DRAFT: A Convention on Emigration

[Domnonia]

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.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Let's try this, honoured ambassadors:

---

In member states, civilians emigrate from one country to another for many reasons, such as: the pursuit of ambition, opportunity or refuge; or escape from war, persecution or injustice. Their wishes must be respected, but if the process of the freedom emigration is left unchecked, the lives of civilians in the receiving nation or even the emigrants themselves could be at risk.

Therefore, it is vital to set out a basic framework of the emigration law where member states must respect the people’s right to emigrate, while also ensuring the safety of civilians of member states and the emigrants.

The World Assembly therefore declares a Convention on Emigration:

Part 1: General rule

§ 1. The general rule is that a person may emigrate from their current country of residence regardless of status (such as disability, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or belief) on their own accord at will, subject to the requirements of the receiving country.

Part 2: Vulnerable people

§ 2. A person who is:
• Under the age of maturity, or a reasonable facsimile thereof;
• A legal dependent, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, of either the state or person(s);
As defined from state to state, may also emigrate, only if: accompanied by at least one legal guardian/trustee; or a consent by the latter has been given and that it is safe to do so.

Part 3: Exceptions

§ 3. A person that is under penal servitude, undergoing civil or criminal legal proceedings or proven to be guilty of offences involving non-consensual sexual conduct may not emigrate without consent of the member state of residence.

§ 4. A person that is suspected of espionage or intention to carry out acts of violence abroad may not emigrate for up to the maximum of 90 days, without consent of state;

§ 5. Member states may limit emigration to: prevent the spread of radiation or contagious diseases; or to contain an ongoing disease epidemic or pandemic.

Part 3: Additional provisions

§ 6. Member states may limit emigration as a result of a legitimate judicial ruling, that is delivered in good faith compliance with the clauses and intents of this resolution.

(This doesn't appear to improve the problem)

[Gobbannium]

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.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

I've struck out the redraft. Does this one still work for you, before working on the age of majority issue, honoured ambassador?

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.

[Bears Armed]

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.

Could the WA require the authorities in the nations from which people wish to immigrate to inform the authorities within the 'receiving' nations -- accurately -- about any criminal records that those people possess?

[Gobbannium]

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.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

Are you thinking that section 1b in the OP should be rewritten as one of the exceptions, honoured ambassador?

Meanwhile, I am thinking about reconfiguring the non-consensual sexual conduct clause to be a requirement for the emigrant's original member state (not former due to the use of dual nationality) to inform the emigrant's new member state of its criminal history.

[Gobbannium]

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.

[Progressive Union]

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.

I still back this proposal and will voice my opinion to the RFN region when the matter comes up to vote.

D. Mark Melancon

Progressive Union Prime Minister
Royal Federation of Nations Ambassador-Delegate

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

Okay, honoured ambassador. If we took out the word "in general" would it sound better?

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;

[Gobbannium]

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.

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.

Two points of detail, Mr Ambassador. First, one emigrates out of a nation, not into one; this proposal therefore would not limit your ability to bar anyone you cared to bar from entering your homeland.

Second, although we have taken pains not to force this opinion on other nations, we are rather of the view that one is innocent until proven guilty. Allowing someone to be detained for three months essentially because someone else feels like it goes very much against the grain, and we would resent its inclusion in international law deeply.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

Here are the tweaks, honoured ambassador:

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.

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.

[Gobbannium]

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.

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.

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.

If by this you mean that the emigre's overall criminal record is transferred, we would find that a vast improvement on the current grotesque hysteria.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

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).

[Gobbannium]

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.

Even when local courts have awarded custody of the children to the other parent of a divorced pair, Ms Harper?

Additionally, some member states may exploit emigration to force the separation of parent and child.

We are hard pressed to see any way they could do so under this legislation. The problem exists entirely in the lack of what allowance for the case of separated parents.

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).

This implies that all children have a single parent or guardian, something that is clearly not true. From that moment on, any certainty as to what happens when the consent for a child's emigration is contested flies straight out of the window. If one parent gives consent and the other witholds it, has consent been given? One reading of the otherwise useless additional sentence suggests not, for one parent does not wish to be separated and does not wish to emigrate; another suggests 'perhaps', depending on the opinion of the child. Yet another reading suggests that the child cannot be allowed to remain either, for one parent does not wish to be separated and does wish to emigrate, and the law descends into self-contradictory paralysis.

In short, we disapprove.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The issue involving children is indeed a sensitive issue and therefore trial and error is needed.

A civilian that is below the age of majority (a minor, as defined in their country of residence) may emigrate together with their parents (or 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 or guardians are emigrating, and and if they cannot reach an agreement on the emigration of the minor(s), the issue will need be resolved by the judiciary of the member state of residence.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

[Super-Chechnya]

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.

That may be better CR.

[Gobbannium]

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.

This is still horribly confused and self-contradictory. The child must have the permission of a parent that is not emigrating? So families may not emigrate together? Then, having stated such an absolute, it is contradicted in the very next sentence, which further introduces the ill-defined notion of the "member state of residence."

[Super-Chechnya]

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.

[Gobbannium]

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.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

Honoured ambassador, I have printed off the transcripts, and when I have the time (OOC: provided that college is not too busy) I will assess the issue of children and custody carefully.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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.

[Gobbannium]

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.

This would appear to utterly disregard any legal custody assignment once again, making it something of a retrograde step.

[Sionis Prioratus]

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.

Your overall effort has been most excellent, Most Hon. Delegate. Still, I fear about rights of orphans not to be endangered amid civil war. I must recall this was one of the clauses in the Repeal.

Yours truly,