Christian Democrats]

"All inhabitants of member states". It seems to me that this means anybody anywhere in the WA cannot be discriminated against under the grounds listed in clause 1(c) by anyone else anywhere in the WA.

Clearly, that's not the meaning. Otherwise, Section 2(a) would be superfluous.

Section 1a and 1b are not relevant to the question here. In fact, it is exactly because section 1c, unlike sections 1a and 1b, fails to specify that the discrimination cannot be from the government of the nation in which the inhabitants are currently present that we know it is conferring a general right on the inhabitants of all member nations to be free from discrimination.

Because Section 1(c) fails to specify, we have to impose the most reasonable construction on it. Sections 1(b) and 1(c) are apparently supposed to be read together. Section 1(b) says that "inhabitants of member states" are entitled to have their international legal rights respected in two places: in the nation that they inhabit and in the nation in which they are present. Section 1(c) creates a new international legal right: a right against discrimination. Where is this new right required to be respected? According to Section 1(b), the right against discrimination is supposed to be respected in nations inhabited or in nations where WA citizens are present.

When a visa is denied, the person for whom it is denied is not inhabiting or present in the nation denying his request.

This is pretty open and shut, in my opinion.

Except it's not.

[Sciongrad]

Because Section 1(c) fails to specify, we have to impose the most reasonable construction on it. Sections 1(b) and 1(c) are apparently supposed to be read together. Section 1(b) says that "inhabitants of member states" are entitled to have their international legal rights respected in two places: in the nation that they inhabit and in the nation in which they are present. Section 1(c) creates a new international legal right: a right against discrimination. Where is this new right required to be respected? According to Section 1(b), the right against discrimination is supposed to be respected in nations inhabited or in nations where WA citizens are present.

Again, that section 1b specifically states that inhabitants of member nations are entitled to international legal rights in the nation in which they reside makes the fact that 1c doesn't significant. 1b is totally irrelevant, except that we can glean some meaning from it through the fact that it makes an explicit qualification that 1c doesn't. 1c simply states that the inhabitants of member nations shall not be discriminated against. 1b has no bearing on this. The clause prohibits member nations from discriminating against any inhabitant of any member nation, regardless of their location.

Except it's not.

Well, it doesn't matter much. A majority has been reached.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

My only proper experiences of land border crossing are from the Finland/Russia border, and there is a fairly wide "border zone" (don't make me look up the exact width, but several hundred metres I'd guess from memory), which has checkpoints at both ends. You need to pass both to enter the other country. If you pass Finland's side but for some reason are not allowed entry to Russia (or vice versa), you never leave the border zone at Russia's end and thus have not officially entered the nation.

The area after check-in at international airports is also considered "not officially this country", so probably count as border zone of sorts. I know that when I traveled to the USA via Zürich, I didn't officially enter Switzerland, despite spending a couple of hours at the airport, because I never left the international side of it. I would imagine docks have the same thing (though my only experience of that is the Finland-Sweden ferries, and you don't even need a passport to do that if you're a citizen of one of the two countries - identity is checked when you get the tickets - so usually I just walk through).

So much as I loathe the idea, CoCR probably wouldn't count, as the individual has not officially entered the nation's borders, despite being geographically in it.

[Sciongrad]

So much as I loathe the idea, CoCR probably wouldn't count, as the individual has not officially entered the nation's borders, despite being geographically in it.

That doesn't matter. CoCR section 1c doesn't require an individual to be in the territory of a nation to be free from discrimination.

[Christian Democrats]

I'll just repost what I posted in private:

Really? Are you guys incapable of reading syllogisms?

• Section 1(b): All international legal rights are rights protected in nations where persons inhabit or are present.
• Section 1(c): The right against discrimination is an international legal right.
• Therefore, the right against discrimination is a right protected in nations where persons inhabit or are present.

In other words:

• All A are B.
• C is an A.
• Therefore, C is a B.

[Sciongrad]

I'll just repost what I posted in private:

Really? Are you guys incapable of reading syllogisms?

• Section 1(b): All international legal rights are rights protected in nations where persons inhabit or are present.
• Section 1(c): The right against discrimination is an international legal right.
• Therefore, the right against discrimination is a right protected in nations where persons inhabit or are present.

In other words:

• All A are B.
• C is an A.
• Therefore, C is a B.

Section 1b doesn't do what you seem to think it does. Are you saying that because section 1b guarantees legal rights to the inhabitants of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present, no resolution, including CoCR, can require member nations to respect the legal rights of individuals in other member nations? Because that's an absurd and unnatural reading of the clause.

EDIT: Sections 1b and 1c make two totally different claims. You're trying to use a qualification in 1b to qualify 1c, which doesn't make any sense.

[Christian Democrats]

I'll just repost what I posted in private:

Section 1b doesn't do what you seem to think it does. Are you saying that because section 1b guarantees legal rights to the inhabitants of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present, no resolution, including CoCR, can require member nations to respect the legal rights of individuals in other member nations?

No resolution could contradict Section 1(b). A resolution that extends a right to non-inhabitants would not be a contradiction. A resolution that denies a right to certain inhabitants (e.g., illegal immigrants) would be a contradiction.

[Sciongrad]

Section 1b doesn't do what you seem to think it does. Are you saying that because section 1b guarantees legal rights to the inhabitants of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present, no resolution, including CoCR, can require member nations to respect the legal rights of individuals in other member nations?

No resolution could contradict Section 1(b). A resolution that extends a right to non-inhabitants would not be a contradiction. A resolution that denies a right to certain inhabitants (e.g., illegal immigrants) would be a contradiction.

This doesn't matter, because, as I said above, the qualification in 1b does not apply to 1c. They're entirely different claims. Guaranteeing legal protection to the individuals that are presently in a certain nation doesn't preclude another clause from granting a very specific freedom from discrimination to all inhabitants in member nations from any government.

[Christian Democrats]

No resolution could contradict Section 1(b). A resolution that extends a right to non-inhabitants would not be a contradiction. A resolution that denies a right to certain inhabitants (e.g., illegal immigrants) would be a contradiction.

This doesn't matter, because, as I said above, the qualification in 1b does not apply to 1c. They're entirely different claims. Guaranteeing legal protection to the individuals that are presently in a certain nation doesn't preclude another clause from granting a very specific freedom from discrimination to all inhabitants in member nations from any government.

Honestly, you don't think two sections in the same article should be read together? Second, is the right against discrimination established by COCR an international legal right? If so, what does Section 1(b) say about international legal rights? Third, why does COCR say "inhabitant" and not something else (such as "person" or "individual") if it was supposed to apply to non-inhabitants?

[Sciongrad]

This doesn't matter, because, as I said above, the qualification in 1b does not apply to 1c. They're entirely different claims. Guaranteeing legal protection to the individuals that are presently in a certain nation doesn't preclude another clause from granting a very specific freedom from discrimination to all inhabitants in member nations from any government.

Honestly, you don't think two sections in the same article should be read together? Second, is the right against discrimination established by COCR an international legal right? If so, what does Section 1(b) say about international legal rights? Third, why does COCR say "inhabitant" and not something else (such as "person" or "individual") if it was supposed to apply to non-inhabitants?

No, I don't, because they're unrelated! Like I said, the fact that 1b limits its protection to individuals present in a nation makes the fact that 1c doesn't even more significant, not the other way around.

Section 1b says that international legal rights of those currently present in a member nation must be protected, not that member nations must only protect the international legal rights of those currently present.

Additionally, I've never argued that CoCR applies to anything more than inhabitants, but I have argued that it applies to the inhabitants of all member nations - that is, anyone in any member nation is protected against discrimination by another member nations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If a member state is denying entry to an immigrant because of their race, that's a clear violation of CoCR.

No, it's not. An individual who has not entered a nation is not protected against that nation under COCR.

So, what, nations are throwing people out of planes? Downing their boats in international waters? How is somebody in an airport or at a dock not "currently present" in the nation?

[Sciongrad]

No, it's not. An individual who has not entered a nation is not protected against that nation under COCR.

So, what, nations are throwing people out of planes? Downing their boats in international waters? How is somebody in an airport or at a dock not "currently present" in the nation?

But even then, that doesn't matter because 1c clearly doesn't require the individual in question to be in a member nation's territory to be free from discrimination by it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So, what, nations are throwing people out of planes? Downing their boats in international waters? How is somebody in an airport or at a dock not "currently present" in the nation?

But even then, that doesn't matter because 1c clearly doesn't require the individual in question to be in a member nation's territory to be free from discrimination by it.

Yeah, that's also true!

[Christian Democrats]

No, I don't, because they're unrelated!

The fact that they're labeled (b) and (c) within the same article clearly shows that they are related.

Like I said, the fact that 1b limits its protection to individuals present in a nation makes the fact that 1c doesn't even more significant, not the other way around.

Section 1(b) talks about international rights and their application (general). Section 1(c) establishes one such right (particular).

Additionally, I've never argued that CoCR applies to anything more than inhabitants, but I have argued that it applies to the inhabitants of all member nations - that is, anyone in any member nation is protected against discrimination by another member nations.

That doesn't make any sense; it ignores the meaning of the word "inhabitant." If the real-world United States had a law that said:

All inhabitants of the states have a right to vote in elections.

Would you say that inhabitants of New York have a right to vote in elections in New Jersey?

"Well, they're inhabitants of some state!" (Facepalm.)