[PASSED] Reducing Statelessness

[Wealthatonia]

(also, OOC, could any resolution affect stats or this here for Roleplaying purposes?

They do effect stats.

(thank you for answering me.)

[Calladan]

I realise this is coming in a little late, and that it might have been discussed previously, but I have a question about the Passport Office.

From what I understand, resolutions are not permitted to amend previous resolutions, so my question is this :-

When the proposal says "Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" - is this just making an amendment to the resolution that created the original organisation (and gave it the..... interesting name that has apparently cause much discussion) or is the "hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" part just for the life of the proposal? Because I have seen both interpretations in various discussions, and if it is indeed changing the name, does that class as an amendment to a previous proposal and so would that make this resolution illegal?

(I am relatively new - my nation only joined The WA at the end of July - so I am not entirely clear on the applicability of various rules and regulations, so if I am wrong about this I apologise for wasting this chamber's time!)

[States of Glory WA Office]

Ambassador, you are twisting my words, i think if you actually took a look at the prosperous Wealthatonia, you'd take that statement back.

Nobody cares if you're wealthy. If you are violating equal protection, from a legalistic sense, you are still violating WA resolutions.

Neville: Of course, there are plenty of grey areas...

(also, OOC, could any resolution affect stats or this here for Roleplaying purposes?

They do effect stats.

OOC: No, Max Barry effects stats. Issues and GA resolutions, on the other hand, affect stats. Get it right!

I'm not really sure why it would matter to you. You are already roleplaying against the mandates of WA resolutions, so why would any affect on your stats be of consequence?

OOC: Now that's just plain wrong. There is no situation in which 'affect' is a noun. Wallenburg and IA, I hereby proclaim that you are both guilty of committing word crimes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

When the proposal says "Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" - is this just making an amendment to the resolution that created the original organisation (and gave it the..... interesting name that has apparently cause much discussion) or is the "hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" part just for the life of the proposal? Because I have seen both interpretations in various discussions, and if it is indeed changing the name, does that class as an amendment to a previous proposal and so would that make this resolution illegal?

I'd say 'hereafter' refers to the resolution itself. Expansion of committee responsibilities has long been taken to be legal.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I'd say 'hereafter' refers to the resolution itself.

OOC: That's a shame. I was hoping that the committee would permanently be renamed.

[Calladan]

When the proposal says "Expands the remit of the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation, hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" - is this just making an amendment to the resolution that created the original organisation (and gave it the..... interesting name that has apparently cause much discussion) or is the "hereafter referred as the Passport Organisation" part just for the life of the proposal? Because I have seen both interpretations in various discussions, and if it is indeed changing the name, does that class as an amendment to a previous proposal and so would that make this resolution illegal?

I'd say 'hereafter' refers to the resolution itself. Expansion of committee responsibilities has long been taken to be legal.

I was REALLY hoping that was the case - I entirely approve of this, and if I got it thrown out at the 11th hour due to a technicality I am not sure I would've been able to forgive myself

[Wrapper]

Reducing Statelessness was passed 14,100 votes to 3,517.

[Wallenburg]

"Well, congratulations, your Grace. You have passed an entirely pointless and ineffective resolution."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Well, congratulations, your Grace. You have passed an entirely pointless and ineffective resolution."

"While pointless, I wouldn't say it is ineffective." Blackbourne states. "It certainly is effective at preventing our nation from removing the citizenship of traitors. Which is good for the traitors, I suppose, but not our nation."

[Wallenburg]

"Well, congratulations, your Grace. You have passed an entirely pointless and ineffective resolution."

"While pointless, I wouldn't say it is ineffective." Blackbourne states. "It certainly is effective at preventing our nation from removing the citizenship of traitors. Which is good for the traitors, I suppose, but not our nation."

"It prevents your nation from removing their nationality. You may still revoke their citizenship."

[Sciongrad]

"While pointless, I wouldn't say it is ineffective." Blackbourne states. "It certainly is effective at preventing our nation from removing the citizenship of traitors. Which is good for the traitors, I suppose, but not our nation."

"It prevents your nation from removing their nationality. You may still revoke their citizenship."

"That doesn't make it pointless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."

[Wallenburg]

"It prevents your nation from removing their nationality. You may still revoke their citizenship."

"That doesn't make it toothless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."

"Ambassador, that does make it toothless. As much as Parsons likes to pretend that nationality can be removed, nationality is an innate, unchangeable quality to each individual. As it is quite literally impossible for any nation to revoke nationality even without this resolution, 'Reducing Statelessness' achieves nothing.

As to your comment on the 'rights' of nationals, Wallenburg confers no rights to any individuals simply because of their nationality. All nationals are automatically born as citizens, and so all legal rights that would be tied to nationality are instead tied to citizenship."

[Sciongrad]

"That doesn't make it toothless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."

"Ambassador, that does make it toothless. As much as Parsons likes to pretend that nationality can be removed, nationality is an innate, unchangeable quality to each individual. As it is quite literally impossible for any nation to revoke nationality even without this resolution, 'Reducing Statelessness' achieves nothing.

As to your comment on the 'rights' of nationals, Wallenburg confers no rights to any individuals simply because of their nationality. All nationals are automatically born as citizens, and so all legal rights that would be tied to nationality are instead tied to citizenship."

"That is a misunderstanding of nationality. There is both a technical, legal definition of nationality, which defines the relationship between a state and a person within it and a colloquial definition which typically describes where someone was born or brought up. The ability of a state to determine who among its inhabitants can be considered a national is an innate right and a defining factor of state sovereignty. So a state not only can choose who it does and doesn't consider to be a national, but is guaranteed this ability simply by existing. So your point that nationality can't be taken away is fundamentally incorrect."

[Excidium Planetis]

"It prevents your nation from removing their nationality. You may still revoke their citizenship."

"That doesn't make it pointless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."

"Excidium Planetis issues no passports to those who are not citizens, nor does it recognize the right of return. In Excidian law, only citizens are considered nationals. By revoking citizenship, nationality is revoked. Thus, either we cannot revoke citizenship because it would make someone stateless, or we can revoke citizenship, but the person remains a national, a meaningless title. In which case, this law is pointless."

[Sciongrad]

"That doesn't make it pointless. Citizenship and nationality are different, which you rightly note, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that nationality doesn't confer any rights or privileges in its own right. Nationals typically have two privileges that do not require citizenship: the right of return and a passport. I don't think resolution ever tried to ensure citizenship, just nationality."

"Excidium Planetis issues no passports to those who are not citizens, nor does it recognize the right of return. In Excidian law, only citizens are considered nationals. By revoking citizenship, nationality is revoked. Thus, either we cannot revoke citizenship because it would make someone stateless, or we can revoke citizenship, but the person remains a national, a meaningless title. In which case, this law is pointless."

"That doesn't make sense. Citizenship necessarily rests on nationality. You can't be a citizen without first being a national. And you admitted that citizens are considered nationals, which means in your case, you can't revoke citizenship either because it overlaps entirely with the nationality. So when you say 'only citizens are considered nationals,' the converse - 'only nationals are considered citizens' - must also necessarily be true."

OOC: From Wikipedia: " in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state.[...]"

Emphasis mine.

[States of Glory WA Office]

So when you say 'only citizens are considered nationals,' the converse - 'only nationals are considered citizens' - must also necessarily be true.

Fairburn: That's not necessarily true, Ambassador Santa. Even if only citizens are considered nationals, there may be citizens who aren't nationals. I mean, who's to say that nationality is a prerequisite for citizenship in all member states?

[Excidium Planetis]

"That doesn't make sense. Citizenship necessarily rests on nationality. You can't be a citizen without first being a national. And you admitted that citizens are considered nationals, which means in your case, you can't revoke citizenship either because it overlaps entirely with the nationality. So when you say 'only citizens are considered nationals,' the converse - 'only nationals are considered citizens' - must also necessarily be true."

"Correct. So, as I said earlier," Blackbourne presses a button on his datatab:

"While pointless, I wouldn't say it is ineffective."

"It certainly is effective at preventing our nation from removing the citizenship of traitors. Which is good for the traitors, I suppose, but not our nation."

OOC: From Wikipedia: " in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state.[...]"
Emphasis mine.

OOC:
Indeed. So Blackbourne is correct, this resolution prohibits Excidium from revoking citizenship because it would necessarily revoke their nationality, which is prohibited.

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, that does make it toothless. As much as Parsons likes to pretend that nationality can be removed, nationality is an innate, unchangeable quality to each individual. As it is quite literally impossible for any nation to revoke nationality even without this resolution, 'Reducing Statelessness' achieves nothing.

As to your comment on the 'rights' of nationals, Wallenburg confers no rights to any individuals simply because of their nationality. All nationals are automatically born as citizens, and so all legal rights that would be tied to nationality are instead tied to citizenship."

"That is a misunderstanding of nationality. There is both a technical, legal definition of nationality, which defines the relationship between a state and a person within it and a colloquial definition which typically describes where someone was born or brought up. The ability of a state to determine who among its inhabitants can be considered a national is an innate right and a defining factor of state sovereignty. So a state not only can choose who it does and doesn't consider to be a national, but is guaranteed this ability simply by existing. So your point that nationality can't be taken away is fundamentally incorrect."

"You have offered no alternate definition of nationality, but merely referenced the difference between national identity and nationality. I have said absolutely nothing about national identity, and so your point is quite irrelevant."

[Sciongrad]

"That is a misunderstanding of nationality. There is both a technical, legal definition of nationality, which defines the relationship between a state and a person within it and a colloquial definition which typically describes where someone was born or brought up. The ability of a state to determine who among its inhabitants can be considered a national is an innate right and a defining factor of state sovereignty. So a state not only can choose who it does and doesn't consider to be a national, but is guaranteed this ability simply by existing. So your point that nationality can't be taken away is fundamentally incorrect."

"You have offered no alternate definition of nationality, but merely referenced the difference between national identity and nationality. I have said absolutely nothing about national identity, and so your point is quite irrelevant."

"I referenced national identity because you are conflating nationality with national identity. A state absolutely has the authority to determine who is and isn't a national and, in the absence of this resolution, can freely strip any inhabitant of her nationality. Being able to choose who is and isn't a national is a cornerstone of state sovereignty."

[Excidium Planetis]

"A state absolutely has the authority to determine who is and isn't a national and, in the absence of this resolution, can freely strip any inhabitant of her nationality. Being able to choose who is and isn't a national is a cornerstone of state sovereignty."

"If a state absolutely has the authority to determine who is an who isn't a national, they then can say that no one is a national." Blackbourne says. "Rendering this resolution pointless."

[Wallenburg]

"You have offered no alternate definition of nationality, but merely referenced the difference between national identity and nationality. I have said absolutely nothing about national identity, and so your point is quite irrelevant."

"I referenced national identity because you are conflating nationality with national identity. A state absolutely has the authority to determine who is and isn't a national and, in the absence of this resolution, can freely strip any inhabitant of her nationality. Being able to choose who is and isn't a national is a cornerstone of state sovereignty."

"I am not conflating the two in any way. Nationality is, by definition, 'the state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born'. No state, no matter how delirious its leaders may be, can go back in time and prevent a person from being born within its borders. The state has absolutely no authority over who is and who is not a national. Furthermore, Ambassador, if you have deluded yourself to the extent that you think that the very existence of a sovereign state depends on its ability to decide whether or not to recognize someone as a national, why did you vote for this resolution? Do you believe that we should eliminate state sovereignty?"

[Sciongrad]

"I referenced national identity because you are conflating nationality with national identity. A state absolutely has the authority to determine who is and isn't a national and, in the absence of this resolution, can freely strip any inhabitant of her nationality. Being able to choose who is and isn't a national is a cornerstone of state sovereignty."

"I am not conflating the two in any way. Nationality is, by definition, 'the state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born'. No state, no matter how delirious its leaders may be, can go back in time and prevent a person from being born within its borders. The state has absolutely no authority over who is and who is not a national. Furthermore, Ambassador, if you have deluded yourself to the extent that you think that the very existence of a sovereign state depends on its ability to decide whether or not to recognize someone as a national, why did you vote for this resolution? Do you believe that we should eliminate state sovereignty?"

"That is not the definition of nationality. Being born in a particular state does not, ipso facto, guarantee national status. Nationality is the relationship between a person and any given state and states are free to change that relationship whenever and however they want.

Based on your previous statement - 'Wallenburg confers no rights to any individuals simply because of their nationality. All nationals are automatically born as citizens, and so all legal rights that would be tied to nationality are instead tied to citizenship' - it appears you fall into the same boat as the Excidians. According to this resolution, you cannot strip inhabitants of your nation of their citizenship if they only hold citizenship in your nation because the rights of citizens and nationals overlap completely.

I also do not believe that being able to determine who is considered a national by a particular state makes a state sovereign, but by the very definition of a sovereign state, they all have that right. States can, of course, choose to limit that right through international law and institutions - which I believe they rightly did through this resolution - but that doesn't mean it is not a defining characteristic of state sovereignty."

OOC: According to the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, "Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State."

I cited the difference between nationality and national identity in my last post because you are, in fact, conflating them. Being born in a country does not guarantee nationality. It almost always does, but real world states can and do revoke nationality because that is their sovereign right.

[States of Glory WA Office]

No state, no matter how delirious its leaders may be, can go back in time and prevent a person from being born within its borders.

OOC: You underestimate how advanced some nations are RP'ed as being.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I want to say that I really like the interpretation which Calladan speaks about above. Such an interpretation did not cross my mind when I was drafting the resolution; and obviously, for the sake of it not being removed, I argued in favour of the 'hereafter clause' being something which applied to the resolution itself. But it certainly is interpretable that the 'hereafter clause' extends outside of the resolution and actually renames the committee. Considering that I really don't like the name 'GESTAPO', I am going to change my public opinion on the topic and say that the committee formerly known as GESTAPO is now known as the Passport Organisation.

[United Irish Counties]

I want to say that I really like the interpretation which Calladan speaks about above. Such an interpretation did not cross my mind when I was drafting the resolution; and obviously, for the sake of it not being removed, I argued in favour of the 'hereafter clause' being something which applied to the resolution itself. But it certainly is interpretable that the 'hereafter clause' extends outside of the resolution and actually renames the committee. Considering that I really don't like the name 'GESTAPO', I am going to change my public opinion on the topic and say that the committee formerly known as GESTAPO is now known as the Passport Organisation.

OOC: I like that.