Advertisement
by Domnonia » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:03 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:45 pm
by Gobbannium » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:21 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:07 am
Gobbannium wrote:No.
This is now so wishy-washy as to be useless. In retreating to the position of a general rule, section now has all the legal force of an elderly haddock. "The general rule is so-and-so, but in Special Casia we are an exception."
All of our other objections remain, or are if anything rendered more confused by this redraft.
Mandates the following:
1a. In general, a mentally sound civilian of a member state above the age of maturity (or majority or whatever) has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief), unless any of the situations in Sections 1b, 1c and 2 to 3 are true;
1b. A civilian that is mentally incapable of making such a decision or is dependent on a carer has the right to emigrate when accompanied by a mentally sound partner that has the right to emigrate;
1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (or majority or whatever, as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate:
• When accompanied by one or more parent/guardian;
• On the consent of a parent/guardian; or
• If orphaned and that it is safe to do so.
by Bears Armed » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:07 am
Domnonia wrote:We would also suggest that, as others have noted, the restrictions on sexual offenders should be removed from the proposal, insofar as the onus is on the receiving state as to whom they permit to immigrate.
by Gobbannium » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:19 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I've struck out the redraft. Does this one still work for you, before working on the age of majority issue, honoured ambassador?]
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:30 am
Gobbannium wrote:Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I've struck out the redraft. Does this one still work for you, before working on the age of majority issue, honoured ambassador?]
No. Assuming that the accomanying note is the proferred redraft, pace age issues, the matter of the "general rule" remains undiminished in its fuzziness.
by Gobbannium » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:08 am
by Progressive Union » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:42 am
Gobbannium wrote:Ambassador Sarah Harper wrote:3. Further permits member states to waive Section 1:a) For persons suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts abroad, for up to the maximum of 90 days (or lower if specified by national legislation), after which the person must be charged in criminal justice or be allowed to emigrate;
We are extremely dubious about "suss" laws like this. Either you can charge the person concerned, or you have no justification in interfering with their activities.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:01 am
Gobbannium wrote:We are thinking that clause 1a beginning with the words "In general" is nothing short of disasterous, Ms Harper. We thought we had made that plain. We apologise.
Mandates the following:
1a. A mentally sound civilian of a member state above the age of majority has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief), unless any of the situations in Sections 1b, 1c and 2 to 3 are true;
by Gobbannium » Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:27 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Okay, honoured ambassador. If we took out the word "in general" would it sound better?
Progressive Union wrote:Gobbannium wrote:Ambassador Sarah Harper wrote:3. Further permits member states to waive Section 1:a) For persons suspected of espionage or intention to carry out terrorist acts abroad, for up to the maximum of 90 days (or lower if specified by national legislation), after which the person must be charged in criminal justice or be allowed to emigrate;
We are extremely dubious about "suss" laws like this. Either you can charge the person concerned, or you have no justification in interfering with their activities.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium,
I disagree with you whole-heartedly. The national security of the Commonwealth of the Progressive Union and the region of which I am the Ambassador-Delegate, Royal Federation of Nations, is of utmost concern. If any member nation suspects that someone is attempting to emigrate into their nation with the intention of terrorist activities or espionage, said member nation should have the right to refuse emigration until the cause is shown to be invalid.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:12 am
Gobbannium wrote:Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Okay, honoured ambassador. If we took out the word "in general" would it sound better?
Not only would it sound better, it would be a mandate rather than an observation. More work on the logic needs to be done, however; clauses 1b and 1c are not exceptions to 1a, they are additions to the set of people who have the right to emigrate. Note also that stating that clauses 2 and 3 provide exceptions to 1a does not also make them exceptions to 1b and 1c. I believe that as written, for example, a government has no legal way to prevent the emigration of a minor who has the consent of his parents.
Mandates the following, unless any of the situations in Sections 2 to 3 are true:
1a. A mentally sound civilian of a member state above the age of majority has the right to emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of their status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief).
1b. A civilian that is mentally incapable of making such a decision or is dependent on a carer has the right to emigrate when accompanied by a mentally sound partner that has the right to emigrate.
1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate:
• When accompanied by one or more parent/guardian;
• On the consent of a parent/guardian; or
• If orphaned and that it is safe to do so.
by Gobbannium » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:06 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Here are the tweaks, honoured ambassador:Mandates the following, unless any of the situations in Sections 2 to 3 are true:
[...snip...]
1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate:
• When accompanied by one or more parent/guardian;
• On the consent of a parent/guardian; or
• If orphaned and that it is safe to do so.
As said, I am planning to reform the non-consensual sexual conduct clause to be a requirement for the emigrant's original member state(s) (not former due to the use of dual nationality by some) to inform the emigrant's new member state of its criminal history.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:13 am
Gobbannium wrote:
The logic of clause 1 is now self-consistent, congratulations. We note with interest that the company or consent of only one parent is all that is needed for the emigration of a minor. This has a strong bearing on highly emotive national laws, and we rather fear that voters will fail to notice that they are expressing the opinion that it is always permissible for one parent to part from another with their children. Such a blanket statement is unlikely to be universally correct. Perhaps a little more tweaking is necessary here.
1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate on the company or the consent of their parent or guardian: if orphaned, the member state must ensure the safe transit of the minor. Member states must not use emigration to separate children from their parents against their will (may need enhancement).
by Gobbannium » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:21 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:In addition to the suggestions, it may be considered that it is the right of a parent to emigrate with their children too, honoured ambassador.
Additionally, some member states may exploit emigration to force the separation of parent and child.
Let's try:1c. A civilian that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate on the company or the consent of their parent or guardian: if orphaned, the member state must ensure the safe transit of the minor. Member states must not use emigration to separate children from their parents against their will (may need enhancement).
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:51 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:18 am
by Super-Chechnya » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:12 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Let's try this one to replace 1c. For all consideration before incorporation to the OP:
1c. A minor that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate together with their parents/guardians, or by themselves if the intention of the emigration is to reunite with their parents or with one of their parents, provided that they have the consent of one of their parents, guardians or lawful representatives staying in the member state that the minor left. If only one of the minor's parents/guardians are emigrating, and if they cannot reach a consensus on the emigration of the minor(s), the issue must be resolved by the the member state of residence before proceeding further.
by Gobbannium » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:01 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Let's try this one to replace 1c. For all consideration before incorporation to the OP:
1c. A minor that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate together with their parents/guardians, or by themselves if the intention of the emigration is to reunite with their parents or with one of their parents, provided that they have the consent of one of their parents, guardians or lawful representatives staying in the member state that the minor left. If only one of the minor's parents/guardians are emigrating, and if they cannot reach a consensus on the emigration of the minor(s), the issue must be resolved by the the member state of residence before proceeding further.
by Super-Chechnya » Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:26 am
by Gobbannium » Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:39 am
Super-Chechnya wrote:I think CR was thinking about only when children emigrated on their own but perhaps the commas may be inadvertently but perhaps maybe no need for dispute process to be kept in.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:49 am
Gobbannium wrote:Super-Chechnya wrote:I think CR was thinking about only when children emigrated on their own but perhaps the commas may be inadvertently but perhaps maybe no need for dispute process to be kept in.
We suggest the honoured ambassador study the transcripts as to why the issue of dispute resolution arose in the first place. The previous riding rough-shod over custody rulings was entirely unsupportable.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:24 am
by Gobbannium » Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:24 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Okay, honoured ambassadors, I have thought about this for nearly a month and in fact Ms. Sarah Harper has a simpler suggestion for your consideration. It goes like this:1c. A person that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may: emigrate together with their parents/guardians or; emigrate alone if the intention is to reunite with their parents, or with one of their parents.
by Sionis Prioratus » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:25 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Okay, honoured ambassadors, I have thought about this for nearly a month and in fact Ms. Sarah Harper has a simpler suggestion for your consideration. It goes like this:1c. A person that is below the age of majority (as defined in their country of residence) may: emigrate together with their parents/guardians or; emigrate alone if the intention is to reunite with their parents, or with one of their parents.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Haitchlandia
Advertisement