[DRAFT] Access to Migration Opportunities

[Iciaros]

(OOC: Hey guys! First-time proposal-writer here who decided to dip her toe in the shark pool >.< Please be nice and thanks for your help!)

RECOGNISING that there are many different types of nations, with their unique cultures, laws, and governments;

ALSO RECOGNISING that within most, if not all, of these nations, will be those who strongly disapprove of or feel oppressed by these aspects, or others, of their nations;

BELIEVING that it would benefit all parties involved to allow these disapproving parties to leave the nation of origin and settle in another, as:

1. Disapproving parties would be able to live in an environment more suitable to their circumstances,
   
   
2. Nations of origin would be able to preserve their preferred status quo without unwanted disruption, and
   
   
3. Destination nations would strengthen their preferred status quo with the inclusion of like-minded individuals;

UNDERSTANDING, however, the need to control migration for many reasons;

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE 1: PROCESS FOR DEPARTURE

1. All World Assembly member nations will be required to implement a process by which all persons, defined as being legally capable, that are resident in domestic territories may apply to leave said territories.
   
   
   1. Member nations must ensure that this process is not excessively lengthy or complex, beyond what is necessary to protect public safety, health, and order.
      
      
   2. Member nations, however, may in this process impose whatever financial penalties as it sees fit, provided the applicant has the necessary financial capacity to reasonably afford said penalty without risking destitution.
      
      
   3. Further, member nations may reject any applicants currently the subject of a warrant, awaiting or undergoing trial in any jurisdiction, as well as any criminals whose sentences have not been completed.
      
      
   4. Additionally, member nations may reject any applicants whose departure presents a real risk to public safety, health, or order.
      
      
   5. Finally, member nations may suspend the offering of this process during times of crisis, provided that the nation has officially declared a general state of emergency or any such equivalent formal state of crisis.

ARTICLE 2: PROCESS FOR RESETTLEMENT

1. All World Assembly member nations will be required to implement a process by which foreign persons may settle in domestic territories.
   
   
   1. The same requirements and allowances under Article 1 will apply for the Article 2 process.
      
      
   2. Further, member nations may reject applicants for resettlement on the grounds of domestic overcrowding, provided that they have implemented measures for population control, or other similar measures, that demonstrate substantial national concern for overcrowding.

ARTICLE 3: CARE OF MIGRANTS

1. All World Assembly member nations will be required to set aside a portion of their budget for the provision to migrants of resources necessary for survival, where needed.
   
   
   1. Member nations will not be obliged to allocate any further funds should existing funding exceed 1/4 of the allocated funds for domestic healthcare, or if the overall yearly national budget deficit exceeds 50% of gross domestic product.
      
      
   2. Should member nations cease to allocate further funding as under Article 3(1)(a), they will be required to inform future Article 2 applicants of this cessation and offer them the opportunity to withdraw their application. If applicants persist in requesting resettlement, member nations will not be required to provide for their survival, though such provision is encouraged.
2. Member nations are encouraged to take steps to ensure that there are ample job opportunities for migrants, where such steps will not prejudice or prevent the proliferation of job opportunities available for citizens.

ARTICLE 4: PROCESS FOR CITIZENSHIP

1. All World Assembly member nations will be required to implement a process by which foreign persons settled in domestic territories via the process in Article 2 may attain citizenship or other equivalent formal status.
   
   
   1. Member nations may take the following factors into account in the implementation of this process:
      
      
      1. Public safety, health, and order,
         
         
      2. National cohesion and harmony,
         
         
      3. Economic conditions, and
         
         
      4. The applicant's economic and social contributions.

ARTICLE 5: RIGHTS AND POWERS OF MEMBER NATIONS

For clarity, the above Articles should not be read so as to remove member nations' powers to do the following, subject to other resolutions in force:

1. Strip domestic persons departing under Article 1 of their citizenship or equivalent legal status, provided they have attained citizenship elsewhere.
   
   
2. Implement separate schemes for migration and asylum alongside the processes and requirements set out in this Resolution.
   
   
3. Control their borders and ports of entry however they wish, provided a feasible means of application under the above articles exists despite said control.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
First of all, this is rather well-written for a first draft, nevermind a first proposal, and I sincerely hope you choose to stick around. Second, try not to take anything personally here, you've chosen a topic that can attract a certain amount of derision.

Don't quite have time for a proper work-down of the draft right now, but I'll see about getting one up when I can.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The following may be relevant: Refugee Protection, Rigut to Emigration (2).

[Araraukar]

OOC: For border control reasons also the epidemic control and quarantine resolutions. The passed resolutions are easily searched here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

[Kenmoria]

“I offer initial support for this proposal; it looks to be remarkably well-thought out and sensible. One change I would add is that, in my view, clause 1d should have an ‘or’ rather than an ‘and’ since a departure that threatens solely public health should be reason enough for keeping him or her in the country.

Also, 1e could be quite easily loopholed if a nation declares a decade-long state of emergency, for example. I suggest adding a requirement that the declaration be based on a severe threat to national security to that clause, to avoid this problem.”

[Iciaros]

(Thanks everyone for your replies! I've done a few edits, hopefully this draft proposal looks better once it's amended!)

OOC:
First of all, this is rather well-written for a first draft, nevermind a first proposal, and I sincerely hope you choose to stick around. Second, try not to take anything personally here, you've chosen a topic that can attract a certain amount of derision.

Don't quite have time for a proper work-down of the draft right now, but I'll see about getting one up when I can.

(Thank you! Of course I try not to take things personally, I just hope - probably rather naively - that we can stick to a civil standard of reasonable discourse, but, well, I know better than to really believe that, having been through the forums a few times.)

The following may be relevant: Refugee Protection, Rigut to Emigration (2).

OOC: For border control reasons also the epidemic control and quarantine resolutions. The passed resolutions are easily searched here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

(Thank you for your suggestions! I've put them into the resolution temporarily as markers for myself, but I think I can take them out soon since Refugees is about national asylum policy, which is separate from this proposal, and border control powers, which this legislation is not meant to materially affect, is of course subject to existing GA legislation. As for Right of Emigration #2, I believe that was the one I referenced? The first Right of Emigration was repealed, and as far as I can tell this is the only one left?)

“I offer initial support for this proposal; it looks to be remarkably well-thought out and sensible. One change I would add is that, in my view, clause 1d should have an ‘or’ rather than an ‘and’ since a departure that threatens solely public health should be reason enough for keeping him or her in the country.

Also, 1e could be quite easily loopholed if a nation declares a decade-long state of emergency, for example. I suggest adding a requirement that the declaration be based on a severe threat to national security to that clause, to avoid this problem.”

(Thanks for catching the first one! My brain just interpreted it as a disjunctive and and wrote it that way, but I've amended it for clarity.

As for the second point, that is a good point, but my general understanding is that declaring national states of emergency come with some pretty serious ramifications, and it wouldn't be feasible to declare it on a whim or leave it running for long periods of time for no other real reason. For clarity, I've amended the wording to refer to a 'general' state of emergency, rather than specific ones limited in scope with potentially smaller ramifications if invoked and continued needlessly.

It's possible that in some cases countries may be able to activate states of emergency with almost no or no justification at all, but aside from this I'm not sure how to define emergency clearly such that no nation will be able to worm their way out of it. I mean, if they've already managed to make it such that they can declare a state of emergency without actual emergency, it probably wouldn't be hard to define something trivial as an emergency.)



(Edit: I also forgot to ask, what category should this fall under? My first instinct was Civil Rights, like the Right to Emigration was, but I'm not entirely sure if it would be as applicable here.)

[Kenmoria]

(Edit: I also forgot to ask, what category should this fall under? My first instinct was Civil Rights, like the Right to Emigration was, but I'm not entirely sure if it would be as applicable here.)

(OOC: I think ‘civil rights’ works well here.)

[Karteria]

"Assuming legality, you have our full support, ambassador. This proposal is very well-written, professional, accounts for many possible loopholes and concerns, and, most importantly, focuses on an issue that needs to be addressed.

While this is not our concern, some nations may say that this proposal would strip their economies of their critical labor; however, we believe that this cost cannot compare to the benefits of freedom of movement through migration."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This has around 5600 characters, and the limit is 5000, so you need to remove or shorten some of your clauses.)

[Maletora]

We support this proposal within reasonable skeptisim

[Elyreia]

The Elyreian lenton already allocates funding for emigration and immigration policies, usually by creating architecturally themed districts for the residents. As such, we are in favor of this legislation at this time.

[Iciaros]

"On behalf of our Imperial authority and our Empress, it is my great pleasure to thank all the ambassadors who have come forward to express their support for, and opinions regarding, this proposal. I hope that, regardless of the fate of this resolution, we may continue to come together in future for the betterment of all.

"I would now like to address specific remarks."

"Assuming legality, you have our full support, ambassador. This proposal is very well-written, professional, accounts for many possible loopholes and concerns, and, most importantly, focuses on an issue that needs to be addressed.

While this is not our concern, some nations may say that this proposal would strip their economies of their critical labor; however, we believe that this cost cannot compare to the benefits of freedom of movement through migration."

"I certainly understand your latter point, ambassador, and it is with regard to this possibility that the proposed resolution was drafted the way it was. I believe the impact on most nations will be minimal, given the many factors that contribute to a reluctance to emigrate, such as national identity, the inconvenience and cost of moving, the potential financial penalties that could be imposed under Article 1(1)(b), the uncertainty and unfamiliarity of new environments, people, and communities in destination nations, and the relative uncertainty of attaining citizenship and other benefits beyond mere survival, given that member nations have a broader mandate when implementing a citizenship process under Article 4 compared to the processes in Articles 1 and 2. This should limit the volume of emigration in origin countries, and minimise if not eliminate any large-scale labour migration."

(OOC: This has around 5600 characters, and the limit is 5000, so you need to remove or shorten some of your clauses.)

(Oh f*%$ me there's a character limit? Why did I not know this?! >.< will edit promptly before submission)

(EDIT: um, does formatting count into the character limit?)

[Iciaros]

"In order to reduce the length of this resolution, such that it meets the standards required by the General Assembly, the following significant changes have been made:

- The section referencing GAR#279: Right of Emigration has been amended to remove the reference.

- The elaboration of what member nations may do to ensure migrant job opportunities under Article 3(2) has been removed.

- The clarification in Article 5(4) of the right of member nations to reject applicants with inadequate documents of identification where the absence of such documents poses a risk to public safety, health, or order, has been deleted, as this is a mere elaboration of the right of member nations to protect public safety, health, and order under Article 1(1)(d), and adds no additional powers.

These sections have been deleted as it was felt that their overall contribution to the proposal was limited, and so they could be removed without prejudicing the integrity of the overall document. Once again, we appreciate all the help that the ambassadors from fellow nations have given us, and hope to build strong ties into the future."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This has around 5600 characters, and the limit is 5000, so you need to remove or shorten some of your clauses.)

(Oh f*%$ me there's a character limit? Why did I not know this?! >.< will edit promptly before submission)

(EDIT: um, does formatting count into the character limit?)

(OOC: Yes, formatting counts into the character limit, and I believe line breaks count as two characters, not one.)

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: This has around 5600 characters, and the limit is 5000, so you need to remove or shorten some of your clauses.)

(Oh f*%$ me there's a character limit? Why did I not know this?! >.< will edit promptly before submission)

OOC: Consider yourself lucky... For most of the game's history, the limit was even lower (at 3'500) instead.

[Akirya]

We think that the third point is counter-intuitive.

The resolution states that we can choose who to invite based on a few criterias, but it also says we should have a portion of the budged used for migration-related issues.
If we can choose who to invite, but are forced to increase the government spending, then what is stopping us from not accepting anyone who isnt a net-contributor to the economy and who isn't reliant on this new funding?

Furthermore we believe that this is strictly against anarchist and libertanian governments who might have no or very little taxation and government expenditures, which wouldn't like to change it.

[Iciaros]

We think that the third point is counter-intuitive.

The resolution states that we can choose who to invite based on a few criterias, but it also says we should have a portion of the budged used for migration-related issues.
If we can choose who to invite, but are forced to increase the government spending, then what is stopping us from not accepting anyone who isnt a net-contributor to the economy and who isn't reliant on this new funding?

Furthermore we believe that this is strictly against anarchist and libertanian governments who might have no or very little taxation and government expenditures, which wouldn't like to change it.

"Thank you for your feedback, ambassador. Allow me to address your concerns.

"With regards to your first point, nations may only reject applicants for resettlement under Article 2 on a few grounds, primarily the protection of public safety, health, and order, or if they have fallen afoul of the criminal justice system. Economic contribution does not fall under these categories, and therefore does not constitute valid grounds for rejection of resettlement. It is applications for citizenship only that may be rejected on the grounds of economic contribution.

"As for your second point, anarchist and libertarian governments have nothing to fear, as under Article 3(1)(a) they will not be compelled to spend any further than 1/4 of the already dedicated budget for domestic healthcare. Should the government already be spending very little on healthcare, the amount of money they will have to contribute will similarly be very little. I understand your concerns with regards to budgetary strain, and the proposal has been designed to ameliorate those concerns."

[Falcania]

We think that the third point is counter-intuitive.

The resolution states that we can choose who to invite based on a few criterias, but it also says we should have a portion of the budged used for migration-related issues.
If we can choose who to invite, but are forced to increase the government spending, then what is stopping us from not accepting anyone who isnt a net-contributor to the economy and who isn't reliant on this new funding?

Furthermore we believe that this is strictly against anarchist and libertanian governments who might have no or very little taxation and government expenditures, which wouldn't like to change it.

I am one of these nations. The Free Kingdom's treasury will happily increase our healthcare budget by 25%, from 0 talons to 0 talons.

[Iciaros]

We think that the third point is counter-intuitive.

The resolution states that we can choose who to invite based on a few criterias, but it also says we should have a portion of the budged used for migration-related issues.
If we can choose who to invite, but are forced to increase the government spending, then what is stopping us from not accepting anyone who isnt a net-contributor to the economy and who isn't reliant on this new funding?

Furthermore we believe that this is strictly against anarchist and libertanian governments who might have no or very little taxation and government expenditures, which wouldn't like to change it.

I am one of these nations. The Free Kingdom's treasury will happily increase our healthcare budget by 25%, from 0 talons to 0 talons.

"I am glad to hear it, Ambassador. If Article 3 does not impact your nation then it has accomplished exactly what it is intended to do. It would be inconceivable to expect migrants to benefit more than your own citizens in healthcare, which appears to be zero, and I would not presume to compel you to do such a thing under this Resolution."

[Falcania]

I am one of these nations. The Free Kingdom's treasury will happily increase our healthcare budget by 25%, from 0 talons to 0 talons.

"I am glad to hear it, Ambassador. If Article 3 does not impact your nation then it has accomplished exactly what it is intended to do. It would be inconceivable to expect migrants to benefit more than your own citizens in healthcare, which appears to be zero, and I would not presume to compel you to do such a thing under this Resolution."

The Free Kingdom is not a traditionally pleasant place for humans to live, but if they want to try, they should be allowed to.

[Iciaros]

(OOC: I'm thinking of maybe submitting this soon, so if there are no more suggestions I could consider this my final draft?)

[Gudmund]

"I'd like to know how your definition of Health in Article 4 applies. My nation technically doesn't have humans, so I was curious as to whether nations would be able to file other species under unacceptable Public Safety and/or Health reasons. Meaning we could simply deny immigration and citizenship based requests to those not of our own species/race."

[Tinfect]

(OOC: I'm thinking of maybe submitting this soon, so if there are no more suggestions I could consider this my final draft?)

OOC:
As threatened, the work-down.
IC:

All World Assembly member nations will be required to implement a process by which foreign persons may settle in domestic territories.

"Unacceptable," said Seretis, who rather appeared to simply... appear, within the debating chamber, "Quite simply, our borders are, and always have been, closed. We see little reason to change this, either for 'tourists' or 'migrants'."

The same requirements and allowances under Article 1 will apply for the Article 2 process.

"Which, of course, does not allow for the simple maintenance of the border."

All World Assembly member nations will be required to set aside a portion of their budget for the provision to migrants of resources necessary for survival, where needed.

"Equally unacceptable. Foreign personnel illegally entering our territory for any reason, will be apprehended as appropriate. Foreigners have no right to Imperial resources or the work of our Citizenry."

Member nations are encouraged to take steps to ensure that there are ample job opportunities for migrants.

"I must note, this is simply... questionable. If a Member-State has enough difficulty providing for its citizens, what sense is there in withholding any amount of work for foreigners?"

Strip domestic persons departing under Article 1 of their citizenship or equivalent legal status, as well as prevent them from returning to their country of origin.

"I believe that the World Assembly maintains legislation preventing such action."

Implement separate schemes for migration and asylum alongside the processes and requirements set out in this Resolution.

"The Imperium does not offer asylum."

Control their borders and ports of entry however they wish, provided a feasible means of application under the above articles exists despite said control.

"The Imperium has no concerns with this clause. I, however, quite doubt that even the Civil Overseer would approve the entry of any foreigner into the Imperium.

To conclude, the Imperium is opposed, and we see little reason as-yet to consider altering this stance. This legislation serves no purpose other than to weaken the borders of Member-States and allow for the free-travel of foreign personnel or assets into those states that actually have concern for the safety and security of their citizens."

[Iciaros]

"Thank you for your feedback, ambassadors. Allow me to address your concerns."

"I'd like to know how your definition of Health in Article 4 applies. My nation technically doesn't have humans, so I was curious as to whether nations would be able to file other species under unacceptable Public Safety and/or Health reasons. Meaning we could simply deny immigration and citizenship based requests to those not of our own species/race."

"If the immigration of other species to your territories carries with it a significant risk that, for instance, pathogens that your species is vulnerable to may infect the population, I would certainly consider such an outcome to found a total exemption on the basis of public safety and health. While I cannot specifically define the word 'health' beyond something approximating the proper and usual biochemical functioning of an organism's body, this proposal should be read with the same conception of health as resolutions under the Health category are."

-snip-

"I understand your opposition, Ambassador, however disappointing it may be to me. I would like to assure you that, if this proposal were to pass, the Imperium would be free to take any reasonable measures to protect the safety and security of your citizens, as guaranteed in the proposal.

"As for your specific advice regarding the difficulty of providing job opportunities for foreigners if local job opportunities are not already guaranteed, I certainly do agree. Such concerns were on my mind when this clause was framed as one of encouragement rather than mandate, but I have edited it to more clearly qualify this encouragement.

"I also note the point that World Assembly legislation prevents the stripping of citizenship, and I believe you are referring toGAR#386 Reducing Statelessness. My understanding of the resolution is that the stripping of citizenship is indeed outlawed, until the citizen obtains citizenship elsewhere. We have reworked the clause to reflect this.

"Thank you for your time, Ambassador, and the best of wishes to you and your people."