PASSED: Refugee Protection

[Travancore-Cochin]

Travancore-Cochin votes FOR this proposal. We see no light in the arguments put forward by the Ambassador from Falahia, since this resolution gives individual nations the right to choose whom they want to give asylum to.

We applaud the efforts of the Ambassador from Kelssek in drafting and bringing to vote such a well-written piece of legislation.

That will be all. Thank you for your time.

[TheBigCheese]

The Holy Empire of The Big Cheese does NOT approve of the issue at hand. In our nation, we see citizens as critical parts of our economy. Many citizens can at times disagree with an issue at hand and try to leave for disagreements. We see them as our resources though. Other nations should return our property. This is clearly a violation of our nation's right to choose how our nation is run.

[Aertan]

I supported it I dont see how one could not!

[Koumpounophobia]

The Holy Empire of The Big Cheese does NOT approve of the issue at hand. In our nation, we see citizens as critical parts of our economy. Many citizens can at times disagree with an issue at hand and try to leave for disagreements. We see them as our resources though. Other nations should return our property. This is clearly a violation of our nation's right to choose how our nation is run.

I can understand that, but the good news is that other refugees from other nations may flee to your land. Thus, it fuels itself.

[Cascoon]

We hear will take all refugees who ARE NOT CRIMINALS! we don't need marshal law...or do we?

[Sonnveld]

The delegate for the Nomadic Tribes of Sonnveld, resplendent in her black, gold and green robes and polished and filigreed rosewood staff, stands up and says,

"We have a question regarding the 'unjust persecution' language. The legislation doesn't provide an adequate definition of 'unjust persecution' and as such could be misused and abused.

"We think it is safe to say that the majority agree that repatriating a refugee, who, having escaped from a regime that tortures its dissidents and marginalized by skinning them alive and throwing them into pits with horny dragons, would indeed be unjust persecution. But for many, the term 'unjust persecution' is a subjective matter.

"For instance, a teenager would consider her parents to be unjustly persecuting her if they don't let her go to a show that all her friends are going to. Do we protect such inconsequential vanity with the force of legislation, simply because a gaggle of kids thinks that particular shoe fits?

"Sonnveld would like to vote for this resolution but we reserve endorsement until such time as the language clarifies what constitutes 'unjust persecution.' Thank you, good delegates of the World Assembly; Sonnveld rests."

The delegate from the Nomadic Tribes of Sonnveld retakes her seat.

[Noordeinde]

"I will keep it to a very short statement, this resolution about refugee protection is already a good step in the right direction. It is also better then a former resolution on this subject, but that specific one was repealed. Noordeinde has always found refugee protection an important subject and because this resolution is a good step in the right direction we support it!"

The Honourable Ambassador of Noordeinde to the WA said.

[Cobdenia]

Whilst I have a couple of minor concerns, they are minor, and as such Cobdenia, who for some reason are still the dratted delegate for that warm frozen wasteland, vote in favour.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

...Cobdenia, who for some reason are still the dratted delegate for that warm frozen wasteland...

Did you not get the memo? We voted you Delegate For Life. Congrats!

[Altani WA Mission]

We find this to be a well-written resolution that has seen sufficient vetting through the drafting process, and find the arguments from the ambassadors of Falahia and the Big Cheese to be utterly without merit. As such, we will be voting in favor of this resolution.

-Irina Misheli, Ambassador

[Greenlandic People]

It is the opinion of my country, and indeed the opinion of all Lavinium, that this resolution stands amidst the wealth of World Assembly proposals as one of the better proposals to come around in some time. A good example to prospective writers of future legislation on the merits and importance of quality writing, careful drafting, and economy of expression. You have my vote.

~Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

[Kelssek]

"We have a question regarding the 'unjust persecution' language. The legislation doesn't provide an adequate definition of 'unjust persecution' and as such could be misused and abused.

The interpretation will lie with the relevant authorities of member nations. In drafting we saw the problem actually going the other way, that nations might have unreasonably strict definitions.

"For instance, a teenager would consider her parents to be unjustly persecuting her if they don't let her go to a show that all her friends are going to. Do we protect such inconsequential vanity with the force of legislation, simply because a gaggle of kids thinks that particular shoe fits?

Firstly, if a young person was crossing borders and applying to reside in another country because of that, we would suggest that more serious parenting issues may be underlying such a move. However, if that were the stated reason for applying for asylum, the nation in question would be well within its rights to deny asylum to them. They would have to allow them to find another country willing to take them in, though.

May we also add our thanks for the kind comments from many respected ambassadors.

[Telemia]

"I will keep it to a very short statement, this resolution about refugee protection is already a good step in the right direction. It is also better then a former resolution on this subject, but that specific one was repealed. Noordeinde has always found refugee protection an important subject and because this resolution is a good step in the right direction we support it!"

The Honourable Ambassador of Noordeinde to the WA said.

You may support it because your nation supports it, but what of us that do not? It is none of our business what the other countries do, or the citizens that run away. I shouldn't be forced to either take them in, or hold and transport them to someone who will. That depletes my time and my resources for people I didn't want in the first place.

They are not my citizens, not my protectorates, and none of my concern. If they can make the trip to my gates, they can make the same trip to someone else's instead.

My military would be forced to move, and that's less protection for the people I actually care for. My nation needs self preservation before all things, and risking the lack of security for scared and homeless traitors is NOT something I intend to do.

[New Raiodia]

IF ANY REFUGEES ARE SEEKING TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ASYLUM JOIN THE ALLIANCE

You will be accepted and not judged to any extent.
It is a new region but as united refugees, we will be able to form a more perfect union in order to mantain peace and pride.

[Telemia]

IF ANY REFUGEES ARE SEEKING TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ASYLUM JOIN THE ALLIANCE

You will be accepted and not judged to any extent.
It is a new region but as united refugees, we will be able to form a more perfect union in order to mantain peace and pride.

Maybe I'm just lost, but I think this is one of those ingame, doesn't-really-happen type deals.

So the leaders aren't taking refuge, its taking the "people" who are seeking it. The people this affects will be forced to open their gates, and mine stay locked.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

My country doesn't see the need to pay currency to move these people to another nation, or help them move in any way. If another country wants them, We'll leave them on the border, you can come and collect them. We aren't running a courier service and my citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill.

[Telemia]

My country doesn't see the need to pay currency to move these people to another nation, or help them move in any way. If another country wants them, We'll leave them on the border, you can come and collect them. We aren't running a courier service and my citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Exactly! It's not our mess to clean. Why waste our resources on people we don't care for? We shouldn't, I won't.

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

I find a rather significant imperfection with this resolution. That imperfection comes in the form of a query: What if excommunication/exile is a variety of lawful punishment as defined by a nation's constitution? How is this factor incorporated into this bill? What is the extent to which this bill reaches?

--K.D.

[Koumpounophobia]

My country doesn't see the need to pay currency to move these people to another nation, or help them move in any way. If another country wants them, We'll leave them on the border, you can come and collect them. We aren't running a courier service and my citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill.

It is seemingly presumed that when this bill passes that my nation will actually help them leave. No. If they want to leave, best of luck, as the paperwork will take a while. People that come in don't need to do quite as much, but once they're in, it will take a lot of time to get away again legally and properly. I'm not holding them here- just making sure they do so by-the-book.

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

I am still unsure of the exact costs of facilitating and transporting refugees to countries that will offer asylum, not to mention the work-hours required for locating a home for said refugees. Can anybody answer that? Preferably the auteur of this "resolution".

--K.D.

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

My country doesn't see the need to pay currency to move these people to another nation, or help them move in any way. If another country wants them, We'll leave them on the border, you can come and collect them. We aren't running a courier service and my citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Exactly! It's not our mess to clean. Why waste our resources on people we don't care for? We shouldn't, I won't.

It has nothing to do with not caring for a people, it's a logical matter of what you can afford to do with these refugees. I am sensing a bit of discrimination towards these refugees, not an explanation as to why you won't "foot the bill". I think Mikoyan is saying he won't foot the bill, because he does not believe it is necessary for his country to compensate for the malfeasance of a refugee; whereas, Telemia, you are saying you do not want to compensate for a people you do not "care for". I think, Telemia, that your nation is misinterpreting Mikoyan's argument.

Although, I could be wrong; please expound Mikoyan.

--K.D.

[Telemia]

My country doesn't see the need to pay currency to move these people to another nation, or help them move in any way. If another country wants them, We'll leave them on the border, you can come and collect them. We aren't running a courier service and my citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Exactly! It's not our mess to clean. Why waste our resources on people we don't care for? We shouldn't, I won't.

It has nothing to do with not caring for a people, it's a logical matter of what you can afford to do with these refugees. I am sensing a bit of discrimination towards these refugees, not an explanation as to why you won't "foot the bill". I think Mikoyan is saying he won't foot the bill, because he does not believe it is necessary for his country to compensate for the malfeasance of a refugee; whereas, Telemia, you are saying you do not want to compensate for a people you do not "care for". I think, Telemia, that your nation is misinterpreting Mikoyan's argument.

Although, I could be wrong; please expound Mikoyan.

--K.D.

I know what he means, Berkshire. And on my post 2 before that one, I explained in more detail why I wouldn't support it (Not the post replying to Raiodia, the previous one). I think if you'd have read that, you wouldn't have misunderstood. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

I know what he means, Berkshire. And on my post 2 before that one, I explained in more detail why I wouldn't support it (Not the post replying to Raiodia, the previous one). I think if you'd have read that, you wouldn't have misunderstood. Sorry for the inconvenience.

No need to apologize it is my mistake, I just thought the most recent post was still indifferent to the actual meaning behind Mikoyan's proposal.

--K.D.

[Telemia]

I know what he means, Berkshire. And on my post 2 before that one, I explained in more detail why I wouldn't support it (Not the post replying to Raiodia, the previous one). I think if you'd have read that, you wouldn't have misunderstood. Sorry for the inconvenience.

No need to apologize it is my mistake, I just thought the most recent post was still indifferent to the actual meaning behind Mikoyan's proposal.

--K.D.

All's well that ends well. Being that the post has (currently) 13 hours left and a nearly 3.5/1 victory, I'll say this resolution is just about done. Still, I wish it be known that my gates and resources are locked to my own nation, who needs them much more than I can give to another, even the refugees. As it was said, it takes time, housing, resources, military, and most importantly, an extreme amount of funding, and none of these I can afford to waste on matters that my nation was not invited to take precedence of. And had I been invited, I have my nation to worry for first and foremost, and would've still declined.

[Othwell]

4. In recognition of the potential that the circumstances causing a person to become a refugee may exist in the long term, member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees, should the refugee request such assistance.

Until this article is amended or rescinded, we vote against. It is our position that no nation should be obligated to naturalize a person who may be deemed a threat to the state.