NationStates

Minor wording edits.

If we substitute legal jargon for definitions, then Article 3 requires that "in following the principle of principle of nationality law in which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of the bloodline of the mother and/or father, all children, regardless of their location of birth, shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen." Do you understand why my brain hurts yet?

"How would this affect situations in which the mother of the child is taking the role of a surrogate for another individual or individuals? It strikes me that in those cases it would be much more beneficial for the child to be given the same citizenship as one of their legal guardians rather than the same citizenship as the surrogate mother.

"You appear to have accidentally put in two clauses numbered "four". I would also avoid ambiguity in the second of these - does it refer only to World Assembly legislation passed prior to this proposal, or any resolution passed at any time? I'd recommend the latter, which I think should be phrased more clearly."

Draft V now posted.

Tinhampton wrote:If we substitute legal jargon for definitions, then Article 3 requires that "in following the principle of principle of nationality law in which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of the bloodline of the mother and/or father, all children, regardless of their location of birth, shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen." Do you understand why my brain hurts yet?

I fixed it a little bit

Maowi wrote:"How would this affect situations in which the mother of the child is taking the role of a surrogate for another individual or individuals? It strikes me that in those cases it would be much more beneficial for the child to be given the same citizenship as one of their legal guardians rather than the same citizenship as the surrogate mother.

"You appear to have accidentally put in two clauses numbered "four". I would also avoid ambiguity in the second of these - does it refer only to World Assembly legislation passed prior to this proposal, or any resolution passed at any time? I'd recommend the latter, which I think should be phrased more clearly."

I've added a clause 9 temporarily dealing with that issue. But I do have some problems with it. Are all children now adopted at/near birth allowed to become citizens of that nation upon reaching adolescence? If 200,000 displaced children from Syria enter the US, for example, do we gain 200,000 new citizens? And what about orphanages? Like I said, I added it temporarily, but I'm weary of being too specific in this resolution. Citizenship and nationality are such broad domains with so many unique situations, I think it would be for the better to keep this as basic and all-encompassing as possible. After all, the idea behind this is simply making sure all children aren't stateless at birth. I'd appreciate further comments on clause 9. I do intend to make a Draft VI.

“You don’t need to capitalise the second word in some of the preambularory clauses, only the first. The repeated phrase ‘but are by no means required to’ is unnecessary, since the use of the word ‘may’ already implies as such, and the law does only what it says it does.”

Kenmoria wrote:“You don’t need to capitalise the second word in some of the preambularory clauses, only the first. The repeated phrase ‘but are by no means required to’ is unnecessary, since the use of the word ‘may’ already implies as such, and the law does only what it says it does.”

Will do, thanks.

South St Maarten wrote:1. Jus Sanguinis shall be defined as principle of nationality law in which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of the bloodline of the mother and/or father.

OOC: I'd remove the phrase "of the bloodline" - I think it just adds ambiguity. Also, this definition seems quite similar to Wikipedia's definition ...

Jus sanguinis (English: /dʒʌs ˈsæŋɡwɪnɪs/ juss SANG-gwin-iss, /jus/ yoos; Latin: [juːs ˈsaŋɡwɪnɪs]; 'right of blood') is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality or ethnicity of one or both parents.

... I don't know if that's close enough to be plagiarism but if I were you I would definitely reword that.

3. In following Jus Sanguinis, all children, regardless of their location of birth, shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen.

I would also remove "In following Jus Sanguinis" - again, only adds ambiguity, because it could potentially be read as saying that all nations that choose to use Jus Sanguinis must award citizenship to children as specified, but not that all nations must use Jus Sanguinis. Removing that phrase, you get the exact same mandate without the ambiguity.

4. If the mother has an unknown identity, is stateless, or fits any other criteria that doesn't allow citizenship in any nation to be passed down to the child, the child shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their father is a citizen.

I feel like there's a bit of a jump going from "children shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen" to the part I have bolded in this quotation. What happens if it is permitted for the mother's citizenship to be passed down to the child in some, but not all, nations? Intuition/common sense says you just pass it down in those nations, and not in the others, but is it stated anywhere in this law? I'm not sure whether or not you need to add anything about that, it might be overkill, but thought it was worth pointing out.

5. All children shall attain their citizenship(s) immediately at birth and must retain them in perpetuity, unless the loss of citizenship is handled in accordance of existing World Assembly legislation.

What existing World Assembly legislation is there that handles loss of citizenship (genuine question)? But also, how can you be sure that the topic will be covered in World Assembly law in perpetuity? If the World Assembly repeals all resolutions to do with loss of citizenship, does that mean that nations are no longer able to ever remove a person's citizenship for any reason?

7. Nations may institute the principle of Jus Soli in conjunction with Jus Sanguinis, but are by no means required to.

a. Children born in such nations will therefore be awarded citizenship in all nations of which their mother is a citizen, along with citizenship in the nation they were born in.

I'm not sure I fully understand this clause. Surely the nation of birth of a child cannot decide whether the child receives citizenship from the nation(s) of citizenship of the mother? I would imagine the nations of citizenship of the mother would be the ones with authority over that ...

The sub-clause does not add anything and could indeed by actively harmful - it doesn't contain all the same exceptions and provisions as clauses 3 and 4. I'd remove it.

8. Nations may also institute a policy in which children may also be awarded their father's citizenship(s), but are by no means required to.

a. Children born in such nations will therefore be awarded citizenship in all nations of which their mother is a citizen, along with citizenship in all nations of which their father is a citizen.

Same with this sub-clause.

10. Exceptions to clauses 7 & 8 are limited to the following:

a. Select nations do not allow dual citizenship, but do use both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli. In cases where the mother's nationality differs from the nation of which the child was born in, the state may require the mother to choose a single nationality for the child.

This is likely just to be my own ignorance, but this clause confuses me somewhat. It seems unlikely to me that a nation would use both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli, but then also disallow dual citizenship - it doesn't really make any sense as a policy. And how does this work with clause 4.a., which requires Jus Soli as a last resort only? I think the way this should be phrased is if the nation of birth of the child uses Jus Soli, the nation of citizenship of the mother uses Jus Sanguinis, and either of them does not allow dual citizenship - if that makes any sense?

Separately, what if the mother "has an unknown identity, is stateless, or fits any other criteria that doesn't allow citizenship in any nation to be passed down to the child"? I would use more generic terminology here - perhaps just "parent".

A nation could use both ius soli and ius sanguinis while disallowing dual citizenship: a person born outside the nation is not a citizen under ius soli. But because the father is a... say... Roman, the child receives Roman citizenship. Let's also say the republic prohibits people from holding citizenship both in a foreign state and in Rome.¹ At this point the child's parents would have to choose Roman citizenship one citizenship or or the other or, if both parents are cives romani, no choice is necessary.

¹ About this, the Romans didn't historically have prohibitions on holding multiple citizenships; eg Paul. One would be a citizen of Rome. A person then could vote in Rome. He also would be able to stand for office, if not a libertus. But a person also would be a citizen of their locality; this became very common after Roman citizenship was extended to Italy by the lex Iulia: provincial Italians became citizens both of their localities and also of the republic writ large.

Strongly against. Thermodolia doesn’t use Jus Soli and never will. It would require a constitutional amendment to do so. Jus Sanguinis is the only way a person is granted automatic citizenship in Thermodolia.

We do however give national status to those who are born in Thermodolia but neither parent is a Thermodolian citizen. This gives the the right of most citizens with the exceptions of political office and the ability to vote.

"The Imperium is similarly concerned by the imposition of jus soli; the Imperium has no interest in acquiring the citizenship of random foreigner children simply on the basis that their parents lacked, deliberately or otherwise, citizenship of their own; especially in the all-but-certain circumstance that their parents are within the Imperial territories illegally in the first place."

South St Maarten wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:IC: I am at a loss as to why you believe it imperative that the WA dictate citizenship laws for nations. What possible benefit does this have?

And the tired and worn out “think of the children!” argument does not count.

I believe that the issue, specifically, of foreign birth is a major international issue. And what if one nation says that you can't be a citizen if you are not born on my soil but another says that if your parents aren't citizens then you can't be one at birth? This could leave children being stateless for no fault of their own. That's why i'd consider it a worthy issue. Other issues regarding citizenship are purely domestic affairs

Ambassador it’s not our problem if some foreigners have none of the foresight to not give birth in Thermodolia. That child will never automatically be a Thermodolian citizen. It’s not our problem

Thank you all for the comments. I do feel that some of my words have been interpreted wrong (not saying that is your fault, but mine for the wording of it) so I'll rectify that in Draft VI coming out shortly. In the meantime, I'll address these comments.

Maowi wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:1. Jus Sanguinis shall be defined as principle of nationality law in which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of the bloodline of the mother and/or father.

OOC: I'd remove the phrase "of the bloodline" - I think it just adds ambiguity. Also, this definition seems quite similar to Wikipedia's definition ...

Jus sanguinis (English: /dʒʌs ˈsæŋɡwɪnɪs/ juss SANG-gwin-iss, /jus/ yoos; Latin: [juːs ˈsaŋɡwɪnɪs]; 'right of blood') is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality or ethnicity of one or both parents.

... I don't know if that's close enough to be plagiarism but if I were you I would definitely reword that.

3. In following Jus Sanguinis, all children, regardless of their location of birth, shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen.

I would also remove "In following Jus Sanguinis" - again, only adds ambiguity, because it could potentially be read as saying that all nations that choose to use Jus Sanguinis must award citizenship to children as specified, but not that all nations must use Jus Sanguinis. Removing that phrase, you get the exact same mandate without the ambiguity.

4. If the mother has an unknown identity, is stateless, or fits any other criteria that doesn't allow citizenship in any nation to be passed down to the child, the child shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their father is a citizen.

I feel like there's a bit of a jump going from "children shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen" to the part I have bolded in this quotation. What happens if it is permitted for the mother's citizenship to be passed down to the child in some, but not all, nations? Intuition/common sense says you just pass it down in those nations, and not in the others, but is it stated anywhere in this law? I'm not sure whether or not you need to add anything about that, it might be overkill, but thought it was worth pointing out.

5. All children shall attain their citizenship(s) immediately at birth and must retain them in perpetuity, unless the loss of citizenship is handled in accordance of existing World Assembly legislation.

What existing World Assembly legislation is there that handles loss of citizenship (genuine question)? But also, how can you be sure that the topic will be covered in World Assembly law in perpetuity? If the World Assembly repeals all resolutions to do with loss of citizenship, does that mean that nations are no longer able to ever remove a person's citizenship for any reason?

7. Nations may institute the principle of Jus Soli in conjunction with Jus Sanguinis, but are by no means required to.

a. Children born in such nations will therefore be awarded citizenship in all nations of which their mother is a citizen, along with citizenship in the nation they were born in.

I'm not sure I fully understand this clause. Surely the nation of birth of a child cannot decide whether the child receives citizenship from the nation(s) of citizenship of the mother? I would imagine the nations of citizenship of the mother would be the ones with authority over that ...

The sub-clause does not add anything and could indeed by actively harmful - it doesn't contain all the same exceptions and provisions as clauses 3 and 4. I'd remove it.

8. Nations may also institute a policy in which children may also be awarded their father's citizenship(s), but are by no means required to.

a. Children born in such nations will therefore be awarded citizenship in all nations of which their mother is a citizen, along with citizenship in all nations of which their father is a citizen.

Same with this sub-clause.

10. Exceptions to clauses 7 & 8 are limited to the following:

a. Select nations do not allow dual citizenship, but do use both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli. In cases where the mother's nationality differs from the nation of which the child was born in, the state may require the mother to choose a single nationality for the child.

This is likely just to be my own ignorance, but this clause confuses me somewhat. It seems unlikely to me that a nation would use both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli, but then also disallow dual citizenship - it doesn't really make any sense as a policy. And how does this work with clause 4.a., which requires Jus Soli as a last resort only? I think the way this should be phrased is if the nation of birth of the child uses Jus Soli, the nation of citizenship of the mother uses Jus Sanguinis, and either of them does not allow dual citizenship - if that makes any sense?

Separately, what if the mother "has an unknown identity, is stateless, or fits any other criteria that doesn't allow citizenship in any nation to be passed down to the child"? I would use more generic terminology here - perhaps just "parent".

1. Fair point, will do so.
3. Will also do so.
4. Understand, but I honestly don't feel that it needs to be specified further. The proposal states:

shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen

and

fits any other criteria that doesn't allow citizenship in any nation to be passed down to the child,

By default, this doesn't apply if the mother has citizenship in at least one nation.
5. Fixed
7.

I'm not sure I fully understand this clause. Surely the nation of birth of a child cannot decide whether the child receives citizenship from the nation(s) of citizenship of the mother? I would imagine the nations of citizenship of the mother would be the ones with authority over that ...

You are completely correct, the nation of birth of a child cannot decide whether the child receives citizenship from the nation(s) of citizenship of the mother. I think this also speaks to further comments here:

Thermodolia wrote:Strongly against. Thermodolia doesn’t use Jus Soli and never will. It would require a constitutional amendment to do so. Jus Sanguinis is the only way a person is granted automatic citizenship in Thermodolia.

We do however give national status to those who are born in Thermodolia but neither parent is a Thermodolian citizen. This gives the the right of most citizens with the exceptions of political office and the ability to vote.

Thermodolia wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:I believe that the issue, specifically, of foreign birth is a major international issue. And what if one nation says that you can't be a citizen if you are not born on my soil but another says that if your parents aren't citizens then you can't be one at birth? This could leave children being stateless for no fault of their own. That's why i'd consider it a worthy issue. Other issues regarding citizenship are purely domestic affairs

Ambassador it’s not our problem if some foreigners have none of the foresight to not give birth in Thermodolia. That child will never automatically be a Thermodolian citizen. It’s not our problem

I need to clarify. I'll once again stress, Jus Sanguinis is standard. All children born will be automatically given citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen. Then two more things can happen:

I. If the nation in with the mother is a citizen allows dual citizenship, and the nation in which the father is a citizen has decided to institute Jus Sanguinis, then the child shall also attain the citizenship of the father.
II. If the nation in with the mother is a citizen allows dual citizenship, and the nation in which the child was born has decided to institute Jus Soli, then the child shall also attain the citizenship of the nation in which they were born.

Now obviously, most cases this won't be necessary as a vast majority of children have a parent(s) of the same nationality or are born in a nation in which their mother/father is a citizen. But not always.

So to respond to your remark, Thermodolia, your nation doesn't ever have to use Jus Soli. All children born in your nation whose parents are not citizens are therefore NOT, and will never be, Thermodolian citizens. So in reality, your nationality laws will remain exactly the same. I wrote the resolution the way I did specifically to cater to nations such as yours.

But obviously this last area of the resolution had some flawed writing, so I will change it. Please look to Draft VI for improvements

Moving on....

Imperium Anglorum wrote:A nation could use both ius soli and ius sanguinis while disallowing dual citizenship: a person born outside the nation is not a citizen under ius soli. But because the father is a... say... Roman, the child receives Roman citizenship. Let's also say the republic prohibits people from holding citizenship both in a foreign state and in Rome.¹ At this point the child's parents would have to choose Roman citizenship one citizenship or or the other or, if both parents are cives romani, no choice is necessary. ¹ About this, the Romans didn't historically have prohibitions on holding multiple citizenships; eg Paul. One would be a citizen of Rome. A person then could vote in Rome. He also would be able to stand for office, if not a libertus. But a person also would be a citizen of their locality; this became very common after Roman citizenship was extended to Italy by the lex Iulia: provincial Italians became citizens both of their localities and also of the republic writ large.

Appreciate the insight. I was thinking if a situation such as that when righting the clause, however I think I might strike it out in the next draft when I reword it.

Tinfect wrote:"The Imperium is similarly concerned by the imposition of jus soli; the Imperium has no interest in acquiring the citizenship of random foreigner children simply on the basis that their parents lacked, deliberately or otherwise, citizenship of their own; especially in the all-but-certain circumstance that their parents are within the Imperial territories illegally in the first place."

If two stateless parents have a baby in your nation, is it not your nation who admitted them in the first place? And for other situations, reducing statelessness will mean that some nations do indeed have to take in "random foreigner children" because their "parents lacked, deliberately or otherwise, citizenship of their own". This, hopefully, will be alleviated in a short while when the children born in the generation of this act are not staless, after all, and therefore when they have a child in your nation Jus Sanguinis will be followed and your nation will not have to grant them citizenship. "Temporary sacrifices must sometimes be made, ambassador.

Kenmoria wrote:“You don’t need to capitalise the second word in some of the preambularory clauses, only the first. The repeated phrase ‘but are by no means required to’ is unnecessary, since the use of the word ‘may’ already implies as such, and the law does only what it says it does.”

Will do so in Draft VI.

Some significant edits. Draft VI now posted.

South St Maarten wrote:If two stateless parents have a baby in your nation, is it not your nation who admitted them in the first place? And for other situations, reducing statelessness will mean that some nations do indeed have to take in "random foreigner children" because their "parents lacked, deliberately or otherwise, citizenship of their own". This, hopefully, will be alleviated in a short while when the children born in the generation of this act are not staless, after all, and therefore when they have a child in your nation Jus Sanguinis will be followed and your nation will not have to grant them citizenship. "Temporary sacrifices must sometimes be made, ambassador.

"Ambassador, the Imperial border is highly secure, but it is not magical. Current hostile occupation aside, the Imperium can no more stop entry into the Exterior Territories than could your government stop every ship from entering its seas; it would take far more than the Imperium has available to monitor every inch of our territory at every moment, and surely it cannot be expected to, as would any other Member-State. Foreigners are not permitted within the Imperial Territories; any presence within our borders is by definition illegal.

As for 'reducing statelessness', it is not the Imperium's concern whether or not foreigners lack any citizenships; 'some nations' might be quite willing to take in vast foreign populations simply on the basis that their parents managed to find their way into their borders. The Imperium is not. We have no interest in becoming a dumping ground for foreign children; we see no reason that their mere illegal presence within the Imperial Territories justifies the conference of citizenship. And, surely, were the foreign parents not acting maliciously, I am very certain that they would be highly disinclined to have the Imperium separate their child from them that they might be raised in the Imperium.

This mandate, serves solely to annihilate border protections and mandate barbarism. We see no reason to support it."

3. All children, regardless of their location of birth, shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen.

OOC: This would suggest you're not only trying to mandate on non-member nations (all nations), but also children born in non-member nations to non-WA citizens. Same for clause 5. The "all nations" becomes a problem when you also have "member states". If you used only "all nations", then it'd be assumed to mean only WA nations, but because you use both, the "all" by necessity includes non-members.

6. All twins, triplets, etc. born in the same period of labor must be assigned the same citizenship(s).

Which citizenships? If one baby's born (on an ambulance on its way across an international border) in one nation but their slightly younger twin is born in the other nation, which nation's jus soli is applied? If Nation A (where first twin is born) does jus soli but does not allow dual citizenship, Nation B (where the other twin is born and where the mother is citizen) does the same, must the babies be awarded Nation A's citizenship because of the first baby being born there and then they can't get Nation B's citizenship because of no dual citizenships, or what?

And don't get me started on babies born on ships within territorial waters...

Araraukar wrote:

3. All children, regardless of their location of birth, shall be awarded citizenship in all nations in which their mother is a citizen.

OOC: This would suggest you're not only trying to mandate on non-member nations (all nations), but also children born in non-member nations to non-WA citizens. Same for clause 5. The "all nations" becomes a problem when you also have "member states". If you used only "all nations", then it'd be assumed to mean only WA nations, but because you use both, the "all" by necessity includes non-members.

6. All twins, triplets, etc. born in the same period of labor must be assigned the same citizenship(s).

Which citizenships? If one baby's born (on an ambulance on its way across an international border) in one nation but their slightly younger twin is born in the other nation, which nation's jus soli is applied? If Nation A (where first twin is born) does jus soli but does not allow dual citizenship, Nation B (where the other twin is born and where the mother is citizen) does the same, must the babies be awarded Nation A's citizenship because of the first baby being born there and then they can't get Nation B's citizenship because of no dual citizenships, or what?

And don't get me started on babies born on ships within territorial waters...

1) Thanks, I'll change that in Draft VII. Good point.

2) I think I might eliminate Clause 6 for the sake of simplicity, and also it could bring consequences like the ones you referenced.

Tinfect wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:If two stateless parents have a baby in your nation, is it not your nation who admitted them in the first place? And for other situations, reducing statelessness will mean that some nations do indeed have to take in "random foreigner children" because their "parents lacked, deliberately or otherwise, citizenship of their own". This, hopefully, will be alleviated in a short while when the children born in the generation of this act are not staless, after all, and therefore when they have a child in your nation Jus Sanguinis will be followed and your nation will not have to grant them citizenship. "Temporary sacrifices must sometimes be made, ambassador.

"Ambassador, the Imperial border is highly secure, but it is not magical. Current hostile occupation aside, the Imperium can no more stop entry into the Exterior Territories than could your government stop every ship from entering its seas; it would take far more than the Imperium has available to monitor every inch of our territory at every moment, and surely it cannot be expected to, as would any other Member-State. Foreigners are not permitted within the Imperial Territories; any presence within our borders is by definition illegal.

As for 'reducing statelessness', it is not the Imperium's concern whether or not foreigners lack any citizenships; 'some nations' might be quite willing to take in vast foreign populations simply on the basis that their parents managed to find their way into their borders. The Imperium is not. We have no interest in becoming a dumping ground for foreign children; we see no reason that their mere illegal presence within the Imperial Territories justifies the conference of citizenship. And, surely, were the foreign parents not acting maliciously, I am very certain that they would be highly disinclined to have the Imperium separate their child from them that they might be raised in the Imperium.

This mandate, serves solely to annihilate border protections and mandate barbarism. We see no reason to support it."

IC: Ambassador, our nation does believe that statelessness is a problem. Evidently, this body does also as it has already passed legislation on the topic (Reducing Statelessness). I've attached some useful links from Kenmoria which outline why it is a problem. Of course, your nation is at liberty to disagree and I will note your lack of support.

Kenmoria wrote:

Old Hope wrote:Why is it so important that people have to have citizenship in a member nation at all?

(OOC: Here are some relevant sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

South St Maarten wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: This would suggest you're not only trying to mandate on non-member nations (all nations), but also children born in non-member nations to non-WA citizens. Same for clause 5. The "all nations" becomes a problem when you also have "member states". If you used only "all nations", then it'd be assumed to mean only WA nations, but because you use both, the "all" by necessity includes non-members.


Which citizenships? If one baby's born (on an ambulance on its way across an international border) in one nation but their slightly younger twin is born in the other nation, which nation's jus soli is applied? If Nation A (where first twin is born) does jus soli but does not allow dual citizenship, Nation B (where the other twin is born and where the mother is citizen) does the same, must the babies be awarded Nation A's citizenship because of the first baby being born there and then they can't get Nation B's citizenship because of no dual citizenships, or what?

And don't get me started on babies born on ships within territorial waters...

1) Thanks, I'll change that in Draft VII. Good point.

2) I think I might eliminate Clause 6 for the sake of simplicity, and also it could bring consequences like the ones you referenced.

There's no need to eliminate Clause 6.

6. All twins, triplets, etc. born in the same period of labor and in the same member state must be assigned the same citizenship(s).
There, fixed.

South St Maarten wrote:IC: Ambassador, our nation does believe that statelessness is a problem. Evidently, this body does also as it has already passed legislation on the topic (Reducing Statelessness). [Reference to OOC things removed] Of course, your nation is at liberty to disagree and I will note your lack of support.

"In other words, Ambassador, you are choosing to completely ignore criticism in favor of merely reiterating the ideological backing of your draft. In case it is simply that I have not spoken plainly enough for you, I will reiterate in the terms appropriate for schoolchildren;

Borders are not magical lines in sand, they are immensely and intractably permeable, barring great expense. Individuals will frequently find it quite easy to illegally cross into the territory of a Member-State, and indeed, may do so intentionally and maliciously. This legislation actively rewards said individuals for doing so, actively incentivizing and promoting criminal activity. When such an incident occurs, whether maliciously or innocently, Member-States are faced with two 'solutions' to the situation:

First, they may allow the citizen child and their non-citizen parents residency their territories with no consequences for flagrant violation of the law, shattering the basic principles of the rule of law and border security, so as to avoid the alternative. Thus, actively incentivizing and rewarding illegal activity and fundamentally undermining the basic structures of governance.

Or, they may arrest or otherwise remove the non-citizen parents from the child, and enter the citizen child into the existing infrastructure for similarly unaccompanied children, while the parents are entered into the criminal system as appropriate; I would hope you understand why this is an outcome preferably avoided, but you've given no indication of an ability to understand that which is not explicitly stated in the clearest possible terms thus far. To be brief, such systems are, in many Member-States, woefully undeveloped and overused, resulting in poor conditions for the child; and, of course, one would generally prefer that a child be allowed to remain with their genetic parents.

But, - I am not done, no, - This continues to incentivize illegal entry. The child still becomes a citizen by World Assembly fiat; the possibility of foreigners using Member-States as a dumping ground for unwanted children, or otherwise expecting the Imperium to take care of children that they cannot or will not care for, continues to exist, and indeed would pose a highly motivating factor for such individuals.

Now, your government is at liberty to promote and support illegal activities, and I will request that you state as much clearly, if you have no intention of rectifying the flaws of your draft.

As to prior legislation, the resolution you are referencing exclusively handles the removal of nationality, not citizenship, and of course passport law. It is often considered wise to read legislation, rather than simply gazing upon the title and deciding what it means in fantasy."

Tinfect wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:IC: Ambassador, our nation does believe that statelessness is a problem. Evidently, this body does also as it has already passed legislation on the topic (Reducing Statelessness). [Reference to OOC things removed] Of course, your nation is at liberty to disagree and I will note your lack of support.

"In other words, Ambassador, you are choosing to completely ignore criticism in favor of merely reiterating the ideological backing of your draft. In case it is simply that I have not spoken plainly enough for you, I will reiterate in the terms appropriate for schoolchildren;

Borders are not magical lines in sand, they are immensely and intractably permeable, barring great expense. Individuals will frequently find it quite easy to illegally cross into the territory of a Member-State, and indeed, may do so intentionally and maliciously. This legislation actively rewards said individuals for doing so, actively incentivizing and promoting criminal activity. When such an incident occurs, whether maliciously or innocently, Member-States are faced with two 'solutions' to the situation:

First, they may allow the citizen child and their non-citizen parents residency their territories with no consequences for flagrant violation of the law, shattering the basic principles of the rule of law and border security, so as to avoid the alternative. Thus, actively incentivizing and rewarding illegal activity and fundamentally undermining the basic structures of governance.

Or, they may arrest or otherwise remove the non-citizen parents from the child, and enter the citizen child into the existing infrastructure for similarly unaccompanied children, while the parents are entered into the criminal system as appropriate; I would hope you understand why this is an outcome preferably avoided, but you've given no indication of an ability to understand that which is not explicitly stated in the clearest possible terms thus far. To be brief, such systems are, in many Member-States, woefully undeveloped and overused, resulting in poor conditions for the child; and, of course, one would generally prefer that a child be allowed to remain with their genetic parents.

But, - I am not done, no, - This continues to incentivize illegal entry. The child still becomes a citizen by World Assembly fiat; the possibility of foreigners using Member-States as a dumping ground for unwanted children, or otherwise expecting the Imperium to take care of children that they cannot or will not care for, continues to exist, and indeed would pose a highly motivating factor for such individuals.

Now, your government is at liberty to promote and support illegal activities, and I will request that you state as much clearly, if you have no intention of rectifying the flaws of your draft.

As to prior legislation, the resolution you are referencing exclusively handles the removal of nationality, not citizenship, and of course passport law. It is often considered wise to read legislation, rather than simply gazing upon the title and deciding what it means in fantasy."

Sir, as always I do not intend to support malicious and illegal activities nor completely ignore criticism of my proposals. The points you are making are valid, I'll attest to that. So, your thoughts on a sub-clause specifying that this rule only applies to member nations. To clarify, you have a concern that foreigners could use Member-States as a dumping ground for unwanted children. I assume in this case you are referring to non-WA nations. A new clause could add that these rules only apply to WA children. I can draft some formal language later, but do you get the idea I am going for here?

Furthermore, I have read such resolution, and let me reference you to the first sentence: "Aware that people have been deprived of their citizenship by unscrupulous states to prevent them from exercising their societally guaranteed political rights". Was I wrong to assume one that would be stripped of their nationality is no longer a citizen of that nation, especially after the author references citizenship, not nationality, in the first sentence?

I apologize if my writing made it seem that I was simply disregarding your valid concerns, I have no intention of doing so. In fact, disregard what I proposed in the first paragraph of this quote, Quite simply, would you support the removal of 4(b) with a sub-clause stating that if the father is also stateless like the mother that nationality is up to the individual member nation. I do understand, ambassador, that subclauses of international legislation can often cause unforeseen (or in this case, foreseen) consequences.

Old Hope wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:1) Thanks, I'll change that in Draft VII. Good point.

2) I think I might eliminate Clause 6 for the sake of simplicity, and also it could bring consequences like the ones you referenced.

There's no need to eliminate Clause 6.

6. All twins, triplets, etc. born in the same period of labor and in the same member state must be assigned the same citizenship(s).
There, fixed.

Excellent, I'll make a note of that. Thanks.

Draft VII coming shortly. Any other comments welcomed in the meanwhile.

"My office remains firmly opposed to the imposition of jus sanguinis on member states which consider such a principle totally alien. We are also imposed to the imposition of jus soli for identical reasons, as well as the inherently nonsensical nature of assigning citizenship based on which dirt you were birthed onto rather than which nation you come from.

"What strikes me is that, by my memory, this proposal has been made worse than it was before. Your previous assurances that jus soli would not be imposed on Wallenburg have turned out to be false.

"I must also express my unwavering opposition to the rank sexism permeating this proposal's mandates. It reinforces what I must consider to be your society's gender stereotypes and expectations, expecting women to exist in a domestic role and men to serve merely as incidental parties to a child's family. This discriminates both against men and women, and is beyond unacceptable. There is no basis upon which jus sanguinis should, across the incredible diversity of societies represented by this international body, prefer the citizenship of the father to the mother or the reverse. This haphazard, sexist garbage is beneath my consideration."

Draft VII now posted, apologies for the hiatus.

Wallenburg (and others before them) brought up many valid points. Therefore, instead of simply editing what I had, I decided to change the heart of the proposal. Now, Jus Soli in any capacity is not forced upon a nation, and children received both the mother and father's citizenship at birth. I welcome your thoughts on this version.

Bump. If there are no further comments I'll consider proposing it, if you have any comments please leave them below

Thanks