[DEFEATED] [GA#386 REPLACEMENT] End Statelessness

[Tinhampton]

Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe this doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.

I will submit this first, if that was not clear from The Before Times.

[Barfleur]

"We support this proposal--with the caveat that it should be in addition to, rather than a replacement of, GA#386. Any flaws GA#386 might have do not block further legislation on statelessness of the kind you are seeking to enact here, so there is no reason to do away with the older resolution. I also support removing clause c, as there are plenty of valid reason why a nation might not want to grant nationality to every stateless person who happens to be found in that nation--if the person entered illegally, or if they are a known terrorist who has come to stir up trouble, or if there is reason to believe they are operating on behalf of a foreign power, to name a few."

[B1G JIM SLADE]

Since he no longer has a desk, Big Jim speaks while leaning up against a post in a dark corner of the assembly

"As a currently stateless person, I fully support yo efforts. What I wouldn't give jus to be a citizen of....somewhere."

[Simone Republic]

The nagging issue is the name GESTAPO in 386 (which IA insists has been renamed, but the old name is still there). The rest can simply involve a replacement that expands on the rights of 386 without a repeal of 386 in advance.

[Tinhampton]

The nagging issue is the name GESTAPO in 386 (which IA insists has been renamed, but the old name is still there). The rest can simply involve a replacement that expands on the rights of 386 without a repeal of 386 in advance.

The repeal will not be "in advance." I've been saying for two years that I will pass this resolution BEFORE submitting my repeal. The people will decide there and then whether they believe that ES is a replacement or a complement to GA#386.

[Simone Republic]

Personally I find GA#386 a nagging issue because of the GESTAPO name. If there is a replacement, this really should ensure it covers everything and then take out GA#386 (kind of what I did with GA#706 being passed first before GA#164 was repealed).

[The Ice States]

I don't see where the Gestapo is mentioned in this resolution.

To Tin, what's the difference between this and Reducing Statelessness?

[Tigrisia]

The Tigrisian Delegation would like to ask for the reason the delegation of Tinhampton wants to forbid nations to renounce citizenship from those who have attained their citizenship by fraud.

[Tinhampton]

The Tigrisian Delegation would like to ask for the reason the delegation of Tinhampton wants to forbid nations to renounce citizenship from those who have attained their citizenship by fraud.

GA#386 also "Prohibits nations from depriving a national of their nationality should such an action leave that national stateless."

As regards the actual issue:

• If you have one active citizenship, fraudulently obtained, and rescinded a legitimate citizenship in order to obtain it, then the nation you defrauded can remove your citizenship by reason of fraud. Since you were ultimately not successful in obtaining the new citizenship, your old nation is bound by Article b(iv) to restore your old citizenship.
• If you have multiple active citizenships, and not all of them were fraudulently obtained, your fraudulent citizenship can be removed under Article a(iii).
• If you have one or multiple active citizenships, and all of them were fraudulently obtained, and you have no recourse to any legitimate avenues of citizenship (as in the first bullet point), I would have MULTIPLE questions.

To Tin, what's the difference between this and Reducing Statelessness?

This proposal (A) contains procedures for the restoral of nationality or citizenship, as against the awarding of WA passports; and (B) covers citizenship, as well as nationality, an absurdity highlighted by EP in the original debate thread.

[Simone Republic]

(OOC)

I'd use the opportunity to clarify the relationship between citizenship and nationality, especially as many of the NS players are from countries where there is a difference between the two. American has a difference (mainly to do with American Samoa), British has a difference (partly scrapped by Labour in 2002, and then the Conservatives scrapped it recently for Hong Kong persons holding the British National (Overseas) passport. Mexico for example as well. It seems a wasted opportunity.

[Tigrisia]

It seems a wasted opportunity.

How do you mean? I don't understand the context.

[Tinhampton]

It seems a wasted opportunity.

How do you mean? I don't understand the context.

Simone is complaining about the status quo, not about this proposal. Will submit at 5pm on Leap Day absent further complaints.

[Tinhampton]

This is your 24 hour warning! More like 22, but anyway...

[The Ice States]

As anti-fun as the omission of a GESTAPO is, I support this.

[Kenmoria]

As anti-fun as the omission of a GESTAPO is, I support this.

(OOC: Though I concede its humour, I find the acronym a little tasteless. I will try to have some feedback on the proposal prior to the jumping day.)

[Kenmoria]

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
End Statelessness
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Believing that decisive action should be taken to eradicate statelessness across the World Assembly once and for all, the General Assembly hereby: The World Assembly is an organisation rather than an area of land, so it makes more sense for your Excellency to refer to the eradication of statelessness across “the member-nations of the World Assembly”.

1. forbids member states from removing:
   
   1. the citizenship of any of their citizens who do not hold citizenship in any other nation,
   2. the nationality of any of their nationals who do not hold nationality in any other nation, and
   3. the citizenship or nationality of any of their citizens or nationals, even if they are not covered by Articles a(i) or a(ii), without giving them two weeks' warning and the right to a judicial appeal of such removal, This seems to imply the right to have an appeal actually granted, so I suggest instead granting the right to seek judicial review, which is a different and more appropriate mechanism than appeal.
2. requires members to immediately restore: One problem that I can foresee with subclauses i and ii here is that it creates what is termed a game of chicken. If two member-nations have removed citizenship from a person simultaneously, then both of them have an obligation to restore, but not when the other has done it first. Thus, whichever has the greater willingness to bend the law of the General Assembly can wait until the other restore citizenship, then be freed from that burden.
   
   1. the citizenship of any person who they have removed the citizenship of and who does not hold citizenship in any other nation,
   2. the nationality of any person who they have removed the nationality of and who does not hold nationality in any other nation,
   3. the citizenship or nationality of any person who they have removed it from in a manner that contradicts Article a(iii), This is confusingly worded, so I recommend that your Excellency write as follows: “The citizenship or nationality of any person whose citizenship or nationality has been removed in a manner that contradicts Article a(iii),”.
   4. the citizenship or nationality of any person who has voluntarily rescinded it pursuant to Article f in order to acquire the citizenship or nationality of any other country, and who became stateless as a result of such rescission, but who ultimately did not succeed in making that acquisition, and
   5. the citizenship or nationality of any person who has voluntarily rescinded it pursuant to Article f, where they made such rescission to become stateless and to facilitate their performance of activities that are illegal in the member state they live in, I am not certain of the utility of this.
3. requires members to grant their nationality to all stateless persons found within their jurisdiction, even if they are not covered by Article b (and encourages members to also grant their citizenship to all stateless persons not already covered by Article b(i) who are found within their jurisdiction),
4. insists that members not charge any individual for the granting or restoration of their citizenship or nationality when they grant or restore it pursuant to Articles b or c,
5. forbids members from charging any individual more than the necessary administrative and handling fees where that individual seeks to attain or (where legal) rescind their nationality or citizenship, except where Article d provides that the attainment of such be free of charge, and
6. clarifies that nothing in this resolution prevents citizens or nationals of a member state from voluntarily rescinding their citizenship or nationality of that member. This should be reworded, because other clauses refer to this one as if it actually did something with respect to voluntary relinquishment of citizenships, rather than being merely clarificatory.

[Tinhampton]

RE Kenmoria...

- Preamble: Not changing, if only for simplicity's sake.
- a(iii): Done.
- b(i-ii): Appropriate changes have been made.
- b(iii): Done.
- b(v): Holdover from discussions with Hulldom and Debussy back in January '22, as regards the alleged benefits of claiming Sovereign Citizen/Freeman on the Land status. Not removing.
- f: Not rewording. I have instead removed "pursuant to Article f" from Articles b(iv-v).

And since he's fine with the changes after a quick once-over on his end, submitted! Not bad for post number 13,500 on my end...

[Comfed]

Wait, why is it legitimate for a country to ever involuntarily revoke someone's citizenship? I don't understand.

[Second Sovereignty]

Wait, why is it legitimate for a country to ever involuntarily revoke someone's citizenship? I don't understand.

OOC:
Presumably, one would like to do so in the event a citizen does something along the lines of, stealing a bunch of state secrets and taking the first plane over to [Enemy Country]. I'm not sure that's the greatest idea, but a case could be made.

[Comfed]

Wait, why is it legitimate for a country to ever involuntarily revoke someone's citizenship? I don't understand.

OOC:
Presumably, one would like to do so in the event a citizen does something along the lines of, stealing a bunch of state secrets and taking the first plane over to [Enemy Country]. I'm not sure that's the greatest idea, but a case could be made.

Maybe... but unless there's something I'm missing I don't see the value in that beyond an empty punitive gesture. And even under the terms of this resolution, that would only apply to someone who was already a citizen of a different country.

[Barfleur]

"At present, we must oppose based on clause c. Stateless persons who entered the country illegally or who pose valid national security risks ought not to be entitled to nationality. We reiterate our previous comment regarding the rest of the proposal, which we support."

[The Overmind]

"At present, we must oppose based on clause c. Stateless persons who entered the country illegally or who pose valid national security risks ought not to be entitled to nationality. We reiterate our previous comment regarding the rest of the proposal, which we support."

Statelessness is an extenuating circumstance, and the goals of the proposal cannot be met without this clause.

[Barfleur]

"At present, we must oppose based on clause c. Stateless persons who entered the country illegally or who pose valid national security risks ought not to be entitled to nationality. We reiterate our previous comment regarding the rest of the proposal, which we support."

Statelessness is an extenuating circumstance, and the goals of the proposal cannot be met without this clause.

"Respectfully, this delegations believes otherwise. We are of the mind--we won't make a pun--that clauses a and b are what the proposal aims to do, with clauses d, e, and f being ancillary to them. Clause c adds little to nothing in the way of benefit, while opening up member nations to the security risks mentioned above."

[The Overmind]

Statelessness is an extenuating circumstance, and the goals of the proposal cannot be met without this clause.

"Respectfully, this delegations believes otherwise. We are of the mind--we won't make a pun--that clauses a and b are what the proposal aims to do, with clauses d, e, and f being ancillary to them. Clause c adds little to nothing in the way of benefit, while opening up member nations to the security risks mentioned above."

We're just going to point out that the title of the proposal is "End Statelessness" which is not possible without clause c.

[Barfleur]

"Respectfully, this delegations believes otherwise. We are of the mind--we won't make a pun--that clauses a and b are what the proposal aims to do, with clauses d, e, and f being ancillary to them. Clause c adds little to nothing in the way of benefit, while opening up member nations to the security risks mentioned above."

We're just going to point out that the title of the proposal is "End Statelessness" which is not possible without clause c.

"Even clause c would not 'end' statelessness, as there would still be many, many more stateless individuals who are outside the territorial jurisdiction of member nations. The title is aspirational, and the proposal would not do away with every single case of statelessness."