[DEFEATED] [GA#386 REPLACEMENT] End Statelessness

[The Overmind]

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."

I think it's a given that any proposal's aspirations have to do with member nations. Inasmuch as the proposal aims to end statelessness in member nations, clause c is not optional.

[Barfleur]

"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."

I think it's a given that any proposal's aspirations have to do with member nations. Inasmuch as the proposal aims to end statelessness in member nations, clause c is not optional.

"Clauses a and b are sensible, in that they impose obligations on member nations to not deprive their citizens and nationals of their citizenship and nationality, respectively, and to take steps to remedy past violations. Clause c requires member nations to nationalize a person who may only be traveling through that nation with no intent to stay permanently (or even a full day), or who might openly be hostile to the existence of that nation."

[The Overmind]

I think it's a given that any proposal's aspirations have to do with member nations. Inasmuch as the proposal aims to end statelessness in member nations, clause c is not optional.

"Clauses a and b are sensible, in that they impose obligations on member nations to not deprive their citizens and nationals of their citizenship and nationality, respectively, and to take steps to remedy past violations. Clause c requires member nations to nationalize a person who may only be traveling through that nation with no intent to stay permanently (or even a full day), or who might openly be hostile to the existence of that nation."

There are people in any nation hostile to its existence. They are dealt with judiciously, not by depriving them of citizenship, so I see no reason that the converse should apply.

Moreover, the circumstances you're concerned about are so marginal -- so unlikely -- that they do not comprise a sufficient argument for neutering the proposal of a clause that is essential for achieving its goals, however aspirational you might hold them to be. Might there be the occasional nomad or hostile who gains citizenship? Sure. Is there any reason to believe this wouldn't be the exception? No, not really.

[Barfleur]

"Clauses a and b are sensible, in that they impose obligations on member nations to not deprive their citizens and nationals of their citizenship and nationality, respectively, and to take steps to remedy past violations. Clause c requires member nations to nationalize a person who may only be traveling through that nation with no intent to stay permanently (or even a full day), or who might openly be hostile to the existence of that nation."

There are people in any nation hostile to its existence. They are dealt with judiciously, not by depriving them of citizenship, so I see no reason that the converse should apply.

Moreover, the circumstances you're concerned about are so marginal -- so unlikely -- that they do not comprise a sufficient argument for neutering the proposal of a clause that is essential for achieving its goals, however aspirational you might hold them to be. Might there be the occasional nomad or hostile who gains citizenship? Sure. Is there any reason to believe this wouldn't be the exception? No, not really.

"They do comprise a sufficient argument. Promising nationality to any stateless person who gets one foot in the door, literally in this case, would incentivize illegal migration. Couple that with the prospect of individuals from nations that have ceased to exists and who might be avowed terrorists, and there is a severe national security problem."

[The Overmind]

There are people in any nation hostile to its existence. They are dealt with judiciously, not by depriving them of citizenship, so I see no reason that the converse should apply.

Moreover, the circumstances you're concerned about are so marginal -- so unlikely -- that they do not comprise a sufficient argument for neutering the proposal of a clause that is essential for achieving its goals, however aspirational you might hold them to be. Might there be the occasional nomad or hostile who gains citizenship? Sure. Is there any reason to believe this wouldn't be the exception? No, not really.

"They do comprise a sufficient argument. Promising nationality to any stateless person who gets one foot in the door, literally in this case, would incentivize illegal migration. Couple that with the prospect of individuals from nations that have ceased to exists and who might be avowed terrorists, and there is a severe national security problem."

Except that it applies to all member nations, and only to stateless people, so it really barely incentivizes anything at all.

[Simone Republic]

I am with the point Barfleur made on nations that ceased to exist. Also lack of recognition for the state itself. Is the Taliban government a successor state of Afghanistan? Can someone haul the entire population of Somaliland or any other state that the British do not recognize to exist to British waters and have them all declared nationals?

[The Overmind]

I am with the point Barfleur made on nations that ceased to exist. Also lack of recognition for the state itself. Is the Taliban government a successor state of Afghanistan? Can someone haul the entire population of Somaliland or any other state that the British do not recognize to exist to British waters and have them all declared nationals?

How does a nation cease to exist? A nation is not a government, nor a country. It is a people. Do we presume that member nations are only those nations that receive external validation of their existence?

[Kenmoria]

I am with the point Barfleur made on nations that ceased to exist. Also lack of recognition for the state itself. Is the Taliban government a successor state of Afghanistan? Can someone haul the entire population of Somaliland or any other state that the British do not recognize to exist to British waters and have them all declared nationals?

How does a nation cease to exist? A nation is not a government, nor a country. It is a people. Do we presume that member nations are only those nations that receive external validation of their existence?

(OOC: The dissolution of the USSR comes to mind. That was an unambiguous cessation of existence. Of course, that involved a situation as regards citizenship that is not necessarily widely applicable, in terms of having consistent republics; nonetheless, it does demonstrate that a nation can indeed cease to exist.)

[The Overmind]

How does a nation cease to exist? A nation is not a government, nor a country. It is a people. Do we presume that member nations are only those nations that receive external validation of their existence?

(OOC: The dissolution of the USSR comes to mind. That was an unambiguous cessation of existence. Of course, that involved a situation as regards citizenship that is not necessarily widely applicable, in terms of having consistent republics; nonetheless, it does demonstrate that a nation can indeed cease to exist.)

When the USSR ceased to exist, it broke up into many nations, but it did not result in any stateless people.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The dissolution of the USSR comes to mind. That was an unambiguous cessation of existence. Of course, that involved a situation as regards citizenship that is not necessarily widely applicable, in terms of having consistent republics; nonetheless, it does demonstrate that a nation can indeed cease to exist.)

When the USSR ceased to exist, it broke up into many nations, but it did not result in any stateless people.

(OOC: I know. I was just referencing that a nation could cease to exist through a legislative decree dissolving its constituent organising parts. That nations can cease to exist is not particularly controversial, unless one is talking about a nation qua a people, which is a sense that seems irrelevant to international law.)

[The Overmind]

When the USSR ceased to exist, it broke up into many nations, but it did not result in any stateless people.

(OOC: I know. I was just referencing that a nation could cease to exist through a legislative decree dissolving its constituent organising parts. That nations can cease to exist is not particularly controversial, unless one is talking about a nation qua a people, which is a sense that seems irrelevant to international law.)

My point, while not put in precisely these terms, is that people don't just cease to be part of a nation because of the fall of a state.

[Barfleur]

(OOC: I know. I was just referencing that a nation could cease to exist through a legislative decree dissolving its constituent organising parts. That nations can cease to exist is not particularly controversial, unless one is talking about a nation qua a people, which is a sense that seems irrelevant to international law.)

My point, while not put in precisely these terms, is that people don't just cease to be part of a nation because of the fall of a state.

OOC: If a nation devolves into a situation where three different governments each claim to be the legitimate state, and each government receives at least some foreign recognition, a person's passport status would be affected by that. Likewise, if a nation is conquered and entirely absorbed into a larger nation. Or if the reverse happens and a national balkanizes.

[The Overmind]

My point, while not put in precisely these terms, is that people don't just cease to be part of a nation because of the fall of a state.

OOC: If a nation devolves into a situation where three different governments each claim to be the legitimate state, and each government receives at least some foreign recognition, a person's passport status would be affected by that. Likewise, if a nation is conquered and entirely absorbed into a larger nation. Or if the reverse happens and a national balkanizes.

And, in none of those situations, are people stateless.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I know. I was just referencing that a nation could cease to exist through a legislative decree dissolving its constituent organising parts. That nations can cease to exist is not particularly controversial, unless one is talking about a nation qua a people, which is a sense that seems irrelevant to international law.)

My point, while not put in precisely these terms, is that people don't just cease to be part of a nation because of the fall of a state.

(OOC: Are you talking about “nation” to mean a sociocultural entity or a geopolitical one? If the former, then I do agree, but that isn’t particularly relevant. That people can still have a shared sense of national identity doesn’t have any impact on statelessness in the meaning of this proposal. If the latter, then people do cease to be part of a nation when a state ceases to exist, because the latter definition uses “nation” as a synonym for “state”.)

[The Overmind]

My point, while not put in precisely these terms, is that people don't just cease to be part of a nation because of the fall of a state.

(OOC: Are you talking about “nation” to mean a sociocultural entity or a geopolitical one? If the former, then I do agree, but that isn’t particularly relevant. That people can still have a shared sense of national identity doesn’t have any impact on statelessness in the meaning of this proposal. If the latter, then people do cease to be part of a nation when a state ceases to exist, because the latter definition uses “nation” as a synonym for “state”.)

In this context, they're equivalent. When larger states dissolve, new states solidify around nations, which are not bound to their original state.

[First Nightmare]

Challenge link

[Simone Republic]

"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."

I think it's a given that any proposal's aspirations have to do with member nations. Inasmuch as the proposal aims to end statelessness in member nations, clause c is not optional.

The uncertainty over whether clause (c) means that the 27 googlgazillion people from non-WA states flood into WA states (that Old Hope raised in his legality challenge) would give me pause alone, before all the other complaints about this resolution.

[The Overmind]

I think it's a given that any proposal's aspirations have to do with member nations. Inasmuch as the proposal aims to end statelessness in member nations, clause c is not optional.

The uncertainty over whether clause (c) means that the 27 googlgazillion people from non-WA states flood into WA states (that Old Hope raised in his legality challenge) would give me pause alone, before all the other complaints about this resolution.

As I said on the challenge thread, and am reiterating here, the level of certainty granted to this extremely unlikely event borders on pure contrarionism.

[Fachumonn]

I think it's a given that any proposal's aspirations have to do with member nations. Inasmuch as the proposal aims to end statelessness in member nations, clause c is not optional.

The uncertainty over whether clause (c) means that the 27 googlgazillion people from non-WA states flood into WA states (that Old Hope raised in his legality challenge) would give me pause alone, before all the other complaints about this resolution.

There just aren't that many stateless people, period. At this point, you're just arguing to argue.

[Barfleur]

The uncertainty over whether clause (c) means that the 27 googlgazillion people from non-WA states flood into WA states (that Old Hope raised in his legality challenge) would give me pause alone, before all the other complaints about this resolution.

As I said on the challenge thread, and am reiterating here, the level of certainty granted to this extremely unlikely event borders on pure contrarionism.

The uncertainty over whether clause (c) means that the 27 googlgazillion people from non-WA states flood into WA states (that Old Hope raised in his legality challenge) would give me pause alone, before all the other complaints about this resolution.

There just aren't that many stateless people, period. At this point, you're just arguing to argue.

OOC: Respectfully, I have to disagree. Requiring member nations grant nationality to all stateless individuals found within their borders can be fairly expected to cause more movement of stateless people from non-member nations moving to member nations. I do not think requiring all those people to be nationalized is good policy. And I say this as someone who otherwise strongly supports this proposal. I am not opposed to clause c for the sake of being contrarian, I am opposed because I consider it to be harmful in its likely effects.

[The Overmind]

As I said on the challenge thread, and am reiterating here, the level of certainty granted to this extremely unlikely event borders on pure contrarionism.

There just aren't that many stateless people, period. At this point, you're just arguing to argue.

OOC: Respectfully, I have to disagree. Requiring member nations grant nationality to all stateless individuals found within their borders can be fairly expected to cause more movement of stateless people from non-member nations moving to member nations. I do not think requiring all those people to be nationalized is good policy. And I say this as someone who otherwise strongly supports this proposal. I am not opposed to clause c for the sake of being contrarian, I am opposed because I consider it to be harmful in its likely effects.

I still disagree with you, but the contrarianism comment was largely aimed at Simone Republic vis-á-vis their highly overwrought hypotheticals.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Respectfully, I have to disagree. Requiring member nations grant nationality to all stateless individuals found within their borders can be fairly expected to cause more movement of stateless people from non-member nations moving to member nations. I do not think requiring all those people to be nationalized is good policy. And I say this as someone who otherwise strongly supports this proposal. I am not opposed to clause c for the sake of being contrarian, I am opposed because I consider it to be harmful in its likely effects.

I still disagree with you, but the contrarianism comment was largely aimed at Simone Republic vis-á-vis their highly overwrought hypotheticals.

OOC: Fair, but when you combine the facts that (1) due to how nations roleplay there universes, there exists a potentially infinite number of non-member nations, (2) those nations can have any number of people, and (3) those nations, not being bound by existing WA law, can make their people stateless in any way they choose, I don't think it's too unreasonable an argument to make.

[The Overmind]

I still disagree with you, but the contrarianism comment was largely aimed at Simone Republic vis-á-vis their highly overwrought hypotheticals.

OOC: Fair, but when you combine the facts that (1) due to how nations roleplay there universes, there exists a potentially infinite number of non-member nations, (2) those nations can have any number of people, and (3) those nations, not being bound by existing WA law, can make their people stateless in any way they choose, I don't think it's too unreasonable an argument to make.

I think we're fighting at the boundary between possible and plausible, and I fall firmly afoul of these problems being plausible

[BEEstreetz]

Implying a substantial difference between "citizenship" and "nationality" in (a) but leaving it unspecified is permissive of (c)'s relative interpretation by domestic law. An alternative reading of (c) would be, allowing for procedural implementation of (some member-states) legislation in regards to how it regulates this event.

Other than this lack of precise differentiation, which could be criticized (as it already has by Overmind), the counter-arguments are unconvincing. However, it's also the reason behind me being in favour, since it's a sagacious approach imv.

[The Ice States]

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