NationStates

Daarwyrth wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:1. Yes, I should replace dual with multiple. Will do so in Draft X.

2. What if there was a revision to clause 5 such as the following (just an example):

All children shall attain their citizenship(s) immediately at birth and must retain them in perpetuity, unless one of the following occurs:

1. They are given up
2. They are revoked or otherwise stripped in accordance with procedures set forth by law.
3. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of the three generations living in that nation, such nation reserves the right to terminate such citizenship when the fourth generation reaches the age of majority.

I know that is a run on sentence but I'll fix that. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that general idea

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "The proposed amendement alleviates my nation's concerns. In my opinion, it solves the issue with multiple citizenships being granted in perpetuity. There is only one remark that I have left on this passage, namely "procedures set forth by law". Forgive me, Ambassador, if it is our status as relative newcomers in the WA speaking, but does "law" in this clause refer to national law, or WA law? In other words, does this clause grant individual member nations the ability to legislate on this subject, or does it bestow this right upon the General Assembly? Or both, even?"

I envisioned it as both, although I do not know if the WA currently has any legislation on the matter of revocation.

South St Maarten wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "The proposed amendement alleviates my nation's concerns. In my opinion, it solves the issue with multiple citizenships being granted in perpetuity. There is only one remark that I have left on this passage, namely "procedures set forth by law". Forgive me, Ambassador, if it is our status as relative newcomers in the WA speaking, but does "law" in this clause refer to national law, or WA law? In other words, does this clause grant individual member nations the ability to legislate on this subject, or does it bestow this right upon the General Assembly? Or both, even?"

I envisioned it as both, although I do not know if the WA currently has any legislation on the matter of revocation.

"Perhaps you could add the words "domestic, as well as international" after the word 'law'. That way the route to both would remain open, without becoming too specific, I believe."

Daarwyrth wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:I envisioned it as both, although I do not know if the WA currently has any legislation on the matter of revocation.

"Perhaps you could add the words "domestic, as well as international" after the word 'law'. That way the route to both would remain open, without becoming too specific, I believe."

Will do.

Ambassador, why is [i]us sanguinus defined in the resolution? You define it and then fail to use the term even once anywhere else in the proposal. We would suggest striking the term and renumbering accordingly.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Ambassador, why is [i]us sanguinus defined in the resolution? You define it and then fail to use the term even once anywhere else in the proposal. We would suggest striking the term and renumbering accordingly.

I was considering using "in following jus sanguinus" at the start of a clause, but if I don't, yes, I will strike the term. Thanks for pointing that out.

Draft X now posted. If I've forgotten any changes I proposed, please, make me aware to that. Otherwise, comments as always are welcomed

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: OK, so this is a... nightmare of consistency and bloatednesseressness? Do consider the below, possible Draft Eleven if you so wish:

The World Assembly,

Affirming that, at birth, children should have the certainty of citizenship in a nation, and should not be rendered stateless due to the geospatial circumstances of their birth (for instance, by being born in a nation that their parents do not hold citizenship in),

Dismayed that, while this body has already acted to prevent member states from arbitrarily making their citizens stateless through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness", it has never legislated to protect the citizenships of children who would otherwise be born stateless in the first place, and

Resolving to correct this oversight, hereby enacts as follows:

1. All children of citizens of member nations shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their parent(s) are citizens, regardless of their location of birth, in following the principle of a child's citizenship being determined by their biological parent(s)' citizenship.
2. Nations with laws that have the effect of prohibiting citizenships other than their own being held by any of their citizens must not enforce such laws against these citizens until they become legally competent by virtue of their age.
3. If both biological parents of a child are unknown, stateless, or fit any other criteria that prevent citizenship in any nation from being passed down to their child, that child will receive the citizenship(s) of their primary caretaker.
4. All children shall receive their citizenship(s) upon attaining personhood and must retain them in perpetuity, unless they are revoked in accordance with procedures outlined in national or international law, voluntarily rescinded, or terminated in accordance with Article 5.
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when they become legally competent by virtue of their age.

Access to Abortion requires member states to "ascribe personhood to begin at birth." In the event that the three abortion laws are repealed and in future replaced by a resolution requiring or at least allowing member states to define personhood as beginning at conception, then... yeah. That.

Vice-Representative Jylien Barwald: "Ambassador, I was asked by Representative vyn Nysen to deliver her offices proposed textual amendements to the newest draft, but it seems the delegation from Tinhampton has preceded us. I have briefly consulted with the Representative, and we both came to the conclusion that the text as proposed by the delegation from Tinhampton is much better than our own suggestions. As such, we heartily recommend that you take over the proposed text as presented by Delegate-Ambassador Smith.

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: OK, so this is a... nightmare of consistency and bloatednesseressness? Do consider the below, possible Draft Eleven if you so wish:

The World Assembly,

Affirming that, at birth, children should have the certainty of citizenship in a nation, and should not be rendered stateless due to the geospatial circumstances of their birth (for instance, by being born in a nation that their parents do not hold citizenship in),

Dismayed that, while this body has already acted to prevent member states from arbitrarily making their citizens stateless through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness", it has never legislated to protect the citizenships of children who would otherwise be born stateless in the first place, and

Resolving to correct this oversight, hereby enacts as follows:

1. All children of citizens of member nations shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their parent(s) are citizens, regardless of their location of birth, in following the principle of a child's citizenship being determined by their biological parent(s)' citizenship.
2. Nations with laws that have the effect of prohibiting citizenships other than their own being held by any of their citizens must not enforce such laws against these citizens until they become legally competent by virtue of their age.
3. If both biological parents of a child are unknown, stateless, or fit any other criteria that prevent citizenship in any nation from being passed down to their child, that child will receive the citizenship(s) of their primary caretaker.
4. All children shall receive their citizenship(s) upon attaining personhood and must retain them in perpetuity, unless they are revoked in accordance with procedures outlined in national or international law, voluntarily rescinded, or terminated in accordance with Article 5.
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when they become legally competent by virtue of their age.

Access to Abortion requires member states to "ascribe personhood to begin at birth." In the event that the three abortion laws are repealed and in future replaced by a resolution requiring or at least allowing member states to define personhood as beginning at conception, then... yeah. That.

"While that is a possible - but according to us unlikely - concern for the future, it is not the state of affairs in the present. As such, both Representative vyn Nysen and I advice against writing this text with the potential repeals of the three abortion laws in mind. It is our sincere hope that any repeals of those three resolutions will not come to pass."

Daarwyrth wrote:Vice-Representative Jylien Barwald: "Ambassador, I was asked by Representative vyn Nysen to deliver her offices proposed textual amendements to the newest draft, but it seems the delegation from Tinhampton has preceded us. I have briefly consulted with the Representative, and we both came to the conclusion that the text as proposed by the delegation from Tinhampton is much better than our own suggestions. As such, we heartily recommend that you take over the proposed text as presented by Delegate-Ambassador Smith.

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: OK, so this is a... nightmare of consistency and bloatednesseressness? Do consider the below, possible Draft Eleven if you so wish:

The World Assembly,

Affirming that, at birth, children should have the certainty of citizenship in a nation, and should not be rendered stateless due to the geospatial circumstances of their birth (for instance, by being born in a nation that their parents do not hold citizenship in),

Dismayed that, while this body has already acted to prevent member states from arbitrarily making their citizens stateless through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness", it has never legislated to protect the citizenships of children who would otherwise be born stateless in the first place, and

Resolving to correct this oversight, hereby enacts as follows:

1. All children of citizens of member nations shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their parent(s) are citizens, regardless of their location of birth, in following the principle of a child's citizenship being determined by their biological parent(s)' citizenship.
2. Nations with laws that have the effect of prohibiting citizenships other than their own being held by any of their citizens must not enforce such laws against these citizens until they become legally competent by virtue of their age.
3. If both biological parents of a child are unknown, stateless, or fit any other criteria that prevent citizenship in any nation from being passed down to their child, that child will receive the citizenship(s) of their primary caretaker.
4. All children shall receive their citizenship(s) upon attaining personhood and must retain them in perpetuity, unless they are revoked in accordance with procedures outlined in national or international law, voluntarily rescinded, or terminated in accordance with Article 5.
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when they become legally competent by virtue of their age.

Access to Abortion requires member states to "ascribe personhood to begin at birth." In the event that the three abortion laws are repealed and in future replaced by a resolution requiring or at least allowing member states to define personhood as beginning at conception, then... yeah. That.

"While that is a possible - but according to us unlikely - concern for the future, it is not the state of affairs in the present. As such, both Representative vyn Nysen and I advice against writing this text with the potential repeals of the three abortion laws in mind. It is our sincere hope that any repeals of those three resolutions will not come to pass."

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: OK, so this is a... nightmare of consistency and bloatednesseressness? Do consider the below, possible Draft Eleven if you so wish:

The World Assembly,

Affirming that, at birth, children should have the certainty of citizenship in a nation, and should not be rendered stateless due to the geospatial circumstances of their birth (for instance, by being born in a nation that their parents do not hold citizenship in),

Dismayed that, while this body has already acted to prevent member states from arbitrarily making their citizens stateless through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness", it has never legislated to protect the citizenships of children who would otherwise be born stateless in the first place, and

Resolving to correct this oversight, hereby enacts as follows:

1. All children of citizens of member nations shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their parent(s) are citizens, regardless of their location of birth, in following the principle of a child's citizenship being determined by their biological parent(s)' citizenship.
2. Nations with laws that have the effect of prohibiting citizenships other than their own being held by any of their citizens must not enforce such laws against these citizens until they become legally competent by virtue of their age.
3. If both biological parents of a child are unknown, stateless, or fit any other criteria that prevent citizenship in any nation from being passed down to their child, that child will receive the citizenship(s) of their primary caretaker.
4. All children shall receive their citizenship(s) upon attaining personhood and must retain them in perpetuity, unless they are revoked in accordance with procedures outlined in national or international law, voluntarily rescinded, or terminated in accordance with Article 5.
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when they become legally competent by virtue of their age.

Access to Abortion requires member states to "ascribe personhood to begin at birth." In the event that the three abortion laws are repealed and in future replaced by a resolution requiring or at least allowing member states to define personhood as beginning at conception, then... yeah. That.

Both of your comments are appreciated.

Tin, I will definitively incorporate some elements of your draft into Draft XI. Especially the clauses 4 & 5 were worded better than in the existing version of the draft.

However, I do echo the ambassador from Daarwyrth's point that WA proposals should be written with existing resolutions in mind, not proposals that may fail.

And furthermore, should "person ood" be defined in the future as the beginning of conception, I see no reason for this resolution to be altered as a "human" in the womb, in my opinion, has no need for citizenship until it is birthed, at which point it will receive it.

Draft XI now posted.

Again any comments welcomed, I'd like to see if Draft XII can be proposed the the body of the WA.

Thanks,
SSM

Vice-Representative Jylien Barwald: "A few small remarks, my dear Ambassador:

Affirming that all children, at birth, should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation, > Affirming that all children should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation at birth,

Further Affirming that children, at birth, should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth, > Further Affirming that children should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth, the moment they are born,

at which a childbirth occurs > at which the birth of a child occurs

"Ambassador, the wording 'awarded citizenship' sounds somewhat odd to us. Wouldn't 'granted citizenship' sound better in this instance? It feels somewhat odd to think of citizenship as an award, but that might just be my Daarish interfering."

voluntarily rescinded > voluntarily renounced

Naturally, these are mere suggestions, Ambassador, and you are free to adopt them into a new, perhaps final, draft, or to discard them as you see fit. Regardless, it has been our delegation's pleasure to provide feedback on this draft proposal."

Daarwyrth wrote:Vice-Representative Jylien Barwald: "A few small remarks, my dear Ambassador:

Affirming that all children, at birth, should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation, > Affirming that all children should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation at birth,

Further Affirming that children, at birth, should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth, > Further Affirming that children should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth, the moment they are born,

at which a childbirth occurs > at which the birth of a child occurs

"Ambassador, the wording 'awarded citizenship' sounds somewhat odd to us. Wouldn't 'granted citizenship' sound better in this instance? It feels somewhat odd to think of citizenship as an award, but that might just be my Daarish interfering."

voluntarily rescinded > voluntarily renounced

Naturally, these are mere suggestions, Ambassador, and you are free to adopt them into a new, perhaps final, draft, or to discard them as you see fit. Regardless, it has been our delegation's pleasure to provide feedback on this draft proposal."

IC: I've appreciated all of your feedback fellow ambassador! I will also take your recent remarks into account.

Thanks,
Herbert Sana
Secretary Of Foreign Affairs

"Once again, I and my office fundamentally oppose the imposition of jus sanguinis on the citizenship law of member states. That it is consistent with Wallenburgian citizenship law does not make it any less heinous than if this proposal were to impose jus soli on those societies where the concept is alien and nonsensical.

"I will also point out that clause 5 suffers from very poor wording. It seems to omit a 'they' where it is needed, and the rest reads rather poorly. If I read the intent of the clause correctly, this would do far better."

Ogenbond scratches his pen on a loose piece of paper and hands it over to the authoring delegation:

If one of an individual's multiple citizenships is inherited through three generations of individuals that have never inhabited the citizenship nation, that nation may terminate that individual's citizenship when they reach the age of majority.

"I do not understand why your cutoff is three. It seems incredibly arbitrary, and inconsistent with the variety of societies represented in this chamber."

Wallenburg wrote:"I do not understand why your cutoff is three. It seems incredibly arbitrary, and inconsistent with the variety of societies represented in this chamber."

Maria vyn Nysen smiles politely. "I feel I should claim responsibility for this, Ambassador, as it was my example to the author of this proposal that influenced this, I believe. I spoke of three, because it was an example that was close to how citizenship is handled in Daarwyrth. It is an arbitrary number, I agree, but it feels as a fair number to not have citizenship be granted to individuals in vain."

Daarwyrth wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"I do not understand why your cutoff is three. It seems incredibly arbitrary, and inconsistent with the variety of societies represented in this chamber."

Maria vyn Nysen smiles politely. "I feel I should claim responsibility for this, Ambassador, as it was my example to the author of this proposal that influenced this, I believe. I spoke of three, because it was an example that was close to how citizenship is handled in Daarwyrth. It is an arbitrary number, I agree, but it feels as a fair number to not have citizenship be granted to individuals in vain."

Wallenburg wrote:"Once again, I and my office fundamentally oppose the imposition of jus sanguinis on the citizenship law of member states. That it is consistent with Wallenburgian citizenship law does not make it any less heinous than if this proposal were to impose jus soli on those societies where the concept is alien and nonsensical.

"I will also point out that clause 5 suffers from very poor wording. It seems to omit a 'they' where it is needed, and the rest reads rather poorly. If I read the intent of the clause correctly, this would do far better."

Ogenbond scratches his pen on a loose piece of paper and hands it over to the authoring delegation:

If one of an individual's multiple citizenships is inherited through three generations of individuals that have never inhabited the citizenship nation, that nation may terminate that individual's citizenship when they reach the age of majority.

"I do not understand why your cutoff is three. It seems incredibly arbitrary, and inconsistent with the variety of societies represented in this chamber."

IC: A response, esteemed ambassadors:

1) Regarding the imposition of jus sanguinis on the citizenship law of member state: Make it understood that the intent of this article is to make sure that all beings are given the privilege of citizenship in at least one nation when they are born. Statelessness, by virtue of the situation that you were born in, is not a problem one should be faced with. Now then, the resolution has adopted the principle of jus sanguinis in order to reach that goal. I, ambassador, would prefer if a law would simply state "all people cannot be born stateless". But how are we to regulate that? If a person's homeland follows jus soli and their place of birth follows jus sanguinis, what is to be done? To conclude, your concerns about the imposition of jus sanguinis on member nations are respectable and understandable, however I believe it is the best way, albeit not a perfect one, to eliminate, in conjunction with reducing statelessness, the problem altogether.

2) Regarding Clause 5: Your insight is appreciated and I will work that revised sentence into Draft XII.

3) Regarding the three generations of individuals rule: I (and Maria vyn Nysen) concluded that the fourth generation was a reasonable time to assume you no longer have such a connection to a place to still be a citizen of it. If there are any specific resolutions that make such rules, as you say, inconsistent with the variety of societies represented in this chamber, I would appreciate if you would let me know what they are and I will correct the rule accordingly.

- Herbert Sana
Secretary Of Foreign Affairs

"If the intent is merely to eliminate statelessness, rather than impose uniform citizenship laws, then it should be simple enough to apply the mandates 'in such cases where an individual would otherwise be stateless', or in some equivalent fashion."

Wallenburg wrote:"If the intent is merely to eliminate statelessness, rather than impose uniform citizenship laws, then it should be simple enough to apply the mandates 'in such cases where an individual would otherwise be stateless', or in some equivalent fashion."

That is a simple solution but would seem to be effective. Thanks for suggesting it.

'Evening everyone. Draft XII is now posted. Other than minor grammatical changes, the only difference of note is, per Wallenberg's suggestion, I've added "In situations where individuals would otherwise be stateless" to the start of Clause 2. This will allow the WA to help eradicate statelessness while still giving individual nations the ability to dictate their own citizenship laws, whether that be through jus sanguinis, jus soli, or otherwise.

I plan to propose this version to the WA in a week or so, and your comments are welcomed and appreciated. Should significant issues arise, I will make a Draft XIII.

Also, to me, the best category/strength is civil rights/significant. I welcome thoughts on that too.

South St Maarten wrote:
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when it reaches the age of majority.

(red text added)

Old Hope wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when it reaches the age of majority.

(red text added)

No.

Old Hope wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when it reaches the age of majority.

(red text added)

OOC: "they" would be better than "it".

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Old Hope wrote:(red text added)

No.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Old Hope wrote:(red text added)

OOC: "they" would be better than "it".

Old Hope wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:
5. If one of the multiple citizenships of a person has been passed down more than three generations without any of those generations living in that nation, the relevant nation may terminate that person's citizenship when it reaches the age of majority.

(red text added)

I'll agree with Daarwyth here, they is better than it, but thanks for pointing out the error Old Hope

I disagree and am against this proposal here because of the reason that not all born babies should be granted citizenship. This proposal failed to account that citizenship laws in each nation are different and regulation of that is a basically controlling another nation’s law. Also I oppose as their are a variety of different reasons that I cannot even say it all all day. For example, Parents of the baby may be criminals that born and the baby, in a reasonable person’s eyes is denied citizenship and should experience the same fate as the criminals especially in more authoritative nations. VOTE AGAINST

Brilliantly wrote:I disagree and am against this proposal here because of the reason that not all born babies should be granted citizenship. This proposal failed to account that citizenship laws in each nation are different and regulation of that is a basically controlling another nation’s law. Also I oppose as their are a variety of different reasons that I cannot even say it all all day. For example, Parents of the baby may be criminals that born and the baby, in a reasonable person’s eyes is denied citizenship and should experience the same fate as the criminals especially in more authoritative nations. VOTE AGAINST

Controlling another nation's law is the whole point of the WA. If you don't like its law, you can either work to repeal what you dislike, or just leave.

Brilliantly wrote:I disagree and am against this proposal here because of the reason that not all born babies should be granted citizenship. This proposal failed to account that citizenship laws in each nation are different and regulation of that is a basically controlling another nation’s law. Also I oppose as their are a variety of different reasons that I cannot even say it all all day. For example, Parents of the baby may be criminals that born and the baby, in a reasonable person’s eyes is denied citizenship and should experience the same fate as the criminals especially in more authoritative nations. VOTE AGAINST

I acknowledge your opinion but will respectively disagree, sir. Why should an unborn child be put in a disadvantageous situation because their parents committed a crime? Furthermore, the proposal explicitly states that this proposal goes in effect only when a baby would be born without citizenship in a nation.