NationStates

The Ice States wrote:Can a stateless person decline member nation citizenship, or do they have to be granted it and then resign it per Section f?

A person who only holds a WA member state's citizenship cannot resign it without acquiring another.

I really like this resolution for reasons I've already stated. I've been anticipating it on active vote since, just to see the wider communitys reaction and replies.
Very excited.

Now at vote.

Throughly against. It's concerning how fast the For-Voters are trickling in, and it makes me question the integrity of the WA, as this was universally hated on before the For-Voters started to vote for the proposal.

Fishelle wrote:Throughly against. It's concerning how fast the For-Voters are trickling in, and it makes me question the integrity of the WA, as this was universally hated on before the For-Voters started to vote for the proposal.

This proposal is unanimously opposed by WALL, TWP and TL/C. It is almost certain that it will be defeated, no matter what anybody does. There is absolutely no conspiracy involved. Also, why do you oppose this proposal, beyond the fact that it is simply bad and ought to be opposed by all upstanding GAers?

Tinhampton wrote:

Fishelle wrote:Throughly against. It's concerning how fast the For-Voters are trickling in, and it makes me question the integrity of the WA, as this was universally hated on before the For-Voters started to vote for the proposal.

This proposal is unanimously opposed by WALL, TWP and TL/C. It is almost certain that it will be defeated, no matter what anybody does. There is absolutely no conspiracy involved. Also, why do you oppose this proposal, beyond the fact that it is simply bad and ought to be opposed by all upstanding GAers?

If it is opposed, there's a good reason.

Voted against, not because I see anything particularly wrong with the resolution, but because I enjoy seeing resolutions flop, oh, and also because clause C is totally unnecessary and can be abused

Tinhampton wrote:

Fishelle wrote:Throughly against. It's concerning how fast the For-Voters are trickling in, and it makes me question the integrity of the WA, as this was universally hated on before the For-Voters started to vote for the proposal.

This proposal is unanimously opposed by WALL, TWP and TL/C. It is almost certain that it will be defeated, no matter what anybody does. There is absolutely no conspiracy involved. Also, why do you oppose this proposal, beyond the fact that it is simply bad and ought to be opposed by all upstanding GAers?

Clause C is highly problematic.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I am unfortunately opposed to this proposal. The primary reasons for this are mentioned in the repeal proposed by the Honourable Delegation for the Simone Republic, which is debated in the chamber to the right. Although the possibility is small, the way that c opens member-nations to popular invasion is unacceptable.”

does this make me more money.

Kenmoria wrote:Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I am unfortunately opposed to this proposal. The primary reasons for this are mentioned in the repeal proposed by the Honourable Delegation for the Simone Republic, which is debated in the chamber to the right. Although the possibility is small, the way that c opens member-nations to popular invasion is unacceptable.”

"And on that note," said Raxes, brightly, "The Sovereign would like to remind everyone that if you're swayed by bizarre fantasies of 'immigration-invasion' by way of mass conference of nationality, you're an easy mark for fascists and supremacists, and should perhaps be recused from political affairs until such time as that failing has been corrected. Truly; anyone concerned can speak to our Envoy-Minor Masraan, down at the office. Our borders, and civil rehabilitation processes, are open to all." He clicked, pointedly. "And on the off-chance that anyone in need is somehow listening in; the Sovereign has long implemented policy akin to Clause C independently, and it's quite easy to file a request through our online resources if you're too out of the way for conventional arrangements."

Really? That's the counter-arguments given?
I'm aware some people really like to use parliamentary whips when voting but at least they provide more interesting discussion when doing so.

Tinhampton wrote:

Fishelle wrote:Throughly against. It's concerning how fast the For-Voters are trickling in, and it makes me question the integrity of the WA, as this was universally hated on before the For-Voters started to vote for the proposal.

This proposal is unanimously opposed by WALL, TWP and TL/C. It is almost certain that it will be defeated, no matter what anybody does. There is absolutely no conspiracy involved. Also, why do you oppose this proposal, beyond the fact that it is simply bad and ought to be opposed by all upstanding GAers?

I support it. I'm a bad person. Oh no.
I like how this response has more effort put into it than others.

Again, crazy how I can be vocally in favour of this resolution while my parliamentary group leader still votes against it. What a novel concept.

It's a shame about Clause C, as Camtropia would be inclined to support the motion without it.

Immediately granting citizenship to any stateless refugee who enters a state would be unfair to both the citizens of that state and refugees whose state still exists, as it completely bypasses the requirements that many nations (including Camtropia) have for all immigrants to have a period of residency and take a citizenship test before they can obtain citizenship.

These tests are meant to prove the ability to speak one of the national languages to a very basic level, and to make sure that a foreign-born citizen will have a similar level of understanding of the nation's history and culture as a citizen who was born and educated in that nation. I don't see any reason why stateless people should be exempt from these reasonable requirements.

Upon further review of the resolution, we will be voting against the implementation of it until further revision is made. Statelessness is a valid issue that must be rectified by the World Assembly, but in its current state, this resolution, and more specifically Clause C, which states that all stateless citizens in a nation must be granted citizenship, while with good intentions in mind, is too flawed to implement without states abusing this provision to their advantage.

Hulldom wrote:Opposed vehemently on the grounds that it removes the right of a person to voluntarily render themselves stateless.

This has now been updated, and I think this is now a reasonable bill.

---

General Assembly: End Statelessness (Civil Rights; Mild), by Tinhampton

Recommendation: FOR

Rationale: This proposal prevents nations from unlawfully and immorally removing citizenship thereby making them stateless and thus an unprotected class of persons whom are often mistreated by local authorities. It also prevents criminals from fleeing abroad, or indeed escaping legal jurisdiction by rescinding citizenships to commit crimes.

~~~~~~~~~~

This recommendation was written by Marquess of Marchmain, the Prince of Wales in Empire of Great Britain. Sophia and Sparkalia concur. If you liked this, please upvote our recommendation dispatch here!

This resolution will be at vote between the minor update of March 31st 2024 and the major update of April 5th 2024.

This recommendation was jointly issued between Sophia, Empire of Great Britain, and Sparkalia. This does not mean that the President's opinion of this resolution was influenced by what Sophia's partner regions believe. Under the Constitution, the President must always cast their vote in line with the interests of Sophia, not some other region; this recommendation reflects the sincere beliefs of all regions involved.

If this doesn’t pass imma cry.

The goal of the bill is admirable, but Clause C alone makes it impossible for the Andrusic government to support it. Beyond completely bypassing numerous immigration laws and customs laws, it would enable state sponsors of terrorism to force other states into accepting terrorists or spies as their own citizens, and denying said states the right to prosecute such individuals appropriately. Such a risk to national security is simply unacceptable and cannot be reasonably endorsed by the World Assembly.

Marquess of Marchmain wrote:-snip-

Have you read Clause C?

Fishelle wrote:

Marquess of Marchmain wrote:-snip-

Have you read Clause C?

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that, I'd have enough dollars to fund a tag:wa, -region:europe, -region:10000_islands telegram campaign about what it actually does.

Orcuo wrote:If this doesn’t pass imma cry.

It might be a good idea to start buying tissues now...

Tinhampton wrote:

Fishelle wrote:Have you read Clause C?

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that, I'd have enough dollars to fund a tag:wa, -region:europe, -region:10000_islands telegram campaign about what it actually does.

There's probably a good reason people are saying that, just so you know...

Tinhampton wrote:

Fishelle wrote:Have you read Clause C?

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that, I'd have enough dollars to fund a tag:wa, -region:europe, -region:10000_islands telegram campaign about what it actually does.

There's a very good reason that's the case. Regardless of it's intended effect it presents an incredible danger to the security of WA members and completely bypasses their immigration systems. It has far too broad of an effect to be acceptable for most nations.

Tinhampton wrote:

Fishelle wrote:Have you read Clause C?

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that, I'd have enough dollars to fund a tag:wa, -region:europe, -region:10000_islands telegram campaign about what it actually does.

Right now the counter-argument's I have heard are that Clause C's effects would be mitigated due to all member-states enforcing the resolution, thus, since no-one would be stateless, theses fantasies of an immigration invasion would never become reality.
Additionally, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but we should ignore the possibility of non-WA states abusing this or we should just accept that we can never truly end statelessness; This matters only in WA.

These counter-arguments have loopholes at best and I don't think it's worth testing that on our nations
Also this fails to address the fact that some nations might not have the capacity to take in a bunch of new citizens if some country decides to magically disappear, but I'm sure that'll be dismissed.
Perhaps I'm missing something?

Dauchh Palki wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:If I had a dollar for every time someone said that, I'd have enough dollars to fund a tag:wa, -region:europe, -region:10000_islands telegram campaign about what it actually does.

Right now the counter-argument's I have heard are that Clause C's effects would be mitigated due to all member-states enforcing the resolution, thus, since no-one would be stateless, theses fantasies of an immigration invasion would never become reality.
Additionally, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but we should ignore the possibility of non-WA states abusing this or we should just accept that we can never truly end statelessness; This matters only in WA.

These counter-arguments have loopholes at best and I don't think it's worth testing that on our nations
Also this fails to address the fact that some nations might not have the capacity to take in a bunch of new citizens if some country decides to magically disappear, but I'm sure that'll be dismissed.
Perhaps I'm missing something?

The argument is basically that non-WA nations outnumber WA member nations 10-to-1, so the likelihood of a sudden influx of stateless people is a higher than normal risk. I'm unconvinced, and think the chance is so remote in the first place that the risk being ten times greater is still meaningless. It's doomsday prophesying from where I'm sitting.