[PASSED] Freedom of Travel

[Wallenburg]

Bumping this, will submit soon unless concerns are raised which I consider worth addressing.

[Bananaistan]

"Within the context of a country's obligations under existing international legislation to provide a minimum standard of living to its citizens, and also within the context of the socialist form of society as currently practised within Bananaistan, the requirements are broadly excessive. Frolicking around the countryside is a gross dereliction of responsibility to society. That we would also have to pay their way for them in terms of their bread and board, enrol their children in different schools every week, provide running water and other services to their tent on the side of a mountain, etc is obscene and anti-solidarity.

"Opposed."

[Wallenburg]

"Within the context of a country's obligations under existing international legislation to provide a minimum standard of living to its citizens, and also within the context of the socialist form of society as currently practised within Bananaistan, the requirements are broadly excessive. Frolicking around the countryside is a gross dereliction of responsibility to society. That we would also have to pay their way for them in terms of their bread and board, enrol their children in different schools every week, provide running water and other services to their tent on the side of a mountain, etc is obscene and anti-solidarity.

"Opposed."

"Your so-called socialism is itself obscene and anti-solidarity by the plain fact that it excludes an entire section of society for no other reason than their decision not to remain in one place for their entire life. You may call it what you wish, but the 'frolicking' of non-sedentary individuals is most often productive agricultural work, whether that be seasonal harvesting or nomadic pastoralism. To reduce these vital elements of the agricultural economy to somehow parasitic agents on society betrays nothing but your ignorance of what you haven't experienced yourself. Your imperialism is showing, Comrade Hornwood."

[Bananaistan]

"Within the context of a country's obligations under existing international legislation to provide a minimum standard of living to its citizens, and also within the context of the socialist form of society as currently practised within Bananaistan, the requirements are broadly excessive. Frolicking around the countryside is a gross dereliction of responsibility to society. That we would also have to pay their way for them in terms of their bread and board, enrol their children in different schools every week, provide running water and other services to their tent on the side of a mountain, etc is obscene and anti-solidarity.

"Opposed."

"Your so-called socialism is itself obscene and anti-solidarity by the plain fact that it excludes an entire section of society for no other reason than their decision not to remain in one place for their entire life. You may call it what you wish, but the 'frolicking' of non-sedentary individuals is most often productive agricultural work, whether that be seasonal harvesting or nomadic pastoralism. To reduce these vital elements of the agricultural economy to somehow parasitic agents on society betrays nothing but your ignorance of what you haven't experienced yourself. Your imperialism is showing, Comrade Hornwood."

"Nothing to do with imperialism Ambassador and I utterly reject these baseless accusations. There is literally no seasonal harvesting or nomadic pastoralism in Bananaistan that requires itinerant labour.

"The only possible application of this in Bananaistan is that you would force us to pay wasters and scoundrels to aimlessly wander around the countryside and make no contribution to society. This is the un-socialist element Ambassador. The saying goes "from each according to his ability ..." not "from each according to his ability if he isn't off pointlessly sauntering around ...".

[Hulldom]

"Your so-called socialism is itself obscene and anti-solidarity by the plain fact that it excludes an entire section of society for no other reason than their decision not to remain in one place for their entire life. You may call it what you wish, but the 'frolicking' of non-sedentary individuals is most often productive agricultural work, whether that be seasonal harvesting or nomadic pastoralism. To reduce these vital elements of the agricultural economy to somehow parasitic agents on society betrays nothing but your ignorance of what you haven't experienced yourself. Your imperialism is showing, Comrade Hornwood."

"Nothing to do with imperialism Ambassador and I utterly reject these baseless accusations. There is literally no seasonal harvesting or nomadic pastoralism in Bananaistan that requires itinerant labour.

"The only possible application of this in Bananaistan is that you would force us to pay wasters and scoundrels to aimlessly wander around the countryside and make no contribution to society. This is the un-socialist element Ambassador. The saying goes "from each according to his ability ..." not "from each according to his ability if he isn't off pointlessly sauntering around ...".

"And they should have the freedom to do so if they wish, sir. We can believe life is intrinsically valuable if it isn't producing some thing of value."

OOC: the Romani/Travelers??

[Wallenburg]

OOC: the Romani/Travelers??

OOC: Well, those are two examples, but there are thousands of groups, along with who knows how many individuals, who live in a non-sedentary manner. Sedentary groups are also protected from discrimination on the part of primarily non-sedentary cultures, and a general right to travel is protected regardless of sedentary status.

[Bananaistan]

"Nothing to do with imperialism Ambassador and I utterly reject these baseless accusations. There is literally no seasonal harvesting or nomadic pastoralism in Bananaistan that requires itinerant labour.

"The only possible application of this in Bananaistan is that you would force us to pay wasters and scoundrels to aimlessly wander around the countryside and make no contribution to society. This is the un-socialist element Ambassador. The saying goes "from each according to his ability ..." not "from each according to his ability if he isn't off pointlessly sauntering around ...".

"And they should have the freedom to do so if they wish, sir. We can believe life is intrinsically valuable if it isn't producing some thing of value."

"Securing or advancing intangible goals that benefit society such as raring children are not excluded from the definition of proper socialist activities in Bananaistan."

OOC: the Romani/Travelers??

OOC: Well, those are two examples, but there are thousands of groups, along with who knows how many individuals, who live in a non-sedentary manner. Sedentary groups are also protected from discrimination on the part of primarily non-sedentary cultures, and a general right to travel is protected regardless of sedentary status.

OOC: Travelers are a good example. They do not expect the rest of society to buy their caravans for them. Combination of this proposal and the minimum standard of living resolution is that the WA would force the rest of society to buy their caravans for them. Right to travel is a nice fluffy right but expecting teh taxpayer to pick up the bill is not nice or fluffy.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The proposal makes my head hurt. Just FYI.

Clause 7 still means the nomads cannot segregate against non-nomads in terms of education, which means they cannot teach only their own children their unique cultural stuff, and also still allows nations to require their kids attend normal schools. It bizarrely also bans nations from creating locations in which the nomads could reside while visiting sedentary population centers, which creates a direct contradiction with clause 6.

Clause 8 means that anything that the proposal tries to do specifically for nomads (like clause 7 segregation ban, or clause 6 in its entirety), is in fact illegal for violating CoCR. Discrimination bites both ways. Which makes the bit about crimefighting of clause 8 unnecessary duplication as CoCR already requires laws (such as ones concerning criminal activities) apply equally to all.

So all in all...

Clauses 1 and 2 are duplication of the genocide ban. Clause 3 is valid. Clause 4 is duplication of CoCR and Minimum Standards of Living. Clause 5 might be valid, but on its own kinda lacks the sense of "why". Clause 6 violates CoCR (with clause 8 in effect). Clause 7 violates CoCR (with clause 8 in effect). Clause 8 latter half duplicates CoCR. And clause 9 in its entirety seems to mandate the creation of cheap and fast public transport systems and would likely be better to open up properly in an entirely new proposal.

Not entirely certain you intended all of that to happen. And not entirely certain the strength is appropriate, since clause 9 is more Social Justice than Civil Rights, and 3 and 5 are not enough alone to make this Strong, given the reasonable restrictions in 3 and the nomadic allowance in 5 not actually giving people any extra rights (with clause 8 in effect).

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Travelers are a good example. They do not expect the rest of society to buy their caravans for them. Combination of this proposal and the minimum standard of living resolution is that the WA would force the rest of society to buy their caravans for them. Right to travel is a nice fluffy right but expecting teh taxpayer to pick up the bill is not nice or fluffy.

Minimum Standard of Living does not require free housing for all.

Clause 7 still means the nomads cannot segregate against non-nomads in terms of education, which means they cannot teach only their own children their unique cultural stuff, and also still allows nations to require their kids attend normal schools.

You are aware that schools are not the only setting in which "cultural stuff" is learned, right?

It bizarrely also bans nations from creating locations in which the nomads could reside while visiting sedentary population centers, which creates a direct contradiction with clause 6.

I see no contradiction with clause six in banning ghettos for nomads. If member states wish to provide rest stops or semi-permanent housing, they can do so without segregating based on nomadic status.

Clause 8 means that anything that the proposal tries to do specifically for nomads (like clause 7 segregation ban, or clause 6 in its entirety), is in fact illegal for violating CoCR.

It doesn't. What an absurd argument.

Which makes the bit about crimefighting of clause 8 unnecessary duplication as CoCR already requires laws (such as ones concerning criminal activities) apply equally to all.

Consider that a bit of minor duplication then.

Clauses 1 and 2 are duplication of the genocide ban.

Nomadic status is not an innate characteristic. Come on, Ara, try at least checking the text of the resolutions you claim I am contradicting.

Clause 4 is duplication of CoCR and Minimum Standards of Living.

Hardly. I almost feel like you meant to name a different clause here, for how detached from reality this claim is. Nothing in CoCR guarantees government services to independent of nomadic status. Nothing in Minimum Standard of Living guarantees the right to live a nomadic or sedentary lifestyle.

Clause 6 violates CoCR (with clause 8 in effect). Clause 7 violates CoCR (with clause 8 in effect).

Between the ability for them to be enforced in a manner consistent with the spirit of CoCR and "compelling practical purposes", I am not concerned about this.

Clause 8 latter half duplicates CoCR.

Maybe, but given the prevalence of violence against nomadic groups and their lack of protection under the law in practice, I think it's a good thing to include.

And clause 9 in its entirety seems to mandate the creation of cheap and fast public transport systems and would likely be better to open up properly in an entirely new proposal.

It doesn't, but if the only way for your people to get from A to B in a timely and affordable manner is to build a fast public transit, then I think that's a necessary improvement. This proposal is entitled Freedom of Travel, after all.

[Wallenburg]

Edits have been made. Bumping for feedback.

[Hulldom]

"Would this be a replacement to "WA Border Policy" as passed by the Assembly earlier?"

[Rick Perry]

Done full support I feel like freedom of travel is a good idea.

[Wallenburg]

"Would this be a replacement to "WA Border Policy" as passed by the Assembly earlier?"

"This will not replace any existing law. I see that the most recent edition does have issues in that regard. I will amend the language such that this proposal exclusively addresses domestic travel and settlement."

Done full support I feel like freedom of travel is a good idea.

Thank you, Governor Rick Perry.

[Apatosaurus]

"Apatosaurus offers its full support to this proposal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. I think we can support this proposal.

[Wallenburg]

The border policy issue is now resolved. Unless there are other concerns, I'll be moving this to the queue shortly.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

Clause 6 causes some problems here. By preventing nations from depriving individuals of certain government services based on their lifestyle and non-sedentary behavior, it jeopardizes a variety of state services. Examples would include citizenship with residency requirements and public services tied to that citizenship, as well as state-run insurance and loan programs in which taking lifestyle choices into account is perfectly reasonable.

[Wallenburg]

Clause 6 causes some problems here. By preventing nations from depriving individuals of certain government services based on their lifestyle and non-sedentary behavior, it jeopardizes a variety of state services. Examples would include citizenship with residency requirements and public services tied to that citizenship

"Good. The systematic denaturalization of those who do not live where and in the exact manner the state desires is not to be tolerated by this body."

as well as state-run insurance and loan programs in which taking lifestyle choices into account is perfectly reasonable.

"If there's actually a good-faith basis for revoking such services, I'm sure you can make it policy without falling back on their culture or choice of housing."

[Gemeinschaftsland]

"Good. The systematic denaturalization of those who do not live where and in the exact manner the state desires is not to be tolerated by this body."

I fail to recognize how citizenship and/or the residency requirements that are often involved constitute a "systematic denaturalization of those who do not live where and in the exact manner the state desires". There are a plethora of government services that have good reason to be restricted to citizens. Domestic investment programs, nationalized healthcare, and much more. Removing the ability of nations to target initiatives at their own citizens could open up the way for exploitation by foreign nationals, or to dissuade officials from pursuing otherwise promising solutions in the first place.

The delegation from Gemeinschaftsland cannot support legislation that would diminish the ability of policymakers to provide services targeted at their own population.

[Wallenburg]

"Good. The systematic denaturalization of those who do not live where and in the exact manner the state desires is not to be tolerated by this body."

I fail to recognize how citizenship and/or the residency requirements that are often involved constitute a "systematic denaturalization of those who do not live where and in the exact manner the state desires".

"Sure you do. Come now, ambassador, these ideas do not require a great measure of thought. Stripping citizenship from those who do not meet your 'residency requirements' is denaturalization, even if you consider those you strip undesirable elements of society."

There are a plethora of government services that have good reason to be restricted to citizens. Domestic investment programs, nationalized healthcare, and much more. Removing the ability of nations to target initiatives at their own citizens could open up the way for exploitation by foreign nationals, or to dissuade officials from pursuing otherwise promising solutions in the first place.

"It sure sounds convenient to revoke citizenship from people groups you consider undesirable, such that you can justify their oppression after the fact as non-citizens. You may want to take that up, however, with the Independent Adjudicative Office, which likely will hear back from the Compliance Commission's investigation concerning your state's compliance with General Assembly Resolution #552, 'Citizenship and Birth Act'."

The delegation from Gemeinschaftsland cannot support legislation that would diminish the ability of policymakers to provide services targeted at their own population.

"Your own population includes those of nomadic status, whether you recognize their citizenship rights or not."

[Gemeinschaftsland]

I fail to recognize how citizenship and/or the residency requirements that are often involved constitute a "systematic denaturalization of those who do not live where and in the exact manner the state desires".

"Sure you do. Come now, ambassador, these ideas do not require a great measure of thought. Stripping citizenship from those who do not meet your 'residency requirements' is denaturalization, even if you consider those you strip undesirable elements of society."

There are a plethora of government services that have good reason to be restricted to citizens. Domestic investment programs, nationalized healthcare, and much more. Removing the ability of nations to target initiatives at their own citizens could open up the way for exploitation by foreign nationals, or to dissuade officials from pursuing otherwise promising solutions in the first place.

"It sure sounds convenient to revoke citizenship from people groups you consider undesirable, such that you can justify their oppression after the fact as non-citizens. You may want to take that up, however, with the Independent Adjudicative Office, which likely will hear back from the Compliance Commission's investigation concerning your state's compliance with General Assembly Resolution #552, 'Citizenship and Birth Act'."

The delegation from Gemeinschaftsland cannot support legislation that would diminish the ability of policymakers to provide services targeted at their own population.

"Your own population includes those of nomadic status, whether you recognize their citizenship rights or not."

I caution the delegation from Wallenburg against jumping to rash conclusions. Lest you forget, Gemeinschaftsland is widely regarded as one of the most inclusive nations in the multiverse, and grants near universal citizenship, even to non-organic and non-sentient beings. Bearing witness to your accusations, it is clear that this delegation has severely misunderstood the purpose of this criticism. The broadness of Clause 6 of this proposal has the potential to interfere with critical governmental programs across a plurality of WA member states. Among these would include citizenship application, governmental services tied to citizenship, and other governmental services that ought to take lifestyle and behavior into account. For good reason, many states maintain residency requirements for those seeking to obtain citizenship, and this proposal could strip abiding governments of this right, as insufficient residency could be construed as non-sedentary behavior. Additionally, it could undermine the ability of WA member states to offer services exclusively to their citizens, as non-citizenship and statelessness are non-sedentary lifestyles. This opens the way for much exploitation. Without the ability for nations to tie certain services to citizenship, domestic taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for non-residents for a variety of potential services, such as nationalized healthcare, government-backed loans, and state grants.

[Xanthorrhoea]

I caution the delegation from Wallenburg against jumping to rash conclusions. Lest you forget, Gemeinschaftsland is widely regarded as one of the most inclusive nations in the multiverse, and grants near universal citizenship, even to non-organic and non-sentient beings. Bearing witness to your accusations, it is clear that this delegation has severely misunderstood the purpose of this criticism. The broadness of Clause 6 of this proposal has the potential to interfere with critical governmental programs across a plurality of WA member states. Among these would include citizenship application, governmental services tied to citizenship, and other governmental services that ought to take lifestyle and behavior into account. For good reason, many states maintain residency requirements for those seeking to obtain citizenship, and this proposal could strip abiding governments of this right, as insufficient residency could be construed as non-sedentary behavior. Additionally, it could undermine the ability of WA member states to offer services exclusively to their citizens, as non-citizenship and statelessness are non-sedentary lifestyles. This opens the way for much exploitation. Without the ability for nations to tie certain services to citizenship, domestic taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for non-residents for a variety of potential services, such as nationalized healthcare, government-backed loans, and state grants.

I’m a little confused. Do you mind explaining your argument that non-citizenship and statelessness count as ‘non-sedentary behaviour, lifestyle or culture’? By my reading, citizenship has little to do with whether or not you live in a house or a caravan.

[Wallenburg]

I’m a little confused. Do you mind explaining your argument that non-citizenship and statelessness count as ‘non-sedentary behaviour, lifestyle or culture’? By my reading, citizenship has little to do with whether or not you live in a house or a caravan.

"You are quite right, ambassador. Citizenship and nomadic status are two entirely separate concepts, regardless of whatever discriminatory policies the Gemein ambassador considers so ordinary and innate as to render those concepts fundamentally married.

I caution the delegation from Wallenburg against jumping to rash conclusions. Lest you forget, Gemeinschaftsland is widely regarded as one of the most inclusive nations in the multiverse, and grants near universal citizenship, even to non-organic and non-sentient beings.

"So what you mean to say is that you consider nomads so subhuman as to be beneath animals and machines? How, exactly, do you think that improves your image before me?"

Bearing witness to your accusations, it is clear that this delegation has severely misunderstood the purpose of this criticism. The broadness of Clause 6 of this proposal has the potential to interfere with critical governmental programs across a plurality of WA member states. Among these would include citizenship application, governmental services tied to citizenship, and other governmental services that ought to take lifestyle and behavior into account. For good reason, many states maintain residency requirements for those seeking to obtain citizenship, and this proposal could strip abiding governments of this right, as insufficient residency could be construed as non-sedentary behavior.

"How, exactly, does living within the same nation suddenly not qualify as residency simply because you move around within that nation? There is no language in this proposal that forbids member states from requiring prospective citizens to live within the nation to which they wish to naturalize. I rather doubt this is your true concern, though. Your previous language has well enough demonstrated that your issue is with nomadism itself."

Additionally, it could undermine the ability of WA member states to offer services exclusively to their citizens, as non-citizenship and statelessness are non-sedentary lifestyles. This opens the way for much exploitation. Without the ability for nations to tie certain services to citizenship, domestic taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for non-residents for a variety of potential services, such as nationalized healthcare, government-backed loans, and state grants.

"As I suspected, you are incapable of distinguishing between citizenship and sedentism. The issue most clearly is not with the language of this proposal, but with your bigotry toward those who do not keep a permanent address. In your floundering attempts to deny this, you only make more apparent what I suspected from your initial complaint."

[Gemeinschaftsland]

I’m a little confused. Do you mind explaining your argument that non-citizenship and statelessness count as ‘non-sedentary behaviour, lifestyle or culture’? By my reading, citizenship has little to do with whether or not you live in a house or a caravan.

I think the confusion arises from the interpretation of "non-sedentary". What seems to be the author's assumption is that it applies exclusively to those moving around inside a country's borders, when this is simply not the case. There are many Non-sedentary behaviors, lifestyles, and cultures (such as statelessness), which call for adherents to move through many nations, not just one. Especially in states with residency requirements for citizenship, this conflicts with existing laws. In the real world, the vast majority of countries have such a requirement. Examples would include the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Japan, which require citizenship seekers to reside in the country for five years before applying, Germany, which requires eight years, Austria, which requires ten years, and Australia, which requires a four-year residency. Of course, this is just a tiny slice of the truly mammoth amount of countries that maintain such prerequisites, and if something is so common OOC, it's almost certainly common IC too. The unfortunate truth is, the broadness of clause six could interfere with WA member states' ability to choose who does and does not gain citizenship status, what services are tied to citizenship and resident status, and a variety of other government services which need to take residency into account. It would be quite rash to support this.

"As I suspected, you are incapable of distinguishing between citizenship and sedentism. The issue most clearly is not with the language of this proposal, but with your bigotry toward those who do not keep a permanent address. In your floundering attempts to deny this, you only make more apparent what I suspected from your initial complaint."

If you truly do not understand the nature of this criticism, I suggest you read the explanation above.

[Herby]

See? See? This is the kind o’ stuff that the World Assembly should be dealing with, not pillows and hippos. Had this been in place a generation ago we wouldn’t’ve had to exterm I mean ehhhh declared our independence from the slaver-drivers. Could you imagine, being forced to live on public streets and parking lots and — SHUDDER — garages? We Herby vote in favor of this proposal. Well done, Ambassador Ogreblood!