[CHALLENGE] Repeal “Right of Emigration”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Target: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

Repeal as submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1611255442
Repeal as archived: http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/kids ... 611255442/

Resubmitted repeal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1611301126
Resubmitted repeal as archived. http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/kids ... 1611301126

The repeal proposal having been campaigned for, I read it and believe it contains an honest mistake. The statement in the target is that:

[nations may prohibit people from emigrating when] They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

The repeal claims:

COGNIZANT of the extremely loose language in General Assembly Resolution 279, allowing for multiple potential loopholes, including the declaration of an entire member-state's population as mentally incapable of travel,

This is not a colourable interpretation of the target's clause, which explicitly precludes a 'declaration' of this sort, and actually requires that finding people 'mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord' be determined in a way that can be defended with logic or justification (from Oxford Dictionary of English' second definition of 'legitimate'). A blanket declaration of the kind envisioned by the repeal is incompatible with such a legitimate determination.

See infra at viewtopic.php?p=38248797#p38248797.

[Separatist Peoples]

Agreed and marked accordingly for my part.

[Attempted Socialism]

This was resubmitted despite containing largely similar flaws, for instance:

CONCERNED that the resolution actively permits the desertion of a member-state's armed or civil forces, or desertion from civil liabilities, especially in an en masse event in the case of a draft, jury duty, or other institution of conscription, potentially causing great social and governmental instability with resounding effects across the board with respect to national security,

Which is simply wrong. Desertion being illegal, draft dodging also being illegal, and the resolution containing these clauses:

(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,
(c) They have a warrant existing for their arrest,
(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,

The author was informed of this yet chose to submit anyway.

The argument about passports also seems dubious, given that the right of emigration is established in the exact resolution attempted to repeal, and this resolution exists:
viewtopic.php?p=1639327#p1639327

[Imperium Anglorum]

The resubmitted proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1611301126. I believe it is still illegal.

This was resubmitted despite containing largely similar flaws, for instance:

CONCERNED that the resolution actively permits the desertion of a member-state's armed or civil forces, or desertion from civil liabilities, especially in an en masse event in the case of a draft, jury duty, or other institution of conscription, potentially causing great social and governmental instability with resounding effects across the board with respect to national security,

Which is simply wrong. Desertion being illegal, draft dodging also being illegal, and the resolution containing these clauses:

(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,
(c) They have a warrant existing for their arrest,
(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,

The author was informed of this yet chose to submit anyway.

I would add that the clause from the repeal, which asserts the target permits these bad things 'actively', is untrue, even if it does do those things. This is the argument I made on the WA Discord:

> CONCERNED that the resolution actively permits the desertion of a member-state's armed or civil forces, or desertion from civil liabilities...
The target doesn't do this actively if at all

The argument about passports also seems dubious, given that the right of emigration is established in the exact resolution attempted to repeal, and this resolution exists:
viewtopic.php?p=1639327#p1639327

Standardised Passport Act does not require member nations to issue passports. The clause in question is below.

ACKNOWLEDGING that member-states have the freedom to issue passports as they please, further rendering the resolution completely ineffectual and otherwise in contradiction with standing international law and convention,

There are two parts: (1) the claim about member nations being permitted to issue passports and (2) the claim related to 'contradiction with standing international law'. The reading of the clause I make prima facie is that there is an implication that the target contradicts standing law. If we set aside the question of 'contradiction' meaning 'illegal' (which would be metagaming), the claim there is a contradiction between the target and standing international law also seems false, given that the target does not require the issuance of passports.

[Bananaistan]

Agreed regarding actively. The passport argument, allowing for the contradiction claim not being a reference to the GA rules, appears to hold water too.

[Attempted Socialism]

The argument about passports also seems dubious, given that the right of emigration is established in the exact resolution attempted to repeal, and this resolution exists:
viewtopic.php?p=1639327#p1639327

Standardised Passport Act does not require member nations to issue passports. The clause in question is below.

ACKNOWLEDGING that member-states have the freedom to issue passports as they please, further rendering the resolution completely ineffectual and otherwise in contradiction with standing international law and convention,

There are two parts: (1) the claim about member nations being permitted to issue passports and (2) the claim related to 'contradiction with standing international law'. The reading of the clause I make prima facie is that there is an implication that the target contradicts standing law. If we set aside the question of 'contradiction' meaning 'illegal' (which would be metagaming), the claim there is a contradiction between the target and standing international law also seems false, given that the target does not require the issuance of passports.

Right, I probably phrased it poorly before. States cannot issue passports as they please (There are certain limits and mandates upon them) -- although this error is probably not significant -- and as you note it's not in contradiction with any international law and convention, but my main point was about passports and the right to emigrate. The claim of the repeal, in my reading at least, implies that states can completely prevent all emigration because they can issue or withhold passports solely as they desire. But when the right to emigrate is established, and another resolution mandates citizens to hold passports as documentation when they travel, I cannot see how the state is actually allowed to withhold passports to emigrates without some justification based on the exceptions laid out in the resolution-to-be-repealed. The author is trying to establish a flaw where none exists, which is the HM I was trying to argue.

[KIDS Country]

The resubmitted proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1611301126. I believe it is still illegal.

This was resubmitted despite containing largely similar flaws, for instance:

Which is simply wrong. Desertion being illegal, draft dodging also being illegal, and the resolution containing these clauses:

(b) They are awaiting trial, undergoing legal proceedings, or if they are carrying out a sentence as a result of such legal proceedings,
(c) They have a warrant existing for their arrest,
(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,

The author was informed of this yet chose to submit anyway.

Now with respect to desertion and draft dodging, it is matter of nuance. I think I'll remove the term actively, but it nonetheless encourages the desertion from civil liabilities, which is not, in fact, a crime, and yet given this modification to the legislation you conveniently decided to ignore it.

I would add that the clause from the repeal, which asserts the target permits these bad things 'actively', is untrue, even if it does do those things. This is the argument I made on the WA Discord:

> CONCERNED that the resolution actively permits the desertion of a member-state's armed or civil forces, or desertion from civil liabilities...
The target doesn't do this actively if at all

read above

The argument about passports also seems dubious, given that the right of emigration is established in the exact resolution attempted to repeal, and this resolution exists:
viewtopic.php?p=1639327#p1639327

Standardised Passport Act does not require member nations to issue passports. The clause in question is below.

ACKNOWLEDGING that member-states have the freedom to issue passports as they please, further rendering the resolution completely ineffectual and otherwise in contradiction with standing international law and convention,

There are two parts: (1) the claim about member nations being permitted to issue passports and (2) the claim related to 'contradiction with standing international law'. The reading of the clause I make prima facie is that there is an implication that the target contradicts standing law. If we set aside the question of 'contradiction' meaning 'illegal' (which would be metagaming), the claim there is a contradiction between the target and standing international law also seems false, given that the target does not require the issuance of passports.

Standardized Passport Act:

MANDATES that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other nationality status, when travelling abroad, except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement, or when unilaterally declared unnecessary by the receiving nation...

AFFIRMS that any national of a member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake, for reasons of medical quarantine, where there is reason to believe the terms of the visa are likely to be violated or if there is reason to believe the visa was obtained fraudulently,

And this is precisely the clause that causes issues. The "Right of Emigration" essentially forces member-states to issue all citizens passports as to comply with "mandates that all citizens carry a Passport when travelling abroad," and "mandates that no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation," concurrently, when the issuance of passports must clearly be a sovereign right of each member-state. Now, OOC: this has happened before, in the United States. The United States ceased processing of passport applications due to COVID-19, and there is no reason to believe why the specific conditions there wouldn't otherwise in some circumstance or another apply here as well.

Finally, I love how you all bring up problems aplenty in the challenge page, but other than Attempted Socialism (who, indeed, did do a copy paste), nobody commented anything on the original thread, even after I explicitly petitioned (asked) Imperium Anglorum to review my draft on the Forums before I resubmitted... and to nobody's surprise, someone didn't.

[Bananaistan]

Finally, I love how you all bring up problems aplenty in the challenge page, but other than Attempted Socialism (who, indeed, did do a copy paste), nobody commented anything on the original thread, even after I explicitly petitioned (asked) Imperium Anglorum to review my draft on the Forums before I resubmitted... and to nobody's surprise, someone didn't.

Your proposal has been on the forums for the sum total of four days and one hour and has already been submitted twice. Cool the jets. Writing a good proposal can take months or years. We often say that it's a marathon not a sprint.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The resubmitted proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1611301126. I believe it is still illegal.


Which is simply wrong. Desertion being illegal, draft dodging also being illegal, and the resolution containing these clauses:


The author was informed of this yet chose to submit anyway.

Now with respect to desertion and draft dodging, it is matter of nuance. I think I'll remove the term actively, but it nonetheless encourages the desertion from civil liabilities, which is not, in fact, a crime, and yet given this modification to the legislation you conveniently decided to ignore it.

I would add that the clause from the repeal, which asserts the target permits these bad things 'actively', is untrue, even if it does do those things. This is the argument I made on the WA Discord:

> CONCERNED that the resolution actively permits the desertion of a member-state's armed or civil forces, or desertion from civil liabilities...
The target doesn't do this actively if at all

read above

Standardised Passport Act does not require member nations to issue passports. The clause in question is below.

ACKNOWLEDGING that member-states have the freedom to issue passports as they please, further rendering the resolution completely ineffectual and otherwise in contradiction with standing international law and convention,

There are two parts: (1) the claim about member nations being permitted to issue passports and (2) the claim related to 'contradiction with standing international law'. The reading of the clause I make prima facie is that there is an implication that the target contradicts standing law. If we set aside the question of 'contradiction' meaning 'illegal' (which would be metagaming), the claim there is a contradiction between the target and standing international law also seems false, given that the target does not require the issuance of passports.

Standardized Passport Act:

MANDATES that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other nationality status, when travelling abroad, except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement, or when unilaterally declared unnecessary by the receiving nation...

AFFIRMS that any national of a member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake, for reasons of medical quarantine, where there is reason to believe the terms of the visa are likely to be violated or if there is reason to believe the visa was obtained fraudulently,

And this is precisely the clause that causes issues. The "Right of Emigration" essentially forces member-states to issue all citizens passports as to comply with "mandates that all citizens carry a Passport when travelling abroad," and "mandates that no government may prevent the emigration of individuals from their nation," concurrently, when the issuance of passports must clearly be a sovereign right of each member-state. Now, OOC: this has happened before, in the United States. The United States ceased processing of passport applications due to COVID-19, and there is no reason to believe why the specific conditions there wouldn't otherwise in some circumstance or another apply here as well.

Finally, I love how you all bring up problems aplenty in the challenge page, but other than Attempted Socialism (who, indeed, did do a copy paste), nobody commented anything on the original thread, even after I explicitly petitioned (asked) Imperium Anglorum to review my draft on the Forums before I resubmitted... and to nobody's surprise, someone didn't.

I can't respond to this line by line because it is a total mess of formatting which mixes comments with what I said and what Attempted Socialism said in a manner that is too difficult to parse back out. Please format your replies more cleanly.

A few remarks.

1. The target does not 'encourage desertion from civil liabilities'; if you believe it does so, you should point to a textual basis for your claim explicitly noting where the target encourages such desertion. I see no place where that is the case, thus I believe that putting such a clause in a repeal of this resolution would be an honest mistake under current case law.
   
   
2. The mandates clause in Standardised Passport Act (SPA) does not require member nations to issue passports to anyone. It requires citizens to hold valid passports when travelling. Nor does SPA require anyone to be admitted into a nation, except in the case where they hold a valid passport and visa. If we accept for argument that the combination of SPA and the target requires that all member nations issue passports to anyone who wants to emigrate (ie all citizens), that is still not a contradiction between the resolutions, it is an emergent property of both resolutions' operation.
   
   
3. You requested that I look at your proposal at 22 Jan 2021 2:16:22a GMT–5. You then resubmitted your proposal at 2:38a, twenty-two minutes later, the same day. A second (third?) telegram campaign was then sent for repeal which I received at 2:44:57a GMT–5. I am not awake 24 hours a day to complete expedited reviews of your proposal. Nor can proposals be changed or edited after submission. If you want feedback, maybe wait more than twenty minutes at 2 am in the morning.