NationStates

Differing perspectives on wealth and growth, within which the wealth of more economically liberalized nations is more obvious to outsiders, but less achievable to new arrivals, make restrictions like border closures necessary for the good of the people. While "the grass may look greener on the other side," how could we as responsible leaders allow citizens in nations who have been educated with a primary focus on social justice and wealth redistribution, to be thrust into free market economic systems so exploitative that return to more socially-minded, but perhaps more politically restrictive, homelands is no longer viable? This is an issue of justice for the peoples of the world whose lives may be ruined by "joyful" emigration to free-market hubs only to be crushed by the cruel, alienating reality of that system of exchange.

I urge a NO vote for the welfare of all.

As my nation is a gargantuan mechanized flying country constantly being propelled around the sky by Mk V Cryion Thrusters, emigration would not go well due to the physics of jumping off a giant and fast moving object (country) from 22 kilometers in the sky.

Voltzenkrad wrote:As my nation is a gargantuan mechanized flying country constantly being propelled around the sky by Mk V Cryion Thrusters, emigration would not go well due to the physics of jumping off a giant and fast moving object (country) from 22 kilometers in the sky.

So long as you give your people the option of attempting it, you'd be in compliance.

Excellent proposal. I, on the behalf of Vaculatestar64, am voting in the "aye" column for this one.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Voltzenkrad wrote:As my nation is a gargantuan mechanized flying country constantly being propelled around the sky by Mk V Cryion Thrusters, emigration would not go well due to the physics of jumping off a giant and fast moving object (country) from 22 kilometers in the sky.

So long as you give your people the option of attempting it, you'd be in compliance.

Ah, yes I can agree to that. I will change my vote at this time.

Well, if/when this passes, my population is in for quite the shock. Less than 1% even know an outside world exists, and now suddenly they'll be able to leave? I doubt that'll turn out well. Voting against, as if it matters.

For. We don't support the idea of making people stay in our country. If we didn't let them leave, we'd be nothing more than a prison state.

It is simple enough, the People's republic of Shadow is a wonderful place that anyone wanting to leave is mentally suspect and thus can be denied for mental health reasons.

It also is not hard for us to creatively interpret laws that anyone planning to emigrate can be arrested on a trumped up charge and held awaiting trial and then given life time probation so that criminal sentence prevents it as well.

I am not saying we are going to do such things, we have not done them yet and don't have plans to do it but they are easy loopholes that I have no problem supporting this law which really is not a limitation if I want to get around it.

Kahanistan is a free democratic republic and has voted for the right to emigration, which is already domestically protected by law. However, we worry that some member nations might initiate legal proceedings against someone specifically to prevent their leaving the country to avoid compliance. For example, a less democratic power might incarcerate someone for exercising what we would consider their right to free expression, placing the subject under legal proceedings allowing the government to prevent their emigration to a more tolerant state such as ours.

Pleased, no shocked actually, to report that the members of my region are currently (all two of them) in total agreement on their support of this resolution. I have, in accordance with their wishes, (no not the wishes that involve the Thessardorian Ambassador) voted in the affirmative on the resolution at vote and I encourage everyone else to do likewise.

While I fully support the rights of an individual to leave a nation, the Right of Emigration proposal has several flaws in the itemized declarations that I feel prevent it from properly executing its intended purpose.

"(a) They are subject to a medically legitimate and necessary quarantine,"

This goes into no detail about what constitutes a medically legitimate condition. As it stands, a nation could rule that the common cold is a reason for quarantine because the virus could be passed to someone who is susceptible to severe and deadly complications from a simple cold.

While my main purpose is not to submit my own personal ideas for how to rewrite this proposal, I do believe that if an individual is deemed medically unfit to emigrate by their current nation, the proposed receiving nation would be allowed to medically examine that individual in the country of origin, at that individual's request, and that receiving nation decide the medical fitness of the individual.

"(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,"

A nation has a right to bring any citizen of their nation to trial. A nation may bring any type of charge against its own citizen simply as a tactic to be exempt from allowing emigration.

One example of great concern would be a nation charging an individual for political crimes such as speaking out against that nation in a peaceful manner. This resolution does not give a detailed explanation of which crimes and which circumstances are or are not legitimate reasons to prevent emigration. Because of this lack of detail, it leaves the resolution open to abuse and provides no rights to any individual who wishes to emigrate from a nation that wishes to step around this proposal.

This declaration allows a nation to legally prevent emigration using the very proposal that seeks to block a nation from preventing emigration and, in providing that legal backing, may bring less public attention to the abuse of civil rights by that nation because it is viewed by the WA as being lawful.

"(c) They have a warrant existing for their arrest,"

Simply an extension of (b) with the same problem. Simply issuing a warrant can prevent emigration. In addition, this proposal does not describe what is to happen in the case of nations with multiple court and legal levels. A local level court could prevent the emigration of an individual, providing many opportunities at multiple levels for corruption and extortion. A local judge could make a business of issuing a warrant for those wanting to emigrate as a form of blackmail against an individual.

"(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,"

Allows for even less restriction than (b) and (c) for nations wishing to prevent emigration. In addition, "The recipient nation" already has been declared to have this right, and more, from the "Clarifying" portion of this proposal providing a blanket statement for any destination nation wishing to deny emigration.

"(e) The individuals concerned are non-emancipated minors traveling without the consent of a legal guardian,"

Without the WA setting a universal age for a recognized adult, or this proprosal specifying the age, this declaration provides no clarification for who should decide which age an individual must be to become an adult. At the very least, this declaration should specify the age of an adult as applied in the case of emigration.

Is the age taken from the originating country or the destination country, the lesser or greater of the two? More thought is needed when determining an age restriction if this declaration hopes to achieve what I believe was the intended effect.

"(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,"

This has the same problem as declaration (a). Who gets to determine the guidelines for what is or is not legitimate?

-----

I do support freedom to emigrate, and The Great Industrious and Culturally Enlightened Nation of Daemus has an open border policy that extends both ways, however I am concerned over each declaration of this proposal being flawed in delivering what I believe the intended results are for this proposal. Without being rewritten to solve the concerns I have raised, I cannot support this proposal and urge other nations to respect its intentions but recognize its flaws and the opportunities for abuse that it presents by voting it down.

I respect the desires of the author to keep things as concise as possible, however I believe that this desire has been taken too far, leaving too many details out and does not serve the purpose for which it was intended.

There are some other concerns I have regarding this proposal, but I see no point in presenting them until a time when this proposal has been rewritten to solve the problems I believe it currently has. The spirit of this proposal is good, but sadly this proposal is too vague which allows for creative interpretation by nations which wish to continue benefiting from WA membership but do not want to allow the rights this proposal would afford.

I'm not going to toss around the term "good faith compliance" because a lot of nations don't take that at face value, despite me doing so, however, common sense not just on the part of a nation but the international community has to prevail to an extent too.

Daemus wrote:While I fully support the rights of an individual to leave a nation, the Right of Emigration proposal has several flaws in the itemized declarations that I feel prevent it from properly executing its intended purpose.

"(a) They are subject to a medically legitimate and necessary quarantine,"

This goes into no detail about what constitutes a medically legitimate condition. As it stands, a nation could rule that the common cold is a reason for quarantine because the virus could be passed to someone who is susceptible to severe and deadly complications from a simple cold.

You seem to have missed out on the keywords, legitimate and necessary, any nation who declares a case of the sniffles as a necessary quarantine of an entire nation, is most likely going to be scoffed at by the entire international community.

"(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,"

A nation has a right to bring any citizen of their nation to trial. A nation may bring any type of charge against its own citizen simply as a tactic to be exempt from allowing emigration.

And once again, this is a corrupt tactic that would bring scorn from the international community.

One example of great concern would be a nation charging an individual for political crimes such as speaking out against that nation in a peaceful manner.

Except i'm 99% sure that under other WA legislation, that would also be illegal.

actually;

snip

All of the arguments you've presented here seem to end with the same response so I'm going to sum this up as best I can.

The bulk of the arguments you've presented here are the most exaggerated of all possible outcomes, and could never have been legislated for a: without being extremely micromanaging or b: exceeding the character count.

Regarding the age concern, exactly, the WA doesn't have a mandatory age of majority, because it would be impossible based on the differing nations that participate in this assembly, some have the lifespan of a day, others of a millenia, the same issue would have been forced trying to set an age limit here. This act clarifies exceptions and restrictions on the nation of origin, thus the age of majority is per THAT nation.

As per your argument regarding clause d, I'm inclined to disagree entirely, probable cause doesn't mean "Well...he looks like a terrorist" it means enough evidence to confirm an intent on the balance of probability, i.e; 51% or greater, which can't be deducted on a whim and would not to be supported if called into question.

Your "abuses" highlighted here are really nothing more than would plague any other resolution, and are subject to exactly as a pointed out, an extremely micromanaging resolution that wouldn't be probable or possible to put before the assembly without affecting some if not the majority of nations adversely. I certainly do not agree it's flawed to the extent that you do. If nations are going to go to the extremes that you are describing, it's likely they're more than likely to non-conform instead. Otherwise, I expect the good-faith compliance and the non extremist conformity to win out here. There certainly is not the negative impacts you describe and I denounce your call to vote against as a result.

Aba.

His royal highness King of the Kingdom of Ravencrest concurs that resolution is sound, albeit absolutely no reason for anyone to wish to flee from the greatness of my kingdom, I believe the very notion as silly.

Against.
The Flood will never allow any citizen to leave the Flood without explicit authorization granted by the Imperial Government.

Freedom of movement yes but we should remain the right of not letting people enter our country's

Actually agree with post above.

Swaneburgh wrote:Freedom of movement yes but we should remain the right of not letting people enter our country's

If you'd read the whole text you'd see you still do.

Ravencrest wrote:Actually agree with post above.

Same as above.

Against

I'm weary of the term "warrant", as how it's not defined.

If I committed a speeding crime in x country while I was vacationing, and come back to Redwingvksm, could country x issue a speeding warrant, and actually retrieve me in my own land?

I think not.

Redwingvksm wrote:Against

I'm weary of the term "warrant", as how it's not defined.

If I committed a speeding crime in x country while I was vacationing, and come back to Redwingvksm, could country x issue a speeding warrant, and actually retrieve me in my own land?

I think not.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

If you commit an offence in nation X and return to nation Y, nation X still has an extradition process to go through to get you, your point makes no sense in the context of this resolution. This resolution is solely permitting you to travel, unless there's a warrant in existence for you in nation Y to begin with. Nothing here says anyone has the right to come in and pluck you out of your home nation.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Emigration is a moot point for Kawaiians, since we're a landless nation. But we see the value of this resolution; if any of our tribe's host nations closed their borders they'd be effectively cutting off part of our nation from the rest. We therefore rise in support.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Emigration is a moot point for Kawaiians, since we're a landless nation. But we see the value of this resolution; if any of our tribe's host nations closed their borders they'd be effectively cutting off part of our nation from the rest. We therefore rise in support.

May the Cute One indeed be praised. We thank you for your support in this matter.

I am in favour of this. If a citizen wishes to emigrate, it is their human right to do so. They are not property of the state, as that is not what being a citizen is about.

Actually... Now that i think of it, suicide is illegal in my country. Attempting suicide is also illegal. If you attempt to commit suicide you will be put under arrest since you just broke a law, therefore not being allowed to leave the country. And jumping from 22 kilometers in the sky is classified as suicide. Loopholes confuse me. I think this is an infinite loop. Person jumps off. Lands and dies. Dead body is under arrest for suicide. Therefore not allowed to leave country, but has left country beforehand...

Voltzenkrad wrote:Actually... Now that i think of it, suicide is illegal in my country. Attempting suicide is also illegal. If you attempt to commit suicide you will be put under arrest since you just broke a law, therefore not being allowed to leave the country. And jumping from 22 kilometers in the sky is classified as suicide. Loopholes confuse me. I think this is an infinite loop. Person jumps off. Lands and dies. Dead body is under arrest for suicide. Therefore not allowed to leave country, but has left country beforehand...

That is not a problem because dead individuals cease to exist as a legal entity.

Voltzenkrad wrote:Actually... Now that i think of it, suicide is illegal in my country. Attempting suicide is also illegal. If you attempt to commit suicide you will be put under arrest since you just broke a law, therefore not being allowed to leave the country. And jumping from 22 kilometers in the sky is classified as suicide. Loopholes confuse me. I think this is an infinite loop. Person jumps off. Lands and dies. Dead body is under arrest for suicide. Therefore not allowed to leave country, but has left country beforehand...

Unless they have a parachute. *nods*