[Defeated] Emigration and Statelessness

[Charlotte Ryberg]

the mind of charlotte ryberg wa delegation
antjepolis • charleroi

World Assembly Proposal: Emigration and Statelessness (i.e emigration as in leaving the country, not general migration)

In light of the fact that the make-up of ambassadors has changed dramatically, the honoured ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg feels that it is now appropriate the time to revisit the topic of emigration and has deeply attempted to have this draft proposed and now aims to have it passed as soon as possible, where the quality of the said draft is acceptable and therefore, seeking the assistance of our fellow ambassadors to make this draft a viable proposal with little opposition as possible, enough to convince the honoured ambassador to Alsted to vote for in an instant.

Now with the proposal at vote (having waited nearly a month for the backlog of other proposals to be dealt with), here are the FAQs to common questions and concerns:

Q&As

What is the difference between Emigration and Immigration?
Emigration and Immigration are both forms of migration but this resolution concerns emigration (people moving to settle in another country). When a person moves out of a country, it becomes a emigrant, having emigrated. When a person moves into a country, it becomes a immigrant, having immigrated. Either way, or even if I move within the same country, I have migrated, and I become a migrant.

So if I migrated from the Nation A to Nation B, I will have emigrated from Nation A to become an immigrant in Nation B.

What is the difference between Emigration and Travel?
Emigration is when a person permanently leaves one country, while travel is a general expression for going from one place to another for, say, tourism or moving house.

My nation has a strict immigration policy. Will it affect us?
No: you're perhaps confusing emigration with immigration (where the "em" is the out and the "im" is the in (See first question)). Nothing in this resolution affects national policies on immigration or acquirement of citizenship, only the loss of citizenship if it is going to render one person stateless (still making it okay to allow member state to not recognise dual nationality since loss of nationality conditions apply in the event that doing so would render one stateless).

In section 6, why member states need to keep deportees when no other state is willing to take them in?
In most cases a state (whether it's a member or not) will take in a deportee, but simply putting them on a raft and drifting them off to sea is in fact cruel and inhumane. This resolution stops such ridiculous practice.

Emigration and Statelessness

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

Description:The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that people may emigrate from state to state for many reasons such as: the pursuit of ambition or opportunity; or escape or refuge from war, persecution or injustice;

CONCERNED that a person may become stateless for many reasons such as: emigrating from a member state; or having nationality of a nation that ceased to exist without a successor state;

SEEKING to promote the right of emigration and the reduction of statelessness;

Therefore,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution: “Emigration” as an act of leaving a nation to settle in another; “Nationality” as the status of a person belonging to a particular state, where such status grants the automatic right of return to that state, that state's jurisdiction over that purpose and, upon attaining citizenship, grants the person political rights of that state; “Statelessness” as having no nationality of any existing state; and “renunciation of nationality” as where a person wishes to cease being a national of a nation;

1. MANDATES the following, unless any of the situations in Sections 2 and 3 are true:
a) Everyone who is able to make decisions shall have the right to emigrate from their current nation of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief).
b) Member states must allow the legal parent/guardian(s) of a person unable to make decisions to make such a decision on their behalf and such person should be accompanied by their legal parent/guardian(s) for their safety and well-being;

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

3. FURTHER PROVIDES for member states to waive Section 1 as a result of a legitimate judicial ruling that is delivered in good faith compliance with clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution;

4. REQUIRES the member state in which the emigrant left to inform the new nation of residence, upon successful emigration, of its criminal history, if the said emigrant has any;

5. MANDATES that member states’ policies regarding the renunciation of nationality must be conditional on a person’s acquisition or possession of another nationality;

6. PROHIBITS member states from depriving a civilian of their nationality, so as to render them stateless, for any reason other than: Acquirement of nationality or citizenship by misrepresentation or fraud; or treason against that member state– unless no other state is willing to take them in;

7. CALLS FOR treaties regarding the transfer of territory (between member states or to a successor member state) to include provisions to prevent statelessness, with respect given to the purpose of this resolution.

8. EMPHASIZES that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect member states’ policies on immigration, nor the acquirement of nationality/citizenship, nor internationally established rights pertaining travel.

---

Yours sincerely,

Ms. Sarah Harper
Delegate to the WA
For the Seigneur of Minoa and the Chief Governor of Charlotte Island in the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg.

[Alsted]

TUSA would support this as-written.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Thanks honoured ambassador from Alsted.

Slight revision to section 1c for punctuation and style:

Before:

1c) 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);

After:

1c) Member states must allow the legal parent/guardian(s) of a mentally incapable civilian to make such a decision on their behalf and a emigrating mentally incapable civilian must be accompanied by their legal parent/guardian(s) for their safety and well-being;

Following the revision, Microsoft Word appears to report no grammar and style issues.

We would greatly appreciate further assistance from our fellow ambassadors to the General Assembly who can offer suggestions for improvements.

[Poree]

Very interesting proposal.

As I read it, this would make a good law.

We support you in this effort.

[Xaquovaenova]

b) To prevent the spread of radiation/contagious diseases or to contain an ongoing disease epidemic/pandemic;

Unfortunately ambassador, this is illegal, and defined as discrimination by the CoCR...

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.

e ) The application of both emergency legal measures and Martial law during periods of national crisis must also respect the provisions of this resolution.

However, I fear that clause would have otherwise been used to circumvent the entire proposal. For example, a nation could ban members of the public from leaving their nation because they exhibited signs or had a past medical history of acute viral rhinopharyngitis -- thus helping to prevent the spread of a contagious disease -- and successfully refusing millions of people of their right to emigrate.

Then again, it is a RECOMMENDS clause, so you might be able to get away with it.

As you may or not know, the humble Xaquovǽnovai people are sentient rays of light, though a native of Xaquovǽnova, I stand before you with the aid of charms and magic to replace my actiniform with the flesh of a human being -- otherwise, I would suffer a short and quick death, being absorbed by the electrons in the non-reflective matter of this room. Thus, Xaquovǽnova has been constructed in a Mirrordom, a large sphere of charmed dielectric mirrors, which allows the Xaquovǽnovai people to live freely, forever, so long as the environment is perfectly reflective (allowing no light to be absorbed).

If one was to leave the mirrordom, without the protection of magic, they would cease-to-exist, nearly instantly.

Therefore, with your blessing, we, the Xaquovǽnovai people would like to exploit this language...

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, and the member state is confident that it is safe for them to do so;

.. to circumvent, nearly the entirely proposal, as this clause is true.. we would allow such a mentally capable, orphaned civilian below the age of majority to leave our world so long as it is safe for them to do so .. which under most circumstances would be never.

Yours,
Varoninatu the Enlightened,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Xaquovaenova
Earl of the Loleriel-Erasremat Mirrordom,

[Grays Harbor]

While we may agree in priniciple that the small handful of "stateless" people may be something to go "tsk,tsk" about, we do not really require the WA mandate what our immigration policies should be.

We cannot and will not support this as written in any form.

[Lowell Leber]

While we may agree in priniciple that the small handful of "stateless" people may be something to go "tsk,tsk" about, we do not really require the WA mandate what our immigration policies should be.

We cannot and will not support this as written in any form.

The Armed Republic of Lowell Leber wholeheartedly concurs with the esteemed delagate from Grays Harbor.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

While we may agree in priniciple that the small handful of "stateless" people may be something to go "tsk,tsk" about, we do not really require the WA mandate what our immigration policies should be.

We cannot and will not support this as written in any form.

Immigration is not to be confused with emigration, honoured ambassador:

1. Immigration is the coming of people into a country in order to live and work there.
2. Emigration is the leaving of people from a country to live and work elswhere.

However, I fear that clause would have otherwise been used to circumvent the entire proposal. For example, a nation could ban members of the public from leaving their nation because they exhibited signs or had a past medical history of acute viral rhinopharyngitis -- thus helping to prevent the spread of a contagious disease -- and successfully refusing millions of people of their right to emigrate.

Then again, it is a RECOMMENDS clause, so you might be able to get away with it.

As you may or not know, the humble Xaquovǽnovai people are sentient rays of light, though a native of Xaquovǽnova, I stand before you with the aid of charms and magic to replace my actiniform with the flesh of a human being -- otherwise, I would suffer a short and quick death, being absorbed by the electrons in the non-reflective matter of this room. Thus, Xaquovǽnova has been constructed in a Mirrordom, a large sphere of charmed dielectric mirrors, which allows the Xaquovǽnovai people to live freely, forever, so long as the environment is perfectly reflective (allowing no light to be absorbed).

The Epidemic Response Act was actually why the previous emigration resolution was repealed, instead of the CoCR. However, I see that clause two should be adjusted so such measures could be for as short as possible, but the issues with type of environment when leaving a nation may be beyond the reasonable nation theory.

As for the orphaned children clause, I was concerned about the fact that they may be vulnerable without state support but I think I might retract the state bit.

(click, click)

Now it is saying:

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;

Sorry for my paranoia earlier.

[Xaquovaenova]

The Epidemic Response Act was actually why the previous emigration resolution was repealed, instead of the CoCR. However, I see that clause two should be adjusted so such measures could be for as short as possible, but the issues with type of environment when leaving a nation may be beyond the reasonable nation theory.

As for the orphaned children clause, I was concerned about the fact that they may be vulnerable without state support but I think I might retract the state bit.

(click, click)

Now it is saying:

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;

Sorry for my paranoia earlier.

Varoninatu grabbed Ms.Harper, holding her off the ground, with the full weight of his armor suit negating none of his capacity to lift her angrily. He snarled (yet still with no emotional expression on his face)...

Okay, Ms. Harper.. you wanted the pleasantries thrown out the window, and you've got it, honey. Now, frankly, my dear, I don't give a dahm what you think is 'reasonable'... your bill as it now stands allows healthy, and otherwise happy and immortal people the chance to commit suicide -- you've even gone as far to risk the health of our children.. and even, gawd-dammit, the orphans. Do you realize what an opportunity like this will do to our nation's culture? And our fundamental belief systems ? ... It adds a mysterious black box to our civilization that we were otherwise very happy, living with out.

So please, consider the health and safety of the migratories.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Varoninatu grabbed Ms.Harper, holding her off the ground, with the full weight of his armor suit negating none of his capacity to lift her angrily. He snarled (yet still with no emotional expression on his face)...

Okay, Ms. Harper.. you wanted the pleasantries thrown out the window, and you've got it, honey. Now, frankly, my dear, I don't give a dahm what you think is 'reasonable'... your bill as it now stands allows healthy, and otherwise happy and immortal people the chance to commit suicide -- you've even gone as far to risk the health of our children.. and even, gawd-dammit, the orphans. Do you realize what an opportunity like this will do to our nation's culture? And our fundamental belief systems ? ... It adds a mysterious black box to our civilization that we were otherwise very happy, living with out.

So please, consider the health and safety of the migratories.

Err seriously, ambassadors have the right to work without fear of assault by others (points to notice which reads "World Assembly ambassadors and staff have a right to do their jobs without fear of assault."). Now, citizens themselves cannot be forced to live in a country that doesn't like them, and this draft aims to address this. If anyone is satisfied that they wish to leave the country to settle in another with hope of a better life, there should be no problem for that to happen. But, it has to be done safely because if we forced all member states to open their gates without control we'd be at risk of terror attacks, diseases, etc.

Yours etc,

[Xaquovaenova]

Varoninatu placed Ms. Harper back down to the floor, brushing her shoulders off with his plated glove.


My apologies -- I get carried away sometimes.

But nevertheless, I echo my previous statements, albeit statements said in a moment of pure rage, if we allow such a bill to pass.. our people can no longer be forcefully prevented from leaving our Mirrordom. They at this moment do not have this right, because it caused problems years ago. When they had the right to leave the mirrordom, under a legislation that had the same honorable intentions as this, the people of Mirrordom who questioned the existence of a non-reflective environment outside of the mirrordom, or questioned the absorbency of light, left.. and they left to evaporate near instantly outside of our mirrordom. Because of their lack of faith, they died.. surely that is a lesson for the wise.. but we were unable to recover any trace of them.. as they had been absorbed by electrons ... thus old believers started to question the reality of our mirrordom... they began to wonder if we were just fabricating their death, to keep the others under our control. We have no proof to say otherwise.

Thus, the right to emigrate is as dangerous to our civilization as disbelief itself.

Do you understand our predicament?

[East Klent]

We support your efforts and we'll vote for it in the WA.

[Grays Harbor]

While we may agree in priniciple that the small handful of "stateless" people may be something to go "tsk,tsk" about, we do not really require the WA mandate what our immigration policies should be.

We cannot and will not support this as written in any form.

Immigration is not to be confused with emigration, honoured ambassador:

1. Immigration is the coming of people into a country in order to live and work there.
2. Emigration is the leaving of people from a country to live and work elswhere.

Irregardless, we are against this, as we have always tended towards opposition to newly minted "rights".

[Sanctaria]

While acknowledging the purpose and spirit of the proposed resolution, Sanctaria cannot and will not support the esteemed Ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg. We are of the opinion that laws regarding immigration and emigration are best left to national level in order to comply with some national issues, for example culture or, in some instances, beliefs.

You have already been given an example from the Ambassador from Xaquovaenova and we do not feel the need to bore the other representitives with more examples. We are also, however, extremely concerned with Section 1 Article B. I find it strange how the nation of Charlotte Ryberg, famous for their ethics, would allow a minor, nay, a child leave the country with no restrictions what-so-ever other than them having to have an 'aspiration'.

Yours,

[Ingwil]

Irregardless, we are against this, as we have always tended towards opposition to newly minted "rights".

Might I suggest to the honoured delegate from Grays Harbor that the right to freedom of movement (to which I assume you refer by 'newly minted "rights"') are not being so much newly-minted as logically derived from those provisions of WA 6 and WA 34 which specifically allow for the legal rights to freedom of movement for specially-designated humanitarian, logistical and commercial transports (and all associated persons specifically enumerated therein) across state borders? In this case, I grant you that the end is somewhat different, but in this delegate's opinion the basic legal reasoning is the same, and it might be worth considering that we may derive a right to freedom of movement for private citizens from extant international protections.

Yours,

[Grays Harbor]

Suggest what you will, we still oppose this wording:

has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status

That is the "newly minted rights" we referred to.

We also do not see the corolation you are attempting to put forth by referencing those passed resolutions, as humanitarian transport and international transport safety have little or nothing to do with immigration or emigration

[Unibot]

We also do not see the corolation you are attempting to put forth by referencing those passed resolutions, as humanitarian transport and international transport safety have little or nothing to do with immigration or emigration

True, but you still have it wrong. The Right to Emigration isn't a 'newly minted' right, its a 'newly repealed' right. The distinction is paramount.

[Ingwil]

Suggest what you will, we still oppose this wording...

We also do not see the corolation you are attempting to put forth by referencing those passed resolutions, as humanitarian transport and international transport safety have little or nothing to do with immigration or emigration

To be perfectly blunt, the connexion to humanitarian and safety concerns in transit between countries seems very much the point and purpose of this resolution, in light of its preamble (italics mine).

OBSERVING that people may emigrate from one country to another for many reasons such as the pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge; or escape from war, persecution or injustice;

However,

CONCERNED that if emigration was open and unregulated, emigrants or the people around them may become vulnerable due to the risk of the transmission of contagious diseases, or the safety of the emigrant;

Given that doctors and medical personnel, logistical support and personnel associated with commercial transport already have fully enumerated rights to cross international borders for purposes of humanitarian support or transport for any number of reasons, I see no reason why these rights should not be extended to civilians (with the already-noted exceptions of a disaster or attack requiring quarantine or lockdown).

Again, I trust that my esteemed colleagues in the Assembly can come to a reasonable conclusion on this based on precedent and proper application of the legal principles of just international government.

Yours,

[Philimbesi]

So it's the policy of Grey Harbor to hold citizens within their boarders against their will?

[Grays Harbor]

Suggest what you will, we still oppose this wording...

We also do not see the corolation you are attempting to put forth by referencing those passed resolutions, as humanitarian transport and international transport safety have little or nothing to do with immigration or emigration

To be perfectly blunt, the connexion connection to humanitarian and safety concerns in transit between countries seems very much the point and purpose of this resolution, in light of its preamble (italics mine).

Wrong, as those two resolutions deal with matters of an international scope. This deals strictly with internal affairs and laws of each nation, trying for a "one-size-fits-all" policy.

So it's the policy of Grey Harbor to hold citizens within their boarders against their will?

We are unsure about this "Grey Harbor" place, but it Grays Harbor that is not the case. Because we oppose this useless measure does not equate to us forbidding emmigration or immigration. We do not believe that the WA needs to meddle in strictly internal matters.

[Philimbesi]

That may be correct my friend however there are other nations in this body who do not allow the free transit of citizens across their boarders and that is an international concern is it not?

[Ingwil]

Wrong, as those two resolutions deal with matters of an international scope. This deals strictly with internal affairs and laws of each nation, trying for a "one-size-fits-all" policy.

...

We do not believe that the WA needs to meddle in strictly internal matters.

With respect to the delegate from Grays Harbor, this has yet to be demonstrated. Emigration is by definition not an internal matter, but an international question - that is, a question affecting multiple nations across borders - and as such, it is very much within the proper bounds for address within the World Assembly. (Immigration is another matter, since generally the problems of immigration are country-specific; though people may leave a nation and settle anywhere - which is the situation this specific bill is addressing - once they enter a nation to reside there they become that nation's responsibility.)

Also, please refrain from correcting standard Ingwilian spelling rules ('connexion' being perfectly valid and appropriate), unless of course you would prefer to be known as 'the delegate from Greys Harbour'.

Yours,

[Grays Harbor]

Wrong, as those two resolutions deal with matters of an international scope. This deals strictly with internal affairs and laws of each nation, trying for a "one-size-fits-all" policy.

...

We do not believe that the WA needs to meddle in strictly internal matters.

With respect to the delegate from Grays Harbor, this has yet to be demonstrated. Emigration is by definition not an internal matter, but an international question - that is, a question affecting multiple nations across borders - and as such, it is very much within the proper bounds for address within the World Assembly. (Immigration is another matter, since generally the problems of immigration are country-specific; though people may leave a nation and settle anywhere - which is the situation this specific bill is addressing - once they enter a nation to reside there they become that nation's responsibility.)

Also, please refrain from correcting standard Ingwilian spelling rules ('connexion' being perfectly valid and appropriate), unless of course you would prefer to be known as 'the delegate from Greys Harbour'.

Yours,

OOC: Don't go there, my nation is named after a place which uses the A in the Gray and no U in Harbor. Please confine your comments to what is pertinent.

IC: Just because people emigrate to another nation does not make it an international issue as far as what the laws within each nation are or should be as regards emigration. There is no "right to emigrate" except what would be created by this intrusive piece of work.

[Philimbesi]

Amazing how you can characterize the act of going from one nation to another as not an international act. I know you tend to look at pretty much every resolution in this body as a direct blow to a nations sovereignty, however this is policy between two nations, thus international.

[Grays Harbor]

Amazing how you can characterize the act of going from one nation to another as not an international act. I know you tend to look at pretty much every resolution in this body as a direct blow to a nations sovereignty, however this is policy between two nations, thus international.

It is the disturbing tendency towards declaring every new issue "am inherent right" which gives us pause. There are ways to draft resolutions which are of international scope without giving in to the minting of new "rights", however, there are some which have not siscovered that as yet. To codify and regulate is one thing, to classify everything as a "right" is something entirely different.