[PASSED] Reducing Statelessness

[The Silver Sentinel]

This legislates out the 'nations' -> metagaming.

By putting this in and decreeing that from now on nations = WA nations you are gutting such resolutions, decreeing child pornography can be exported to non-member nations in certain circumstances (age of consent in non-member nation lower than age of consent in member nation)..

Which also makes this illegal for contradiction, on top of duplicating Refugee Protection. The illegal just keeps piling up in this one.

[Kelssek]

I am still trying to figure out how this does not duplicate Refugee Protection.

For instance Refugee Protection defines a refugee as "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, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution. This shall not exclude persons also defined as refugees under different criteria by provisions of national or other international law.". Under this definition, any person who has been made stateless becomes a refugee and thus is automatically granted protection under Refugee Protection.

Statelessness wasn't something our delegation thought about directly while writing up that definition. That would seem to be valid technically, in the sense that someone who has no nationality is outside their country of nationality, but one could also note that the definition presumes the person in question has a nationality, and a stateless person has no country of nationality to be outside of. It's thinkable that the definition could be ruled to apply to stateless people, but for our part we do think explicitly preventing statelessness would be a valuable addition and not mere duplication.

[edit] As to whether this is the right proposal to accomplish that, our position isn't decided.

Danica Crewell
Ambassador to the WA

[Imperium Anglorum]

This legislates out the 'nations' -> metagaming.

Oh for crying out loud. Take it out. We have resolutions that legally act on member nations yet restrict what they do with non-member nations. This includes GAR#300 for example. By putting this in and decreeing that from now on nations = WA nations you are gutting such resolutions, decreeing child pornography can be exported to non-member nations in certain circumstances (age of consent in non-member nation lower than age of consent in member nation).

Nothing a forward-dating clause wouldn't solve.

OOC: I mean, what the fuck? "Nations" has always been legal, it's "all nations" that isn't. You keep this in and I will file a GHR to get it removed because of your stated intent.

Consistently, I remember it hasn't.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump.

OOC: I've removed the 'definition of a nation clause' due to some pragmatic considerations and effects on the interpretation of future legislation. Was reminded of this by States of Glory.

[Bananaistan]

"We withdraw our former opposition to this proposal given the changes. While we are still uncomfortable with the WA issuing passports, this is no longer a major issue in the proposal. The WA issued passports would be given to the finite group of people who are currently stateless while member states are prohibited from adding any more people to this group by clause 1.

"Clause 1 in itself is admirable and worthy of the support of any reasonable nation.

"We will vote in favour should it reach the floor."

- Ted Hornwood

[Wallenburg]

"Wallenburg will oppose this resolution, despite my predecessor's strange decision to support it previously."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Changes have been made to use the word nationality rather than citizenship due to the comments which Bears Armed made many pages and nearly a year ago. They were not reflected at the time. They are reflected now.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I've removed the 'definition of a nation clause' due to some pragmatic considerations and effects on the interpretation of future legislation. Was reminded of this by States of Glory.

OOC: What clause? This is why it's a good idea to save your old drafts. Anyway, would I be right in saying that the bulk of my Banishment resolution is covered by Clause One?

Changes have been made to use the word nationality rather than citizenship due to the comments which Bears Armed made many pages and nearly a year ago. They were not reflected at the time. They are reflected now.

OOC: Wouldn't this result in situations where a person doesn't hold citizenship in any country?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I've removed the 'definition of a nation clause' due to some pragmatic considerations and effects on the interpretation of future legislation. Was reminded of this by States of Glory.

OOC: What clause? This is why it's a good idea to save your old drafts. Anyway, would I be right in saying that the bulk of my Banishment resolution is covered by Clause One?

OOC: A clause was included in an earlier iteration of this draft in which the word 'nation' was defined as all member nations.

Changes have been made to use the word nationality rather than citizenship due to the comments which Bears Armed made many pages and nearly a year ago. They were not reflected at the time. They are reflected now.

OOC: Wouldn't this result in situations where a person doesn't hold citizenship in any country?

viewtopic.php?p=26705722#p26705722

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: What clause? This is why it's a good idea to save your old drafts. Anyway, would I be right in saying that the bulk of my Banishment resolution is covered by Clause One?

OOC: A clause was included in an earlier iteration of this draft in which the word 'nation' was defined as all member nations.

OOC: Oh, yeah, I remember now. Honest question: Were you expecting that definition to sneak through?

OOC: Wouldn't this result in situations where a person doesn't hold citizenship in any country?

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p26705722

OOC: That doesn't answer my question. While a country can no longer strip someone of their nationality if it will leave them stateless, couldn't they still strip them of their citizenship and make it so that the person has no political rights in any country?

[Imperium Anglorum]

viewtopic.php?p=26705722#p26705722

OOC: That doesn't answer my question. While a country can no longer strip someone of their nationality if it will leave them stateless, couldn't they still strip them of their citizenship and make it so that the person has no political rights in any country?

OOC: Puerto Ricans in the United States are not US citizens. They are US nationals. They cannot vote in United States elections. But if their nationality were stripped, that would mean that their property could be expropriated, their person deported, and make it impossible for any state to recognise them. Nationality does entail the privilege of some basic rights, and the purpose of this proposal is to protect those rights. A resolution preventing the stripping of one's citizenship without due process is something which I would support. But it is not this proposal.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: That doesn't answer my question. While a country can no longer strip someone of their nationality if it will leave them stateless, couldn't they still strip them of their citizenship and make it so that the person has no political rights in any country?

OOC: Puerto Ricans in the United States are not US citizens. They are US nationals. They cannot vote in United States elections. But if their nationality were stripped, that would mean that their property could be expropriated, their person deported, and make it impossible for any state to recognise them. Nationality does entail the privilege of some basic rights, and the purpose of this proposal is to protect those rights. A resolution preventing the stripping of one's citizenship without due process is something which I would support. But it is not this proposal.

OOC: Would you advise, then, that I rework my Banishment proposal to deal with loss of citizenship instead?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: That doesn't answer my question. While a country can no longer strip someone of their nationality if it will leave them stateless, couldn't they still strip them of their citizenship and make it so that the person has no political rights in any country?

OOC: Puerto Ricans in the United States are not US citizens. They are US nationals. They cannot vote in United States elections. But if their nationality were stripped, that would mean that their property could be expropriated, their person deported, and make it impossible for any state to recognise them. Nationality does entail the privilege of some basic rights, and the purpose of this proposal is to protect those rights. A resolution preventing the stripping of one's citizenship without due process is something which I would support. But it is not this proposal.

OOC: Puerto Ricans are US citizens. They have been since 1917.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Puerto Ricans in the United States are not US citizens. They are US nationals. They cannot vote in United States elections. But if their nationality were stripped, that would mean that their property could be expropriated, their person deported, and make it impossible for any state to recognise them. Nationality does entail the privilege of some basic rights, and the purpose of this proposal is to protect those rights. A resolution preventing the stripping of one's citizenship without due process is something which I would support. But it is not this proposal.

OOC: Puerto Ricans are US citizens. They have been since 1917.

OOC: Okay. Then replace Puerto Ricans with something else. Whoops.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Puerto Ricans are US citizens. They have been since 1917.

OOC: Okay. Then replace Puerto Ricans with something else. Whoops.

OOC: American Samoans.

[Australian rePublic]

Oh, this will contradict the tabacco one

[Separatist Peoples]

Oh, this will contradict the tabacco one

"Good thing the tobacco one isn't going anywhere."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Okay. Then replace Puerto Ricans with something else. Whoops.

OOC: American Samoans.

OOC: Yea, them!

Oh, this will contradict the tabacco one

"Good thing the tobacco one isn't going anywhere."

I will race to pen the repeal if it, by some miracle, does go someplace.

[Wallenburg]

"So how is it possible to take away someone's nationality?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"So how is it possible to take away someone's nationality?"

"In a legal sense? With the stroke of a pen, your Excellency. They may never not be from your country, but you can nullify any legal meaning behind it."

[Bears Armed]

OOC: That doesn't answer my question. While a country can no longer strip someone of their nationality if it will leave them stateless, couldn't they still strip them of their citizenship and make it so that the person has no political rights in any country?

OOC: It happens (c.f. the status of 'Black' South Africans under Apartheid...), and the WA trying to mandate political rights for anybody verges on 'ideological ban' territory against non-democratic systems of government.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: That doesn't answer my question. While a country can no longer strip someone of their nationality if it will leave them stateless, couldn't they still strip them of their citizenship and make it so that the person has no political rights in any country?

OOC: It happens (c.f. the status of 'Black' South Africans under Apartheid...), and the WA trying to mandate political rights for anybody verges on 'ideological ban' territory against non-democratic systems of government.

OOC: If citizenship carries with it political rights, how does it work in non-democratic states?

[Tinfect]

OOC: If citizenship carries with it political rights, how does it work in non-democratic states?

OOC:
From Wikipedia:

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

Obviously, that last one can be ignored, but the rest can exist quite nicely in Autocracies, assuming the Government is remotely reasonable, which, admittedly, is rather improbable. Fortunately, the WA has several resolutions securing most of them quite nicely.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: If citizenship carries with it political rights, how does it work in non-democratic states?

OOC:
From Wikipedia:

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

Obviously, that last one can be ignored, but the rest can exist quite nicely in Autocracies, assuming the Government is remotely reasonable, which, admittedly, is rather improbable. Fortunately, the WA has several resolutions securing most of them quite nicely.

OOC: This just makes me wonder even more why nationality is protected but citizenship is not.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: It happens (c.f. the status of 'Black' South Africans under Apartheid...), and the WA trying to mandate political rights for anybody verges on 'ideological ban' territory against non-democratic systems of government.

OOC: If citizenship carries with it political rights, how does it work in non-democratic states?

OOC; Do they actually have 'citizens', designated as such, rather than just 'nationals' or 'subjects'?

And re the 'Wikipedia' quote, what I meant by "political rights" in this context was simply the rights to vote and to run for office.