NationStates

Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Do they actually have 'citizens', designated as such, rather than just 'nationals' or 'subjects'?

OOC:
If they've got a legal system any more developed than "I Said So, and I have a Gun", almost certainly.
As for existing, Real-Life dictatorships, even North Korea has Citizenship laws.

Tinfect wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Do they actually have 'citizens', designated as such, rather than just 'nationals' or 'subjects'?

OOC:
If they've got a legal system any more developed than "I Said So, and I have a Gun", almost certainly.
As for existing, Real-Life dictatorships, even North Korea has Citizenship laws.

OOC: And, certainly, even if a population effectively has no rights, it would be a very foolish state indeed that lets their population realize that they have no rights. The illusion of rights would be a critical aspect of a government's survival if it was so totalitarian that citizenship carried no meaning.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Tinfect wrote:
OOC:
If they've got a legal system any more developed than "I Said So, and I have a Gun", almost certainly.
As for existing, Real-Life dictatorships, even North Korea has Citizenship laws.

OOC: And, certainly, even if a population effectively has no rights, it would be a very foolish state indeed that lets their population realize that they have no rights. The illusion of rights would be a critical aspect of a government's survival if it was so totalitarian that citizenship carried no meaning.

OOC:
Well, of course, but that's something of a digression, isn't it?

Tinfect wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
OOC: And, certainly, even if a population effectively has no rights, it would be a very foolish state indeed that lets their population realize that they have no rights. The illusion of rights would be a critical aspect of a government's survival if it was so totalitarian that citizenship carried no meaning.

OOC:
Well, of course, but that's something of a digression, isn't it?

OOC: It still interesting.

Bump.

I'm prepared to submit tomorrow.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

---

Aware that people have been deprived of their citizenship by unscrupulous states to prevent them from exercising their societally guaranteed political rights,

Believing that this unjustly prevents people from exercising those rights to which they are rightfully entailed, and

This august World Assembly hereby:

[list=1][*]Prohibits nations from depriving a national of their nationality should such an action leave that national stateless; mandates that no national will be deprived of their nationality without the due process of law;

OOC: I don't know why stacking resolutions in spoilers under the current draft became popular, makes it very lengthy to manually delete all the excess info.

IC: Where to start. First, you don't seem to approve of removal of political rights, but isn't that exactly what happenes when an individual is sent to prison?
Second, why should exile be so unacceptable in societies that would otherwise either have to expend valued resources in incarcerating an individual, or have the individual executed?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:OOC: I don't know why stacking resolutions in spoilers under the current draft became popular, makes it very lengthy to manually delete all the excess info.

OOC: For some people, studying the evolution of a particular proposal/resolution is interesting.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Where to start. First, you don't seem to approve of removal of political rights, but isn't that exactly what happenes when an individual is sent to prison?

Neville: Ambassador, you're confusing citizenship with nationality. Nationality doesn't by itself confer political rights.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Second, why should exile be so unacceptable in societies that would otherwise either have to expend valued resources in incarcerating an individual, or have the individual executed?

Fairburn: I'm sure that the enforcement of exile expends no resources whatsoever.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:OOC: I don't know why stacking resolutions in spoilers under the current draft became popular, makes it very lengthy to manually delete all the excess info.

OOC: For some people, studying the evolution of a particular proposal/resolution is interesting.

OOC:
I think he's more trying to say that it'd be better to stack them up in a second post right beneath the Draft, just to keep down on clutter when trying to quote posts. It's quite understandable, really.

Tinfect wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: For some people, studying the evolution of a particular proposal/resolution is interesting.

OOC:
I think he's more trying to say that it'd be better to stack them up in a second post right beneath the Draft, just to keep down on clutter when trying to quote posts. It's quite understandable, really.

OOC: Oh, right. Fair enough.

Tinfect wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: For some people, studying the evolution of a particular proposal/resolution is interesting.

OOC: I think he's more trying to say that it'd be better to stack them up in a second post right beneath the Draft, just to keep down on clutter when trying to quote posts. It's quite understandable, really.

This was an old draft from a long time ago. I now do that. But this was the old days.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Ambassador, you're confusing citizenship with nationality. Nationality doesn't by itself confer political rights.

OOC: In the UK there are 6 different types of nationality, the highest being a British citizen. So the distinctions between citizen and national are both intertwined and extremly complex, and vary from nation to nation.

IC: Perhaps not in your nation, Ambassador, but since there is no universal definition for either term we shouldn't make resolutions based on a narrow interpretation of law or language that could adversely affect other nations. This is further muddied by your mention of citizenship in your opening statement, then deciding to outlaw states removing nationality.
Also, since the resolution is titled reducing statelessness, not outlawing statelessness perhaps you should consider less absolute language.[/quote]

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: I'm sure that the enforcement of exile expends no resources whatsoever.

None that wouldn't already be dedicated to border control, Ambassador.

This is now at vote.

OOC: You should have referred to it as the GESTAPO instead of the Passport Organization.

Yea, that isn't happening.

We have given this the consideration that it deserved (well isn't that nice ... it's a good point ... definitely an international issue) and we have voted AYE.

We start from the principle that the transit of persons must be guaranteed by all governments whatever it is the regime of the moment, the best way to establish diplomatic relations are people coming and going without problem. All security policy should be tetalhada in their reasons and rights, that is the ture to accept the laws of the region in numerous situations.

Delegate-Ambassador Smith is voting FOR this proposal. The various common-sense factors listed in this proposal far outweigh the missed opportunity to refer to the Global Emigration, etc. Organisation as the GESTAPO, and the seemingly poor-language phrase "..., and this August World Assembly hereby: [factors]".

"Believing that this unjustly prevents people from exercising those rights to which they are rightfully entailed, and"
And what? The delegation of the Sky Pineapple will not support a resolution that cannot even finish its own sentences.

"The Wallenburgian delegation is divided on this. We certainly agree that an individual's nationality is his natural, inalienable right, but we disagree that it is actually possible to revoke someone's nationality. A state may deprive them of citizenship, but nationality is something that is irrevocably attached to you, forever, based upon where you were born and to whom you were born.

"Furthermore the preamble decries the action of stripping individuals of their citizenship, but never actually does anything to restrict or prohibit this. It seems to me that the author does not know what he is actually trying to do, or is conflating the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality'."

Wallenburg wrote:"The Wallenburgian delegation is divided on this. We certainly agree that an individual's nationality is his natural, inalienable right, but we disagree that it is actually possible to revoke someone's nationality. A state may deprive them of citizenship, but nationality is something that is irrevocably attached to you, forever, based upon where you were born and to whom you were born.

PARSONS: Nationality is a legal status. One can revoke it with a the stroke of a pen.

Wallenburg wrote:"Furthermore the preamble decries the action of stripping individuals of their citizenship, but never actually does anything to restrict or prohibit this. It seems to me that the author does not know what he is actually trying to do, or is conflating the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality'."

PARSONS: Huh. Looks like we didn't find-replace that one. I can admit that some typos got through, even though we had my office and some other offices look at it (OOC: I did pass it around for a last review.).

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Ambassador, you're confusing citizenship with nationality. Nationality doesn't by itself confer political rights.

OOC: In the UK there are 6 different types of nationality, the highest being a British citizen. So the distinctions between citizen and national are both intertwined and extremly complex, and vary from nation to nation.

OOC: That's what happens with former empires. I'm not sure if British nationals who aren't British citizens have any political rights. Being a bog-standard British citizen, I honestly don't know.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Perhaps not in your nation, Ambassador, but since there is no universal definition for either term we shouldn't make resolutions based on a narrow interpretation of law or language that could adversely affect other nations.

Neville: What you're saying, then, is that Ambassador Southwoods' objection is invalid?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: I'm sure that the enforcement of exile expends no resources whatsoever.

None that wouldn't already be dedicated to border control, Ambassador.

Fairburn: Ah, so extra bureaucracy is completely free in your country? When can I move?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Furthermore the preamble decries the action of stripping individuals of their citizenship, but never actually does anything to restrict or prohibit this. It seems to me that the author does not know what he is actually trying to do, or is conflating the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality'."

PARSONS: Huh. Looks like we didn't find-replace that one. I can admit that some typos got through, even though we had my office and some other offices look at it (OOC: I did pass it around for a last review.).

OOC: Yeah, that slipped by us. Is it too late to file a GHR?

I don't understand this issue could someone help me out in explaining it.

I believe that ones citizenship can be revoked in cases of many criminal activities, such as; harm against individuals, illegal entry, and treason. I find these cases to be clear and agreed upon by everyone who believes in order and justice in our nations.

G0P wrote:I believe that ones citizenship can be revoked in cases of many criminal activities, such as; harm against individuals, illegal entry, and treason. I find these cases to be clear and agreed upon by everyone who believes in order and justice in our nations.

Yes, this is perfectly true. Why should we take the judge and jury out of the courtroom? It would be preposterous to vote in agreement to this bill.

The Sky Pineapple wrote:"Believing that this unjustly prevents people from exercising those rights to which they are rightfully entailed, and"
And what? The delegation of the Sky Pineapple will not support a resolution that cannot even finish its own sentences.

We, the People of HighHaar, are surprised as well that such an evident error, which came to be by eliminating the next sentence from a previous draft, could slip unnoticed.

However, this error aside, We are also concerned about the value of this proposal as a whole. While it is commendable to defend the right of every person to have a Nationality as in the first point of the proposal, the other 3 points do not achieve any goal in protecting that right.

Documents provided by the World Assembly and its organs would do nothing to reintegrate Nationality for any nationless person, unless said document forced a Nationality on him/her (maybe the one that was illegally stripped away?), which is not stated here at any point. The World Assembly itself is not a Nation, so it would be impossible for it to give a Nationality on its own, because it has no mean (and no legislation) to do so. Furthermore, what about nationless people coming from Nations outside the World Assembly? Their nationless status would entitle them to the same rights as other nationless people, but the World Assembly would not be able to enforce their previous Nation to restore their Nationality, even if this was part of this proposal, nor could it issue a Nationality of its own or a Nationality from another Nation participating in this august body, unless an agreement and a list of Nations willing to make their Nationality avaiable can be found.

We, as a young Nation, are not going to discuss on the matter of pertinence/duplication as it would be beyond Our capabilities.

All considered, We as a Nation strongly REJECT this proposal on the basis of the concerns and open issues We discussed above.

President TalKronjn Of HighHaar