NationStates

The General Assembly,

Committed to improving the world, one resolution at a time,

Cognizant of the fact that some nations may recognize have determined their citizens as property of that nation and therefore deny have denied them the right to leave said nation,

Determining this to be a gross abuse of sapient rights and seeking to resolve this issue, situation

Hereby,

Mandates that no government may prevent the emigration or temporary travel of individuals from their nation,

Declares that individuals may specifically be exempted from the aforementioned mandate if:
(a) They are subject to a medically legitimate and necessary quarantine,
(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,
(c) They have a warrant existing for their arrest,
(d) The host recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,
(e) The individuals concerned are non-emancipated minors traveling without the consent of a legal guardian,
(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

Further determining that to contravene the above would be deemed an illegal detention of a person within a nation and resultant gross breach of Sapient Rights by that nation, I'm still unsure as to what this clause is meant to do - again, either clarify it or scrap it, please.

Clarifying that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders.

I was going to highlight some grammar issues that you missed, but I decided I'd try to make the resolution flow a little bit better. Take what you like.

Have to make the grammatical fixes suggested above and then I'm happy with this as a finished product.

Don't be in such a rush, the proposal queue is backed up for a while. Use that as an opportunity to let this ferment in a fine brew of, errr, ambassadors. Don't be so eager to finish it - writing it is the fun part anyway.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:
"But don't emigrants, unless maybeso they're refugees fleeing from some sudden disaster, normally have a destination lined up before they start their journey as well?"

"Maybe so, but there's still a - subtly - different valence. Prohibiting travel to a specific nation doesn't restrict a general right of emigration, as an emigrant could travel to a different nation instead. Even if the plan is to emigrate to a specific nation, that could be achieved through a stopover."

"And so could "travel" to a specific nation, despite bans, no?
"Although I suppose in that case the travellers might be subject to legal penalties, for breaking the bans, if and when they finally return home..."

"Well, given we don't really know what is meant by those terms in the proposal, it's probably academic. Still, the conflation of emigration and temporary travel makes me very uneasy."

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Well, given we don't really know what is meant by those terms in the proposal, it's probably academic. Still, the conflation of emigration and temporary travel makes me very uneasy."

I agree. Why can't the title be just - On Recognising the Right of Emigration and Freedom to Travel?

Elke and Elba wrote:Why can't the title be just - On Recognising the Right of Emigration and Freedom to Travel?

OOC: Because that's twice the maximum length (of 30 characters, including spaces) that the system will accept.

Bears Armed wrote:

Elke and Elba wrote:Why can't the title be just - On Recognising the Right of Emigration and Freedom to Travel?

OOC: Because that's twice the maximum length (of 30 characters, including spaces) that the system will accept.

OOC: Forgot the character limit, sorry

How about this? --> Freedom to Travel and Emigrate

Sciongrad wrote:

The General Assembly,

Committed to improving the world, one resolution at a time,

Cognizant of the fact that some nations may recognize have determined their citizens as property of that nation and therefore deny have denied them the right to leave said nation,

Determining this to be a gross abuse of sapient rights and seeking to resolve this issue, situation

Hereby,

Mandates that no government may prevent the emigration or temporary travel of individuals from their nation,

Declares that individuals may specifically be exempted from the aforementioned mandate if:
(a) They are subject to a medically legitimate and necessary quarantine,
(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,
(c) They have a warrant existing for their arrest,
(d) The host recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,
(e) The individuals concerned are non-emancipated minors traveling without the consent of a legal guardian,
(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

Further determining that to contravene the above would be deemed an illegal detention of a person within a nation and resultant gross breach of Sapient Rights by that nation, I'm still unsure as to what this clause is meant to do - again, either clarify it or scrap it, please.

Clarifying that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders.

I was going to highlight some grammar issues that you missed, but I decided I'd try to make the resolution flow a little bit better. Take what you like.

Have to make the grammatical fixes suggested above and then I'm happy with this as a finished product.

I've incorporated your suggested revisions, they should cover all grammatical issues you pointed out.

Don't be in such a rush, the proposal queue is backed up for a while. Use that as an opportunity to let this ferment in a fine brew of, errr, ambassadors. Don't be so eager to finish it - writing it is the fun part anyway.

It's not that I'm eager to finish it at all, I just personally believe that it's at a stage where I can look back objectively and say "That should do what I wanted it to do". Anything else done to it at this stage would be purely for the appeasement of what can only be minute knitpickery (no offense, quite a few of you have made considerable suggestions to this draft to which I was happy to have). I just feel in my eyes, that it's ready, short, sweet and to the point. And I like that.

Le bump

Moving to submit in an hour.

There must also be an amendment that bans the use of pat downs, strip searches, and nude scanners unless a warrant has been granted.

Tea Party USA 2 wrote:There must also be an amendment that bans the use of pat downs, strip searches, and nude scanners unless a warrant has been granted.

Perhaps you should read the rules on Amendments?

Tea Party USA 2 wrote:There must also be an amendment that bans the use of pat downs, strip searches, and nude scanners unless a warrant has been granted.

1: This is at quorum now, so, I cannot edit it.

2: Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't be adding that at all I'm afraid, it's not dealing with those issues as a resolution goes, and I can't see the relevance of them to this proposal anyway unless EXTREMELY tangentially, and even then...

Not sure if this has been brought up or not, but I have something that hesitates a vote for or against it.

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

What if there is a law in the nation of origin that says no one can leave the nation? The individual would be traveling for the purpose of committing a crime, and this resolution then accomplishes nothing.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

This is a fine piece of work though yes the question in the post above mine is an interesting one.

New Wolfopolis wrote:Not sure if this has been brought up or not, but I have something that hesitates a vote for or against it.

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

What if there is a law in the nation of origin that says no one can leave the nation? The individual would be traveling for the purpose of committing a crime, and this resolution then accomplishes nothing.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

I agree.
While I have voted for the bill, because I agree with the general idea of it, I think some of the language in it is too vague and thus makes it vulnerable to loopholes such as the one you mentioned

I also think the following is vague:
"(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,"

Who would determine the legitimacy of an individual being determined to be mentally unable? For example, in an autocratic nation, one who has been deemed a threat of the state (think for example of the way individuals in the USSR were put in mental health facilities if they were against certain aspects of the system) could be be termed mentally unstable unjustly to prevent them from emigrating.

Hello,

I really agree with the right of emigration to be given to citizens, as well as the style and simplicity of the resolution. However, I think a point is missed in the resolution.

In my nation, I would add a condition for allowing my citizens to emigrate or accepting emigrations to my country, which is a good reason for leaving the country, as searching for better Education, Security, Society or any other good reason that would still be discussed between the emigrant and a social specialist from our country.

However, after allowing any individual, group or family to emigrate, they will still be under my country's responsibility, and offering them a good social calmness is the new country's responsibility forced by my country, as long as the emigrant's maintaining a good attitude with citizens in the new country. Meanwhile, citizens from other countries who is staying in shadolio, will offered good lifestyle as well, equal to that offered to our own citizens, as long as they're not involved in illegal actions. If any of our citizens face a problem in their new country, they are welcome in his country's embassy, and if emigrant citizen in my nation face a problem (hopfully won't happen) is asked to talk to his embassy as well.

Finally, our citizens will be required to revisit his original nation, every specified period of time, according to the citizen's conditions and availability, like 5-10 years.

To sum up, citizens who leave the country for an accepted reason, is not out of our responsibility, but they are bigger responsibility in fact.

I hope that my suggestion will be taken into consideration of the resolution's passage.

Best regards,

Shadolio wrote:Hello,

I really agree with the right of emigration to be given to citizens, as well as the style and simplicity of the resolution. However, I think a point is missed in the resolution.

In my nation, I would add a condition for allowing my citizens to emigrate or accepting emigrations to my country, which is a good reason for leaving the country, as searching for better Education, Security, Society or any other good reason that would still be discussed between the emigrant and a social specialist from our country.

However, after allowing any individual, group or family to emigrate, they will still be under my country's responsibility, and offering them a good social calmness is the new country's responsibility forced by my country, as long as the emigrant's maintaining a good attitude with citizens in the new country. Meanwhile, citizens from other countries who is staying in shadolio, will offered good lifestyle as well, equal to that offered to our own citizens, as long as they're not involved in illegal actions. If any of our citizens face a problem in their new country, they are welcome in his country's embassy, and if emigrant citizen in my nation face a problem (hopfully won't happen) is asked to talk to his embassy as well.

Finally, our citizens will be required to revisit his original nation, every specified period of time, according to the citizen's conditions and availability, like 5-10 years.

To sum up, citizens who leave the country for an accepted reason, is not out of our responsibility, but they are bigger responsibility in fact.

I hope that my suggestion will be taken into consideration of the resolution's passage.

Best regards,

No one will change anything because "your country" or "my country". Deal with it, not to mention the bill is already in voting. If so, you are either pleased to add those restrictions through some backdoor backhanded way, OR, leave the WA.

We like the premise, but there could be a loophole:

'Mandates that no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation,
Declares that individuals may specifically be exempted from the aforementioned mandate if:
...
(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings'

What if nations make leaving illegal? The resolution says nothing about emigration being legal or illegal, just that 'no government may prevent the emigration of individuals'. The government of a nation can abide by this rule, yet still make emigration illegal, therefore subjecting every individual who tries to leave to the exemption of 'awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, ... carrying out a sentence'.

Part of the resolution should state that emigration cannot be declared a crime by any nation.

---

Issue has been resolved, there is no loophole. We will vote for this resolution.

Opposed

Our border policy is not now nor shall ti ever be the purview of this assembly.

If this passes you won't have a choice unless you resign your membership in the WA.

New Wolfopolis wrote:What if there is a law in the nation of origin that says no one can leave the nation?

From a technical point of view that is impossible. The first line states "Mandates that no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation" which means upon passage of the law all laws that say no one can leave the nation are struck out and made immediately void. Now it might be possible to pass a law later, in violation of the resolution but that would mean you are in violation of the resolution for doing so.

This resolution sums up everything quite nicely and in a rather concise manner. I was concerned with the below issue:

Retired WerePenguins wrote:

New Wolfopolis wrote:What if there is a law in the nation of origin that says no one can leave the nation?

From a technical point of view that is impossible. The first line states "Mandates that no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation" which means upon passage of the law all laws that say no one can leave the nation are struck out and made immediately void. Now it might be possible to pass a law later, in violation of the resolution but that would mean you are in violation of the resolution for doing so.

but Retired WerePenguins has gave a rather good answer to it, so I suppose I no longer have any issues with this resolution.

Retired WerePenguins wrote:

New Wolfopolis wrote:What if there is a law in the nation of origin that says no one can leave the nation?

From a technical point of view that is impossible. The first line states "Mandates that no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation" which means upon passage of the law all laws that say no one can leave the nation are struck out and made immediately void. Now it might be possible to pass a law later, in violation of the resolution but that would mean you are in violation of the resolution for doing so.

To be quite honest, this was the response I was going to give but penguins sniped me. That singular mandate essentially nullifies making leaving illegal, unless the law enacted has the same exceptions as this. Thus it's impossible.

Thanks Abacathea and Penguins, that cleared up my confusion. I'll be voting FOR this resolution.

On behalf of Redentro, you have my vote!
Yleno Topytoċovhch keSpertor Senaðam