DRAFT: A Convention on Emigration

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Okay, honoured ambassadors, I have thought about this for nearly a month and in fact Ms. Sarah Harper has a simpler suggestion for your consideration. It goes like this:

1c. A person that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may: emigrate together with their parents/guardians or; emigrate alone if the intention is to reunite with their parents, or with one of their parents.

Your overall effort has been most excellent, Most Hon. Delegate. Still, I fear about rights of orphans not to be endangered amid civil war. I must recall this was one of the clauses in the Repeal.

Yours truly,

The child custody complications have been slowing the progress of this redraft, honoured ambassador, and I am sorry I forgot that, so let's revise it to:

MANDATES that a person that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) is entitled to:
• Emigrate together with their parents/guardians;
• Emigrate alone, if the intention is to reunite with their parents, or with one of their parents;
• Emigrate alone, if the person has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

[Sionis Prioratus]

MANDATES that a person that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) is entitled to:
• Emigrate together with their parents/guardians;
• Emigrate alone, if the intention is to reunite with their parents, or with one of their parents;
• Emigrate alone, if the person has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

Very good, but the orphaned condition should be highlighted, so as not to be interpreted as bestowing a right on every children to flee the country, by the mere assertion they are dissatisfied with their living parent(s).

Yours,

[Gobbannium]

MANDATES that a person that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) is entitled to:
• Emigrate together with their parents/guardians;
• Emigrate alone, if the intention is to reunite with their parents, or with one of their parents;
• Emigrate alone, if the person has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

Very good, but the orphaned condition should be highlighted, so as not to be interpreted as bestowing a right on every children to flee the country, by the mere assertion they are dissatisfied with their living parent(s).

And again we must observe that the right to emigrate with a single parent or guardian who has legal custody of the child has been lost. Again. How many times do we have to say this, Ms Harper?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Very good, but the orphaned condition should be highlighted, so as not to be interpreted as bestowing a right on every children to flee the country, by the mere assertion they are dissatisfied with their living parent(s).

Got that.

And again we must observe that the right to emigrate with a single parent or guardian who has legal custody of the child has been lost. Again. How many times do we have to say this, Ms Harper?

Okay, okay. To save some character space and losing temper, let's replace parents with parent(s), for example, so it can be interpreted as either parent in singularity or parents in plurality. That's probably covered the single parent issue.

MANDATES that a person that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) is entitled to:
• Emigrate together with person(s) above the age of majority, who has legal custody of the said person;
• Emigrate alone, if the intention is to reunite with their natural parent(s);
• Emigrate alone, if the said person is orphaned, and has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

[Gobbannium]

And again we must observe that the right to emigrate with a single parent or guardian who has legal custody of the child has been lost. Again. How many times do we have to say this, Ms Harper?

Okay, okay. To save some character space and losing temper, let's replace parents with parent(s), for example, so it can be interpreted as either parent in singularity or parents in plurality. That's probably covered the single parent issue.

No. It. Has. Not.

All you having succeeded in doing is overriding national custody laws. Again.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

And again we must observe that the right to emigrate with a single parent or guardian who has legal custody of the child has been lost. Again. How many times do we have to say this, Ms Harper?

Okay, okay. To save some character space and losing temper, let's replace parents with parent(s), for example, so it can be interpreted as either parent in singularity or parents in plurality. That's probably covered the single parent issue.

No. It. Has. Not.

All you having succeeded in doing is overriding national custody laws. Again.

Honoured ambassador, the concern about leaving children to emigrate on their own unless they were orphaned is that they would put themselves at risk of going missing, but I have taken the liberty of clarifying that they must emigrate with a person that has legal custody over them.

[Gobbannium]

And again we must observe that the right to emigrate with a single parent or guardian who has legal custody of the child has been lost. Again. How many times do we have to say this, Ms Harper?

Okay, okay. To save some character space and losing temper, let's replace parents with parent(s), for example, so it can be interpreted as either parent in singularity or parents in plurality. That's probably covered the single parent issue.

No. It. Has. Not.

All you having succeeded in doing is overriding national custody laws. Again.

Honoured ambassador, the concern about leaving children to emigrate on their own unless they were orphaned is that they would put themselves at risk of going missing, but I have taken the liberty of clarifying that they must emigrate with a person that has legal custody over them.

We admit defeat.

We would like it to be known that we will no longer waste the time of this august body by pointing out the flaws in legislation proposed by the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, since it is quite clear that doing so is entirely ineffective. Our opposition to any such proposals, on the grounds that while well-intentioned they are none-the-less a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys, should be taken as read.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honestly, all WA proposals affect sovereignty in some way, allowing optionality is illegal. After all, this is a basic law on Emigration.

Latest revision for that bit:

1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) is entitled to:
• Emigrate together with an emigrant(s) that is above the age of majority, and has legal custody of the said person;
• Emigrate alone, if the intention is to reunite with their natural parent(s), or;
• Emigrate alone, if the said person is orphaned, and has the aspiration and determination to do so in another country;

For replacing 2a:

2a. The original member state in which the emigrant left must inform the emigrant's new member state of residence of its criminal history.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Most Hon. Delegate, I suggest Your Honor ignore the so-called advice of the Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum once he seems hell-bent on being no more than a nuisance (Oh, the surprise, the surprise!)

Oyez, oyez. I suggest the "Emigrate together" clause be eliminated and the issue be left to national/international Parental Kidnapping laws; Child Protection Act comes to mind:

3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.

a) WA member states are urged to set up a system in which the public is notified of a kidnapped child

b) WA member states are urged to work together if a suspect and child are believed to have left the nation of the child’s residence

Your Honor cannot be held responsible if international law in force is deficient due to lack of detail; but as long as this is on the books, I hold the opinion any mention of Emigration of children not orphaned is illegal on Amendment and/or Duplication grounds.

May I suggest this wording:

1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) is entitled to emigrate alone, if:
• The intention is to reunite with their natural parents, should they be located outside the country, or;
• Said person is orphaned, and has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

EDIT: "The intention is to reunite with their natural parents, should they be located outside the country" is an illegal Duplication all the same, given the quoted tenets of "Child Protection Act".

[Sionis Prioratus]

We would like it to be known that we will no longer waste the time of this august body by pointing out the flaws in legislation proposed by the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, since it is quite clear that doing so is entirely ineffective. Our opposition to any such proposals, on the grounds that while well-intentioned they are none-the-less a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys, should be taken as read.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Most Hon. Delegate, I suggest Your Honor ignore the so-called advice of the Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum once he seems hell-bent on being no more than a nuisance (Oh, the surprise, the surprise!)

Oyez, oyez. I suggest the "Emigrate together" clause be eliminated and the issue be left to national/international Parental Kidnapping laws; Child Protection Act comes to mind:

3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.

a) WA member states are urged to set up a system in which the public is notified of a kidnapped child

b) WA member states are urged to work together if a suspect and child are believed to have left the nation of the child’s residence

Your Honor cannot be held responsible if international law in force is deficient due to lack of detail; but as long as this is on the books, I hold the opinion any mention of Emigration of children not orphaned is illegal on Amendment and/or Duplication grounds.

May I suggest this wording:

1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) is entitled to emigrate alone, if:
• The intention is to reunite with their natural parents, should they be located outside the country, or;
• Said person is orphaned, and has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

EDIT: "The intention is to reunite with their natural parents, should they be located outside the country" is an illegal Duplication all the same, given the quoted tenets of "Child Protection Act".

Got it, honoured ambassador Sa Majesté Impériale le Roi Adrian de Saint-Clair:

1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate alone if orphaned, and has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

[Tjennewell]

1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate alone if orphaned, and has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

You consider a child or youth able to make an educated decision regarding the emigration from their homeland? Do you realize what a can of worms you are opening with this if said underage, orphaned civilian is being influenced by a third party, maybe some visitors from abroad that try to either persuade, bribe or even threaten him or her to do so in order to immigrate to a specific country?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate alone if orphaned, and has the aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

You consider a child or youth able to make an educated decision regarding the emigration from their homeland? Do you realize what a can of worms you are opening with this if said underage, orphaned civilian is being influenced by a third party, maybe some visitors from abroad that try to either persuade, bribe or even threaten him or her to do so in order to immigrate to a specific country?

Good point and I will take this into account. I must advise that it is however important to avoid duplicating child protection laws. However, I recognise there will be children that are not mentally sound and therefore revise to:

1a. A mentally capable civilian of a member state above the age of majority has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief).

1b. A mentally capable civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence), and is orphaned, may emigrate if the said person has a genuine aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;

1c. A civilian that is mentally incapable of making such a decision or is dependent on a carer has the right to emigrate when accompanied by a mentally sound partner that is eligible to emigrate.

Yours etc,

[Glen-Rhodes]

1c. A civilian that is mentally incapable of making such a decision or is dependent on a carer has the right to emigrate when accompanied by a mentally sound partner that is eligible to emigrate.

I'm concerned that this provision will have unintended effects, especially regarding the mentally handicapped; also there is a general inconsistency.

First, if a civilian is mentally incapable of making emigration decisions, then it seems odd that they still must come to these decisions themselves. The provision includes no language that allows legal caregivers or guardians to make emigration decisions for them. For example, if a parent wishes to take their mentally handicapped child, of legal age, with them to another country, I am not confident that this resolution would allow the parent to make that decision.

But in that same vein, there's the possibility of a legal caregiver or guardian 'kidnapping' the person. In such a case, I'm assuming the judicial rulings clause would provide protection against this scenario. On a side note, I'm pleased that you have retained the judicial rulings clause.

In regards to copyediting, you might want to read through the resolution, taking note that "who" is used with people and "that" is used with things. ("A civilian that is mentally incapable" should be "A civilian who is mentally incapable".)

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Dr. Castro,

The copy editing will follow shortly as well as addressing 1c:

I have been focusing on section 1c of this resolution as far as mental capability is concerned. There should be a consideration for allowing parents of handicapped children to emigrate with them, as well as respecting the concern of kidnapping, which appears to be covered under additional provisions of the judiciary clause but it may conflict with Child Protection laws. Also, it may be considered that a person who is mentally sound and dependent on a carer has been covered by section 1a also. Therefore, I may consider the following:

1c. A legal guardian of a mentally incapable civilian may make a decision to emigrate on behalf of the said person. A mentally incapable civilian should be accompanied by a legal guardian.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Around two days ago, the Ambassador from Justorica submitted a proposal to the General Assembly titled Right of Emigration, which is nothing but a carbon err.. a digital copy; at least that preserves fidelity! Anyway, the Ambassador from Justorica submitted the said proposal which is a copy of Ms. Harper's resolution of the same name, which was later repealed. Does she know?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Around two days ago, the Ambassador from Justorica submitted a proposal to the General Assembly titled Right of Emigration, which is nothing but a carbon err.. a digital copy; at least that preserves fidelity! Anyway, the Ambassador from Justorica submitted the said proposal which is a copy of Ms. Harper's resolution of the same name, which was later repealed. Does she know?

OOC: I am in touch with the moderators.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I have done some further rewording to section 1c to try and make it clearer:

c) Member states must allow legal parent/guardian(s) of a mentally incapable civilian to make such a decision on their behalf. For reasons of safety and well-being, a mentally incapable civilian who is emigrating must be accompanied by parent/guardian(s).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

As a result of the passing of "Habeas Corpus", a major revamp of the draft has now been made, sans the timing: "a person undergoing civil or criminal legal proceedings" may also imply a person that has been arrested and released on bail although if you wish, suggest an improvement to the latter. A category change may also be envisaged. Currently, the draft now looks like this:

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

SEEKING to promote the right of emigration for such reasons;

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
• Emigration: an act of leaving one country in order to settle in another;

The World Assembly therefore,

1. MANDATES the following, unless any of the situations in Sections 2 and 3 are true:
a) A civilian of a member state who is above the age of majority, and is mentally sound, has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief).
b) A mentally capable civilian who is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence), and is orphaned, may emigrate if the said person has a genuine aspiration and determination to pursue a better life in another country;
c) Member states must allow legal parent/guardian(s) of a mentally incapable civilian to make such a decision on their behalf. For reasons of safety and well-being, a mentally incapable civilian who is emigrating must be accompanied by parent/guardian(s);

2. ALLOWS for member states to waive Section 1, if any of the following situations are true:
a) The person is under penal servitude, undergoing civil or criminal legal proceedings;
b) To prevent the spread of radiation/contagious diseases or to contain an ongoing disease epidemic/pandemic;

3. PROVIDES for member states to waive Section 1, as a result of a legitimate judicial ruling, that is delivered in good faith compliance with the clauses and intents of this resolution;

4. URGES the member state in which the emigrant left, upon successful emigration, to inform the new country of residence of its criminal history, if that emigrant has any.

5. URGES member states to enact appropriate legislation to prevent citizens from becoming stateless.

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