Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Observing that there is a provision to allow for emigration restriction in the case of criminal sentences, but also seeing that such a provision does not create a restriction for civil liabilities, and therefore concerned that the right of emigration could be used to evade court-mandated civil liabilities, such as child support,
I really feel this is a bit of a stretch and dependent on how your legal system operates to suggest that the only recourse to deal with court mandated child support is the restriction of emigration is almost farcical to be frank. Do all nations operation on the principal that if you're paying child support you're never entitled to emigrate?
Concerned that this right, in a world of extremely quick travel, could also be used to evade court summons and thereby deprive governments of much-needed evidence to substantiate criminal prosecutions,
There's a number of things inherently wrong with this argument, specifically;
In any country with a modern legal system a summons would only ever be issued when a prosecution believes there is sufficient evidence to charge a person(s) with an offence, to issue a summons before having enough evidence to substantiate criminal proceedings is tantamount to a miscarriage of justice and if your prosecution operates on that method of prosecutorial conduct it's a wonder you need prisons at all.
Furthermore extremely quick travel is an odd point to pick up on, would you suggest this wouldn't be an issue then if travel was exceptionally slow?
Noting that because the resolution prevents emigration restrictions in times of war, mass emigration is likely, which would lead to labour shortages for war industries and stop the production of materiel needed for the defence of the nation,
I would think the preservation of life would have significantly more merit than labour shortages.
Further noting that the resolution states that 'no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation', which, when combined with the existence of outbound border controls, requires nations to either choose to disband such outbound controls (and therefore be unable to measure population outflows) or be burdened with the massive costs of issuing passports to all citizens,
This resolution affects emigration, not immigration, no country is under onus to accept persons.
If I'm entirely honest the feel I get from reading your draft is you felt that you were on to an easy win here, further evidenced by the fact it has been ten days since the proposal first appeared and went to vote. I don't think you either well thought out your arguments or gave your target resolution enough merit to think this was anything other than a handy authorship and as a result the votes currently speak for itself.
It's a pity. I thought you were at a better calibre than this.
