[Passed] - Dual citizenship arrangements

[Goobergunchia]

Motivation

This arose from drafts to replace GA76 and GA164 - namely what happens to individuals holding multiple citizenships?

This explicitly adopts comments from the replacement draft from Barfleur about permitting consular protection for dual citizens, with the qualifier that so long as the state allows it. Some countries IRL do not allow this, but as a matter of WA law, this would be simpler than to carve out exceptions (in my view anyway).

It basically says that as long as a WA state recognizes dual citizenship, dual citizens cannot be discriminated upon for being dual citizens. (If they don't, this should be irrelevant).

It also fixes several other issues, such as the fact that the people of America Samoa are not full US citizens by preventing this sort of discrimination, and to require that a WA state may not prohibit citizens from renouncing their citizenship.


Some notes:

1. Clause 2a is to prevent the situation in American Samoa (American nations but not American citizens by default).
2. Clause 4a(ii) is drafted to specifically not violate the GA#579 blocker as per the legality challenge so there is an anti-contradiction clause.
3. Clause 2 also has an anti-contradiction clause due to this coming ahead of various other citizenship reform laws I have in the pipeline.
4. There is no mention of quarantine laws because of the proposed reforms to GAR#389. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=536266

Submitted draft

Category: Civil Rights/Mild

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging its natural interest in regulating relations between WA states as well as to facilitate commerce, travel and communications between WA states;

Noting that certain WA states may prevent some inhabitants of sub-national regions from becoming full citizens;

Recognizing previous GA resolutions that regulate aspects of citizenship such as #523, #552, and #601 but notes that the WA does not explicitly regulate individuals holding multiple citizenships, thus creating potential issues for individuals that may hold multiple citizenships due to differences between the laws of different WA states;

Desiring a common solution for such issues through the WA;

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. Citizen(s) to mean the individual citizen(s) of a WA state;
   2. Dual citizen(s) (or “dual citizenship”) to mean citizen(s) of a WA state that is also the citizen of at least one other state, regardless of whether the second state is a WA state;
   3. References to "state" means any state regardless of membership, and “WA state” means a member of the WA;
2. Requires:
   
   1. A WA state may not create different levels of citizenship or nationality such that an individual is a citizen or national of certain sub-national portions of the said WA state but not a citizen throughout the entirety of the said WA state;
   2. No action by an individual or by a WA state pursuant to this resolution may result in statelessness on the part of an individual;
3. Requires that a WA state may not, subject to extant WA resolutions:
   
   1. prohibit its legally competent citizens from:
      
      1. voluntarily renouncing their citizenship of that WA state, as long as this does not result in statelessness for that citizen;
      2. voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state;
   2. bring charges of treason against former citizens provided that the said crimes are alleged to have been committed after they have renounced their citizenship;
   3. impose taxes or fees specifically as a result of an individual seeking to renounce their citizenship;
   4. impose other conditions on any individual seeking to renounce their citizenship, except for:
      
      1. requiring an individual to resign from a position with the national or sub-national governments of a WA state (including military service) if clause 4(a)(iii) applies;
      2. the payment of any other taxes already then due and payable according to the laws of that WA state;
4. Requires that if a WA state chooses to permit dual citizenship, subject to extant WA resolutions:
   
   1. it must not discriminate against such citizens except on the following matters:
      
      1. a declared state of war exists between that WA state and the other state(s) in which that citizen also has citizenship;
      2. participation in elections; or
      3. appointment to, or employment of, the dual citizen by national or sub-national governments of that WA state that require clearances of that WA state for national security purposes;
   2. it must not deny the right to consular protection if such rights are exercised by other state(s) in which the dual citizen holds citizenship;
5. Requires that all WA states remind their citizens travelling to non-WA states, through such means as the WA state deems necessary:
   
   1. to check in advance if they are also citizens of the other non-WA states even if they are not aware of such citizenship, due to circumstances such as (merely as an example) distant family relations;
   2. to be aware that consular protection may or may not be available depending on the circumstances of the non-WA state;
6. Clarifies:
   
   1. this resolution does not affect whether a WA state permits dual citizenship for its own citizens;
   2. if a WA state changes its laws so that it no longer permits dual citizenship, it may not compel its own dual citizens from renouncing their other citizenship(s) nor to discriminate against such dual citizens except as per the limited circumstances in clause 4(a);
   3. in case of disputes concerning clause 4(b) between two WA states, the Independent Adjudicative Office shall have jurisdiction.

Char count: 4,077

[Simone Republic]

Reserved for future drafts, if any.


Draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging its natural interest in regulating relations between WA states;

Recognizing previous resolutions that regulate various aspects of citizenship and emir;

Noting that the WA does not explicitly regulate individuals holding multiple citizenships, thus creating potential issues for individuals that may hold multiple citizenships due to differing laws of WA states;

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. Citizen(s) to mean the citizen of a WA state;
   2. Dual citizens (or “dual citizenship”) to mean citizens of a WA state that is also the citizen of at least one other state;
   3. “State” means any state regardless of membership of the WA, and “WA state” means a member of the WA;
2. Requires:
   
   1. A WA state may not create different levels of citizenship or nationality such that individuals are citizens or nationals of certain sub-national portions of the said WA state but not a citizen throughout all of the said WA state;
   2. No action by an individual or by a WA state pursuant to this resolution may result in statelessness on the part of an individual;
   3. A WA state may not deny its citizens from obtaining a passport or to charge unreasonable fees for obtaining a passport;
3. Requires that a WA state may not:
   
   1. prohibit its legally competent citizens from:
      
      1. voluntarily renouncing their citizenship of that WA state;
      2. voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state;
      
      
   2. bring charges of treason against former citizens provided that the said crimes are alleged to have been committed after they have renounced their citizenship;
   3. impose conditions on any individual seeking to renounce their citizenship, except for:
      
      1. requiring an individual to resign from a position with the national or sub-national governments of a WA state (including military service) if clause 6(a)(iii) applies;
      2. the payment of any taxes already due and payable according to the laws of that WA state;
4. Requires that a WA state may deprive an individual of citizenship only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
   
   1. the WA state prohibits dual citizenship and has received written confirmation from another state that the individual is a citizen of that other state; and
   2. it has received a voluntary request without coercion from that individual to forego the citizenship of that WA state;
5. Requires that a WA state may not prohibit any individuals from exiting that WA state, permanently or temporarily, unless that individual, subject to (i) due process of law, (ii) extant resolutions of the WA, and (iii) the laws of that WA state:
   
   1. is incarcerated and/or on parole;
   2. is a duly charged suspect in a serious criminal case and deemed by the judicial authorities of that WA state independently to be very likely to abscond, and has exhausted (or voluntarily forfeited) all appeals regarding conditions for bail;
   3. is below the age of majority in that WA state;
   4. is deemed legally incompetent;
6. Requires that if a WA state chooses to permit dual citizenship:
   
   1. it must not discriminate against such citizens except, subject to extant WA resolutions, on the following matters:
      
      
      1. declared war between that WA state and the other state(s);
      2. participation in elections; and/or
      3. appointment to, or employment of, the dual citizen by national or sub-national governments of that WA state that require clearances for national security purposes;
   2. it must not deny the right to consular protection if such rights are exercised by other WA state(s) in which the dual citizen holds citizenship;
7. Clarifies, subject to extant WA resolutions:
   
   1. this resolution does not affect whether a WA state permits dual citizenship for its own citizens;
   2. if a WA state changes its laws so that it no longer permits dual citizenship, it may not compel its own dual citizens from renouncing their other citizenship(s) nor to discriminate against such dual citizens except as per this and other extant WA resolutions.

Char count (at the moment): 4,448

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging its natural interest in regulating relations between member states;

Recognizing previous resolutions that regulate various aspects of citizenship;

Noting that the WA does not explicitly regulate individuals holding multiple citizenships, because of such reasons as differing citizenship laws (such as jus sanguinis and jus soli) and migration;”

1. Defines:
   
   
   1. Citizen(s) to mean the citizen of a WA state;
   2. Dual citizens (or “dual citizenship”) to mean citizens of a WA state that is also the citizen of at least one other state;
   3. “State” means any state regardless of membership of the WA, and “WA state” means a member of the WA;
2. Requires:
   
   1. A WA state may not create different levels of citizenship or nationality such that individuals are citizens or nationals of certain sub-national portions of the said WA state but not a citizen throughout all of the said WA state;
      no action by an individual or by a WA state pursuant to this resolution may result in statelessness on the part of an individual;
   2. A WA state may not deny its citizens from obtaining a passport or to charge unreasonable fees for obtaining a passport;
3. Requires that a WA state may not:
   
   1. prohibit its legally competent citizens from:
      
      1. voluntarily renouncing their citizenship of that WA state;
      2. migrate to another state, or
      3. voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state;
   2. bring charges of treason against former citizens provided that the said crimes are alleged to have been committed after they have renounced their citizenship;
   3. impose conditions on any individual seeking to renounce their citizenship, except for:
      
      1. requiring an individual to resign from a position with the national or sub-national governments of a WA state (including military service) if clause 6(a)(iii) applies;
      2. the payment of any taxes already due and payable according to the laws of that WA state;
4. Requires that a WA state deprive an individual of citizenship only if it satisfies all of the following criteria (a-c):
   
   1. it prohibits dual citizenship and has received confirmation from another state that the individual is a citizen of that other state; and
   2. it has received a voluntary request without coercion from that individual to forego the citizenship of that WA state; and
   3. after due process of law;
5. Requires that a WA state may not prohibit any individuals from exiting the territorial borders of that WA state, unless that individual, subject to (i) due process of law, (ii) extant resolutions of the WA and (iii) the laws of that WA state:
   
   1. is temporarily subject to medically strictly necessary quarantine measures imposed as a result of an epidemic;
   2. is incarcerated and/or on parole in accordance with the laws of that WA state;
   3. is a duly charged suspect in a serious case and deemed by the judicial authorities of that WA state independently to be very likely to abscond, and has exhausted (or voluntarily forfeited) all appeals regarding conditions for bail;
   4. is below the age of majority in that WA state;
   5. is deemed, according to applicable WA resolutions and/or the laws of that WA state, legally incompetent due to reasons of mental capacity;
6. Requires that if a WA state chooses to permit dual citizenship:
   
   1. it must not discriminate against such citizens except, subject to extant WA resolutions:
      
      
      1. declared war between that WA state and the other state(s);
      2. participation in elections, which remains the purview solely of the WA state; and/or
      3. appointment to, or employment of, the dual citizen by national or sub-national governments of that WA state that require clearances for national security purposes;
   2. it must not deny the right to consular protection if such rights are exercised by other WA state(s) in which the dual citizen holds citizenship;
7. Clarifies:
   
   1. this resolution does not affect whether a WA state permits dual citizenship for its own citizens;
   2. if a WA state changes its laws so that it no longer permits dual citizenship, it may not compel its own dual citizens from renouncing their other citizenship(s) nor to discriminate against such dual citizens except as per extant WA resolutions.

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging its natural interest in regulating relations between member states;

Recognizing previous resolutions that regulate various aspects citizenship (such as GARs 76, 164, 386, 552, 620);

Noting that the WA does not explicitly regulate individuals holding multiple citizenships, such as (merely as examples) because of differing citizenship laws (such as jus sanguinis compared to jus soli) or due to migration;

Hereby defines:
Citizen(s) to mean the citizen of a WA state;
Dual citizens (or “dual citizenship”) to mean citizens of a WA state that is also the citizen of at least one other state;
“State” means any state regardless of membership of the WA, and “WA state” means a member of the WA;
Hereby requires that:
A WA state may not create different levels of citizenship or nationality such that individuals are citizens or nationals of certain sub-national portions of the said WA state but not a citizen throughout all of the said WA state;
A WA may not prohibit its citizen(s) from:
voluntarily renouncing their citizenship of that WA state;
migrate to another state, and/or voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state;
nor to unnecessarily encumber the process of applying for renunciation of their citizenship, provided that this does not result in statelessness on the part of those who voluntarily renounce their citizenship;
A WA state may not bring charges of treason against former citizens provided that the said crimes are alleged to have been committed after they have renounced their citizenship;
A WA state may not prohibit any individuals from exiting the territorial borders of that WA state, unless that individual, subject to due process of law:
is incarcerated in accordance with the laws of that WA state;
is a duly charged suspect in a felony case and deemed by the judicial authorities of that WA state independently to be extremely likely to abscond, and has exhausted all appeals regarding conditions for bail;
is below the age of majority in that WA state;
is deemed, according to extant WA resolutions and/or the laws of that WA state, legally incompetent due to reasons of mental capacity;
Hereby requires that if a WA state chooses to permit dual citizenship:
it must not discriminate against such citizens except, if the laws of that WA state permit and subject to extant WA resolutions, in cases of:
war (declared or otherwise) between that WA state and the other state(s);
participation in elections to any office in that WA state; and/or
appointment to, or employment of, the dual citizen by national or sub-national governments of that WA state;
clearances for national security purposes;
it must not deny the right to consular protection if such rights are exercised by other WA state(s) in which the dual citizen holds citizenship;
Hereby clarifies:
it is solely within the rights of a WA state to determine in accordance with its own laws whether it permits dual citizenship for its own citizens;
if a WA state changes its laws so that it no longer permits dual citizenship, it may not compel its own dual citizens from renouncing their other citizenship(s) nor to discriminate against such dual citizens except as per clause 3a above.

[Barfleur]

"Full support. We propose, however, loosening the requirements in clause 2(d)(ii), as we think it reasonable to forbid a person who has been charged with a crime from leaving the country without special permission."

[Omnicontrol]

Wouldn't this be illegal as it mandates that member states allow emigration, but there is a game mechanic (policy) to disallow emigration?

[Kenmoria]

Wouldn't this be illegal as it mandates that member states allow emigration, but there is a game mechanic (policy) to disallow emigration?

(OOC: The GA has also mandated the provision of abortion, the legalisation of homosexual marriage, and the prohibition of labouring children, about which there are also policies. Policies, and issues more generally, have very little connexion to the GA. The only point of mutual interaction is that both affect national statistics.)

[States of Glory WA Office]

A WA may not prohibit its citizen(s) from:

1. voluntarily renouncing their citizenship of that WA state;
2. migrate to another state, and/or voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state;

nor to unnecessarily encumber the process of applying for renunciation of their citizenship, provided that this does not result in statelessness on the part of those who voluntarily renounce their citizenship;

Neville: 'This clause allows member states to encumber the process of renunciation if it would leave an individual stateless, but not to prohibit such a practice entirely. Why is that the case? Member states should be allowed to prohibit renunciation of citizenship until such time as individuals acquire a second citizenship.'

A WA state may not prohibit any individuals from exiting the territorial borders of that WA state, unless that individual, subject to due process of law:

1. is incarcerated and/or on parole in accordance with the laws of that WA state;
2. is a duly charged suspect in a felony case and deemed by the judicial authorities of that WA state independently to be extremely likely to abscond, and has exhausted all appeals regarding conditions for bail;
3. is below the age of majority in that WA state;
4. is deemed, according to applicable WA resolutions and/or the laws of that WA state, legally incompetent due to reasons of mental capacity;

Neville: 'This entire issue is already dealt with by GA #279: "Right of Emigration", and I note that some of the provisions here conflict with the provisions in that resolution, such as the fact that this proposal would prohibit member states from preventing emigration due to quarantine measures, for instance.'

Hereby clarifies:

1. it is solely within the rights of a WA state to determine in accordance with its own laws whether it permits dual citizenship for its own citizens;

Neville: 'Whilst this clarification is welcome, we would prefer an outright blocker on this issue to prevent the World Assembly from infringing upon the right of member states to refuse to recognise dual citizenship in future.'

Clause 2a is to prevent the situation in American Samoa (American nations but not American citizens by default) or the "British Overseas Citizens" mess.

OOC: Not just British Overseas Citizens, of course, but also the confusingly-named British Nationals (Overseas) (i.e. those connected with Hong Kong, which really caused a few problems a couple of years back with refugees fleeing the crackdowns), British protected persons and British subjects. British nationality law is a mess, in other words. The fact that these classes of British nationals have not been granted automatic British citizenship (at least barring those who hold citizenship of another country) is a disgrace IMO. For that reason, along with the American Samoa situation, I am in favour of a proposal that abolishes these 'non-citizen nationalities', but the NatSov in me finds the provisions about dual citizenship to be an overreach. If you could narrow down the proposal to just the former issue then I'd be far more enthusiastic.

[Simone Republic]

*snip* - see above post for the original context"

1. The statelessness provision on renunciation has been re-worded. I hung the "provided" phrase in a way that was ambiguous.

2. There is obviously some intention (I mentioned this in the WA discord) to repeal GA#279 altogether and replace it. I am open to debate on the exact wording for the replacement. I am not going to maul down a resolution by a former VD of the North Pacific and a commended author without careful thought.

3. I cited American Samoa as that's simplest to understand (it's called "American Samoa" but the people are not full US citizens). This is also on the assumption that former British colonies are a more obscure topic on the assumption that the majority of GA voters are Americans.

Hereby clarifies:

1. it is solely within the rights of a WA state to determine in accordance with its own laws whether it permits dual citizenship for its own citizens;

Neville: 'Whilst this clarification is welcome, we would prefer an outright blocker on this issue to prevent the World Assembly from infringing upon the right of member states to refuse to recognise dual citizenship in future.'

Let me think about that. I tend not to like writing blockers in general.

"Full support. We propose, however, loosening the requirements in clause 2(d)(ii), as we think it reasonable to forbid a person who has been charged with a crime from leaving the country without special permission."

There is an implicit proposal to repeal GA#279, so it refers to an "exit" rather than "emigrate". The main issue I have with GA#279 is that it's too broad. This is likely to be revised somewhat in the next draft.

[Boastfulhinder]

It is totally up to the organization to decide if they wish to apply to the IRS spacebar clicker

[Kenmoria]

“I have some notes on this draft, your Excellency.” Ambassador Fortier presents an annotated copy of the proposal to the bear at the podium, with highlights of red ink.

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging its natural interest in regulating relations between member states;

Recognizing previous resolutions that regulate various aspects citizenship (such as GARs 76, 164, 386, 552, 620); “Of” is missing between “aspects” and “citizenship”.

Noting that the WA does not explicitly regulate individuals holding multiple citizenships, such as (merely as examples) because of differing citizenship laws (such as jus sanguinis compared to jus soli) or due to migration; Ignoring the bracketed portion, “such as because of” is not a coherent expression. I recommend the following: “… multiple citizenships, because of such reasons as differing citizenship laws (such as jus sanguinis and jus soli) and migration;”.

1. Hereby defines:
   
   
   1. Citizen(s) to mean the citizen of a WA state;
   2. Dual citizens (or “dual citizenship”) to mean citizens of a WA state that is also the citizen of at least one other state;
   3. “State” means any state regardless of membership of the WA, and “WA state” means a member of the WA; This clause should use “to mean” in place of “means”, for the sake of consistency.
2. Hereby requires that:
   
   1. A WA state may not create different levels of citizenship or nationality such that individuals are citizens or nationals of certain sub-national portions of the said WA state but not a citizen throughout all of the said WA state;
      
   2. A WA may not prohibit its citizen(s) from: “State” is missing after “WA”.
      
      1. voluntarily renouncing their citizenship of that WA state;
      2. migrate to another state, and/or voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state;
      nor to unnecessarily encumber the process of applying for renunciation of their citizenship, provided that this does not result in statelessness on the part of those who voluntarily renounce their citizenship; The People’s Republic of Kenmoria has a king. If he were to renounce his citizenship, it would first require an abdication of his royal office, which is a rather lengthy process. Would this be regarded as an unnecessary encumbrance? I feel as though this ought to be clarified, particularly in such cases as governmental and military officials.
      
   3. A WA state may not bring charges of treason against former citizens provided that the said crimes are alleged to have been committed after they have renounced their citizenship; Is this clause concerned with fairly labelling criminal actions or with reducing the scope of criminalisation, your Excellency?
      
   4. A WA state may not prohibit any individuals from exiting the territorial borders of that WA state, unless that individual, subject to due process of law:
      
      
      1. is incarcerated and/or on parole in accordance with the laws of that WA state;
      2. is a duly charged suspect in a felony case and deemed by the judicial authorities of that WA state independently to be extremely likely to abscond, and has exhausted all appeals regarding conditions for bail; Not all nations have a distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, which is a fact for which this clause does not account. I additionally feel that there should be provision for the person voluntarily choosing not to appeal, even if further appeals are available. Finally, “extremely” seems too high of a bar, and I suggest “very” in its place.
      3. is below the age of majority in that WA state;
      4. is deemed, according to applicable WA resolutions and/or the laws of that WA state, legally incompetent due to reasons of mental capacity;
3. Hereby requires that if a WA state chooses to permit dual citizenship:
   
   1. it must not discriminate against such citizens except, if applicable WA resolutions and the laws of that WA state permit, in cases of:
      
      
      1. war (declared or otherwise) between that WA state and the other state(s);
      2. participation in elections to any office in that WA state; and/or
      3. appointment to, or employment of, the dual citizen by national or sub-national governments of that WA state;
      4. clearances for national security purposes;
         
      5. it must not deny the right to consular protection if such rights are exercised by other WA state(s) in which the dual citizen holds citizenship;
   2. Hereby clarifies:
      
      1. it is solely within the rights of a WA state to determine in accordance with its own laws whether it permits dual citizenship for its own citizens;
      2. if a WA state changes its laws so that it no longer permits dual citizenship, it may not compel its own dual citizens from renouncing their other citizenship(s) nor to discriminate against such dual citizens except as per clause 3a above.

[Simone Republic]

My answers in blue ink.

“I have some notes on this draft, your Excellency.” Ambassador Fortier presents an annotated copy of the proposal to the bear at the podium, with highlights of red ink.

The World Assembly (WA),

Acknowledging its natural interest in regulating relations between member states;

Recognizing previous resolutions that regulate various aspects citizenship (such as GARs 76, 164, 386, 552, 620); “Of” is missing between “aspects” and “citizenship”.
Changed

Noting that the WA does not explicitly regulate individuals holding multiple citizenships, such as (merely as examples) because of differing citizenship laws (such as jus sanguinis compared to jus soli) or due to migration; Ignoring the bracketed portion, “such as because of” is not a coherent expression. I recommend the following: “… multiple citizenships, because of such reasons as differing citizenship laws (such as jus sanguinis and jus soli) and migration;”.
Changed

1. Hereby defines:
   
   
   1. Citizen(s) to mean the citizen of a WA state;
   2. Dual citizens (or “dual citizenship”) to mean citizens of a WA state that is also the citizen of at least one other state;
   3. “State” means any state regardless of membership of the WA, and “WA state” means a member of the WA; This clause should use “to mean” in place of “means”, for the sake of consistency.
   
   Reworded a bit, see above
   
2. Hereby requires that:
   
   1. A WA state may not create different levels of citizenship or nationality such that individuals are citizens or nationals of certain sub-national portions of the said WA state but not a citizen throughout all of the said WA state;
      
   2. A WA may not prohibit its citizen(s) from: “State” is missing after “WA”.
      
      1. voluntarily renouncing their citizenship of that WA state;
      2. migrate to another state, and/or voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state;

nor to unnecessarily encumber the process of applying for renunciation of their citizenship, provided that this does not result in statelessness on the part of those who voluntarily renounce their citizenship; The People’s Republic of Kenmoria has a king. If he were to renounce his citizenship, it would first require an abdication of his royal office, which is a rather lengthy process. Would this be regarded as an unnecessary encumbrance? I feel as though this ought to be clarified, particularly in such cases as governmental and military officials.

Reworded a bit, see above. Basically it now requires military service and paying off tax bills as well (as is the case of the US)

[*]A WA state may not bring charges of treason against former citizens provided that the said crimes are alleged to have been committed after they have renounced their citizenship; Is this clause concerned with fairly labelling criminal actions or with reducing the scope of criminalisation, your Excellency?

Kind of both. It's not really treason if you really left the country, and penalties for treason are usually harsher than other offences

[*]A WA state may not prohibit any individuals from exiting the territorial borders of that WA state, unless that individual, subject to due process of law:

[list=i]
[*]is incarcerated and/or on parole in accordance with the laws of that WA state;
[*]is a duly charged suspect in a felony case and deemed by the judicial authorities of that WA state independently to be extremely likely to abscond, and has exhausted all appeals regarding conditions for bail; Not all nations have a distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, which is a fact for which this clause does not account. I additionally feel that there should be provision for the person voluntarily choosing not to appeal, even if further appeals are available. Finally, “extremely” seems too high of a bar, and I suggest “very” in its place.

Reworded a bit, see above. "Very" is adopted. Also for bail, I added "voluntarily forfeit".

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Currently, Clause 2b reads 'Requires that...requires that a WA state may not' and Clause 2bii reads 'Requires that a WA state may not...migrate to another state, and/or voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state'. These need to be fixed.

In addition, we are confused as to Clause 4b. Surely, if an individual is already granted consular protection by Nation B, it is not a matter of urgency for Nation A also to grant that same individual consular protection, whereas if Nation B does not grant consular protection, it is all the more imperative that Nation A do so. Yet, for some bizarre reason, the requirements in Clause 4b are completely reversed.

[Simone Republic]

Neville: Currently, Clause 2b reads 'Requires that...requires that a WA state may not' and Clause 2bii reads 'Requires that a WA state may not...migrate to another state, and/or voluntarily adopt the citizenship of another state'. These need to be fixed.

I changed the number to make it easier, 2b rolled over to clause 3

In addition, we are confused as to Clause 4b. Surely, if an individual is already granted consular protection by Nation B, it is not a matter of urgency for Nation A also to grant that same individual consular protection, whereas if Nation B does not grant consular protection, it is all the more imperative that Nation A do so. Yet, for some bizarre reason, the requirements in Clause 4b are completely reversed.

This refers to the issue of consular protection and the Consular Protection Protocol resolution coming up to vote next. I imposed a requirement that provided that the host nation recognize dual nationality, everyone has to grant assistance - say if X is a citizen of nations A and B, and gets into trouble in C, and if nation B has granted consular assistance, nation A still has to grant assistance if X requests it.

[Coders]

I have a question good sir, clause 5 is very confusing, and it would force many of the states with the "No emmigration" policy to change that. I would suggest have a clause within 5 saying that "Exempts WA states that do not allow emmigration in any circumstances"


- Jamison Varnham
WA Commission Delegate to Coders

[Coders]

Also, wouldn't this be illegal by GenSec due to the fact that GAR#279 has not been repealed and this resolution contradicts it?

- Jamison Varnham
WA Comission Delegate to Coders

[Hulldom]

3(b) reads funny. Did you mean to say "prevent migration to another state and/or voluntary adoption of the citizenship of another state"?

[Simone Republic]

Also, wouldn't this be illegal by GenSec due to the fact that GAR#279 has not been repealed and this resolution contradicts it?

- Jamison Varnham
WA Comission Delegate to Coders

This obviously won't hit until I repeal #279. I usually write both the repeal and the replace at the same time.

The repeal is here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=535848

3(b) reads funny. Did you mean to say "prevent migration to another state and/or voluntary adoption of the citizenship of another state"?

Fixed. Most of my stuff reads funny anyway as I am notorious for having minor grammatical errors pretty much everywhere.

[Hulldom]

I would also clarify only declared war in 6(a)(i). There's no reason (for instance) an Iraqi national should have been discriminated against in 2003 in the United States even given the undeclared war outside of perhaps this individuals subject to sanctions. (Why we haven't passed something like a WA Magnitsky Act is beyond me.)

Additionally, I will oppose this so long as 6(a)(iii) exists. I do not believe employment should even possibly be denied to dual citizens unless it falls under 6(a)(iv). I would be willing to support this if the two subclauses were combined.

[Simone Republic]

I would also clarify only declared war in 6(a)(i). There's no reason (for instance) an Iraqi national should have been discriminated against in 2003 in the United States even given the undeclared war outside of perhaps this individuals subject to sanctions. (Why we haven't passed something like a WA Magnitsky Act is beyond me.)

Additionally, I will oppose this so long as 6(a)(iii) exists. I do not believe employment should even possibly be denied to dual citizens unless it falls under 6(a)(iv). I would be willing to support this if the two subclauses were combined.

The entire clause 6(a) has to do with existing blockers as you'd no doubt know. I've combined the clauses.

The national security bit is based on a very conservative interpretation of GA37 parapgraph 16 in case of a legality challenge (and also because of the NOFORN rules in the US, I mean neither the CIA nor MI6 usually allow dual citizens to be employed openly anyway*), the 6(a)(ii) is blatantly due to the decision on GA579. 6a(i) carries over from the previous resolution.

*I don't know about spies

[Simone Republic]

Bump

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

Bump on the World Assembly Official Merchandise official bumper (the repeal of GA#274 is on last call)

[Simone Republic]

Bump

This has been reworded to remove the exit arrangements part (the replacement for GA#279) due to the need to fix issues regarding quarantine.

This is likely last call as it's been awhile.

[Simone Republic]

Bump

If we don't debate cannibalism again, this would go in instead.

This resolution does have "subject to extant resolution" qualifiers that Wallenberg has criticised but that's largely because the ones I want to repeal (76 etc) are still on the books as of the passing of this resolution but will be gradually repealed and replaced.

I have removed the replacement parts for GA#279 for space reasons and also because of changes to the proposed reforms of GA#389 which needs to match the replacement of GA#279. I added an extra clause warning of travellers going to non-WA states to find out if they are citizens there by chance and that diplomatic protection may not be available.

FYI: The repeal of GA#279 is here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=535848

[Simone Republic]

Bump. This has been submitted.

Note that 4(b) is deliberately weaker than I would like. I have a stronger version here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=538592

That followed the failure of Consular Protection Protocols.

As that resolution was rejected once, I am more cautious in the part on consular protection for dual citizens. So at the moment, it only requires that dual citizens, if recognized, must receive diplomatic protection, but not in scenarios where dual citizens are not recognized.

Clause 5 assumes that a WA member is RNT and would publicize citizenship laws and that anyone who is travelling to a WA state would check in advance if they are a citizen of that other country, and if dual citizenship is recognized.

[Waffia]

"Do I understand correctly that clause 3(d) prohibits deportation as a consequence of renounced citizenship?"

[Kenmoria]

"Do I understand correctly that clause 3(d) prohibits deportation as a consequence of renounced citizenship?"

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I believe, your Excellency, that clause 3d is limited to restricting what conditions may be imposed prior to the renunciation of citizenship. 3d prohibits member-nations from requiring that a citizen be deported as a prerequisite to that citizen renouncing his or her citizenship; however, it has no impact on the loss of civil rights that may result as a result of that former citizen’s alien status. Deportation can legally occur only after the citizenship has been already renounced.”