Page 6 of 9
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:23 amby United Irish Counties
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yea, that isn't happening.
OOC: I appreciate that. I still think this committee needs to be removed never to be spoken of again for OOC reasons, so I'm voting no on this one, Sorry.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:57 amby Gremlinsburg
The first point of this resolution is entirely useless. "Due Process" is different everywhere and it will make no difference in who is exiled and who isn't. At most, all it'll do is increase bureaucracy. The second point of the resolution increases power to the GESTAPO and takes it out of the hands of nations. This also opens yet another door for corruption where the GESTAPO can assign passports that could state a person is from any nation in the WA. What's the point in even having passports to identify a person's nationality if some intergovernmental organization can just say "Oh yes, this person is assuredly from Maxtopia." when the individual could instead be from Brazilistan, and have it all be entirely legal? This is foolish and Gremlinsburg wants no part of it!
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:28 amby Imperium Anglorum
A few points:
- I don't think people understand what the Passport Organisation is being told to do. They are not being told to give passports to everyone. They are not being told to give nationality documents to anyone. They are being told to "include the issuance of World Assembly identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government". There is a very limited form of action here, which includes only travel and identification documents, that is also quite limited in scope.
- Nationality is a legal status. One's nationality can be taken away at the stroke of a pen. For example, there exist US Nationals, British Nationals, and others. These are statuses which provide protections and responsibilities which the issuing state has promised. Revocation of them prevents people from leaving any country and means they are unable to enjoy the protections of any nation. Many times, they lack access to education, health care, and property. Stateless persons are also widely exploited and abused because they cannot avail themselves to the redress of any legal system because they lack standing in court.
- The ability or inability to revoke nationality does not trade off with judicial punishment. Just as Britain still has prisons does not mean that all of their inhabitants are no longer British nationals. Similarly, the United States can lock people up without also depriving them of their status as a US National.
There certainly are two typos at the top. They were noted, unfortunately, after the last review of this proposal (before submission) by three different people. Fortunately, those typos do not interfere in any way with the operative clauses 1-4.
There was also an interesting argument in the North Pacific forum:
The laws of some countries, who may not be World Assembly members, may require a person to renounce their citizenship with their current country before pursuing citizenship with another. The clause in the resolution, "Prohibits nations from depriving a national of their nationality should such an action leave that national stateless," could be interpreted to mean that a state could not accept a person's renunciation, as it would leave the person stateless during the change in citizenship, which may not be guaranteed by the new nation.
When a person renounces their citizenship, the state is not depriving anyone of their nationality. The state must both take action and that action must also be to deprive. If one renounces their nationality, the state is a passive actor which is not
doing anything.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:28 amby Frances Francis the First of France
I don't see how to get around that the description and the rest of the bill have nothing to do with each other.
The description states this is to stop states from stripping people of their citizenship. But Nationality has NOTHING to do with Citizenship in many cases. And often Nationals are basically second-class citizens who have general a lesser amount of rights, have lower legal standing, and are often basically stateless people who are trapped within the border of their home country.
Anglorum points out US nationals but that is a very bleak example to bring up. US Nationals are the people of Samoa. Who are A.) Not Citizens. B.) Must get VISAs to even travel to other parts of the US. C.) Can be deported like foreigners. D.) Are legally barred from many jobs in the US. E.) Have a lower legal standing in US Courts. F.) Can't even vote unless they go through immigration as if they were from an entirely separate sovereign state.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:54 amby Bears Armed
Gremlinsburg wrote:This also opens yet another door for corruption where the GESTAPO can assign passports that could state a person is from any nation in the WA.
OOC: It's an established convention that GA committees are inevitably staffed with honest [& efficient] personnel -- commonly known colloquially in this forum as "WA Gnomes" -- so that proposal authors don't have to use large proportions of the limited number of characters available for the text (no more than 3'500, including punctuation, spaces, and line-breaks) explaining how they will be kept honest [& efficient]. There have actually been submitted 'Repeal' proposals that the Secretariat (the Moderators) declared illegal for implying to the contrary...
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:40 amby MuhFreedomville
The individuals of MuhFreedomville in divided individuality unanimously vote against this resolution. Our rights are secured by our country and our sovereignty will not be infringed upon by international powers. If countries deny rights to their own citizens, it is up to those people within their countries to solve their own problems. Voluntary associations with GESTAPO are the only interactions that are legitimate and forcing nations' compliance is entirely immoral.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:49 amby LollerLand
After discussing with our community The Universal Allegiance has decided to vote FOR this proposal
Lollerland
WA Delegate
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:58 amby Imperium Anglorum
MuhFreedomville wrote:The individuals of MuhFreedomville in divided individuality unanimously vote against this resolution. Our rights are secured by our country and our sovereignty will not be infringed upon by international powers. If countries deny rights to their own citizens, it is up to those people within their countries to solve their own problems. Voluntary associations with GESTAPO are the only interactions that are legitimate and forcing nations' compliance is entirely immoral.
PARSONS: Then resign from the WA. All actions taken by the WA are legitimate because you have consented into the World Assembly structure. What you're doing is like joining a sports club and then complaining that you have to abide by club regulations and pay dues.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:30 amby MuhFreedomville
Imperium Anglorum wrote:MuhFreedomville wrote:The individuals of MuhFreedomville in divided individuality unanimously vote against this resolution. Our rights are secured by our country and our sovereignty will not be infringed upon by international powers. If countries deny rights to their own citizens, it is up to those people within their countries to solve their own problems. Voluntary associations with GESTAPO are the only interactions that are legitimate and forcing nations' compliance is entirely immoral.
PARSONS: Then resign from the WA. All actions taken by the WA are legitimate because you have consented into the World Assembly structure. What you're doing is like joining a sports club and then complaining that you have to abide by club regulations and pay dues.
The individuals of MuhFreedomville joined the WA voluntarily and of course we can voluntarily depart as well. But this is more like joining a sports club and then the sports club telling you how to run your life. I'd like to be in this sports club but I'd rather not have them tell me how to run my private affairs. Similarly, the proposed legislation goes beyond what the individuals of MuhFreedomville feel the scope and purpose of the WA should be.
Your response to our grievances for this policy was similar to "If you don't like it you can get out" which is rather irrational. The purpose of proposing a policy that will be voted on is to see if members agree with the policy; telling members either you accept the policy or leave is not how voting works.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:50 amby Wealthatonia
My nation finds this resolution wrong. it should be every government's right to be able to take away a citizen's citizenship should they move and not come back for a certain amount of time.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:18 pmby Northeast North Korea
The great nation of Northeast North Korea strongly condemns this resolution! If the traitors in our country can't follow our laws, they should be banished and left to suffer in the ocean!
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:27 pmby Imperium Anglorum
So it seems that the nations which don't respect human rights are clamouring against this resolution which forces people to respect, in some fashion, human rights. I can't really say I am convinced.
GESTAPO
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:57 pmby Mediobogdum
However has this GA Proposal got this far? Surely with:
"Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation, to include the issuance of World Assembly identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government;"
this should have failed to get to a vote at any stage?
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:00 pmby Wealthatonia
Imperium Anglorum wrote:So it seems that the nations which don't respect human rights are clamouring against this resolution which forces people to respect, in some fashion, human rights. I can't really say I am convinced.
what does this have to do with human rights? they can be free to join another nation.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:39 pmby MuhFreedomville
Wealthatonia wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:So it seems that the nations which don't respect human rights are clamouring against this resolution which forces people to respect, in some fashion, human rights. I can't really say I am convinced.
what does this have to do with human rights? they can be free to join another nation.
Exactly, anyone who is disallowed citizenship in their country is free to come to MuhFreedomville, where we accept anyone and everyone.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:25 pmby States of Glory WA Office
Mediobogdum wrote:However has this GA Proposal got this far? Surely with:
"Expands the remit of the
Global
Emigration,
Security,
Travel
And
Passport
Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation, to include the issuance of World Assembly identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government;"
this should have failed to get to a vote at any stage?
OOC: Don't blame the author. He wasn't the one who created the committee.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:37 pmby Silky Smooth
Thank You for bringing this forth.
The Borderlands of Silky Smooth will appreciate other Nations acknowledging that this Nation is capable of establishing and executing its own laws, without other Nations needing to propose different. Our Nation will do the same.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:45 pmby Wallenburg
Mediobogdum wrote:However has this GA Proposal got this far? Surely with:
"Expands the remit of the
Global
Emigration,
Security,
Travel
And
Passport
Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation, to include the issuance of World Assembly identification documents and passports to the former nationals of member states who have been deprived of their nationality by their government;"
this should have failed to get to a vote at any stage?
The GESTAPO was created by another resolution. This resolution simply uses it because it is the appropriate committee for the job.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:42 pmby G0P
MuhFreedomville wrote:Wealthatonia wrote:what does this have to do with human rights? they can be free to join another nation.
Exactly, anyone who is disallowed citizenship in their country is free to come to MuhFreedomville, where we accept anyone and everyone.
Including those who break the law and commit treason? I'm sure everyone will feel safe living in your country.
Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:51 pmby Wealthatonia
G0P wrote:MuhFreedomville wrote:Exactly, anyone who is disallowed citizenship in their country is free to come to MuhFreedomville, where we accept anyone and everyone.
Including those who break the law and commit treason? I'm sure everyone will feel safe living in your country.
if Wealthatonia's citizens don't feel safe because they are protected by the Private Police Force Incorporated of Wealhatonia, then that is their problem.
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:23 amby Sandaoguo
This is an otherwise great resolution. Unfortunately, the use of "GESTAPO" is unacceptably offensive, and I cannot in good conscience support the extension of its offensiveness into more resolutions.
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:12 amby Wealthatonia
Sandaoguo wrote:This is an otherwise great resolution. Unfortunately, the use of "GESTAPO" is unacceptably offensive, and I cannot in good conscience support the extension of its offensiveness into more resolutions.
there is nothing good about this resolution, Why should a citizen who has not lived or worked in their original country for years be regarded as that nation's citizen? they're not contributing to the economy of that nation at all.
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:50 amby Sandaoguo
Wealthatonia wrote:Sandaoguo wrote:This is an otherwise great resolution. Unfortunately, the use of "GESTAPO" is unacceptably offensive, and I cannot in good conscience support the extension of its offensiveness into more resolutions.
there is nothing good about this resolution, Why should a citizen who has not lived or worked in their original country for years be regarded as that nation's citizen? they're not contributing to the economy of that nation at all.
Sometimes, countries need to accept a cost of doing business. People shouldn't be stateless, if we insist on states being the fundamental organizing block of international order. Anyways, nationality and citizenship are not equivalent.
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:02 pmby Wallenburg
Sandaoguo wrote:This is an otherwise great resolution. Unfortunately, the use of "GESTAPO" is unacceptably offensive, and I cannot in good conscience support the extension of its offensiveness into more resolutions.
Wallenburg wrote:The GESTAPO was created by another resolution. This resolution simply uses it because it is the appropriate committee for the job.
Wealthatonia wrote:there is nothing good about this resolution, Why should a citizen who has not lived or worked in their original country for years be regarded as that nation's citizen? they're not contributing to the economy of that nation at all.
Perhaps they should be considered a citizen because they
are one?
Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:14 pmby G0P
Wallenburg wrote:Sandaoguo wrote:This is an otherwise great resolution. Unfortunately, the use of "GESTAPO" is unacceptably offensive, and I cannot in good conscience support the extension of its offensiveness into more resolutions.
Wallenburg wrote:The GESTAPO was created by another resolution. This resolution simply uses it because it is the appropriate committee for the job.
Wealthatonia wrote:there is nothing good about this resolution, Why should a citizen who has not lived or worked in their original country for years be regarded as that nation's citizen? they're not contributing to the economy of that nation at all.
Perhaps they should be considered a citizen because they
are one?
Citizenship should not be just anyone's right, but a privilege for individuals who obey the law and serve the nation.