[PASSED] Citizenship And Birth Act

by **South St Maarten** » Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:12 pm

Good Morning Everyone, this proposal is now in the queue to be voted on by the entire WA. Thanks to all who helped shape this proposal into what it is today

- South St Maarten

Citizenship And Birth Act

The World Assembly,

Affirming that all children should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation at birth,

Further Affirming that children, at birth, should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth,

Understanding that the location and time at which the birth of a child occurs occurs is natural and unpredictable,

Realizing that children are intermittently born in a nation that their parents are neither citizens nor residents of, or in which they are residents but not citizens,

Concerned that no legislation currently exists regarding the citizenship of such children,

Dismayed that, while this body has already acted to prevent member states from arbitrarily making their citizens stateless through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness", it has never legislated to protect the citizenships of children who would otherwise be born stateless in the first place, and

Concluding that this oversight must be addressed in the form of international legislation, hereby enacts as follows:

The World Assembly,

Affirming that all children, at birth, should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation,

Further Affirming that children, at birth, should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth,

Understanding that the location and time at which a childbirth occurs is natural and unpredictable,

Realizing that children are intermittently born in a nation that their parents are neither citizens nor residents of, or in which they are residents but not citizens,

Concerned that no legislation currently exists regarding the citizenship of such children,

Dismayed that, while this body has already acted to prevent member states from arbitrarily making their citizens stateless through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness", it has never legislated to protect the citizenships of children who would otherwise be born stateless in the first place, and

Concluding that this oversight must be addressed in the form of international legislation, hereby enacts as follows:

The World Assembly,

Affirming that all children, at birth, should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation,

Further Affirming that children, at birth, should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth,

Understanding that the location and time at which a childbirth occurs is natural and unpredictable,

Realizing that children are intermittently born in a nation that their parents are neither citizens nor residents of, or in which they are residents but not citizens,

Concerned that no legislation currently exists regarding the citizenship of such children,

Noting that this body has already taken action to reduce statelessness in GA Resolution #386, "Reducing Statelessness" in order to prevent member states from arbitrarily retracting citizenships or making individuals stateless, and

Concluding that the issue of foreign birth must be addressed in the form of international legislation, hereby enacts as follows:

The World Assembly,

Affirming that all children, at birth, should be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation,
Further Affirming that children, at birth, should not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth,
Understanding that the location and time at which a childbirth occurs is natural and unpredictable, and
Furthermore Realizing that children are intermittently born in a nation that their parents are:

Acknowledging that children are also occasionally born in a nation of which their parents are not citizens but are residents of,
Realizing that this body has already taken action to reduce statelessness in GA Resolution #386, "Reducing Statelessness",
Concerned that no legislation currently exists regarding the citizenship of such children,
Therefore Believing that the issue of foreign birth must be addressed in the form of international legislation,
Declares the following:

a. Children born in such nations will therefore be awarded citizenship in all nations of which their mother and father are citizens, along with citizenship in the nation they were born in.

The World Assembly,

Believing that all children, at birth, shall be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation,
Affirming that children, at birth, shall not be deemed stateless due to the location of their birth,
Understanding that the location and time at which a childbirth occurs is natural and unpredictable, and
Furthermore Realizing that children are intermittently born in a nation that their parents are:

Acknowledging that children are also occasionally born in a nation of which their parents are not citizens but are residents of,
Concerned that no legislation currently exists regarding the citizenship of such children,
Therefore Believing that the issue of foreign birth must be addressed in the form of international legislation,
Declares the following:

a. Such parent received their citizenship due to their birth in that nation

by **Phydios** » Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:18 pm

#5 has to go. All WA legislation is effective immediately after passing.

by **Honeydewistania** » Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:39 pm

Drop the ‘convention on’ but in your title

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:59 pm

Phydios wrote:#5 has to go. All WA legislation is effective immediately after passing.

Sure, but you can easily get around this. Eg GA 301 'Ban on Leaded Fuel':

1. Begin at once to restrict the numbers of vehicles requiring leaded fuel for efficient running that it produces and imports, so that the annual average number of such vehicles in use for civilian purposes within its borders for any year after one year has elapsed since the date of this resolution’s passage (or since the date when the nation first joined the WA, if later) will be no higher than the annual average number of them in use there for the year immediately before that initial date, and take further steps so that within no more than four years since that initial date no such vehicles at all are produced there for civilian use (emphasis mine)

Which is a hilarious legal fiction if I've ever seen one.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I think the problem you mean to solve is that some people born in some nations will not necessarily have citizenship or state recognition of their status? As to the statelessness question, see my resolution GA 386 'Reducing Statelessness' (2016), which mostly resolves the problem of people being deprived of their state. That said, I believe there is room to legislate on the possibility that a person might be born without a state, if two different nationalities have different rules: eg parents from nation P, following exclusive jus soli, but birth in nation C, which exclusively uses jus sanguinis.

That said, I am dubious of the wisdom of imposing a jus soli requirement on the Assembly writ large. Given that the Assembly does not mandate freedom of movement or of work, this nations which do not wish to see foreigners travelling to their jurisdictions to receive citizenship would instead filter by pregnant status or other criteria, which would have knock on effects as to foreign access to medical care. This is especially the case when advantageous citizenships are also associated with high standards of living and quality in health services.

by **Araraukar** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:23 am

"Why not instead require the baby be awarded the same citizenship as their mother? In cases of difficult diplomatic relations your solution might mean the newborn could not accompany their mother when they leave the nation to return home."

OOC: Don't even need difficult relations as the baby would need their own passport. Usually young children can be added to their parent's, but wouldn't work with different citizenships, to my understanding. Also, how would this affect nationality?

by **South St Maarten** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:55 am

Phydios wrote:#5 has to go. All WA legislation is effective immediately after passing.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Phydios wrote:#5 has to go. All WA legislation is effective immediately after passing.

Sure, but you can easily get around this. Eg GA 301 'Ban on Leaded Fuel':

1. Begin at once to restrict the numbers of vehicles requiring leaded fuel for efficient running that it produces and imports, so that the annual average number of such vehicles in use for civilian purposes within its borders for any year after one year has elapsed since the date of this resolution’s passage (or since the date when the nation first joined the WA, if later) will be no higher than the annual average number of them in use there for the year immediately before that initial date, and take further steps so that within no more than four years since that initial date no such vehicles at all are produced there for civilian use (emphasis mine)

Which is a hilarious legal fiction if I've ever seen one.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I think the problem you mean to solve is that some people born in some nations will not necessarily have citizenship or state recognition of their status? As to the statelessness question, see my resolution GA 386 'Reducing Statelessness' (2016), which mostly resolves the problem of people being deprived of their state. That said, I believe there is room to legislate on the possibility that a person might be born without a state, if two different nationalities have different rules: eg parents from nation P, following exclusive jus soli, but birth in nation C, which exclusively uses jus sanguinis.

That said, I am dubious of the wisdom of imposing a jus soli requirement on the Assembly writ large. Given that the Assembly does not mandate freedom of movement or of work, this nations which do not wish to see foreigners travelling to their jurisdictions to receive citizenship would instead filter by pregnant status or other criteria, which would have knock on effects as to foreign access to medical care. This is especially the case when advantageous citizenships are also associated with high standards of living and quality in health services.

The intent was to give time for nations to institute the practices and grow accustomed to them, but then again I don't see why these rules can't be instituted immediately, so I'll rectify it in the second draft.

by **South St Maarten** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:03 am

Araraukar wrote:"Why not instead require the baby be awarded the same citizenship as their mother? In cases of difficult diplomatic relations your solution might mean the newborn could not accompany their mother when they leave the nation to return home."

OOC: Don't even need difficult relations as the baby would need their own passport. Usually young children can be added to their parent's, but wouldn't work with different citizenships, to my understanding. Also, how would this affect nationality?

Understood, but:

Unless the mother renounced the citizenship of the nation she was born in, such child also attains that citizenship. However, I do see your scenario in which let us say a Slovak-born woman is a Slovak citizen. She moved to Belgium and becomes a Belgian citizen. Meanwhile, she gets pregnant but on vacation to Amsterdam goes to the Hospital and delvers the baby there early. That baby is now both Slovak and Dutch but not Belgian.

I could add a clause that allows the baby to also take a mother's citizenship if that citizenship is in a nation that she is a resident and citizen of but wasn't born in. Thanks for pointing that out.

by **South St Maarten** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:04 am

Honeydewistania wrote:Drop the ‘convention on’ but in your title

Would you then rather (On Citizenship & Birth) or something like (Foreign Birth Act)?

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:26 am

South St Maarten wrote:Would you then rather (On Citizenship & Birth) or something like (Foreign Birth Act)?

'Citizenship and Birth' is preferable to the extraneous 'On'. See https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... g-with-on/. Regardless, on the inheritance question: I think it would be foolish to prevent nations from using jus sanguinis.

by **Grays Harbor** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:04 am

IC: I am at a loss as to why you believe it imperative that the WA dictate citizenship laws for nations. What possible benefit does this have?

And the tired and worn out “think of the children!” argument does not count.

by **South St Maarten** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:29 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:IC: I am at a loss as to why you believe it imperative that the WA dictate citizenship laws for nations. What possible benefit does this have?

And the tired and worn out “think of the children!” argument does not count.

I believe that the issue, specifically, of foreign birth is a major international issue. And what if one nation says that you can't be a citizen if you are not born on my soil but another says that if your parents aren't citizens then you can't be one at birth? This could leave children being stateless for no fault of their own. That's why i'd consider it a worthy issue. Other issues regarding citizenship are purely domestic affairs

by **South St Maarten** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:29 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
South St Maarten wrote:Would you then rather (On Citizenship & Birth) or something like (Foreign Birth Act)?

'Citizenship and Birth' is preferable to the extraneous 'On'. See https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... g-with-on/. Regardless, on the inheritance question: I think it would be foolish to prevent nations from using jus sanguinis.

Got it, will keep that in mind

by **Tinfect** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:35 pm

South St Maarten wrote:Believing that all children, at birth, shall be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation,

"Belief, of course," said Feren, brandishing a threateningly large print copy of The Imperial Guide to Grammar and Style, "Does not make something true. This is a somewhat semantic concern, but 'shall' ought to read 'should'."

South St Maarten wrote:
1. All children, regardless of their, their mother, and their father’s ethnicity and place of residence, shall automatically become citizens of the nation in whom’s territory they are born;

"Unacceptable; foreigners that happen to be born within the Exterior, including its illegally occupied areas, are not Imperial Citizens. Citizenship may be conferred by parentage alone, or legal affirmation following appropriate procedure. The Imperium will not be saddled with the citizenship of whatever children are born through illegal incursion into our borders."

South St Maarten wrote:2. All children, if born in a nation that their parents are both not citizens of and not residents in, shall still be awarded their parent(s) citizenship(s) if:
a. Such parent has citizenship in their nation of residence, and
b. That citizenship in their nation of residence was granted due to their birth in that same nation

"This would appear to exclude those citizens for whom citizenship was a willing endeavor; immigrants, in other words. Why? If all citizens can be presumed to be equal in their citizenship, why is there any grounds whatsoever to exclude the children of immigrant citizens from the protections of this clause?"

South St Maarten wrote:3. All children, if born in a nation that their parents are non-citizens of but are residents of, shall also be awarded their parent(s) citizenship(s) if:
a. Such parent received their citizenship due to their birth in that nation

"Again, why exclude immigrant citizens? Presumably if they have become citizens, they are rightly entitled to all the protections thereof; this exclusion is absurdity.

Further, here, the Imperium must note: Imperial Citizenship is exclusive of foreign citizenships, no Imperial citizen may hold citizenship in a foreign state, and the acquisition of such is grounds for the immediate revocation of Imperial citizenship. Both of these clauses, in connection with the first, seem to presume that multiple-citizenship is in all cases possible, and that a child of Imperial citizens within a foreign state at the time of birth would be presumed to retain Imperial citizenship by their parentage, but, also, to acquire a foreign citizenship, which is necessarily exclusive of Imperial Citizenship. This is impossible, simply, and we would prefer to avoid the many regrettable situations that could arise from this."

South St Maarten wrote:5. This law shall go into effect exactly one year after its passage

"This is illegal, and absurd besides.

The Imperium sees little reason for this legislation and little justification for it in its current state; we are opposed, and I do not think that further modifications will see that change."

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:22 pm

OOC. Previous precedent says nope on illegality for phase-in periods. First, the obvious example of GA 301. Second, the argument provided by Ard on what would become GA 301. Ban on Leaded Fuel, (2014) 2 IAM __.

Ardchoille wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:2. Concerning the transition periods which this potential legislation would allow for some of the changes involved ...<snip> ... Is this proposal legally okay on that basis?

The proposed law comes into being instantly. If the law's text allows some gradual, but clearly limited, compliance without creating a loophole that would render the rest of it toothless, I can't see a problem.

by **South St Maarten** » Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:46 am

Tinfect wrote:
South St Maarten wrote:Believing that all children, at birth, shall be granted the privilege of citizenship in a nation,

"Belief, of course," said Feren, brandishing a threateningly large print copy of The Imperial Guide to Grammar and Style, "Does not make something true. This is a somewhat semantic concern, but 'shall' ought to read 'should'."

South St Maarten wrote:
1. All children, regardless of their, their mother, and their father’s ethnicity and place of residence, shall automatically become citizens of the nation in whom’s territory they are born;

"Unacceptable; foreigners that happen to be born within the Exterior, including its illegally occupied areas, are not Imperial Citizens. Citizenship may be conferred by parentage alone, or legal affirmation following appropriate procedure. The Imperium will not be saddled with the citizenship of whatever children are born through illegal incursion into our borders."

South St Maarten wrote:2. All children, if born in a nation that their parents are both not citizens of and not residents in, shall still be awarded their parent(s) citizenship(s) if:
a. Such parent has citizenship in their nation of residence, and
b. That citizenship in their nation of residence was granted due to their birth in that same nation

"This would appear to exclude those citizens for whom citizenship was a willing endeavor; immigrants, in other words. Why? If all citizens can be presumed to be equal in their citizenship, why is there any grounds whatsoever to exclude the children of immigrant citizens from the protections of this clause?"

South St Maarten wrote:3. All children, if born in a nation that their parents are non-citizens of but are residents of, shall also be awarded their parent(s) citizenship(s) if:
a. Such parent received their citizenship due to their birth in that nation

"Again, why exclude immigrant citizens? Presumably if they have become citizens, they are rightly entitled to all the protections thereof; this exclusion is absurdity.

Further, here, the Imperium must note: Imperial Citizenship is exclusive of foreign citizenships, no Imperial citizen may hold citizenship in a foreign state, and the acquisition of such is grounds for the immediate revocation of Imperial citizenship. Both of these clauses, in connection with the first, seem to presume that multiple-citizenship is in all cases possible, and that a child of Imperial citizens within a foreign state at the time of birth would be presumed to retain Imperial citizenship by their parentage, but, also, to acquire a foreign citizenship, which is necessarily exclusive of Imperial Citizenship. This is impossible, simply, and we would prefer to avoid the many regrettable situations that could arise from this."

South St Maarten wrote:5. This law shall go into effect exactly one year after its passage

"This is illegal, and absurd besides.

The Imperium sees little reason for this legislation and little justification for it in its current state; we are opposed, and I do not think that further modifications will see that change."

First of all, appreciate the comments.

The case regarding Occupied Areas is a valid concern, as is immigration. I've made some edits, the second draft should be posted within the next hours. Please tell me your thoughts on that.

by **South St Maarten** » Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:53 am

Redid much of the proposal. I flipped the script where Jus Sanguinis is now law and Jus Soli is optional in addition to that, rather than the other way around. Additionally, I added exceptions and made note of instances regarding twins, triplets, etc. As always, thoughts are appreciated!

by **Araraukar** » Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:18 pm

OOC: Could you please please please please put an empty line between each clause, including the preamble, not just the active clauses that for some inexplicable reason do not also have spacing between the subclauses. Basically, pick one style and stick to it, don't mix and match. Mix and match makes it look untidy. Also, you use of list code is really weird, I suggest using it so that the code itself numbers the clauses to make it tidier and easier to read.

You might also want to define "jus sanguinis" or just, you know, spell it out without using some specific terminology, Latin or not. I'm very hard trying to not read "jus sanguinis" as "blood juice"... XD

Your "furthermore" preamble clause would benefit from not having random subclauses in it, given it you be just rewritten as "Furthermore realizing that children are intermittently born in a nation that their parents are neither citizens or residents of".

The next "acknowledging" clause could also be merged into it by continuing it with "or in which they are residents but not citizens".

The clause mentioning the previous resolution by name and number shouldn't be where it is right now, given it breaks the flow from the above to the "concerned" one, given that one refers to "such children", which would seem to refer to the extant resolution (does it even talk about children specifically?), not the two preamble clauses before that.

Clause one, do the subclauses form an "and" list or an "or" list? As in, is it "citizenship in either as mom or dad" or "citizenship as both mom and dad", thus possibly mandating dual citizenships if parents are from different nations? If the latter case, then you might need to specify that it only applies to member nations, as the WA can't legislate on non-members. That is, if mom is a citizen in a member nation, but dad isn't, you can't force the non-member nation to make the baby their citizen. (Come to think of it, if both parents are citizens of non-member nations, but residents of a member nation, then you couldn't mandate the citizenship of the baby either way...) Why are you including the father's citizenship in anyway? Are you going to also require genetic testing to ensure the father is really the father? Or are you going to allow member nations requiring paternity test to prove that, before awarding citizenship? If not, why not?

The entirety of clause 2 could be rewritten as "All newborn shall obtain their citizenships immediately at birth and shall not lose them, unless the loss of citizenship is handled in accordance of existing World Assembly legislation". Mentioning national law is unnecessary, as any nation revoking citizenship would by necessity have to do it legally by their own laws or the citizenship wouldn't actually be lost.

Clause 4.a. talks about choosing a single nationality for the child, which wouldn't solve the multi-citizenship issue. Nationality and citizenship are overlapping concepts but do not match 100%, so that needs sorting out.

There are also several language issues throughout the text, such as "in no means" which should have "by" instead, and "manor" instead of "manner". One of them would be solved by rewriting clause 2 as I suggested.

by **Tinhampton** » Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:21 pm

This could do with a bit of Shortening(TM) - fuck about with this at will, feel free to credit Tinhampton as a co-author if you think I've done a good job, etc:

Jus sanguinis
A resolution to do something (ATTN author: what, exactly?).
Category: ???
Effect: ???
Proposed by: South St Maarten
The World Assembly,

Believing that no child should be deemed stateless at birth due to where they are born, even if it is in a nation that their parents are neither citizens of nor ordinarily resident in, and

Noting that, while it has already sought through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness" to prevent member states from arbitrarily retracting citizenships or making individuals stateless, it has not yet acted to protect the citizenship of children who may otherwise be born stateless in future, hereby:
Proclaims that all children, regardless of location of birth, must be awarded the citizenship of all nations in which either of their parents are citizens, in accordance with the principle of jus sanguinis,
Clarifies that, while member states are not required under this resolution to enshrine the principle of jus soli into their national law, all children born in member states that have enshrined such a principle must also be awarded the citizenship of the nation in which they were born,
Requires all citizenships awarded to an individual at birth to be retained in perpetuity, unless they are either voluntarily given up by that individual or are revoked in accordance with international law, and
Declares that, in a member state that does not allow dual citizenship, said state may require the mother (or, if not available, the father) to choose a single citizenship for all children born or stillborn in that state during the same period of labour by the same parents:
where jus soli has not been enshrined into that state's law and the child(ren) is born to parents who have different or multiple citizenships, or
where jus soli has been enshrined into that state's law and the child(ren) is born to parents whose nationalities differ from that of the nation where the child(ren) was born.

by **Araraukar** » Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:20 pm

Tinhampton wrote:A resolution to do something (ATTN author: what, exactly?).

OOC: Author, don't actually include that line. The game adds it automatically, when you submit a proposal, having it in the proposal looks silly.

Also using the pictures to put in the draft is annoying and unnecessary fluff, so even if you used Tin's rewrittal, leave out the nonsense trappings.

The "proposed by" is also not just unnecessary but dangerous to have in, in case you mistakenly leave it in when submitting, as it'd make it illegal for Branding. It's obviously proposed by you if you're the one drafting it on the forums.

And finally, be aware that the issue about non-member nations persists in Tin's rewrittal.

by **South St Maarten** » Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:11 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Could you please please please please put an empty line between each clause, including the preamble, not just the active clauses that for some inexplicable reason do not also have spacing between the subclauses. Basically, pick one style and stick to it, don't mix and match. Mix and match makes it look untidy. Also, you use of list code is really weird, I suggest using it so that the code itself numbers the clauses to make it tidier and easier to read.

You might also want to define "jus sanguinis" or just, you know, spell it out without using some specific terminology, Latin or not. I'm very hard trying to not read "jus sanguinis" as "blood juice"... XD

Your "furthermore" preamble clause would benefit from not having random subclauses in it, given it you be just rewritten as "Furthermore realizing that children are intermittently born in a nation that their parents are neither citizens or residents of".

The next "acknowledging" clause could also be merged into it by continuing it with "or in which they are residents but not citizens".

The clause mentioning the previous resolution by name and number shouldn't be where it is right now, given it breaks the flow from the above to the "concerned" one, given that one refers to "such children", which would seem to refer to the extant resolution (does it even talk about children specifically?), not the two preamble clauses before that.

Clause one, do the subclauses form an "and" list or an "or" list? As in, is it "citizenship in either as mom or dad" or "citizenship as both mom and dad", thus possibly mandating dual citizenships if parents are from different nations? If the latter case, then you might need to specify that it only applies to member nations, as the WA can't legislate on non-members. That is, if mom is a citizen in a member nation, but dad isn't, you can't force the non-member nation to make the baby their citizen. (Come to think of it, if both parents are citizens of non-member nations, but residents of a member nation, then you couldn't mandate the citizenship of the baby either way...) Why are you including the father's citizenship in anyway? Are you going to also require genetic testing to ensure the father is really the father? Or are you going to allow member nations requiring paternity test to prove that, before awarding citizenship? If not, why not?

The entirety of clause 2 could be rewritten as "All newborn shall obtain their citizenships immediately at birth and shall not lose them, unless the loss of citizenship is handled in accordance of existing World Assembly legislation". Mentioning national law is unnecessary, as any nation revoking citizenship would by necessity have to do it legally by their own laws or the citizenship wouldn't actually be lost.

Clause 4.a. talks about choosing a single nationality for the child, which wouldn't solve the multi-citizenship issue. Nationality and citizenship are overlapping concepts but do not match 100%, so that needs sorting out.

There are also several language issues throughout the text, such as "in no means" which should have "by" instead, and "manor" instead of "manner". One of them would be solved by rewriting clause 2 as I suggested.

Tinhampton wrote:This could do with a bit of Shortening(TM) - fuck about with this at will, feel free to credit Tinhampton as a co-author if you think I've done a good job, etc:
(Image)
Jus sanguinis
A resolution to do something (ATTN author: what, exactly?).
Category: ???
Effect: ???
Proposed by: South St Maarten
The World Assembly,

Believing that no child should be deemed stateless at birth due to where they are born, even if it is in a nation that their parents are neither citizens of nor ordinarily resident in, and

Noting that, while it has already sought through GA#386 "Reducing Statelessness" to prevent member states from arbitrarily retracting citizenships or making individuals stateless, it has not yet acted to protect the citizenship of children who may otherwise be born stateless in future, hereby:
Proclaims that all children, regardless of location of birth, must be awarded the citizenship of all nations in which either of their parents are citizens, in accordance with the principle of jus sanguinis,
Clarifies that, while member states are not required under this resolution to enshrine the principle of jus soli into their national law, all children born in member states that have enshrined such a principle must also be awarded the citizenship of the nation in which they were born,
Requires all citizenships awarded to an individual at birth to be retained in perpetuity, unless they are either voluntarily given up by that individual or are revoked in accordance with international law, and
Declares that, in a member state that does not allow dual citizenship, said state may require the mother (or, if not available, the father) to choose a single citizenship for all children born or stillborn in that state during the same period of labour by the same parents:
where jus soli has not been enshrined into that state's law and the child(ren) is born to parents who have different or multiple citizenships, or
where jus soli has been enshrined into that state's law and the child(ren) is born to parents whose nationalities differ from that of the nation where the child(ren) was born.

Thanks for the insights. I'll work to rectify these concerns in the third draft when I get a chance. 2020 is some year ...

by **South St Maarten** » Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:28 am

bump. I'll have a third draft out within a day or so, leave any more comments if you so choose. - SSM

by **South St Maarten** » Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:26 am

Draft Three Completed. More comments always welcomed, I intend to make a Draft 4.

by **Ardiveds** » Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:08 am

“Ambassador, unless we are mistaken, current WA law dictates that personhood is to be ascribed at birth which means a stillborn child will not be ascribed personhood. How does this work with clause 7. b. ii ?”

by **Tinhampton** » Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:14 am

You have still not sorted out Ara's concerns regarding "in no means," "a ceremonial manor," or "a single nationality"

by **South St Maarten** » Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:21 am

Ardiveds wrote:“Ambassador, unless we are mistaken, current WA law dictates that personhood is to be ascribed at birth which means a stillborn child will not be ascribed personhood. How does this work with clause 7. b. ii ?”

Is a stillborn child not birthed?

[PASSED] Citizenship And Birth Act

[PASSED] Citizenship And Birth Act

Who is online