[PASSED] Right of Emigration

[Abacathea]

I've wanted to tackle a human rights issue for a while, and I've looked through the previously passed resolutions and unless I've missed something (I hope I haven't) this seems to have escaped the purview of the WA so here goes;

As per usual all feedback desired;

Right of Emigration
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Committed to improving the world, one resolution at a time,

Cognizant of the fact that some nations have determined their citizens as property of that nation and therefore have denied them the right to leave said nation,

Determining this to be a gross abuse of sapient rights and seeking to resolve this situation,

Hereby,

Determines that no government may prevent the emigration or temporary travel of individuals from their nation unless in the instances of;
(a) Legitimate medically necessitated quarantine.
(b) The individual being subject to an ongoing civil/criminal trial and restricted from traveling per court/bond conditions or is currently a prisoner of the state.
(c) A warrant existing for the arrest/detention of the individual.
(d) The host nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime.
(e) The individuals concerned being a non-emancipated minor traveling without the consent of a legal guardian.
(f) The individual being recognized under law to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord.

Further determining that to contravene the above would be deemed an illegal detention of a person within a nation and resultant gross breach of Sapient Rights by that nation.

Clarifying that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders.

Right of Emigration
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

Committed to improving the world, one resolution at a time,

Cognizant of the fact that some nations may recognize their citizens as property of that nation and therefore deny them the right to leave said nation,

Determining this to be a gross abuse of sapient rights and seeking to resolve this issue,

Hereby,

Mandates that no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation,

Declares that individuals may specifically be exempted from the aforementioned mandate if:
(a) They are subject to a medically legitimate and necessary quarantine,
(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,
(c) They have a warrant existing for their arrest,
(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,
(e) The individuals concerned are non-emancipated minors traveling without the consent of a legal guardian,
(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

Clarifying that nothing in this resolution prevents member nations from setting requirements for entry and residency within their borders.

To me, it's short, sweet and sufficient. Feedback always welcomed.

[New Molsona]

For
I like how you kept it short and simple. Although, I'd suggest the Freedom of Movement Act.

[South Kilinsky]

Would add a clause that reads something like

(d) An open state of war exists between the country of origin and destination that presents a clear and present danger for travel


Feel free to revise that how you want, but I think it is necessary to include a clause to protect people who want to travel to somewhere that may not be the most safe.

[Abacathea]

Would add a clause that reads something like

(d) An open state of war exists between the country of origin and destination that presents a clear and present danger for travel


Feel free to revise that how you want, but I think it is necessary to include a clause to protect people who want to travel to somewhere that may not be the most safe.

While I understand the idea behind such a clause, I'm not sure it would be beneficial, a choice such as that should fall to the individual to decide not to visit a warring destination rather than the government determining it. Especially when one considers that there might be governmental abuses for denying someone that right to travel ie: war correspondents and so forth.

[South Kilinsky]

Would add a clause that reads something like

(d) An open state of war exists between the country of origin and destination that presents a clear and present danger for travel


Feel free to revise that how you want, but I think it is necessary to include a clause to protect people who want to travel to somewhere that may not be the most safe.

While I understand the idea behind such a clause, I'm not sure it would be beneficial, a choice such as that should fall to the individual to decide not to visit a warring destination rather than the government determining it. Especially when one considers that there might be governmental abuses for denying someone that right to travel ie: war correspondents and so forth.

True, it's your choice so I will leave it to you. I currently stand undecided.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: LOL. I am literally not making this up. A while ago someone in my region TGed about this very subject; guess what my next draft was going to be...

IC:

"Excellent. We very much want to see the WA replace its emigration rights resolution.

"I do have three concerns. Firstly, I think your title is misleading. It should clearly say 'emigration'; that's what this is about, as this proposal doesn't apply to intranational travel (something else the WA should legislate on) or immigration. This is a legitimate concern: proposal titles matter.

"Secondly, I think there's at least one other legitimate reason for preventing emigration: the belief (with "probable cause", perhaps) that the person will commit a crime. An example would be someone going to a country with lax CSEC laws.

"Thirdly, I think (b) is, as written, too broad. 'Legal proceedings' could mean almost anything. I think it should probably be restricted to an official charge or an ongoing investigation; I'm sure others can help you refine the language.

"I strongly want to see a good emigration rights proposal, so, good luck!"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Edit: You've also put 'citizens', where I assume you mean 'nationals'.

[Abacathea]

OOC: LOL. I am literally not making this up. A while ago someone in my region TGed about this very subject; guess what my next draft was going to be...

Ha, this really is getting to be too much.

IC:

"Excellent. We very much want to see the WA replace its emigration rights resolution.

"I do have three concerns. Firstly, I think your title is misleading. It should clearly say 'emigration'; that's what this is about, as this proposal doesn't apply to intranational travel (something else the WA should legislate on) or immigration. This is a legitimate concern: proposal titles matter.

"Secondly, I think there's at least one other legitimate reason for preventing emigration: the belief (with "probable cause", perhaps) that the person will commit a crime. An example would be someone going to a country with lax CSEC laws.

"Thirdly, I think (b) is, as written, too broad. 'Legal proceedings' could mean almost anything. I think it should probably be restricted to an official charge or an ongoing investigation; I'm sure others can help you refine the language.

"I strongly want to see a good emigration rights proposal, so, good luck!"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Edit: You've also put 'citizens', where I assume you mean 'nationals'.

We've changed the title, to reflect your concerns. The point you raise is fair.

Secondly, we have duely considered all possible reasons to prevent a citizen leaving and the three we've included are the only three we can think of that isn't subject to government abuse. While probable cause is a reasonable qualifier, it's still too vague not to be subject to abuse by a government. We believe that if someone is going abroad to commit a crime it is better dealt with by local authorities than in this legislation.

Thirdly, legal proceedings has been changed back to what we originally had it as, a TG suggested legal proceedings however we originally had civil/criminal trial specifically which we were/are happy with.

Lastly, edited

Hopefully we'll have your support on this matter, we don't believe the act needs much more to it as it's direct and to the point and anything else would only muddy the waters. Refinement of what we have is the sole goal here.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Ok, here's my specific concern.

"There are nations with lax enforcement of CSEC laws. People visit these countries to engage in "child sex tourism", essentially. We should be able to stop them from doing so, even if they haven't actually committed a crime in our own country.

"Similarly, a literal reading of this proposal would follow that if a Dark Star terrorist has a bomb and plans to blow up the capital city of Abacathea, we can't detain them.

"I realize you seem to have put 'warrant' into the proposal. Hmm. But they still haven't actually committed a crime prior to emigration, so I'm not sure that answers the problem."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Abacathea]

"Ok, here's my specific concern.

"There are nations with lax enforcement of CSEC laws. People visit these countries to engage in "child sex tourism", essentially. We should be able to stop them from doing so, even if they haven't actually committed a crime in our own country.

"Similarly, a literal reading of this proposal would follow that if a Dark Star terrorist has a bomb and plans to blow up the capital city of Abacathea, we can't detain them.

"I realize you seem to have put 'warrant' into the proposal. Hmm. But they still haven't actually committed a crime prior to emigration, so I'm not sure that answers the problem."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

It's a fair concern. What IF and this is just spit balling here. I added in the following

Further requires nations who have substantiated concerns regarding the motives of citizens exiting their borders but insufficient evidence to warrant their detainment to inform the necessary authorities in the destination nation.

Edit - OOC - I believe something to this effect would allow the prevalence of the belief of innocence until such a crime has been committed/if one is to be committed while ensuring a national safety aspect which is what I think you're looking for. Realistically I cannot justify denying someone emigration on the basis they might do something you know? That falls to the authorities within that nation to deal with.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"That doesn't really do anything for my concerns, no. Guess I'll just agree to disagree."

[Abacathea]

"That doesn't really do anything for my concerns, no. Guess I'll just agree to disagree."

Please see my above added edit for my rationale for either that option or omission of one altogether.

[Eireann Fae]

"Oh come now, Ambassador," chides Alexandra, seventeen-year-old diplomat from Eireann Fae. "Not everybody that comes to our little Island shows up at my doorstep looking for a good time. I'd be flattered if that were the case, but Eireann Fae is really a beautiful place, and thrives on tourism. How can you determine who's going where for what?"

"Also," adds Rowan, only rolling her eyes a little bit at her colleague's crass manner, "we find the use of 'citizen' or 'national' to be too restrictive. By the letter of this law, people not native to the nation, or who have had their citizenship revoked, can be bound within the borders of a nation. What is wrong with simply saying 'travel of people from their nation'?"

"We are also concerned with the flexibility of 'legitimate medically necessitated quarantine'. A psychotic dictator, for instance, could make the claim that germs outside their borders are fatal to his subjects, and use that as an excuse to keep them within his borders. 'Legitimate' is a legal definition, and depending on who writes the laws, what constitutes legitimate concern could be very loose indeed. Similarly, such a dictator could simply declare everyone in his realm to be a 'prisoner of the state'."

[Abacathea]

"Oh come now, Ambassador," chides Alexandra, seventeen-year-old diplomat from Eireann Fae. "Not everybody that comes to our little Island shows up at my doorstep looking for a good time. I'd be flattered if that were the case, but Eireann Fae is really a beautiful place, and thrives on tourism. How can you determine who's going where for what?"

This pretty much sums up my reluctance to add anything pertaining to that to the draft.

"Also," adds Rowan, only rolling her eyes a little bit at her colleague's crass manner, "we find the use of 'citizen' or 'national' to be too restrictive. By the letter of this law, people not native to the nation, or who have had their citizenship revoked, can be bound within the borders of a nation. What is wrong with simply saying 'travel of people from their nation'?"

This is a fair point, we shall edit accordingly.

"We are also concerned with the flexibility of 'legitimate medically necessitated quarantine'. A psychotic dictator, for instance, could make the claim that germs outside their borders are fatal to his subjects, and use that as an excuse to keep them within his borders. 'Legitimate' is a legal definition, and depending on who writes the laws, what constitutes legitimate concern could be very loose indeed. Similarly, such a dictator could simply declare everyone in his realm to be a 'prisoner of the state'."

We felt the use of legitimate to be that of "genuine" in this instance, which meant it would need to be verified if ever put under the scrutiny of the international community, as a result we'd be inclined to prefer this word unless an alternative is suggested.

Similarly, we feel the need to leave the prisoner clause primarily because we suspect any repeal attempt would bullshitily argue we're allowing prisoners to emigrate, and sadly one must write these days with a "what grounds could they repeal this on?" agenda in mind. Likewise though, we'd assume that should a dictator claim everyone in their nation is a prisoner, they'd be obligated to justify this internationally.

There really is only so much hand holding resolution writers should be obliged to do we feel before common sense has to prevail with legislation, and while we understand your concerns we certainly don't feel in a body such as the WA we should have to spell everything out for them

[Infectious Microorganisms]

"We are also concerned with the flexibility of 'legitimate medically necessitated quarantine'. A psychotic dictator, for instance, could make the claim that germs outside their borders are fatal to his subjects, and use that as an excuse to keep them within his borders.

Oh, but we are! Not that you could stop us. A large amount of us are airborne, and more of us travel via animal. Still, it seems difficult to justify such an argument...

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Oh come now, Ambassador," chides Alexandra, seventeen-year-old diplomat from Eireann Fae. "Not everybody that comes to our little Island shows up at my doorstep looking for a good time. I'd be flattered if that were the case, but Eireann Fae is really a beautiful place, and thrives on tourism. How can you determine who's going where for what?"

"What a hilariously specious argument. Unless you propose eliminating the notion of intent entirely from all criminal law, we believe responsible courts are perfectly capable of making such a determination."

OOC: I will also say I find it very surprising the mods allow you to roleplay your little child sex fantasies in the Strangers' Bar with only a 'dial it down' informal warning. A ban on the word 'troll', but no ban on underage sex; this site is strange, at times.

IC:

"Also," adds Rowan, only rolling her eyes a little bit at her colleague's crass manner, "we find the use of 'citizen' or 'national' to be too restrictive. By the letter of this law, people not native to the nation, or who have had their citizenship revoked, can be bound within the borders of a nation. What is wrong with simply saying 'travel of people from their nation'?"

"I have no problem with changing it to 'people' or 'persons'; my problem was with a more restrictive definition, which would have simply allowed nations to revoke citizenship and then detain anyone they wished.

"We are also concerned with the flexibility of 'legitimate medically necessitated quarantine'. A psychotic dictator, for instance, could make the claim that germs outside their borders are fatal to his subjects, and use that as an excuse to keep them within his borders. 'Legitimate' is a legal definition, and depending on who writes the laws, what constitutes legitimate concern could be very loose indeed. Similarly, such a dictator could simply declare everyone in his realm to be a 'prisoner of the state'."

"'Psychotic dictators' are (a) likely to find any loophole no matter how tight the definition and (b) unlikely in a WA that has systematically eroded the ability of totalitarian states to oppress their people. That said, I think the WA has already countered the most obvious medical abuse, in its Institutional Psychiatry Act, so I'm not sure what more could realistically be done. This is, though, a strong example of why review powers for a body such as the WA Commission on Human Rights or a hypothetical human rights court are needed."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Vanguard of the Communist Revolution]

We must support this legislation. Everyone will flee from bourgeois oppression to our glorious nation!

Even if people flee from here, they cannot run away from the global revolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

We must support this legislation. Everyone will flee from bourgeois oppression to our glorious nation!

Even if people flee from here, they cannot run away from the global revolution.

Tell that to the Ferengi ...They have enough latinum to bribe revolutionaries into being good capitalists.

At the moment, I can offer tentative support. So long as nothing stops us from refusing access through our borders to incoming persons without cause, we don't have an issue with individuals leaving.

[Abacathea]

We must support this legislation. Everyone will flee from bourgeois oppression to our glorious nation!

Even if people flee from here, they cannot run away from the global revolution.

Tell that to the Ferengi ...They have enough latinum to bribe revolutionaries into being good capitalists.

At the moment, I can offer tentative support. So long as nothing stops us from refusing access through our borders to incoming persons without cause, we don't have an issue with individuals leaving.

There is currently no desire to change how one refuses or accepts people into their borders, the plan is to ensure there's nothing stopping people exiting them. At present we're happy this does exactly that and no more or less. So we're just waiting for the usual suspects to tear it apart or give it their blessings

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Further thoughts:

"How about making 'public health' part of the medical criteria? That should do a lot to mitigate potential abuse.

"You'll have to make an exception for PoWs and internees, too, to avoid contradicting The Prisoners of Wars Accord.

"And I think there's a compelling government interest in stopping children from leaving the country without their guardians' permission."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Abacathea]

"Further thoughts:

"How about making 'public health' part of the medical criteria? That should do a lot to mitigate potential abuse.

Could you expand on this?

"You'll have to make an exception for PoWs and internees, too, to avoid contradicting The Prisoners of Wars Accord.

Will I though? The mandate just states prisoners of the state, which essentially covers them, presumably when it comes time to let them home, they'd no longer be considered such and therefore not restricted by this act.

"And I think there's a compelling government interest in stopping children from leaving the country without their guardians' permission."

Seems a bit micromanegy to have to clarify that. Seems basic common sense, but you may have a point on that, let me ponder that one further.

edit-

Added;

(d) A non emancipated minor travelling without the consent of their parents/guardians

[Eireann Fae]

OOC: I will also say I find it very surprising the mods allow you to roleplay your little child sex fantasies in the Strangers' Bar with only a 'dial it down' informal warning. A ban on the word 'troll', but no ban on underage sex; this site is strange, at times.

(OOC: Not that the mods' interactions with me is any of your business [or that discussion of what goes on in the Bar is relevant here], but 17 is >AoC in many jurisdictions, including much of the US.)

"We do not mind restricting the movement of non-emancipated minors in nations that generally put such restrictions on their young - for the purposes of nations like Eireann Fae and Quelesh, we can simply say that all our minors are emancipated. However, I would request a change from 'parents/guardians' to simply 'legal guardians', for two reasons. One, slashes are ugly, and ought to be avoided (but you probably should put a dash in 'non-emancipated'). Secondly, if the child's parents are split up, only the legal guardian ought to have a say in such matters."

[Emad]

I'm not a Delegate, but if I was, I would approve it without any doubt!

[Abacathea]

"We do not mind restricting the movement of non-emancipated minors in nations that generally put such restrictions on their young - for the purposes of nations like Eireann Fae and Quelesh, we can simply say that all our minors are emancipated. However, I would request a change from 'parents/guardians' to simply 'legal guardians', for two reasons. One, slashes are ugly, and ought to be avoided (but you probably should put a dash in 'non-emancipated'). Secondly, if the child's parents are split up, only the legal guardian ought to have a say in such matters."

Edited

[Zarkanians]

d) is way too open to manipulation. Zarkanians is going to proclaim everyone a 'non-emancipated minor' and create a new category for children should this pass.

I'm having trouble figuring out a better way that you could write that, so it might be better to just remove it. Most children can't afford a flight on the airplane anyway, and if they can, they're either in legal trouble (stolen money) and therefore affected by another portion of the bill, or independent enough that they shouldn't be affected by this in the first place (they have a job steady enough and well-paying enough that they can afford an airplane ticket).

[Sanctaria]

My delegation has been concerning itself with this topic for some time now, however it's unlikely we're going to push forward with it after all this time.

The Ambassador is welcome to use whatever pieces of my draft he feels would be useful.