by Kelssek » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:58 pm
by The Emmerian Unions » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:38 pm
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
by Kelssek » Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:39 pm
by Quintessence of Dust » Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:03 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:57 am
Kelssek wrote:SEEKING to provide for the protection of persons against undue persecution and harm by member states, and to encourage protection for persons fleeing violence and persecution,
by Bears Armed » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:02 am
by Absolvability » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:19 am
Proposal wrote:Nothing in this resolution shall affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations, or compel any nation to grant asylum to any person.
Proposal wrote:(2) No refugee may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.
by Kelssek » Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:36 am
I would also suggest you recommend (at least) that nations develop a process for training immigration officials in assessing claims of refugee status, as rejection at the first stages of immigration, especially for those not conversant in the national language, can severely jeopardise chances (and may lead to attempts at illegal entry).
OOC: would a nation that's taking in more than its "fair share" of refugees be able to call on WA funds for help with clause #3?
This doesn't really seem to be true.
That seems to be mandating immigration in so far as... basically... they aren't criminals.
I'm not so sure nations should be forced to accept them. And if they should... perhaps the refugees themselves need some rules. Ensuring that, with government assistance, they get jobs... and pay taxes, regardless of citizenship.
Clause 4 seems to assume the refugee wants to be naturalised. Many refugees wish to return home once they are able to do so. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, though.
by Absolvability » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:15 am
by New Illuve » Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:05 pm
A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality...
1. (1) No person shall be expelled or deported, in any manner, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution by reason of their membership in an ethnic, cultural, religious, political, social, or other identifiable group, or, against their will, to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life or be unjustly incarcerated.
1. (2) No refugee may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.
2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.
3. Lawfully admitted refugees shall be accorded treatment at least as favourable as the nation grants to resident aliens generally, in particular with respect to housing, legal protection, education, healthcare, employment, taxation, and social assistance, and must be treated equally under the law as any other person would be.
4. Member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees.
Nothing in this resolution shall affect extradition or immigration policies of member nations, or compel any nation to grant asylum to any person.
by Kelssek » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:38 pm
New Illuve wrote:What, exactly, does this mean? Specifically the phrase "avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality"? Unless the honorable Ambassador from Kelssek assumes that one's nation of nationality will cross national boundaries and sovereignties, one cannot avail themselves of said protection.
This definition runs a real risk to making everyone, from tourists to business travelers... into refugees.
There is also a technical difference between 'nationality' and 'citizenship'. Not all nations (=nationality) have the political power to give citizenship.
Is the word "person" intentional? As is, this Article jumps out of dealing with only refugees and would apply to everyone.
Also, the phrase "other identifiable group" is overly broad. A realistic "identifiable group" would be one of "being a suspect of having committed a crime".
As it is written, this Article will essentially not allow the deportation of anyone wanted for a crime in another nation.
What is to be understood under "danger". Even in the best of legal systems, there is always the risk of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, there is always some level of danger in being unjustly incarcerated. And by who's standard is "unjustly incarcerated" to be determined?
1. (2) No refugee may be expelled by a nation except on grounds of public order or national security.
The Holy Empire finds this Article to be too narrow. What if it is later determined that the person lied when achieving refugee status, and it was that lie that gave the person such status?
Furthermore, what falls under "public order"? In many nations, crimes against public order are things such as public nudity, drunkenness, or sexual activities. For other nations, that may be participating in illegal strikes or rioting. Would becoming a member of a criminal organization be sufficient - especially in a nation where public nudity is considered a crime against the public order?
This Article makes clear that being a refugee and gaining asylum are two distinct things. Unfortunately, being denied asylum is not grounds, according to Article 1(2) for being expelled. Thus, unless the refugee is willing to work with the asylum-denying nation in seeking asylum elsewhere, the refugee would be allowed to stay in said nation irregardless of the asylum status.
The first word here leads to the Holy Empire's next point: the omission of any way to determine (and grant or deny) a person's refugee status. As such, all a nation would need to do would be to not have a system and, by effect, no refugee would be lawfully admitted.
Unfortunately, this last statement is in internal contradiction with other statements within the draft. Articles 1 and 2 expressly affect a nation's extradition policies. Article 4 expressly affects a nations immigration policies.
by Bears Armed » Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:29 am
Kelssek wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC: would a nation that's taking in more than its "fair share" of refugees be able to call on WA funds for help with clause #3?
If the government feels it is unable to provide for the needs of a refugee in a way they would for other legally resident foreign nationals or immigrants, or even their own citizens, they could always not grant asylum.
by Kelssek » Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:51 am
those nations' governments would be perfectly willing to take those refugees in if they could be sure of some help from the wider international community if the costs involved became "excessive". Wouldn't providing that help be a better idea than forcing the refugees to travel further afield, to a nation that they'd find less comfortable?
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:15 am
by Kelssek » Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:20 pm
by Bears Armed » Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:21 am
by New Illuve » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:12 am
by Kelssek » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:34 am
by The Palentine » Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:35 am
by Kelssek » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:01 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:00 am
by New Illuve » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:59 am
by Grand Europic States » Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:27 am
New Illuve wrote:The honoured Ambassador may wish to revisit Article One, and in particular the phrase "to a place in which they may be put at danger of their life."
No only would this phrase forbid extradition to a nation that has chosen to include capital punishment as a potential penalty for crimes committed, but the word "may" actively invites potential abuse. In the strongest sense of the word "may" any possibility of death would trigger this Article, regardless of the origin of the threat. A nation notorious for lax traffic laws, and thus famous for traffic fatalities, would fall under this clause for example.
Another consequence of this Article would be that any World Assembly member nation that has the death penalty for serious crimes would no longer be able to request extradition so the perpetrator can stand trial. Would the honoured Ambassador like to explain to the survivors of a murdered father just why a Resolution dealing with refugee protection forbids bringing a murder to justice?
Strangely enough, while extradition to a nation that practices the death penalty would be forbidden, extradition to a nation that practices torture would not be....
by United Justice Nation » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:12 pm
by Grand Europic States » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:40 pm
United Justice Nation wrote:Why should we protect Refugees? They think they can come into our country and make them our problem, with an application already put forward to the WA im not sure I would like to be a member following this proposal. Refugees will not be allowed into my nation, its not what we need, being a new nation.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement