[ABANDONED] Freedom of Movement

[Jarish Inyo]

How does his effect nations that don't issue visitor visas to anyone? And why should such nations be forced to issue them?

[Separatist Peoples]

How does his effect nations that don't issue visitor visas to anyone? And why should such nations be forced to issue them?

"It look like you can still do that, per the final clause. It just says that you can't refuse visas purely on the grounds of other places the people have, in the past, visited. If you don't issue visas in the first place, nothing changes. It seems to me to be little more than a ban on nationality discrimination in a very narrow area.

"Since it allows heightened preventative measures based on nationality, it would be a simple thing to find practical reasons to bar entry, if a nation even allows tourism in the first place."

[Araraukar]

"It seems to me to be little more than a ban on nationality discrimination in a very narrow area."

In that case it could be called a strength violation.

[Southern Astrania]

"We believe that a nations right to protect their borders no matter what happens, is sacred to a nations sovereignty. Thus, if this legislation is drafted into a bill, we will vote against it, and urge all other Nations to do so, for the sake of national sovereignty, and independence.''


-Jeffrey Colvin, World Assembly Senator Delegate For Southern Astrania

[Europe and Oceania]

We support this.

[States of Glory WA Office]

There are various degrees of two nations not being on good terms that fall short of an active war, so it seems very unfair to require the declaration of war to prevent possible spies from entering your country.

Barbera: You may implement more restrictive vetting procedures to weed out spies, but if a traveller is proven not to be a spy or otherwise a threat to your nation and has gone through the proper immigration procedures, on what good-faith basis may you refuse their entry?

Barbera: Clause Three mandates that member states recognise the passports issued by other member states, so your point is moot.

No, your answer misses the point. What if A does not consider B to be a member state?

Barbera: I beg your pardon?

We join with the Delegate from Araraukar in asserting there are a number of circumstances other than open conflict where we would prefer to categorically deny entry to citizens of a specific nation, including but not limited to the outbreak of infectious disease, unchecked smuggling or human trafficking, or evidence of state-sponsored terrorism.

Barbera: We agree that those are all legitimate reasons to deny entry, but unless you can provide evidence that every single citizen of a particular nation falls into one of those categories, a blanket ban on travel would be, in our opinion, disproportionate and a violation of due process.

Harold: Clearly, everyone from Sophista is diseased, a smuggler, a trafficker or a terrorist. Ban all Sophistans! Make the States of Glory WA Office Great Again!

Barbera: Oh, please. We both know that it was never great to begin with.

Separate to this concern, a broad prohibition does little without a means to verify the intent behind any specific visa revocation or refusal. Might it be coincidence that every traveler from the States of Glory WA has been denied permission to enter the Federated States of Sophista? We might, after discovering a spy network within our borders, decide that any citizen of a particular nation presents an espionage risk. Surely the Delegate does not expect us to provide sensitive national security information to justify every refusal. What recourse exists, then, for a nation that feels its citizens are being rejected de facto on the basis of citizenship, but de jure on some other, secret criterion?

Barbera: This is a fair criticism and we will seek to rectify that as soon as possible. (OOC: When RL is not being unkind, that is)

Parsons remarks, 'We find Minister Hillaker's comments vis-à-vis quite persuasive in favour of the need to have some manner or level of border controls. From there, we will reiterate our opposition to this proposal'.

Barbera: We request that you point to the clauses in this draft that prohibit member states from implementing border controls.

"It seems to me to be little more than a ban on nationality discrimination in a very narrow area."

In that case it could be called a strength violation.

I disagree. This proposal deals with preserving due process and equality, which are significant issues. This also requires member states to recognise each other's passports, another significant issue. Clauses One, Two and Three restrict member states' interactions with other nations, Clause Three facilitates international cooperation, Clauses Five and Seven are meant to appease the more hyper-nationalistic and isolationist members while Clause Six takes power away from the WA. I'd argue that my proposal is significant enough for the 'Significant' strength.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I've made some changes, but if the character limit is still 3,500 then the current draft is too long.

[Whovian Tardisia]

No, your answer misses the point. What if A does not consider B to be a member state?

Barbera: I beg your pardon?

"We believe the fact that A has joined the WA in the first place serves as A de facto recognizing all other members states as member states. We also, however, understand an issue may arise if there is an insurrection, and the deposed government retains the WA seat. For these situations, it may be worth rephrasing Clause 2."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: I beg your pardon?

"We believe the fact that A has joined the WA in the first place serves as A de facto recognizing all other members states as member states. We also, however, understand an issue may arise if there is an insurrection, and the deposed government retains the WA seat. For these situations, it may be worth rephrasing Clause 2."

Barbera: If the government-in-exile retains the seat then the insurrection government would be a non-member state and any citizen or national of the insurrection government would no longer be protected by Clause Two.

If the World Assembly maintains that the government-in-exile is a member state while the insurrection government is not a member state then why should the insurrection government receive the protections guaranteed by the World Assembly to member states?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: We have managed to trim this down to 3,617 characters, but we can go no further. Suggestions on how to shorten this damn thing would be much appreciated.

[Calladan]

Fairburn: We have managed to trim this down to 3,617 characters, but we can go no further. Suggestions on how to shorten this damn thing would be much appreciated.

You could use the assumption that everyone understands WA resolutions only apply to member states, and that the phrase "nations" or "members" or "states" or other such thing implicitly implies that fact unless otherwise states. That would mean not writing out "member states" every time (saving 7 characters, which would add up).

I never entirely understood why people don't understand that.

[Uruguistan]

The governments of sovereign countries should be reserved the right to refuse visas to anyone they deem so.

[Rightport]

The Government of Rightport will not support this.

[Marzicon]

Call me if I'm wrong, but can't you read Clauses 1 and 9 as contradictory?

My argument: If I want to shut down a border, I'd eliminate access to visas, no? So why then do you bar me from performing said-action in the first Clause?

[Wabbia]

Fairburn: We have managed to trim this down to 3,617 characters, but we can go no further. Suggestions on how to shorten this damn thing would be much appreciated.

Remove all the remaining characters, this will never pass.

[States of Glory WA Office]

The Government of Rightport will not support this.

Fairburn: Our Delegation appreciates your insightful arguments.

Call me if I'm wrong, but can't you read Clauses 1 and 9 as contradictory?

My argument: If I want to shut down a border, I'd eliminate access to visas, no? So why then do you bar me from performing said-action in the first Clause?

Fairburn: In your case, you're not eliminating access to visas based on the countries that someone has visited; you're eliminating access to visas based on the fact that you don't want anyone to come into your nation. There's a difference; one is discrimination while the other is indiscriminate.

Fairburn: We have managed to trim this down to 3,617 characters, but we can go no further. Suggestions on how to shorten this damn thing would be much appreciated.

Remove all the remaining characters, this will never pass.

Fairburn: I didn't realise that you were suddenly an expert, Ambassador Whatshisname. You are aware that a resolution on beekeeping was passed, right?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fairburn: We have managed to trim this down to 3,617 characters, but we can go no further. Suggestions on how to shorten this damn thing would be much appreciated.

Combine clauses in the absurdly long preamble.

[Bakhton]

Fairburn: We have managed to trim this down to 3,617 characters, but we can go no further. Suggestions on how to shorten this damn thing would be much appreciated.

Combine clauses in the absurdly long preamble.

"As well, we see Clause 7 as antithetical to the whole piece. A nation would only need to close down their borders completely if there was a pandemic or plague. That would be a good exemption to replace Clause 7. Many nations may invoke Clause 7 as protest to passage."

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: Is it really necessary to leave our borders extremely isolated? Will this affect trade?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador Fairburn, you'd have an easier time with this resolution by not trying to sneak a full-blown international court of civil claims into the WA ballroom through the garbage-strewn alley-facing back window of the badly-lit men's restroom of a fairly minor border control regulation. I strongly suggest removing all of Clause 6 and spinning it off into an entirely separate resolution, where it belongs, and where you can put the appropriate powers and limits on it. It doesn't really have a place in this draft."

[Araraukar]

OOC: "Court of International Jurisdiction" <-- an existing committee or one created by this proposal? And if latter, needs to actually be created. Also, I thought we weren't allowed to have international courts without repealing something?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: "Court of International Jurisdiction" <-- an existing committee or one created by this proposal? And if latter, needs to actually be created. Also, I thought we weren't allowed to have international courts without repealing something?

OOC: GAR #312 "On Universal Jurisdiction" explicitly prevents the WA from creating an international court to hear criminal cases or otherwise officially prosecute violations of international law; but conveniently does not mention anything about civil claims (i.e. someone wrongs you somehow, so you lawyer up and sue the pants off of them).

Such a court would be an interesting addition to the WA corpus, particularly for its implications as to compliance; and deserves its own resolution rather than being lashed haphazardly to this one with bungee cords and chewing gum.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: "Court of International Jurisdiction" <-- an existing committee or one created by this proposal? And if latter, needs to actually be created. Also, I thought we weren't allowed to have international courts without repealing something?

OOC: The committee would ideally be created by Banishment Ban before this proposal passes and as SL mentioned, civil courts are a-OK.

Edit: Also, due to RL issues, I won't be on NS for about a month, so I won't be able to reply to any comments on this draft or on any of my other drafts.

[The Allied States of New York]

This is a great idea since allowing people to travel more freely may increase tourism. It may help the economy by providing cheap labor and increasing the domestic demand for goods and services.

[Araraukar]

It may help the economy by providing cheap labor and increasing the domestic demand for goods and services.

I really have to wonder how you figure out that bringing in cheap labour from foreign countries would help domestic economy? Wouldn't the cheaper foreign labour mean that more expensive domestic labour would become unemployed, and thus both the good-producing and and service-providing would be done by the cheap foreign labour, leaving any profits going into their pockets as well? You'd end up with mass unemployment, and your nation is forced to take care of them nevertheless. It's also probable that if the foreigners came from even poorer countries that they would be sending part of their wages back to their home nation¹, rather than spend it in yours.

¹OOC: This is the 2nd biggest national income for El Salvador, right after exporting coffee.