[DRAFT] Fair Immigrant Treatment

[UFROE]

A resolution to improve the living standard, as well as the civil rights and freedoms of immigrants and refugees across the world.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the need for immigrants to be treated humanely and fairly by immigration customs officials and the societies in which they wish to be a part of, but that many nations forbid immigration into their territory or emigration out of it,

Concerned that the manner in which immigrants are treated infringes upon their human rights, not only by the treatment they receive from customs officials at a nation's border, not only in foreign airports, not only in foreign ports and harbors but also within the social environment of many nations, an unfair treatment that may be fueled by government incentive or religious purposes,

Believing that it is the responsibility of a nation's government to ensure no human rights abuses take place within their nation and that all citizens of foreign nations are guaranteed safety, as well as equal treatment and opportunities as born citizens may have, and that the process to attain the citizenship in any member nation should not infringe an immigrant's human rights nor should it put them through unneeded harassment or scrutiny from anyone within the nation they have immigrated to, and

Supporting the betterment of civil and political rights in the global community and a decline to abuse of human rights and harassment due to ethnicity, nationality, status, or religion,

Hereby enacts as follows.

1. Defines the following:

a. defines "GESTPO", as the Global Emigration, Security, Travel and Passport Organization,

b. defines “status” as the income of an individual, and the social class in which they are a part of or are grouped in.

2. Each member nation must:

a. inform their citizens of the proper way to treat anyone within their nation, regardless of their ethnicity, nationality, status, religion, with proper manners, respect, and utter indifference,

b. provide such information to those of schooling age currently enrolled and participating in the system of education of the nation through the national curriculum, and enforce private institutions to do the same,

c. attempt to spread awareness and information on the issue to the public masses, so that as many citizens as possible within their nation can learn of these policies,

d. encourage immigrants to speak out against abusers, while allowing the government or court that these allegations may go to collect information on the case, and conduct an investigation on alleged abuse when needed, and

e. ensure all citizens, regardless of social status, are given the chance to be educated in these policies, and provide such information freely through the nation's state-funded education system.

3. The GESTPO, will ensure every member nation complies with the following:

a. every member nation conducts routine checks and evaluations on the performance and behavior of all officials involved in the immigration office of the nation,

b. the GESTPO will ensure all member nations are compliant with Article 2 of this resolution, and

c. the GESTPO will aid nations and make recommendations on how members should strive to comply with Articles 2 of this resolution.

[Tinhampton]

I am opposed to Article 1c in principle. The World Assembly should not be telling member states to prohibit hate speech in general, never mind on the extremely vague grounds of "status."

Article 1e requires that all immigrants to any member state, regardless of their purposes in the country, be given "political asylum for a minimum of 3 months." Why is this status - rather than a broad guarantee of fairness in deportation hearings - necessary? And why should anyone who walks into a member state and is found to be completely harmless be entitled to apply for citizenship off the bat?

What is the point in Article 2, other than to require that immigration officials be monitored for their compliance with Article 1 at least four times a year?

========

There exists no "International Criminal Court." Even if it did exist, WA committees should not be auto-referring complaints about hate speech and poor-quality etiquette education to it.

The "Passport Organization" is exactly the same entity as "The Global Emigration, Security, Travel and Passport Organization."

[Makko Oko]

"Article 1e is illegal, maybe not in the WA, but in our eyes, as you're trying to twist the very definition of political asylum Ambassador. Political asylum is for those seeking refuge from a dictatorship or otherwise politically unstable situation where unfair persecution and the like is highly probable should they stay within their home nation. This issue, if unresolved, may order upon itself a legality challenge.

Additionally, where in this resolution does it state the establishment of such 'Passport Organization'? Unless there is current WA precedence establishing this organization, there needs to be a written charter on this organization, how it is to be operated, who will run it and how it plans to be funded. This organization has no leg to stand on without clearly written funding details.

Furthermore, Article 3 concerns us as it may be against WAR#2, "Rights Of WA States", where it hereby claims under Section 1, Article 2 that 'Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.'

This very article appears to violate it as it does say and we quote that it 'raise[s] legal disputes on behalf of immigrants and refugees against nations who infringe Articles 1 and 2, through the International Criminal Court.'. We feel that this is a violation of that because of national sovereignty, if we were to see a problem, we can report it ourselves. The ICC has no right to open its own cases, cases must be reported TO it so it may then investigate. We do wish, however, for a WA veteran to chime in on this specific matter, as we are not as well versed in this section of the WA.

And finally, article 1d is HIGHLY illegal by our standards as you cannot prosecute abusers on a 'he said, she said' rule. This article allows for this, by shielding the star witness through anonymity and not allowing for any exemptions whatsoever. This, therefore, defeats the entire purpose of this article in question, and must be further reviewed.

In summary, the Government Of Makko Oko feels that this resolution is overreaching, underdeveloped and we refuse to vote for it at this time until changes are made. We also think this resolution needs to be better formatted, as while it may be fine now, it needs to look like all others when it heads to the voting floor."

[UFROE]

Thank you both for pointing out clear flaws i failed to recognize in my writing and giving me knowledge i did not have. i will work on the draft in order to polish it further and address the concerns you have raised. My only question is whether or not this is an issue worth addressing through a resolution.

[Makko Oko]

Thank you both for pointing out clear flaws i failed to recognize in my writing and giving me knowledge i did not have. i will work on the draft in order to polish it further and address the concerns you have raised. My only question is whether or not this is an issue worth addressing through a resolution.

"Ambassador, that is objective to the person. If you feel it may be addressed, address it to the best of our assembly's ability, and if you don't, you may abandon this proposal or hand it over to somebody else."

[The New Nordic Union]

This issue, if unresolved, may order upon itself a legality challenge.

Legality challenges are OOC. And not agreeing with a policy does not make it illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Article 1e is illegal, maybe not in the WA, but in our eyes, as you're trying to twist the very definition of political asylum Ambassador. Political asylum is for those seeking refuge from a dictatorship or otherwise politically unstable situation where unfair persecution and the like is highly probable should they stay within their home nation. This issue, if unresolved, may order upon itself a legality challenge.

You'll need clearer grounds than that to make such a challenge. What rule does it violate and how?

Additionally, where in this resolution does it state the establishment of such 'Passport Organization'? Unless there is current WA precedence establishing this organization, there needs to be a written charter on this organization, how it is to be operated, who will run it and how it plans to be funded. This organization has no leg to stand on without clearly written funding details.

The Passport Organisation (also known by other names) is a pre-existing committee, per GA 386 "Reducing Statelessness". You should know this, having raised (an extremely untimely) challenge against that resolution a few days back, implying that you had read it.

Furthermore, Article 3 concerns us as it may be against WAR#2, "Rights Of WA States", where it hereby claims under Section 1, Article 2 that 'Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.'

The bolded portion immunises all proposals from any claim of contradiction therewith. In fact, you recognised this in this post when you mistakenly read Tinhampton's post as implying a similar claim.

This very article appears to violate it as it does say and we quote that it 'raise[s] legal disputes on behalf of immigrants and refugees against nations who infringe Articles 1 and 2, through the International Criminal Court.'. We feel that this is a violation of that because of national sovereignty, if we were to see a problem, we can report it ourselves. The ICC has no right to open its own cases, cases must be reported TO it so it may then investigate. We do wish, however, for a WA veteran to chime in on this specific matter, as we are not as well versed in this section of the WA.

And finally, article 1d is HIGHLY illegal by our standards as you cannot prosecute abusers on a 'he said, she said' rule. This article allows for this, by shielding the star witness through anonymity and not allowing for any exemptions whatsoever. This, therefore, defeats the entire purpose of this article in question, and must be further reviewed.

In summary, the Government Of Makko Oko feels that this resolution is overreaching, underdeveloped and we refuse to vote for it at this time until changes are made. We also think this resolution needs to be better formatted, as while it may be fine now, it needs to look like all others when it heads to the voting floor."

Illegalities are out-of-character questions of whether a proposal violates proposal rules, not questions of wisdom as regards a policy. To make a satisfactory claim, you need to point out what rule is broken and how, not make vague and conclusory allegations. You must justify your claims of illegality for them to be taken seriously and for them to give rise to enforcement action. Otherwise, we (and I believe I can speak for all of us on this point) will dismiss them.