NationStates

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:34 am**

This was started by my prankster of an intern, who has been informed that the next time he pulls this shit he's getting fired (out of a cannon, into a volcano).

Flibbleites wrote:Besides, I haven't seen anyone trying to write a resolution that bans nations from arresting law breaking foreigners, have you?

So let's get on that!

(Human Rights;significant)

NOTING that visitors to a nation may not be aware of that nation's laws,

BELIEVING that this is through no fault of their own, and

REALISING that being arrested may ruin their vacation,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

DEFINES a visitor as a person who is in a nation but is not a citizen of that nation,

BANS member States from allowing their police forces to arrest a visitor,

DEMANDS that any member State who has arrested a visitor to immediately release that visitor,

REQUIRES that restitution be paid to all released visitors, and

FORBIDS deporting a visitor from any member State.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:42 am**

You have my support :clap:

. Now the government of Cinistra can empty its prisons sending criminals abroad as tourists (However, we do that already through the last option of the "Much Ado About Abortion" issue).

Mmm. What category? Strength?

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:04 am**

Cinistra wrote:You have my support . Now the government of Cinistra can empty its prisons sending criminals abroad as tourists (However, we do that already through the last option of the "Much Ado About Abortion" issue).

Mmm. What category? Strength?

See update.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:11 am**

The ambassador from Celestial Sphere will be taking advantage of the five finger discount being offered without threat of arrest in Linux and the X, should this proposal pass.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:17 am**

So, basically, all illegal immigrants cannot be arrested. Also, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. Strongly against.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:37 am**

Linux X and the X wrote: BANS member States from allowing their police forces to arrest a visitor,

It may be difficult for the police to tell visitors from own citizens, thus arresting visitors by mistake. This can be a stumbling block. You will have to solve this.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:42 am**

Linux and the X wrote:(Human Rights;significant)

I hardly think it's significant. It's affecting one tiny aspect of the international population - those who are vacationing for a short period of time in another WA nation. I'd think Mild would be more appropriate.

Linux and the X wrote:NOTING that visitors to a nation may not be aware of that nation's laws,

BELIEVING that this is through no fault of their own, and

Ignorance of the law is no excuse in my book.

Linux and the X wrote:REALISING that being arrested may ruin their vacation,

Why should I care about their feelings about their vacation?

Linux and the X wrote:DEFINES a visitor as a person who is in a nation but is not a citizen of that nation,

Which could include spies or other covert operatives, invading military personnel, and illegal immigrants.

Linux and the X wrote:BANS member States from allowing their police forces to arrest a visitor,

Even if they commit murder? Attempt to assassinate a prominent government official? Seek to incite an uprising and overthrow the current government?

Linux and the X wrote:DEMANDS that any member State who has arrested a visitor to immediately release that visitor,

If they cannot arrest a visitor (as stated in the above clause), this clause is unnecessary. Compliance is mandatory with all WA laws.

Linux and the X wrote:REQUIRES that restitution be paid to all released visitors, and

This may violate the Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws. I'm not sure since that resolution appears to apply to national enforcement of laws that were committed prior to the outlawing of a given act. The possible violation comes as it appears that you are retroactively insisting that WA member nations pay restitution to all visitors who were arrested prior to this proposal (theoretically) passing.

If you are, instead, requiring that any visitors arrested after this proposal (theoretically) passes ... This line seems useless. As stated before, compliance is mandatory.

Linux and the X wrote:FORBIDS deporting a visitor from any member State.

As a "visitor" (per your proposal's definition) would include illegal immigrants, this is a poor choice for inclusion in this proposal. If you want to tackle illegal immigration, write an immigration proposal. Do not try to sneak this line past us to outlaw the deportation of illegal immigrants in an otherwise-unrelated proposal.

I feel that this proposal, as written, is poorly thought out and constructed. There is a potential idea here, but I believe that the approach that is currently being taken by the proposing delegation is erroneous.

I could potentially support a proposal that deals with inconsistent sentencing in WA member nations (i.e. a citizen receives a less strict punishment for a crime similar to one committed by a tourist/visitor/etc.) - however, nations would need to be allowed the latitude to deport and/or revoke visas for individuals who commit crimes within their borders.

I could also support a proposal that assures the same rights accorded to citizens of member nations to non-citizens visiting a WA member nation. (And, as stated above, the same protocols for deportation and/or visa revocation are essential to my support.)

There may be other possibilities that I could support, but those are the ones that come to mind right now.

Yours,
Ambassador Nikolas Eberhart
WA Delegate for Monkey Island from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:54 am**

Linux and the X wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Besides, I haven't seen anyone trying to write a resolution that bans nations from arresting law breaking foreigners, have you?

So let's get on that!

Key part there, everyone; my intern (the contrary bastard!) just had to write this after seeing that.

Mousebumples wrote:This may violate the Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws. I'm not sure since that resolution appears to apply to national enforcement of laws that were committed prior to the outlawing of a given act. The possible violation comes as it appears that you are retroactively insisting that WA member nations pay restitution to all visitors who were arrested prior to this proposal (theoretically) passing.

While this isn't going to be submitted, I would like to address this. The Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws applies only to criminal and penal law; this is neither. Additionally, resolutions, unless otherwise noted, are generally interpreted as applying to member states

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:08 pm**

Ms. Harper cannot support a resolution which bans us from deporting anyone connected with unconstitutional organizations like Nazism. We could however support a resolution in which tourists are not given unequal treatment versus locals (with exceptions) in criminal law.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:41 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:
Linux and the X wrote:(Human Rights;significant)

I hardly think it's significant. It's affecting one tiny aspect of the international population - those who are vacationing for a short period of time in another WA nation. I'd think Mild would be more appropriate.

Linux and the X wrote:NOTING that visitors to a nation may not be aware of that nation's laws,

BELIEVING that this is through no fault of their own, and

Ignorance of the law is no excuse in my book.

Linux and the X wrote:REALISING that being arrested may ruin their vacation,

Why should I care about their feelings about their vacation?

Linux and the X wrote:DEFINES a visitor as a person who is in a nation but is not a citizen of that nation,

Which could include spies or other covert operatives, invading military personnel, and illegal immigrants.

Linux and the X wrote:BANS member States from allowing their police forces to arrest a visitor,

Even if they commit murder? Attempt to assassinate a prominent government official? Seek to incite an uprising and overthrow the current government?

Linux and the X wrote:DEMANDS that any member State who has arrested a visitor to immediately release that visitor,

If they cannot arrest a visitor (as stated in the above clause), this clause is unnecessary. Compliance is mandatory with all WA laws.

Linux and the X wrote:REQUIRES that restitution be paid to all released visitors, and

This may violate the Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws. I'm not sure since that resolution appears to apply to national enforcement of laws that were committed prior to the outlawing of a given act. The possible violation comes as it appears that you are retroactively insisting that WA member nations pay restitution to all visitors who were arrested prior to this proposal (theoretically) passing.

If you are, instead, requiring that any visitors arrested after this proposal (theoretically) passes ... This line seems useless. As stated before, compliance is mandatory.

Linux and the X wrote:FORBIDS deporting a visitor from any member State.

As a "visitor" (per your proposal's definition) would include illegal immigrants, this is a poor choice for inclusion in this proposal. If you want to tackle illegal immigration, write an immigration proposal. Do not try to sneak this line past us to outlaw the deportation of illegal immigrants in an otherwise-unrelated proposal.

I feel that this proposal, as written, is poorly thought out and constructed. There is a potential idea here, but I believe that the approach that is currently being taken by the proposing delegation is erroneous.

I could potentially support a proposal that deals with inconsistent sentencing in WA member nations (i.e. a citizen receives a less strict punishment for a crime similar to one committed by a tourist/visitor/etc.) - however, nations would need to be allowed the latitude to deport and/or revoke visas for individuals who commit crimes within their borders.

I could also support a proposal that assures the same rights accorded to citizens of member nations to non-citizens visiting a WA member nation. (And, as stated above, the same protocols for deportation and/or visa revocation are essential to my support.)

There may be other possibilities that I could support, but those are the ones that come to mind right now.

Yours,
Ambassador Nikolas Eberhart
WA Delegate for Monkey Island from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples

He always beats me to it. Against, for the above reasons.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:48 pm**

Against.

Needs strong editing.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:56 pm**

Mallorea and Riva wrote:He always beats me to it. Against, for the above reasons.

Happy to assist. (And, no worries - how about I let you get the next one?)

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:02 pm**

Arresting foreigners has never been a problem for us. We simply declare them to be citizens, and arrest them. Problem solved.

Considerably less paperwork than just shooting them, too.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:03 pm**

Linux and the X wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Besides, I haven't seen anyone trying to write a resolution that bans nations from arresting law breaking foreigners, have you?

So let's get on that!

(Human Rights;significant)NOTING that visitors to a nation may not be aware of that nation's laws,

BELIEVING that this is through no fault of their own, and

[...]

BANS member States from allowing their police forces to arrest a visitor,

DEMANDS that any member State who has arrested a visitor to immediately release that visitor,

REQUIRES that restitution be paid to all released visitors, and

FORBIDS deporting a visitor from any member State.

A woman wearing an ID Badge where it reads "Featured Speaker", just stepped down from the podium, under thundering applause, after delivering an explanation on her new abortion technique, and having made a live demonstration (much to the spectators' awe) finds herself much surprised after seeing two unfriendly-looking cops waiting for her.

"Wait... WHAT!? You're telling me abortion is illegal in this country!?"

She sends an icy stare towards the organizers of the event, which are already fleeing the auditorium.

"I didn't know it was illegal here! But, now, let me pass, will you?"

She brandishes a piece of paper, where it reads at the top: "General Assembly Resolution - Legal Protections for Visitors"

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:20 pm**

Linux and the X wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Besides, I haven't seen anyone trying to write a resolution that bans nations from arresting law breaking foreigners, have you?

So let's get on that!

Let's not and say we did.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:22 pm**

Grays Harbor wrote:Arresting foreigners has never been a problem for us. We simply declare them to be citizens, and arrest them. Problem solved.

Considerably less paperwork than just shooting them, too.

How elegant :bow:

. Admirable :clap:

, and very efficient too.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:43 pm**

Arrest? *The Doomiedoomiedoom ambassador turns to his assistant.* Whens the last time someone was arrested in Doomiedoomiedoom? *The assistant raises his shoulders* Our great nation doesn't "arrest" people. In Doomiedoomiedoom, if the police think you broke a law, you usually find yourself with fifty bullets inside you. We don't "arrest" people, to much work with the judicial system and the WA regulations and all. It's better to kill someone who you think broke the law.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:16 am**

Lionel Ersthauer awoke from his slumber again and heard the middle lines of the proposal. That's a broad way to define a visitor, anyone who is in a country and not a citizen of the country. He merely sat silently and nodded to the other criticisms in the room, and left for another room where hopefully, the proposal wasn't so broad.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:11 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:I could potentially support a proposal that deals with inconsistent sentencing in WA member nations (i.e. a citizen receives a less strict punishment for a crime similar to one committed by a tourist/visitor/etc.)

Wouldn't that already be illegal under CoCR?

Also, nice one, Linux.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:35 pm**

In order to more fully embrace the cult of political correctness, and to facilitate the smooth arrival of or soldiers on any foreign shores, our army has been officially redesignated "tourists".

Don't mind the guns, we're just here for the postcards and drinks...really.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:22 pm**

Linux and the X wrote:DEFINES a visitor as a person who is in a nation but is not a citizen of that nation

"If this proposal were to be passed as a resolution then that would be yet another barrier in the way of Bears Armed re-joining this organisation. There's no such thing as a citizen of the nation of Bears Armed,because our nationals can hold citizenship only in one or another (each) of the Clans -- and various other 'Confederated Bodys' -- that collectively comprise this country..."

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:32 pm**

The entire country of the Amerikan WA Delegacy (one man) crept forth from the shadows, and voiced his opinion.

"I am afraid I cannot quite see the wisdom in this proposal, fellow delegates. I may be yet a lowly diplomat, but it is it not apparent that, even without taking into account the flagrant violation of the right to lawfully conduct justice within a nation, this proposal would do naught but give any criminals within another country full diplomatic immunity? If one were to deem all non-citizens within a country as "visitors", then the potential for crimals to "hop the border", so to say, and avoid punishment would be astounding."

With that said, he crept back into the shadows,

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:36 pm**

Linux and the X wrote:BELIEVING that this is through no fault of their own,

From no where, a representative from The Republic of Asiatic Minorities quiets everyone and begins to speak.

"Greetings. I must agree with the American WA Delegacy, as this proposal surely does not contain much logic. Although I will not argue that foreigners do not know the law, common sense should also be in their mind. If they commit murder, attempt to kill a government official, or murder any citizen of the area, then obviously they must be arrested. The citizen of the country visited is more important then the foreigner. "
"That is all I must say."

The room was silent as the representative left the room.

Asia Minor

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:40 pm**

Quelesh wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:I could potentially support a proposal that deals with inconsistent sentencing in WA member nations (i.e. a citizen receives a less strict punishment for a crime similar to one committed by a tourist/visitor/etc.)

Wouldn't that already be illegal under CoCR?

I haven't read through the text, specifically, but I don't recall any clauses regarding allowing (or disallowing) for differing treatment of individuals based on citizenship. I expect such a thing was left out since insisting on "equality for citizens and non-citizens" could arguably be a method to outlaw deportation of illegal immigrants ....

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:44 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:
Quelesh wrote:
Wouldn't that already be illegal under CoCR?

I haven't read through the text, specifically, but I don't recall any clauses regarding allowing (or disallowing) for differing treatment of individuals based on citizenship. I expect such a thing was left out since insisting on "equality for citizens and non-citizens" could arguably be a method to outlaw deportation of illegal immigrants ....

(OOC: To my knowledge, CoCR protects all inhabitants of member nations, not just citizens. This view is contested, though -.-)