[Draft] On National Sovereignty and Migration

[Greater Austrian Danube]

The World Assembly,

Understands the role of economic and cultural migrants.

Discerning the right to national sovereignty and stability.

Deducing the ability for a sovereign nation to legislate its own federal laws.

Describing the role of the World Assembly in migration as an international agency which is not to infringe on member states’ abilities.

Hereby,

Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:
An “Immigrant” is an individual that moved into a nation for residency without obtaining citizenship but may continue the path to naturalization.

• a A “Sovereign nation” is any member state of the World Assembly which is independent and has its own legislative body, with a clear definite border.
  
• b A “Migrant” is any person who moves from one place to another for work or better living conditions.
  
• c A “Refugee” is an individual forced to leave their country due to political or economic oppression, persecution, natural disaster, or any other type of warfare.
  
• d An “Asylum Seeker” is an individual seeking political refuge; see subclause ‘1.d’ for all the types in which refugee status can be granted.

2. Demands that:

• I Nations have the right to national sovereignty, therefore are allowed to deny entry into the nation to non-legal migrants unless defined as a legal refugee; seeking asylum.
  
• II Nations are not allowed to pick which individual migrant is allowed entry for a discriminatory reason; However, they can deny on the basis of national sovereignty and risk of lacking cultural integration.

Co-authored with Tribes of Unknown Origin, Greater Austrian Danube

[Grays Harbor]

National Sovereignty cannot be the sole reason given for a proposal, so this would be illegal under GA rules. Please read through the rules and procedures.

[The New Nordic Union]

National Sovereignty cannot be the sole reason given for a proposal, so this would be illegal under GA rules. Please read through the rules and procedures.

OOC: Really? I thought this only apllied to repeals, and blocker proposals like this would be legal.

EDIT: Revised the relevant rules and saw my mistake.

[Greater Austrian Danube]

National Sovereignty cannot be the sole reason given for a proposal, so this would be illegal under GA rules. Please read through the rules and procedures.

On National Security and Migration

The World Assembly,

Understands the role of economic and cultural migrants.

Discerning the right to secure borders and achieve stability.

Deducing the ability for a nation to legislate its own federal laws and protect its border(s) and civilians from outside harm.

Describing the role of the World Assembly in migration as an international agency which is not to infringe on member states’ abilities.

Hereby,

Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:
An “Immigrant” is an individual that moved into a nation for residency without obtaining citizenship but may continue the path to naturalization.

• a. “National security” is the act of a nation protecting itself from attack or danger from entering its nations border.
  
• b. A “Migrant” is any person who moves from one place to another for work or better living conditions.
  
• c. A “Refugee” is an individual forced to leave their country due to political or economic oppression, persecution, natural disaster, or any other type of warfare.
  
• d. An “Asylum Seeker” is an individual seeking political refuge; see subclause ‘1.d’ for all the types in which refugee status can be granted.

2. Demands that:

• I. Nations have the right to deny migrants access into its borders for the purpose of protecting its citizens and society from harm, therefore nations are allowed to deny entry into the nation to any non-legal migrant unless defined as a legal refugee; seeking asylum.
  
• II. Nations are not allowed to pick which individual migrant is allowed entry for a discriminatory reason; However, they can deny their entry on the basis of national security and risk of lacking cultural integration.

Co-authored with Tribes of Unknown Origin, Greater Austrian Danube

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 2-II, what is a discriminatory reason? Going by the most broad meaning of the term, every case of denying entry to a person is a form of discrimination, since you are differentiating between them and somebody else. In addition, GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights, already bans discrimination without a compelling practical purpose.”

[Greater Austrian Danube]

“In clause 2-II, what is a discriminatory reason? Going by the most broad meaning of the term, every case of denying entry to a person is a form of discrimination, since you are differentiating between them and somebody else. In addition, GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights, already bans discrimination without a compelling practical purpose.”

Thank you! Appreciate it.

[Morover]

Co-authored with Tribes of Unknown Origin, Greater Austrian Danube

"Barring the issues brought up by the other ambassadors, this is somewhat confusing to me. You need not credit yourself as a co-author, assuming you're the one who submits the proposal. Furthermore, the language sounds off to me. Personally, I'd write it as 'Co-authored by...", as opposed to 'with'"


EDIT: OOC: why did you submit this? I don't believe it to be entirely legal (though I've just skimmed it), much less good. I suggest you withdraw the proposal for now.

[Greater Austrian Danube]

Co-authored with Tribes of Unknown Origin, Greater Austrian Danube

"Barring the issues brought up by the other ambassadors, this is somewhat confusing to me. You need not credit yourself as a co-author, assuming you're the one who submits the proposal. Furthermore, the language sounds off to me. Personally, I'd write it as 'Co-authored by...", as opposed to 'with'"


EDIT: OOC: why did you submit this? I don't believe it to be entirely legal (though I've just skimmed it), much less good. I suggest you withdraw the proposal for now.

What do you recommend me to change (to make it legal)?

[Araraukar]

What do you recommend me to change (to make it legal)?

OOC: Why do you want to pass a crappy (only legal, not good) resolution?

[Greater Austrian Danube]

What do you recommend me to change (to make it legal)?

OOC: Why do you want to pass a crappy (only legal, not good) resolution?

Well, I wasn't aware of its crappiness. I would appreciate some more elaborate feedback.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Why do you want to pass a crappy (only legal, not good) resolution?

Well, I wasn't aware of its crappiness. I would appreciate some more elaborate feedback.

OOC: You said you wanted help to make it legal not good. Do you actually want advice to make it good and legal?

[Greater Austrian Danube]

Well, I wasn't aware of its crappiness. I would appreciate some more elaborate feedback.

OOC: You said you wanted help to make it legal not good. Do you actually want advice to make it good and legal?

Of course. I would honestly truly appreciate the support.

[Imperium Anglorum]

See the GA Secretariat ruling on International Immigration Standard. Also, GH, did you mean the blocker rule?

[Greater Austrian Danube]

See the GA Secretariat ruling on International Immigration Standard. Also, GH, did you mean the blocker rule?

Where would I find this individual? Sorry, I am quite new to this platform.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This was submitted. A campaign was dispatched.

[Araraukar]

This was submitted. A campaign was dispatched.

OOC: And they forgot the delegate tag from it too.

On National Security and Migration

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Understands the role of economic and cultural migrants.

Discerning the right to secure borders and achieve stability.

Deducing the ability for a nation to legislate its own federal laws and protect its border(s) and civilians from outside harm.

Describing the role of the World Assembly in migration as an international agency which is not to infringe on member states’ abilities.

Hereby,

Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

a. An “Immigrant” is an individual that moved into a nation for residency without obtaining citizenship but may continue the path to naturalization.

b. “National security” is the act of a nation protecting itself from attack or danger from entering its nations border.

c. A “Migrant” is any person who moves from one place to another for work or better living conditions.

d. A “Refugee” is an individual forced to leave their country due to political or economic oppression, persecution, natural disaster, or any other type of warfare.

e. An “Asylum Seeker” is an individual seeking political refuge; see subclause ‘1.d’ for all the types in which refugee status can be granted.

2. Demands that:

I. Nations have the right to deny migrants access into its borders for the purpose of protecting its citizens and society from harm, therefore nations are allowed to deny entry into the nation to any non-legal migrant unless defined as a legal refugee; seeking asylum.

II. Nations are not allowed to pick which individual migrant is allowed entry for a discriminatory reason; However, they can deny their entry on the basis of national security and risk of lacking cultural integration.

I question the legal mark given in the submissions line - how the fuck does this increase political stability?

And also, 2.II., there are resolutions that allow "discrimination" of people not having the health pass thing during epidemic-border closing - it's hardly for national security and more for the security of the person, that they'd be denied entry. Unless it's allowable to read "national security" VERY broadly, in which case this can't be Significant strength as it still allows nations to have closed borders and to clump refugees and asylum seekers in with migrants in general.

Alternatively, because of how main clause of clause 2 has been constructed, only refugees are asylum seekers, not actual refugees, and because the subclauses only talk about migrants, nations are allowed to turn away all actual refugees (the way the word is understood generally) or clump them in with migrants and say they'd likely have trouble integrating into the culture and thus not let them in at all.

This is just badly constructed and doesn't do what the author probably intended it to do, and should be withdrawn from submissions to be fixed (neutered), killed and buried. But at the very least fixed.

Actually, looking at it closer, the wording "nation protecting itself from ... danger from entering its nations border" (which has atrocious grammar, by the way, to the point of being nearly incomprehensible) with the not using the defined words in the defined manner does indeed let nations keep everyone out. Which WOULD fit the chosen category, but probably contradicts at least one existing resolution on refugees, and definitely doesn't appear to be what the author intended.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: This was declared legal and reached the queue?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: This was declared legal and reached the queue?

(OOC: I sense a legality challenge coming underway. If not, then this certainly won’t pass.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: This was declared legal and reached the queue?

It appears so:

GenSec Status: LEGAL
Legal (2): Bananaistan, Sierra Lyricalia

1 day 17 hours ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Legal
3 days 11 hours ago: Bananaistan: Legal

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: This was declared legal and reached the queue?

(OOC: I sense a legality challenge coming underway. If not, then this certainly won’t pass.)

OOC: I was too slow, being on my phone and on vacation. But I had not paid any attention to the process since receiving that telegram.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
The reason why I hadn't ruled either way was that I thought there might be something iffy about it but unfortunately couldn't remember (or find the time to check) the relevant existing legislation. I'll move checking this up my 'To Do' list.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This was declared legal and reached the queue?

(OOC: I sense a legality challenge coming underway. If not, then this certainly won’t pass.)

OOC: Done, since the author didn't listen to TG'd advice to pull it to fix it.

[Candensia]

We in Candensia surely would have thought a proposal on National Security and Migration would include more ways to address security concerns and humanitarian issues.

Unfortunately, as we see it, this proposal is merely a one-note, oversimplified, thinly-veiled, anti-migrant dogwhistle.

We would ask the author of the proposal what constitutes “lacking cultural integration”, and why lacking it would justify denial of entry?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Seeing as how this has been marked as illegal, I suggest that the author reworks this proposal to be legal and, more importantly, good.)