[Legality Challenge] International Immigration Standard

[Araraukar]

Perhaps the argument about CoCR's format should be moved to its own thread? Especially as it seems to hinge on personal opinions and not those presented by the council members as council member opinions.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Context is key, and CoCR very clearly intends to cover everybody. CD may not wish to allow it any authority, but we have access to the original drafting thread, and it's clear what the intent is, and it's not as if it requires twisting the words to reach that intent.

Thank goodness we have a copy of that debate. Original intent, expressed by the author:

This resolution simply prevents member states from alienating any particular group of their inhabitants from their legal rights both in domestic and international law. No specific rights are actually outlined in this bill except the right of all inhabitants of w.a. states to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live.

Again, I don't see why one person's subjective intent should guide our decisions; but, if it does, it goes against what you're saying.

Yes, I know we do. I linked you to it, and posted the quote relevant to this whole debate:

viewtopic.php?p=31031767#p31031767

Indeed that would be contrary to our intentions honoured Ambassador. We would not wish to see a situation in which the only class of people who might still be legally alienated from their equality were some of society's most easily exploited and despised.

States would still be able to enforce their immigration laws after the passage of this resolution so long as they did so in a non-discriminatory fashion.

For instance it would no longer be legal to discriminate between those one allows or disallows into one's country purely on the basis of their ethnicity, race, religion or nationality e.t.c. but it would remain absolutely legal to refuse citizenship or even entry of one's nation on the basis of individual applicant eligibility.

In the assessment of visa applications this would for most countries ( we suspect ) represent virtually no change at all. In the instance of dealing with illegal immigrants the only change would be that states must treat all illegal immigrants equally and not show preferences for people on the basis of ethnicity e.t.c. in their treatment of these people.

Certainly if states have blanket bans on immigrants from certain nations or of certain ethnicities or races e.t.c. this would become illegal, unless it is justified for compelling practical reasons to do so.


Naturally any immigrant who has entered a state illegally must face the legal sanction imposed by the state to which they have emigrated for such a transgression, this would not change if this statute were introduced. The imposition of such penalties being of a non-discriminatory nature since all would-be transgressors of this law would be treated the same and according to the facts of their case.



We hope that this has clarified the terms we have included Honoured Ambassador, and the reason why this statute does not deal only with citizens or even legal residents.

[Sciongrad]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: International Immigration Standard
Date of Decision: 13 February, 2017
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 4-2
Rules Applied: Contradiction

Majority Opinion (Sciongrad)
Joined by Glen-Rhodes, Separatist Peoples, and Sierra Lyricalia

We are asked to consider whether the proposal "International Immigration Standard," in seeking to give all member nations the right to reject immigrants for any reason, violates GAR#35. Only two questions must be answered to resolve the question. Firstly, does such sweeping power permit a member nation to potentially discriminate against immigrants on the basis of some reductive categorization, and secondly, does section 1c, in guaranteeing "all inhabitants of member nations," obligate member nations to grant equal treatment to those outside of their territory?

The first question is so obvious that prolonged discussion is hardly necessary. By allowing member nations to deny entry to immigrants for any reason, the resolution would clearly permit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, etc.

The second, and more nuanced, question is whether "all inhabitants of member nations" refers to individuals outside of a member nation's territory. We believe it does. A plain reading of the language would seem to suggest that every single inhabitant of all member nations is guaranteed equal treatment by the governments of member nations, not that the governments of member nations must provide equal treatment solely to the inhabitants of their nation. This becomes even more readily apparent when one considers section 1b, which specifically refers to inhabitants "that are currently present" in a member nation. The absence of such a qualifier in section 1c clearly suggests that the term inhabitant cannot convey that meaning on its own.

The proposal in question, then, attempts to grant member nations to ability to discriminate against "inhabitants of member nations" on the basis of reductive categorizations, and therefore, is illegal for violating the contradiction rule. It is important to note that CoCR doesn't contain a right to immigration. That is to say, member nations may currently ban all immigration, or regulate immigration on the basis of skill, or even deny access to immigrants from non-member nations on the basis of reductive categorization, provided the individual in question is not already within the territory of the nation in question. This ruling only considers whether giving member nations plenary authority to deny access to immigrants from other member nations is a violation of the rules. We hold that it is.

Christian Democrats, joined by Bears Armed, dissenting.

I vehemently dissent from the majority opinion for the following reasons.

First, it mischaracterizes the proposal under review. According to the majority opinion, it is “so obvious” that International Immigration Standard (IIS) would “give all member nations the right to reject immigrants for any reason.” That’s not actually what the proposal says. According to the proposal, member states would be permitted the “right to accept or refuse immigrants from any nation.” Of course, there is a difference between “for any reason” and “from any nation.” The majority’s assertion that IIS “would clearly permit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, etc.” is anything but clear or “so obvious.” In fact, it’s entirely unfounded. IIS, by its very terms, literally interpreted, applies only to national origin.

Second, the majority says that a “plain reading of the language” of Resolution 35, the Charter of Civil Rights (COCR), necessitates the conclusion that IIS violates the Contradiction Rule. Their reading is anything but plain. In particular, they say that IIS, by allowing member states to deny visas to foreign residents, goes against the provision of COCR that states: “All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, etc.” An inhabitant, as everybody knows (or should know), is a person who resides in a given place. The idea that a provision in COCR that protects the rights of inhabitants includes rights for foreign residents is too far-fetched to gain my assent. If COCR sought to protect foreigners, it would use a term such as “people,” “persons,” or “individuals.” The choice of the word “inhabitants” is significant. COCR protects rights for inhabitants qua inhabitants and extends no further.

Third, although I do not believe the subjective intent behind a resolution should determine that resolution’s meaning, it is noteworthy that the author, while summarizing COCR during the drafting debate, described it in these terms: “This resolution simply prevents member states from alienating any particular group of their inhabitants from their legal rights both in domestic and international law. No specific rights are actually outlined in this bill except the right of all inhabitants of w.a. states to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live.” As opposed to the majority’s “plain reading” of COCR, this reading of COCR is actually consistent with the meaning of the word “inhabitants” as it is ordinarily understood (i.e., people who inhabit a certain place, not people who inhabit any place).

Fourth, the majority misreads the phrase “in which they are currently present” in COCR. The presence of “in which they are currently present” in Sections 1(a) and 1(b) suggests an expansion of the ordinary meaning of “inhabitants,” not a qualification. The fact that “in which they are currently present” is absent from Section 1(c)—the section being considered here—is indicative, if anything, that Section 1(c) has a more limited application than Sections 1(a) and 1(b).

Fifth, the majority opinion violates the legal/hermeneutic principle known as the doctrine of absurdity: if there are two possible readings of a given law (or other text) and if one of those readings would lead to absurd results, then the reader ought to adopt the non-absurd reading. If the majority in this case is correct, then all national statutes and regulations that distinguish between inhabitants and foreigners are prima facie unlawful—that is, presumed to be unlawful—unless and until member states provide “compelling” evidence to the contrary. According to the majority opinion, then, a member state commits a prima facie unlawful act if, for example, it denies foreign residents the right to vote in domestic elections. Or the right to run in such elections. Or the right to access domestic unemployment benefits. Or the right to attend domestic schools. Or the right to apply for and receive domestic, state-funded grants. Or the right to receive medical treatment in the domestic healthcare system. And so on.

My personal views on the propriety of IIS (based on Executive Order 13769 in the real-world United States) are irrelevant to my opinion in this case. I wish I could confidently say the same for my colleagues in the majority. Stopping discriminatory immigration and travel policies might be morally righteous, but it is not legally justified. It is not suggested, much less required, by the words or history of COCR. This particular human rights resolution protects a right for people, as the author once put it, “to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live [or are present],” period.

[Excidium Planetis]

The second, and more nuanced, question is whether "all inhabitants of member nations" refers to individuals outside of a member nation's territory. We believe it does.

This is ridiculous and directly contradicts the text of the resolution itself.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection

Who is doing the treatment and protection? CoCR clearly states:

by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Non-citizen non-residents outside a member nation's borders neither inhabit that nation or are currently present in it. Thus, they do not have a right to equal treatment by that nation, as they only have a right to equal treatment by the the nation they inhabit or are currently present in.

What about Clause 1 b, which you seem to think is the key that validates your view?

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Read by itself, it is pretty plain. Inhabitants of member nations have rights guaranteed by three things:
1) International Law
2) The laws of the nation they inhabit
3) The laws of the nation they are currently present in

Refugees which do not inhabit a member nation and which are not currently in a member nation are left only with the rights guaranteed by international law.

Interpreting CoCR to mean that all inhabitants of any WA member nation are entitled to equal rights with all other citizens of all other nations results in completely ridiculous outcomes. No democratic nation would be able to limit voting to only its own citizens, as doing so would be discrimination based on nationality. They would have to allow inhabitants of other nations to vote in their elections too.

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

What the heck! Really?! Many thanks for your courtesy.

Shortly after you posted a draft opinion in private, I posted this (18 hours ago):

I'll post a dissent here in the next day or so. If needed, I'll edit it if it becomes the majority opinion.

Three hours ago, you posted the above opinion.

How am I supposed to write a dissent in 15 hours when you took eight days to write your opinion? What happened to the convention of letting the dissenters write their opinion before publication? Why the rush? Were you afraid that my opinion might change someone's mind?

[Separatist Peoples]

The second, and more nuanced, question is whether "all inhabitants of member nations" refers to individuals outside of a member nation's territory. We believe it does.

This is ridiculous and directly contradicts the text of the resolution itself.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection

Who is doing the treatment and protection? CoCR clearly states:

by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Non-citizen non-residents outside a member nation's borders neither inhabit that nation or are currently present in it. Thus, they do not have a right to equal treatment by that nation, as they only have a right to equal treatment by the the nation they inhabit or are currently present in.

What about Clause 1 b, which you seem to think is the key that validates your view?

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Read by itself, it is pretty plain. Inhabitants of member nations have rights guaranteed by three things:
1) International Law
2) The laws of the nation they inhabit
3) The laws of the nation they are currently present in

Refugees which do not inhabit a member nation and which are not currently in a member nation are left only with the rights guaranteed by international law.

Interpreting CoCR to mean that all inhabitants of any WA member nation are entitled to equal rights with all other citizens of all other nations results in completely ridiculous outcomes. No democratic nation would be able to limit voting to only its own citizens, as doing so would be discrimination based on nationality. They would have to allow inhabitants of other nations to vote in their elections too.

The last two lines of the holding narrows this interpretation to the proposal in question. It doesn't speak to other issues. Besides, there are compelling practical purposes to limit voting to citizens. The dissent doesn't particularly like the burden that "Compelling Practical Purposes" carry, but I personally maintain that words are tough little things.

If you take issue with this, you could always repeal CoCR. That would do away with this altogether.

[Confederate Non-Soviet States of America]

What even are laws but contradictory phrases agreed upon by majority? Anyhow, we had no Idea such a law existed. For years, any illegal in our Motherland would be rounded up and sold into slavery. Needless to say the folks of The confederation would be more than happy to help strick down said law.

[Separatist Peoples]

What even are laws but contradictory phrases agreed upon by majority? Anyhow, we had no Idea such a law existed. For years, any illegal in our Motherland would be rounded up and sold into slavery. Needless to say the folks of The confederation would be more than happy to help strick down said law.

That breaks a number of other WA laws, but is wholly irrelevant to this legality discussion, which is Out Of Character, and not In Character.

[Excidium Planetis]

The last two lines of the holding narrows this interpretation to the proposal in question. It doesn't speak to other issues.

There is no reason why that should be the case. Of CoCR applies to all inhabitants of all WA nations equally, then why would the same reasoning for this ruling not hold up in other applications?

Besides, there are compelling practical purposes to limit voting to citizens. The dissent doesn't particularly like the burden that "Compelling Practical Purposes" carry, but I personally maintain that words are tough little things.

Why was this excuse not valid for the proposal in question? Limiting immigration seems to be a compelling practical purpose.

But let's ignore that for a moment. Looking just at the ruling and the text of CoCR, can you please explain how a clause stating that only the nation a person inhabits or is present in must protect that person's rights was interpreted as a clause stating that all nations must protect the rights of all inhabitants?

The ruling states that:

A plain reading of the language would seem to suggest that every single inhabitant of all member nations is guaranteed equal treatment by the governments of member nations, not that the governments of member nations must provide equal treatment solely to the inhabitants of their nation.

And yet the latter is indeed specifically what clause 1 a says. Again:

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Inhabitants of member nations only have the right to equal treatment by the nation they inhabit or are currently present in, not nations they do not inhabit and are not present in.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Inhabitants are only entitled to the rights of the nation the inhabit or are present in (and internarional rights), not the rights of nations they do not inhabit and are not present in.

If this is the case in both of those clauses, why assume that inhabitants of member nations suddenly gain the right to equal treatment and protection by all member nations, even ones they have never set foot in, in Clause 1 c?

If you take issue with this, you could always repeal CoCR. That would do away with this altogether.

I'd rather not repeal a perfectly serviceable resolution because the Secretariat ruled poorly on it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why was this excuse not valid for the proposal in question? Limiting immigration seems to be a compelling practical purpose.

That's not how "compelling practical purposes" work. Consider CoCR to require strict scrutiny review.

But let's ignore that for a moment. Looking just at the ruling and the text of CoCR, can you please explain how a clause stating that only the nation a person inhabits or is present in must protect that person's rights was interpreted as a clause stating that all nations must protect the rights of all inhabitants?

There are about 4 pages of debate on this topic already.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's very telling that the proposal itself isn't actually quoted in the decision, as the proposal itself doesn't actually do the things it is stated to do.

[Auralia]

I feel that my arguments weren't adequately addressed before your ruling was issued, but now that you've made your decision I suppose we'll all just have to deal with it as best we can.

That's not how "compelling practical purposes" work. Consider CoCR to require strict scrutiny review.

This doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, but it's pretty silly to subject discrimination between inhabitants and non-inhabitants of a member state to strict scrutiny review. Most of the time, this kind of differential treatment is completely legitimate and frankly necessary for the proper functioning of states.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's not how "compelling practical purposes" work. Consider CoCR to require strict scrutiny review.

This doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, but it's pretty silly to subject discrimination between inhabitants and non-inhabitants of a member state to strict scrutiny review. Most of the time, this kind of differential treatment is completely legitimate and frankly necessary for the proper functioning of states.

It's not pretty silly to subject racial and ethnic discrimination against immigrants at your borders to strict scrutiny.

It's very telling that the proposal itself isn't actually quoted in the decision, as the proposal itself doesn't actually do the things it is stated to do.

"2. Establishes a member nation's right to accept or refuse immigrants from any nation without need to explain to the international community,"

That sounds pretty much like " seeking to give all member nations the right to reject immigrants for any reason" to me. This point as been made several times.

[Auralia]

This doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, but it's pretty silly to subject discrimination between inhabitants and non-inhabitants of a member state to strict scrutiny review. Most of the time, this kind of differential treatment is completely legitimate and frankly necessary for the proper functioning of states.

It's not pretty silly to subject racial and ethnic discrimination against immigrants at your borders to strict scrutiny.

I think so too, but that's not what I'm talking about -- that's why I said "most of the time". I'm talking about simple things like, say, restricting the right to vote to nationals or not providing consular protection to non-nationals. Why should that be considered illegal discrimination?

[Sciongrad]

Why was this excuse not valid for the proposal in question? Limiting immigration seems to be a compelling practical purpose.

Limiting immigration is permitted by the ruling and is compatible with CoCR, as I explicitly wrote in the opinion. The proposal was illegal because it granted member states a plenary right to limit immigration, which would include limitations based on reductive categorization. That's all our ruling said.

But let's ignore that for a moment. Looking just at the ruling and the text of CoCR, can you please explain how a clause stating that only the nation a person inhabits or is present in must protect that person's rights was interpreted as a clause stating that all nations must protect the rights of all inhabitants?

Clause 1c, which is the clause we agreed prevented discrimination against foreigners, does not include any requirement that the "inhabitants of member nations" be currently present in the member nation by which they would be abused.

If this is the case in both of those clauses, why assume that inhabitants of member nations suddenly gain the right to equal treatment and protection by all member nations, even ones they have never set foot in, in Clause 1 c?

Like I've said like, 30 times, it is one of the most fundamental precepts of statutory interpretation that omissions of repeating phrases must be interpreted as deliberate. In other words, it is exactly because clause 1a and 1b use the phrase "in which they are currently present" that we can infer that clause 1c, which doesn't, does not include that requirement.

I'd rather not repeal a perfectly serviceable resolution because the Secretariat ruled poorly on it.

Then don't.

Interpreting CoCR to mean that all inhabitants of any WA member nation are entitled to equal rights with all other citizens of all other nations results in completely ridiculous outcomes. No democratic nation would be able to limit voting to only its own citizens, as doing so would be discrimination based on nationality. They would have to allow inhabitants of other nations to vote in their elections too.

That's not correct. CoCR permits exceptions for compelling practical purpose, and preventing foreigners from voting in one's country is not discrimination based on a reductive categorization. Just like member nations are permitted to limit immigration under CoCR because limiting immigration has a compelling practical purpose. But, if you do allow foreigners to vote in your election for whatever reason, you can't deny other foreigners the right to vote based on some reductive categorization.

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

What the heck! Really?! Many thanks for your courtesy.

Shortly after you posted a draft opinion in private, I posted this (18 hours ago):

I'll post a dissent here in the next day or so. If needed, I'll edit it if it becomes the majority opinion.

Three hours ago, you posted the above opinion.

How am I supposed to write a dissent in 15 hours when you took eight days to write your opinion? What happened to the convention of letting the dissenters write their opinion before publication? Why the rush? Were you afraid that my opinion might change someone's mind?

I'm really ticked that my post has been ignored. I drafted my dissent in less than 24 hours; and, six hours ago, Bears Armed told me by telegram that he joins. I want to see it added below the majority opinion above. Still, why were BA and I cut out?

---

*** General Assembly Secretariat ***

Christian Democrats, joined by Bears Armed, dissenting.

I vehemently dissent from the majority opinion for the following reasons.

First, it mischaracterizes the proposal under review. According to the majority opinion, it is “so obvious” that International Immigration Standard (IIS) would “give all member nations the right to reject immigrants for any reason.” That’s not actually what the proposal says. According to the proposal, member states would be permitted the “right to accept or refuse immigrants from any nation.” Of course, there is a difference between “for any reason” and “from any nation.” The majority’s assertion that IIS “would clearly permit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, etc.” is anything but clear or “so obvious.” In fact, it’s entirely unfounded. IIS, by its very terms, literally interpreted, applies only to national origin.

Second, the majority says that a “plain reading of the language” of Resolution 35, the Charter of Civil Rights (COCR), necessitates the conclusion that IIS violates the Contradiction Rule. Their reading is anything but plain. In particular, they say that IIS, by allowing member states to deny visas to foreign residents, goes against the provision of COCR that states: “All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, etc.” An inhabitant, as everybody knows (or should know), is a person who resides in a given place. The idea that a provision in COCR that protects the rights of inhabitants includes rights for foreign residents is too far-fetched to gain my assent. If COCR sought to protect foreigners, it would use a term such as “people,” “persons,” or “individuals.” The choice of the word “inhabitants” is significant. COCR protects rights for inhabitants qua inhabitants and extends no further.

Third, although I do not believe the subjective intent behind a resolution should determine that resolution’s meaning, it is noteworthy that the author, while summarizing COCR during the drafting debate, described it in these terms: “This resolution simply prevents member states from alienating any particular group of their inhabitants from their legal rights both in domestic and international law. No specific rights are actually outlined in this bill except the right of all inhabitants of w.a. states to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live.” As opposed to the majority’s “plain reading” of COCR, this reading of COCR is actually consistent with the meaning of the word “inhabitants” as it is ordinarily understood (i.e., people who inhabit a certain place, not people who inhabit any place).

Fourth, the majority misreads the phrase “in which they are currently present” in COCR. The presence of “in which they are currently present” in Sections 1(a) and 1(b) suggests an expansion of the ordinary meaning of “inhabitants,” not a qualification. The fact that “in which they are currently present” is absent from Section 1(c)—the section being considered here—is indicative, if anything, that Section 1(c) has a more limited application than Sections 1(a) and 1(b).

Fifth, the majority opinion violates the legal/hermeneutic principle known as the doctrine of absurdity: if there are two possible readings of a given law (or other text) and if one of those readings would lead to absurd results, then the reader ought to adopt the non-absurd reading. If the majority in this case is correct, then all national statutes and regulations that distinguish between inhabitants and foreigners are prima facie unlawful—that is, presumed to be unlawful—unless and until member states provide “compelling” evidence to the contrary. According to the majority opinion, then, a member state commits a prima facie unlawful act if, for example, it denies foreign residents the right to vote in domestic elections. Or the right to run in such elections. Or the right to access domestic unemployment benefits. Or the right to attend domestic schools. Or the right to apply for and receive domestic, state-funded grants. Or the right to receive medical treatment in the domestic healthcare system. And so on.

My personal views on the propriety of IIS (based on Executive Order 13769 in the real-world United States) are irrelevant to my opinion in this case. I wish I could confidently say the same for my colleagues in the majority. Stopping discriminatory immigration and travel policies might be morally righteous, but it is not legally justified. It is not suggested, much less required, by the words or history of COCR. This particular human rights resolution protects a right for people, as the author once put it, “to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live [or are present],” period.

[Imperium Anglorum]

*** General Assembly Secretariat ***

Christian Democrats, joined by Bears Armed, dissenting.

I vehemently dissent from the majority opinion for the following reasons.

First, it mischaracterizes the proposal under review. According to the majority opinion, it is “so obvious” that International Immigration Standard (IIS) would “give all member nations the right to reject immigrants for any reason.” That’s not actually what the proposal says. According to the proposal, member states would be permitted the “right to accept or refuse immigrants from any nation.” Of course, there is a difference between “for any reason” and “from any nation.” The majority’s assertion that IIS “would clearly permit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, etc.” is anything but clear or “so obvious.” In fact, it’s entirely unfounded. IIS, by its very terms, literally interpreted, applies only to national origin.

Second, the majority says that a “plain reading of the language” of Resolution 35, the Charter of Civil Rights (COCR), necessitates the conclusion that IIS violates the Contradiction Rule. Their reading is anything but plain. In particular, they say that IIS, by allowing member states to deny visas to foreign residents, goes against the provision of COCR that states: “All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, etc.” An inhabitant, as everybody knows (or should know), is a person who resides in a given place. The idea that a provision in COCR that protects the rights of inhabitants includes rights for foreign residents is too far-fetched to gain my assent. If COCR sought to protect foreigners, it would use a term such as “people,” “persons,” or “individuals.” The choice of the word “inhabitants” is significant. COCR protects rights for inhabitants qua inhabitants and extends no further.

Third, although I do not believe the subjective intent behind a resolution should determine that resolution’s meaning, it is noteworthy that the author, while summarizing COCR during the drafting debate, described it in these terms: “This resolution simply prevents member states from alienating any particular group of their inhabitants from their legal rights both in domestic and international law. No specific rights are actually outlined in this bill except the right of all inhabitants of w.a. states to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live.” As opposed to the majority’s “plain reading” of COCR, this reading of COCR is actually consistent with the meaning of the word “inhabitants” as it is ordinarily understood (i.e., people who inhabit a certain place, not people who inhabit any place).

Fourth, the majority misreads the phrase “in which they are currently present” in COCR. The presence of “in which they are currently present” in Sections 1(a) and 1(b) suggests an expansion of the ordinary meaning of “inhabitants,” not a qualification. The fact that “in which they are currently present” is absent from Section 1(c)—the section being considered here—is indicative, if anything, that Section 1(c) has a more limited application than Sections 1(a) and 1(b).

Fifth, the majority opinion violates the legal/hermeneutic principle known as the doctrine of absurdity: if there are two possible readings of a given law (or other text) and if one of those readings would lead to absurd results, then the reader ought to adopt the non-absurd reading. If the majority in this case is correct, then all national statutes and regulations that distinguish between inhabitants and foreigners are prima facie unlawful—that is, presumed to be unlawful—unless and until member states provide “compelling” evidence to the contrary. According to the majority opinion, then, a member state commits a prima facie unlawful act if, for example, it denies foreign residents the right to vote in domestic elections. Or the right to run in such elections. Or the right to access domestic unemployment benefits. Or the right to attend domestic schools. Or the right to apply for and receive domestic, state-funded grants. Or the right to receive medical treatment in the domestic healthcare system. And so on.

My personal views on the propriety of IIS (based on Executive Order 13769 in the real-world United States) are irrelevant to my opinion in this case. I wish I could confidently say the same for my colleagues in the majority. Stopping discriminatory immigration and travel policies might be morally righteous, but it is not legally justified. It is not suggested, much less required, by the words or history of COCR. This particular human rights resolution protects a right for people, as the author once put it, “to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live [or are present],” period.

Hear, hear.

[Christian Democrats]

Why was this excuse not valid for the proposal in question? Limiting immigration seems to be a compelling practical purpose.

That's not how "compelling practical purposes" work. Consider CoCR to require strict scrutiny review.

I acknowledge that COCR requires something akin to strict scrutiny review when nations make laws concerning their inhabitants.

Now, let me explain to you how strict scrutiny works. The government wants to violate a person's fundamental rights. Thus, it has to demonstrate to a court that the violation pursues a compelling end and that the means employed are necessary to achieve that end.

Using this framework in tandem with the majority opinion, you're saying that nations are violating foreigners' fundamental rights when they do not treat foreigners the same as their own citizens. Now, Sciongrad says above that, for example, there are "compelling" reasons to deny suffrage to foreigners. But this still doesn't make a bit of sense. The natural implication of this line of argumentation is that foreigners, by default, have a right to vote in domestic elections and that nations are violating this right for compelling reasons.

Literally, you just labeled every WA state that does not have an open-borders policy discriminatory. Sure, you might say that they're discriminating for compelling reasons; but you're still calling them, by default, human rights violators.

It's very telling that the proposal itself isn't actually quoted in the decision, as the proposal itself doesn't actually do the things it is stated to do.

Correct. (I address this point in my opinion -- drafted last night, posted privately this morning, and recently posted here.)

Clause 1c, which is the clause we agreed prevented discrimination against foreigners, does not include any requirement that the "inhabitants of member nations" be currently present in inhabitants of the member nation

This is what you're actually saying. Inhabitants aren't required to inhabit to be protected.

I'll give the same example that I gave earlier. New York passes a law that grants all adult inhabitants the right to vote in local elections. Jim is an adult inhabitant of New Jersey. Your logic: Jim is an adult inhabitant of somewhere; therefore, he has the right to vote in New York's local elections. The correct interpretation: the word "inhabitants" refers only to the inhabitants of a particular place.

Like I've said like, 30 times, it is one of the most fundamental precepts of statutory interpretation that omissions of repeating phrases must be interpreted as deliberate. In other words, it is exactly because clause 1a and 1b use the phrase "in which they are currently present" that we can infer that clause 1c, which doesn't, does not include that requirement.

Yes, if Sections 1(a) and 1(b) and Section 1(c) are to be interpreted differently, Section 1(c) is narrower than Sections 1(a) and 1(b). The absence of "in which they are currently present" means that "inhabitant" reverts to its ordinary meaning -- you live in a given place.

[Sciongrad]

What the heck! Really?! Many thanks for your courtesy.

Shortly after you posted a draft opinion in private, I posted this (18 hours ago):

Three hours ago, you posted the above opinion.

How am I supposed to write a dissent in 15 hours when you took eight days to write your opinion? What happened to the convention of letting the dissenters write their opinion before publication? Why the rush? Were you afraid that my opinion might change someone's mind?

I'm really ticked that my post has been ignored. I drafted my dissent in less than 24 hours; and, six hours ago, Bears Armed told me by telegram that he joins. I want to see it added below the majority opinion above. Still, why were BA and I cut out?

You were not cut out, it's part of our procedure that controlling opinions are released immediately once they're agreed upon. Because 4 ayes is a majority no matter what, the opinion was released immediately. You guys were not cutting out of the process.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, for the simplicity's sake, could you guys link back to the posted decision on the last post of your thread in the Archives?

[Christian Democrats]

I'm really ticked that my post has been ignored. I drafted my dissent in less than 24 hours; and, six hours ago, Bears Armed told me by telegram that he joins. I want to see it added below the majority opinion above. Still, why were BA and I cut out?

You were not cut out, it's part of our procedure that controlling opinions are released immediately once they're agreed upon. Because 4 ayes is a majority no matter what, the opinion was released immediately. You guys were not cutting out of the process.

That's not what the "Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat," which you authored, say.

Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions.

Now, will you please put my dissent in the ruling that you prematurely posted?

[Sciongrad]

You were not cut out, it's part of our procedure that controlling opinions are released immediately once they're agreed upon. Because 4 ayes is a majority no matter what, the opinion was released immediately. You guys were not cutting out of the process.

That's not what the "Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat," which you authored, say.

Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions.

Now, will you please put my dissent in the ruling that you prematurely posted?

CD, that thread has not been updated since the reforms. Read the very first post in the reform thread.

In the future, we should release the controlling opinion as soon as it's finished and release subsequent opinions afterwards if we have to.

[Christian Democrats]

That's not what the "Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat," which you authored, say.

Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions.

Now, will you please put my dissent in the ruling that you prematurely posted?

CD, that thread has not been updated since the reforms. Read the very first post in the reform thread.

In the future, we should release the controlling opinion as soon as it's finished and release subsequent opinions afterwards if we have to.

As I said earlier, you never moved for a vote to amend our posted procedures. "We should release, etc." isn't a proposal.

[Sciongrad]

CD, that thread has not been updated since the reforms. Read the very first post in the reform thread.

As I said earlier, you never moved for a vote to amend our posted procedures. "We should release, etc." isn't a proposal.

This is semantics. Everyone that voted knew what they were voting for and this isn't the appropriate thread for this discussion.

[Christian Democrats]

As I said earlier, you never moved for a vote to amend our posted procedures. "We should release, etc." isn't a proposal.

This is semantics. Everyone that voted knew what they were voting for and this isn't the appropriate thread for this discussion.

• One-third of GenSec didn't vote even though they were online because they didn't know that a vote was occurring.
• You didn't put your idea in the form of a proposal to amend the posted rules and procedures of GenSec.
• You never called for a vote on your idea; you just asked for others' thoughts.
• You didn't post your idea in the official thread that the moderators set up for holding votes on GenSec procedures.

There wasn't a reform to our procedures. Our procedures are the procedures listed here:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=401599