[DRAFT] Repeal: GA #279 (Right of Emigration)

[KIDS Country]

I think this resolution might broadly cross into the confines of NatSov but I'm not too sure. Prohibiting a ban on emigration is extremely strong..

GA #279

Also, the resolution is easily flaunted:

(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

what does legitimately mean? Can I legally determine my entire country to be mentally disabled?

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy, including during potential times of war, when a person's departure or emigration may not be otherwise illegal but nonetheless significantly damaging to the nation's military affairs, such as the emigration of high-ranking arms manufacturing executives during times of armed conflict, which may lead to decreased productivity, morale, or other consequences,

CONCERNED that the resolution may passively encourage the desertion of a member-state's civil liabilities or suits, de-legitimizing the efficacy of each member-state's judiciary, especially in cases where said member-state has no leverage over persons seeking to avoid civil liabilities and suits, such as the nonexistence of property to be impounded, or when contempt of court is not a criminal offense,

ACKNOWLEDGING that, in combination with General Assembly Resolution 76, which "mandates that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other nationality status, when travelling abroad...," Resolution 279, by prohibiting governments from banning emigration, forces nation-states to issue passports to all citizens,

AFFIRMING that member-states have certain sovereign freedoms, including the issuance of passports, a power granted solely to executive functionaries,

AFFIRMING that the freedom to issue and revoke passports is a sovereign exercise of a nation's executive discretion,

ACKNOWLEDGING that member-states cannot deny any person a passport under the Act, and that improperly or incompletely filling out a passport application does not constitute a crime and therefore is not subject to any exemption provided by the Act,

ACKNOWLEDGING that therefore the compulsion of member-states to accept all passport applications, even those otherwise incorrectly or fraudulently submitted, is in violation of the sovereign rights of each and every member-state, and gravely jeopardizes international transportation security, if immigration officials cannot even determine whether the information presented on the passport is genuine,

RESOLVING that the target legislation improperly violates national sovereignty, harms national security, undermines principles of executive discretion, damages transportation safety, and jeopardizes the legitimacy of judicial systems,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 279.

[KIDS Country]

The World Assembly,
COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,
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,
CONCERNED that the resolution has no binding impact should a member-state be legitimately committed to regulating and controlling emigration,
CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy,
PERPLEXED due to the failure to define "emigration," which may be interpreted broadly at the will of the member-state as temporary travel, permanent expatriation, or forced deportation,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 279.

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

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,

CONCERNED that the resolution has no binding impact should a member-state be legitimately committed to regulating and controlling emigration,

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy,

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

PERPLEXED due to the failure to define "emigration," which may be interpreted broadly at the will of the member-state as temporary travel, permanent expatriation, or forced deportation,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 279.

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

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,

CONCERNED that the resolution has no binding impact should a member-state be committed to regulating and controlling emigration, as the target resolution contains a multitude of workarounds,

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy, including potential times of war, when a person's departure or emigration may not be otherwise illegal but nonetheless significantly damaging to the nation's military affairs, such as the emigration of high-ranking arms manufacturing executives during times of armed conflict,

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,

CONCERNED that a member-state can simply make emigration a criminal offense, thereby immediately discharging themselves from the resolution and rendering it completely ineffectual,

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,

RESOLVING that the target legislation improperly violates national sovereignty should it be fully obeyed, and otherwise ineffective should a member-state decide otherwise, thereby rendering the legislation weak and not of functional constitution and impact,



Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 279.

[Ardiveds]

I think this resolution might broadly cross into the confines of NatSov but I'm not too sure. Prohibiting a ban on emigration is extremely strong..

Also, the resolution is easily flaunted:

(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

what does legitimately mean? Can I legally determine my entire country to be mentally disabled?

OOC: Legitimate: able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
So I don't think you can just "declare your whole country mentally disabled".
Also keep your latest draft on the original post and perhaps provide a link to the target resolution. Also, you can't just pick and choose what stuff you consider 'emigration' without falling afoul of GA 2 Clause 8 (I think), the good-faith clause.

[KIDS Country]

I think this resolution might broadly cross into the confines of NatSov but I'm not too sure. Prohibiting a ban on emigration is extremely strong..

Also, the resolution is easily flaunted:


what does legitimately mean? Can I legally determine my entire country to be mentally disabled?

OOC: Legitimate: able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
So I don't think you can just "declare your whole country mentally disabled".
Also keep your latest draft on the original post and perhaps provide a link to the target resolution. Also, you can't just pick and choose what stuff you consider 'emigration' without falling afoul of GA 2 Clause 8 (I think), the good-faith clause.

OOC:
"Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty." You do have a point; however I do think the language in the original legislation is still too loose, and fails to define virtually anything.

I also forgot to mention - military defectors.

[Attempted Socialism]

I think this resolution might broadly cross into the confines of NatSov but I'm not too sure. Prohibiting a ban on emigration is extremely strong..

GA #279

Also, the resolution is easily flaunted:

(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

what does legitimately mean? Can I legally determine my entire country to be mentally disabled?

If you want to wreck your nation, you could in principle. There's a reason why you'll find many adherents to Reasonable Nation Theory though, because determining your entire nation to be mentally disabled wouldn't just prevent emigration, but everything. I'm not in the Secretariat, but I'd rule this as a honest mistake if I were.

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

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,

These two arguments run directly counter to each other. Your arguments boil down to "It's a flaw that this resolution regulates emigration -- and also, it's a flaw that this resolution doesn't regulate emigration enough." I'd suggest deleting both, since the first is a shitty NatSov argument and the second is wrong.

CONCERNED that the resolution has no binding impact should a member-state be legitimately committed to regulating and controlling emigration,

... what? This is nonsense. I suggest deleting.

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy,

This is a shitty NatSov argument. I suggest deleting.

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

To my knowledge desertion and draft evasion are usually considered crimes, meaning they can be held back under exemptions b or c (Exemption d if they merely intend to use travel to dodge the draft). This argument is simply wrong. I suggest deleting.

PERPLEXED due to the failure to define "emigration," which may be interpreted broadly at the will of the member-state as temporary travel, permanent expatriation, or forced deportation,

Emigration doesn't need defining here. I suggest deleting.

[KIDS Country]

I think this resolution might broadly cross into the confines of NatSov but I'm not too sure. Prohibiting a ban on emigration is extremely strong..

GA #279

Also, the resolution is easily flaunted:


what does legitimately mean? Can I legally determine my entire country to be mentally disabled?

If you want to wreck your nation, you could in principle. There's a reason why you'll find many adherents to Reasonable Nation Theory though, because determining your entire nation to be mentally disabled wouldn't just prevent emigration, but everything. I'm not in the Secretariat, but I'd rule this as a honest mistake if I were.

I think the legislation talks about travel in particular. You could technically be ruled to have sufficient capability of basic prefrontal cortex exercise to manufacture candles but not sufficient cerebral capabilities to travel. Or something like that.

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

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,

These two arguments run directly counter to each other. Your arguments boil down to "It's a flaw that this resolution regulates emigration -- and also, it's a flaw that this resolution doesn't regulate emigration enough." I'd suggest deleting both, since the first is a shitty NatSov argument and the second is wrong.

The arguments boil down to "it's a flaw that this resolution regulates emigration" and "even if it were to be regulating emigration, it's doing a crappy job at it"

CONCERNED that the resolution has no binding impact should a member-state be legitimately committed to regulating and controlling emigration,

... what? This is nonsense. I suggest deleting.

Point is, if someone really wanted to regulate emigration there's too many loopholes here and they have free rein to do so. Aka, resolution is in violation of natsov, ineffective, and a waste of space.

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy,

This is a shitty NatSov argument. I suggest deleting.

Reasoning would be appreciated here

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

To my knowledge desertion and draft evasion are usually considered crimes, meaning they can be held back under exemptions b or c (Exemption d if they merely intend to use travel to dodge the draft). This argument is simply wrong. I suggest deleting.

Civil liabilities fall under here as well, including registering for the draft, etc.

PERPLEXED due to the failure to define "emigration," which may be interpreted broadly at the will of the member-state as temporary travel, permanent expatriation, or forced deportation,

Emigration doesn't need defining here. I suggest deleting.

[/quote] It's the centerpiece of the legislation. It ought to be defined.

[Ardiveds]

Emigration doesn't need defining here. I suggest deleting.

It's the centerpiece of the legislation. It ought to be defined.

OOC: Regarding the defintion, I already told you that nations can't legally make up random definitions for undefined words in a resolution. If a word isn't defined, it is assumed to be using the dictionary defnition. For this reason, if a author wants to use a word exactly as the dictionary defines it, they often leave it undefined. Not only does it save space (there's a character limit for proposals) but also avoids accidental loopholes created by overly specific definitions.

[Attempted Socialism]

(...)

I've given you all the help I can with regards to your current draft, so if you won't use it, I'll settle for wishing you good luck -- you'll need it.

[KIDS Country]

It's the centerpiece of the legislation. It ought to be defined.

OOC: Regarding the defintion, I already told you that nations can't legally make up random definitions for undefined words in a resolution. If a word isn't defined, it is assumed to be using the dictionary defnition. For this reason, if a author wants to use a word exactly as the dictionary defines it, they often leave it undefined. Not only does it save space (there's a character limit for proposals) but also avoids accidental loopholes created by overly specific definitions.

OOC: I'll strike the definition part of it then.. otherwise?

[KIDS Country]

Updated the draft resolution per GenSec recommendation. I think I'll hold off on resubmitting until GenSec or other senior GA members weigh in here.

[Attempted Socialism]

Feedback on the first draft, still largely applicable:

I think this resolution might broadly cross into the confines of NatSov but I'm not too sure. Prohibiting a ban on emigration is extremely strong..

GA #279

Also, the resolution is easily flaunted:


what does legitimately mean? Can I legally determine my entire country to be mentally disabled?

If you want to wreck your nation, you could in principle. There's a reason why you'll find many adherents to Reasonable Nation Theory though, because determining your entire nation to be mentally disabled wouldn't just prevent emigration, but everything. I'm not in the Secretariat, but I'd rule this as a honest mistake if I were.

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

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,

These two arguments run directly counter to each other. Your arguments boil down to "It's a flaw that this resolution regulates emigration -- and also, it's a flaw that this resolution doesn't regulate emigration enough." I'd suggest deleting both, since the first is a shitty NatSov argument and the second is wrong.

CONCERNED that the resolution has no binding impact should a member-state be legitimately committed to regulating and controlling emigration,

... what? This is nonsense. I suggest deleting.

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy,

This is a shitty NatSov argument. I suggest deleting.

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

To my knowledge desertion and draft evasion are usually considered crimes, meaning they can be held back under exemptions b or c (Exemption d if they merely intend to use travel to dodge the draft). This argument is simply wrong. I suggest deleting.

PERPLEXED due to the failure to define "emigration," which may be interpreted broadly at the will of the member-state as temporary travel, permanent expatriation, or forced deportation,

Emigration doesn't need defining here. I suggest deleting.

[Attempted Socialism]

Updated the draft resolution per GenSec recommendation. I think I'll hold off on resubmitting until GenSec or other senior GA members weigh in here.

And you chose to resubmit. Why? Your repeal is still so flawed, challenging it for violating the Honest Mistake rule is a simple matter of copy-pasting.

[KIDS Country]

Updated the draft resolution per GenSec recommendation. I think I'll hold off on resubmitting until GenSec or other senior GA members weigh in here.

And you chose to resubmit. Why? Your repeal is still so flawed, challenging it for violating the Honest Mistake rule is a simple matter of copy-pasting.

Your suggestions were indeed not much more than a copy paste, and the vast majority of clauses you outlined in said copy-paste have since been significantly edited or no longer exist.

You bring up novel suggestions in the challenge page, but I'm afraid I'd appreciate those suggestions before I resubmitted. You all are indeed quite creative when it comes to challenging

[Tinfect]

Your suggestions were indeed not much more than a copy paste, and the vast majority of clauses you outlined in said copy-paste have since been significantly edited or no longer exist.

You bring up novel suggestions in the challenge page, but I'm afraid I'd appreciate those suggestions before I resubmitted. You all are indeed quite creative when it comes to challenging

OOC:
This thread has existed for 4 days. Frankly this is the first time I've even seen it; chill. Let the draft sit for a bit before submitting, this time.

[KIDS Country]

Your suggestions were indeed not much more than a copy paste, and the vast majority of clauses you outlined in said copy-paste have since been significantly edited or no longer exist.

You bring up novel suggestions in the challenge page, but I'm afraid I'd appreciate those suggestions before I resubmitted. You all are indeed quite creative when it comes to challenging

OOC:
This thread has existed for 4 days. Frankly this is the first time I've even seen it; chill. Let the draft sit for a bit before submitting, this time.

I've significantly reedited the literature in the repeal. I think it conforms with Attempted Socialism's arguments now

[Attempted Socialism]

And you chose to resubmit. Why? Your repeal is still so flawed, challenging it for violating the Honest Mistake rule is a simple matter of copy-pasting.

Your suggestions were indeed not much more than a copy paste, and the vast majority of clauses you outlined in said copy-paste have since been significantly edited or no longer exist.

You bring up novel suggestions in the challenge page, but I'm afraid I'd appreciate those suggestions before I resubmitted. You all are indeed quite creative when it comes to challenging

I'd appreciate that you spend 4-8 weeks drafting, yet here we are. We're not responsible for your shit draft being submitted prematurely, that's entirely on you. You could read the rules and use the feedback you get (And if you're uncertain, feel free to wait for more feedback), or charge ahead and get called out for it again.
My suggestions were still valid, even if you made minor changes to the wording, the gist was the same.

OOC:
This thread has existed for 4 days. Frankly this is the first time I've even seen it; chill. Let the draft sit for a bit before submitting, this time.

I've significantly reedited the literature in the repeal. I think it conforms with Attempted Socialism's arguments now

Well, partially. The most blatant illegalities are removed, and replaced with poor arguments. So to give you further feedback you can ignore when you hastily submit again:

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy, including potential times of war, when a person's departure or emigration may not be otherwise illegal but nonetheless significantly damaging to the nation's military affairs, such as the emigration of high-ranking arms manufacturing executives during times of armed conflict,

This is a shit, NatSov argument, but at least it's no longer illegal. I suggest deleting.

CONCERNED that the resolution may passively encourage 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,

This is still wrong and will likely get your proposal marked illegal again. I suggest deleting.

ACKNOWLEDGING that, in combination with General Assembly Resolution 76, which "mandates that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other nationality status, when travelling abroad...," Resolution 279, by prohibiting governments from banning emigration, forces nation-states to issue passports to all citizens,

AFFIRMING that member-states have certain sovereign freedoms, including the issuance of passports,

This is a shit NatSov argument, but at least it's no longer illegal. I suggest deleting.

ACKNOWLEDGING that therefore the compulsion of member-states to accept all passport applications, even those otherwise incorrectly or fraudulently submitted, is in violation of the sovereign rights of each and every member-state, and gravely jeopardizes international transportation security, if immigration officials cannot even determine whether the information presented on the passport is genuine,

This is some quality bullshit. It'll likely get your proposal marked illegal next time. I suggest deleting.

ACKNOWLEDGING that in certain mass medical emergencies, the travel of any person internationally is highly discouraged, and proactive member-states may therefore choose to temporarily pause the issuance or renewal of passports, placing themselves in a juxtaposition between their citizen's lives and obeying international law,

I suggest reading the fucking resolution, as exemption (a) deals with this matter. This argument is wrong and will likely get your proposal marked illegal. I suggest deleting.

RESOLVING that the target legislation improperly violates national sovereignty, harms national security, and jeopardizes the lives of citizens should it be fully obeyed,

This is a shit argument, but at least it's not purely NatSov. I suggest deleting.

You have a few illegalities, a few pure NatSov arguments and a single (bad) argument that isn't rule-breaking.

Edit: Fixed quote tags. Please don't put your draft in the quote tags, it really messes up everything.

[KIDS Country]

I'd appreciate that you spend 4-8 weeks drafting, yet here we are. We're not responsible for your shit draft being submitted prematurely, that's entirely on you. You could read the rules and use the feedback you get (And if you're uncertain, feel free to wait for more feedback), or charge ahead and get called out for it again.
My suggestions were still valid, even if you made minor changes to the wording, the gist was the same.

I'd argue to the contrary. The first draft was virtually indistinguishable from the current one.

Well, partially. The most blatant illegalities are removed, and replaced with poor arguments. So to give you further feedback you can ignore when you hastily submit again:

This isn't feedback as much as it is "this is retarded, delete this delete that." It's not constructive, and it never was. "Change this" or "add this" or "reword this" or "replace this" or virtually anything else is better than "delete this delete that."

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy, including potential times of war, when a person's departure or emigration may not be otherwise illegal but nonetheless significantly damaging to the nation's military affairs, such as the emigration of high-ranking arms manufacturing executives during times of armed conflict,

This is a shit, NatSov argument, but at least it's no longer illegal. I suggest deleting.

and what do I replace it with? Is it not a legitimate concern?

CONCERNED that the resolution may passively encourage 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,

This is still wrong and will likely get your proposal marked illegal again. I suggest deleting.

I'll accept the armed aspect of it, but not the civil liabilities one. Moving to another country to avoid getting sued is acceptable under the original resolution, when it ought not be.

ACKNOWLEDGING that, in combination with General Assembly Resolution 76, which "mandates that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other nationality status, when travelling abroad...," Resolution 279, by prohibiting governments from banning emigration, forces nation-states to issue passports to all citizens,

AFFIRMING that member-states have certain sovereign freedoms, including the issuance of passports,

This is a shit NatSov argument, but at least it's no longer illegal. I suggest deleting.

Is it tailored to the resolution? Is it a legitimate concern? I mean, are you going to control whether and how a nation issues its passports, which are inherently documents issued by nations to verify the identity of its citizens internationally? Isn't this just blatantly dictating how a nation's foreign service may work?

ACKNOWLEDGING that therefore the compulsion of member-states to accept all passport applications, even those otherwise incorrectly or fraudulently submitted, is in violation of the sovereign rights of each and every member-state, and gravely jeopardizes international transportation security, if immigration officials cannot even determine whether the information presented on the passport is genuine,

This is some quality bullshit. It'll likely get your proposal marked illegal next time. I suggest deleting.

First, language, and second, is it wrong? If you are forced to issue passports to all your citizens, who's to say they won't provide you with incorrect or fraudulent data? Mind you, under the previous two pieces of legislation you are compulsed to issue passports to all who intend to travel abroad.

ACKNOWLEDGING that in certain mass medical emergencies, the travel of any person internationally is highly discouraged, and proactive member-states may therefore choose to temporarily pause the issuance or renewal of passports, placing themselves in a juxtaposition between their citizen's lives and obeying international law,

I suggest reading the fucking resolution, as exemption (a) deals with this matter. This argument is wrong and will likely get your proposal marked illegal. I suggest deleting.

This falls under my original point. If you can hold everyone in a medical quarantine, why can't you hold everyone to be mentally incapable of travel? In other words, since the resolution only mentions individuals being exempted from the resolution, it follows proportionally that individuals can be extrapolated to everyone in both scenarios.

RESOLVING that the target legislation improperly violates national sovereignty, harms national security, and jeopardizes the lives of citizens should it be fully obeyed,

This is a shit argument, but at least it's not purely NatSov. I suggest deleting.

It's a closing statement.

You have a few illegalities, a few pure NatSov arguments and a single (bad) argument that isn't rule-breaking.

pray tell, wise one, how to fix said natsov arguments.

[Attempted Socialism]

I'd appreciate that you spend 4-8 weeks drafting, yet here we are. We're not responsible for your shit draft being submitted prematurely, that's entirely on you. You could read the rules and use the feedback you get (And if you're uncertain, feel free to wait for more feedback), or charge ahead and get called out for it again.
My suggestions were still valid, even if you made minor changes to the wording, the gist was the same.

I'd argue to the contrary. The first draft was virtually indistinguishable from the current one.

Meanwhile, on the dictionary:

indistinguishable
/ɪndɪˈstɪŋɡwɪʃəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: indistinguishable

not able to be identified as different or distinct.
"the counterfeit bills were virtually indistinguishable from the real thing"

Either you're not arguing to the contrary, or you don't think it's indistinguishable.

Well, partially. The most blatant illegalities are removed, and replaced with poor arguments. So to give you further feedback you can ignore when you hastily submit again:

This isn't feedback as much as it is "this is retarded, delete this delete that." It's not constructive, and it never was. "Change this" or "add this" or "reword this" or "replace this" or virtually anything else is better than "delete this delete that."

I'm not in favour of repealing the resolution and I don't think your angle is workable. Should I cheer you on while you submit a litany of identical illegal resolutions? "This is illegal" or "this is an incredibly poor -- though technically legal -- argument" is feedback you can use to refine your draft and gauge your chances.

This is a shit, NatSov argument, but at least it's no longer illegal. I suggest deleting.

and what do I replace it with? Is it not a legitimate concern?

I don't find it a legitimate concern, no. Any cases that I would find legitimate (State secrets, spying, treason etc.) are presumably already illegal, and thus covered. People who travel away to avoid supporting the military are generally in the right.

This is still wrong and will likely get your proposal marked illegal again. I suggest deleting.

I'll accept the armed aspect of it, but not the civil liabilities one. Moving to another country to avoid getting sued is acceptable under the original resolution, when it ought not be.

If you're fleeing a civil suit, the court can impound your valuables, find you in contempt or the like. This is a non-issue.

This is a shit NatSov argument, but at least it's no longer illegal. I suggest deleting.

Is it tailored to the resolution? Is it a legitimate concern? I mean, are you going to control whether and how a nation issues its passports, which are inherently documents issued by nations to verify the identity of its citizens internationally? Isn't this just blatantly dictating how a nation's foreign service may work?

It's not a legitimate concern. If the state withholds documents to keep their populace as akin to serfs, it is good and right that the WA steps in to legislate a change. I don't recognise that states have a sovereign freedom to decide whether or not to issue passports.

This is some quality bullshit. It'll likely get your proposal marked illegal next time. I suggest deleting.

First, language, and second, is it wrong? If you are forced to issue passports to all your citizens, who's to say they won't provide you with incorrect or fraudulent data? Mind you, under the previous two pieces of legislation you are compulsed to issue passports to all who intend to travel abroad.

My language is perfectly fine. The error (And yes, it's a blatant lie) lies in you claiming the state has to accept incorrect or fraudulent applications. That is simply not correct. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to ask GenSec (Or submit and see if it gets challenged).

I suggest reading the fucking resolution, as exemption (a) deals with this matter. This argument is wrong and will likely get your proposal marked illegal. I suggest deleting.

This falls under my original point. If you can hold everyone in a medical quarantine, why can't you hold everyone to be mentally incapable of travel? In other words, since the resolution only mentions individuals being exempted from the resolution, it follows proportionally that individuals can be extrapolated to everyone in both scenarios.

A particularly virulent transmittable disease necessitating temporary quarantine, on either specific citizens or regions, is not the same as declaring everyone mentally incapable. You can implement reasonable checks on an émigré to ensure they're not carrying a contagious disease, this is different from ex ante declaring everyone incapable. It also fails because a right to emigrate is not a right to immigrate, that is, you can move away from any state but you cannot demand of any state that they accept you. If you are ill enough to necessitate a quarantine, states can simply deny you visa (Or access). If you're convinced I'm wrong, you can try your luck submitting again.

This is a shit argument, but at least it's not purely NatSov. I suggest deleting.

It's a closing statement.

So I should have said "this is a summary of shitty arguments", then?

You have a few illegalities, a few pure NatSov arguments and a single (bad) argument that isn't rule-breaking.

pray tell, wise one, how to fix said natsov arguments.

Generally, NatSov arguments are fixed by not having them or by having substantive arguments beside. Any resolution can be repealed by saying "this limits states, I don't think it should", which is why pure NatSov repeals are banned. If you think your arguments are ironclad, and I'm just obstinate, make sure you have a single legal, non-NatSov argument and you can keep the NatSov arguments regardless of what I say.


Edit:
Damn quote tags. Forgot one.

[KIDS Country]

I'd argue to the contrary. The first draft was virtually indistinguishable from the current one.

Meanwhile, on the dictionary:

indistinguishable
/ɪndɪˈstɪŋɡwɪʃəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: indistinguishable

not able to be identified as different or distinct.
"the counterfeit bills were virtually indistinguishable from the real thing"

Either you're not arguing to the contrary, or you don't think it's indistinguishable.

pardon me, it's midnight here and I'm suffering from sleep deprivation.

This isn't feedback as much as it is "this is retarded, delete this delete that." It's not constructive, and it never was. "Change this" or "add this" or "reword this" or "replace this" or virtually anything else is better than "delete this delete that."

I'm not in favour of repealing the resolution and I don't think your angle is workable. Should I cheer you on while you submit a litany of identical illegal resolutions? "This is illegal" or "this is an incredibly poor -- though technically legal -- argument" is feedback you can use to refine your draft and gauge your chances.

given the fact that the resolution very nearly (if not actually) passed quorum for a vote, had it not been for the declaration of illegality, "chances" are not something I intend on taking for face value. I would appreciate constructive recommendations as how to improve or replace my resolution or the target resolution. Telling me that the entire thing is rubbish is neither constructive nor appreciated.

and what do I replace it with? Is it not a legitimate concern?

I don't find it a legitimate concern, no. Any cases that I would find legitimate (State secrets, spying, treason etc.) are presumably already illegal, and thus covered. People who travel away to avoid supporting the military are generally in the right.

Inadvisable is not necessarily the same as illegal. During wartime, if, for example, an arms manufacturing executive were to leave, leading to decreased production or quality of work, or whatever, it would be disadvantageous to a nation. Since you can't make emigration a crime, and this executive has no intention on sharing state secrets, they could leave and cause pure mayhem. In other words, let us say that in WWII the CEO of Boeing decided to flee and go to, for instance, Switzerland. This would lead to pure chaos in American arms manufacturing and would have lead to a near certain American loss. War is war. There's no space for soft pacifist antiwar tree hugging activity.

I'll accept the armed aspect of it, but not the civil liabilities one. Moving to another country to avoid getting sued is acceptable under the original resolution, when it ought not be.

If you're fleeing a civil suit, the court can impound your valuables, find you in contempt or the like. This is a non-issue.

Impounding your valuables is not an issue if you have none in the nation. Contempt is not a criminal offense.

Is it tailored to the resolution? Is it a legitimate concern? I mean, are you going to control whether and how a nation issues its passports, which are inherently documents issued by nations to verify the identity of its citizens internationally? Isn't this just blatantly dictating how a nation's foreign service may work?

It's not a legitimate concern. If the state withholds documents to keep their populace as akin to serfs, it is good and right that the WA steps in to legislate a change. I don't recognise that states have a sovereign freedom to decide whether or not to issue passports.

I'm not sure if we accept outside statements, but there are four legal tenets of issuing passports: 1. they are issued in the name of the state, 2. no person has a legal right to be issued a passport, 3. each country's government, in exercising its executive discretion, has complete and unfettered discretion to refuse to issue or revoke a passport, and 4. that the latter discretion is not subject to judicial review. And while it may be true that some (in particular the 4th) may be rendered obsolete by constitutional or international law, it would be generally inadvisable to scrap all four pillars from which passports are issued from.

First, language, and second, is it wrong? If you are forced to issue passports to all your citizens, who's to say they won't provide you with incorrect or fraudulent data? Mind you, under the previous two pieces of legislation you are compulsed to issue passports to all who intend to travel abroad.

My language is perfectly fine. The error (And yes, it's a blatant lie) lies in you claiming the state has to accept incorrect or fraudulent applications. That is simply not correct. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to ask GenSec (Or submit and see if it gets challenged).

It follows logically. If I want to leave ABC for XYZ, I need a passport from ABC. Under the requirement for passports section of the passports act, I need a passport from ABC. Under this act, I cannot be denied that chance to leave in any scenario barring the ones that we have already discussed, none of which apply to me. Since improperly or incompletely filling out a passport application is not a crime, and since I need a passport to leave the country, and since the country can't force me to stay, the state must therefore issue a passport even if I have improperly or incompletely filled out my application. Where is this wrong?

This falls under my original point. If you can hold everyone in a medical quarantine, why can't you hold everyone to be mentally incapable of travel? In other words, since the resolution only mentions individuals being exempted from the resolution, it follows proportionally that individuals can be extrapolated to everyone in both scenarios.

A particularly virulent transmittable disease necessitating temporary quarantine, on either specific citizens or regions, is not the same as declaring everyone mentally incapable. You can implement reasonable checks on an émigré to ensure they're not carrying a contagious disease, this is different from ex ante declaring everyone incapable. It also fails because a right to emigrate is not a right to immigrate, that is, you can move away from any state but you cannot demand of any state that they accept you. If you are ill enough to necessitate a quarantine, states can simply deny you visa (Or access). If you're convinced I'm wrong, you can try your luck submitting again.

So you have yet to explain why I can declare there is probable cause that all persons have an infectious disease but I can't declare there is probable cause that all persons have a mental disease (or illness) - which by the way can occur from environmental factors, as can infectious diseases). Additionally, a right to emigrate may not be a right to immigrate, but proactivity is appreciated, and it makes your nation look bad (disadvantageous to foreign relations) if you do not take proactive measures to resolve potential dangers.

It's a closing statement.

So I should have said "this is a summary of shitty arguments", then?

The term resolved is literally in there, and also watch your mouth

pray tell, wise one, how to fix said natsov arguments.

Generally, NatSov arguments are fixed by not having them or by having substantive arguments beside. Any resolution can be repealed by saying "this limits states, I don't think it should", which is why pure NatSov repeals are banned. If you think your arguments are ironclad, and I'm just obstinate, make sure you have a single legal, non-NatSov argument and you can keep the NatSov arguments regardless of what I say.

There are Natsov arguments, you are correct, but there is also a demonstration that this resolution is disadvantageous to both military and foreign affairs, the former during wartime and the latter in an epidemic. This is more than a natsov argument, it has concrete impacts.

[Attempted Socialism]

given the fact that the resolution very nearly (if not actually) passed quorum for a vote, had it not been for the declaration of illegality, "chances" are not something I intend on taking for face value. I would appreciate constructive recommendations as how to improve or replace my resolution or the target resolution. Telling me that the entire thing is rubbish is neither constructive nor appreciated.

That is your prerogative. Best of luck.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Also, the resolution is easily flaunted:

(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,

what does legitimately mean? Can I legally determine my entire country to be mentally disabled?

OOC: No, don't be absurd. GA Res. #2 requires that you interpret the meaning of subsequent resolutions "in good faith," which here means that only licensed psychologists can make a determination of mental disability, and only of individuals (barring some insane public health issue such as mass mercury or lead contamination). You can't just declare an entire population mentally ill. The fact that some dictator might do so isn't a legitimate argument in favor of repeal.

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the individual rights of each member-state to regulate its own immigration and emigration policies,

CONCERNED that the resolution inappropriately restricts each member-state's ability to control their own sovereign affairs and policy, including during potential times of war, when a person's departure or emigration may not be otherwise illegal but nonetheless significantly damaging to the nation's military affairs, such as the emigration of high-ranking arms manufacturing executives during times of armed conflict, which may lead to decreased productivity, morale, or other consequences,

This is the only argument you've made that is both legal and substantial (i.e. not NatSov fluff). And it's not all that strong.

CONCERNED that the resolution may passively encourage the desertion of a member-state's civil liabilities or suits, de-legitimizing the efficacy of each member-state's judiciary, especially in cases where said member-state has no leverage over persons seeking to avoid civil liabilities and suits, such as the nonexistence of property to be impounded, or when contempt of court is not a criminal offense,

The target resolution specifically exempts nations from permitting exit to persons involved in legal proceedings, so this is an illegal Honest Mistake. But even if it weren't, it's still a shitty argument: if someone has nothing left to lose as you describe, then there is literally no law that can give them any reason to obey it if they think they can dodge the cops long enough. This one isn't special in that regard and so this isn't a good argument for repeal.

ACKNOWLEDGING that, in combination with General Assembly Resolution 76, which "mandates that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other nationality status, when travelling abroad...," Resolution 279, by prohibiting governments from banning emigration, forces nation-states to issue passports to all citizens,

AFFIRMING that member-states have certain sovereign freedoms, including the issuance of passports, a power granted solely to executive functionaries,

AFFIRMING that the freedom to issue and revoke passports is a sovereign exercise of a nation's executive discretion,

ACKNOWLEDGING that member-states cannot deny any person a passport under the Act, and that improperly or incompletely filling out a passport application does not constitute a crime and therefore is not subject to any exemption provided by the Act,

ACKNOWLEDGING that therefore the compulsion of member-states to accept all passport applications, even those otherwise incorrectly or fraudulently submitted, is in violation of the sovereign rights of each and every member-state, and gravely jeopardizes international transportation security, if immigration officials cannot even determine whether the information presented on the passport is genuine,

Where on earth are you getting this passport stuff from? It has nothing to do whatever with anything in the target resolution, which means I have to call this argument an illegal Honest Mistake. If the argument is true in any way at all, it's an argument to repeal GAR #76, not this law.

RESOLVING that the target legislation improperly violates national sovereignty, harms national security, undermines principles of executive discretion, damages transportation safety, and jeopardizes the legitimacy of judicial systems,]

This paragraph is NatSov fluff combined with rhetoric totally unsupported by any actual argument that you've made.

TL;dr - Attempted Socialism has been very patiently telling you true and correct things; you really ought to listen.

[KIDS Country]

Where on earth are you getting this passport stuff from? It has nothing to do whatever with anything in the target resolution, which means I have to call this argument an illegal Honest Mistake. If the argument is true in any way at all, it's an argument to repeal GAR #76, not this law.

I have no qualms with GAR76. This resolution came after resolution 76. The problem is that this resolution, in conjunction with resolution 76, creates an awkward situation for nations in dealing with people who want to leave said nation.

tl;dr I think banning nations from regulating and controlling emigration is dumb. Also ineffective because I can place exorbitant passport application fees. I mean, the entire thing is fundamentally flawed.