[PASSED] - Repeal GAR#279, Right of Emigration

[Goobergunchia]

Target of repeal
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... ?start=278

Introduction

1. I am not about to repeal a resolution by a former VD of TNP (and former Minister for MoWAA) and a commended author whom I overlapped with in TNP without careful thought. This is not one of the resolutions cited in Abacathea's commend, and I believe this is not one of Abacathea's best work.
   
2. The main issue is actually Exemption B - it is worded in such a way that ignores the severity of the offence (speeding tickets vs murders) and the fact that "legal proceedings" can be broadly read to mean civil proceedings, and these proceedings can last for years or decades (say inheritance law). The case of William Jennens lasted 117 years, and of course was the basis for Bleak House by Charles Dickens.
   
3. In modern US law, Marshall v Marshall (ie the Anna Nicole Smith one) has been ongoing since 1996 and involved two roundtrips to the US Supreme Court, and both the plaintiff and the defendant died before the conclusion of the case. (It started January 25, 1996 and ended October 24, 2022, 26 years). It's patently unfair to hold someone from exiting a nation when a case can last 26 years.
   
4. The most horrifying scenario is that if a billionaire hates someone, that billionaire can simply file enough lawsuits against someone for the next 100 years and prevent that person from leaving. Suits lawsuits would not be frivolous, for example, if say the billionaire is suing someone who is a competitor in the same industry and there are arguably valid reasons such as restraint of trade or employment etc.
   
5. The civil litigation loophole would also apply to someone who works in a very litigious industry, such as construction or insurance.

Direct replacement: "Right to exit a member state"
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=543198

Other solutions

1. Dual citizenship arrangements (this has passed as GAR695) - also this deals with voluntary renouncement of citizenship
   viewtopic.php?f=9&t=535825
   
2. Tightening of bail conditions (to provide the basis for tightening criminal charges definitions): viewtopic.php?f=9&t=535832 (this has passed as GAR688)
   
3. Exemption A is already handled by various reforms regarding quarantine so I have nothing further to add. Any changes that may be required can be handled by quarantine reforms on that end. That is still ongoing in terms of reforming medical quarantine.
   viewtopic.php?f=9&t=536266

Discussions

1. Original discussion thread back in 2013/14: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272863
   
2. Earlier discussion in 2011 from Sanctaria: viewtopic.php?t=92255

Proposed repeal

Submitted draft

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming that it is a fundamental right for individuals to freely exit from a nation without hinderance;

Noting that the target resolution allows individuals to be prevented from leaving a WA state, subject to certain conditions, but these conditions contain several loopholes that can be exploited by others to deliberately impede someone from leaving a WA state, such as:

1. Exemption “b” permitting anyone “undergoing legal proceedings” to be prevented from leaving a WA state fails to:
   
   1. distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings, nor the parties involved;
   2. consider the severity of any legal proceedings, or whether they are frivolous in nature;
2. Exemption “d” for probable cause to commit a crime does not account for the scenario of certain actions by an individual being a crime in one WA states but not another, and require a more nuanced solution that accounts for, for example, the severity of the crime or any appeals;

Horrified that as a result of these loopholes, well-resourced malicious actors, government-affiliated or otherwise, can effectively prevent anyone from leaving a country through vexatious litigation, or a potential emigrant can be beholden to an inefficient court system or entangled in endless legal proceedings due to engaging in a profession that is prone to civil litigation;

Looking forward to the WA passing future resolutions that affirm the right to exit a WA state without the said flaws;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, Right of Emigration.

[Simone Republic]

Reserved for future drafts.

Draft 1

The World Assembly,

Noting that the General Assembly believes it is a fundamental right for individuals to freely exit a nation without hinderance from government of a WA state;

Disappointed that the said resolution allows for several exemptions for preventing individuals from emigration, but that these exemptions contain loopholes that can be exploited by malicious actors, namely:

1. Exemption “b” permitting anyone “undergoing legal proceedings” to be prevented from leaving a WA state fails to:
   
   1. distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings, nor the parties;
   2. consider the severity of any proceedings;
   3. does not specify due process nor the length of the legal proceedings;
2. Horrified that as a result, in theory anyone (and not just a government) with the resources to file frivolous civil lawsuits can privately detain an individual from exiting a WA state, or for an inefficient court system to bog down someone in civil proceedings for years or longer;
   
3. Exemption “c” for an arrest warrant:
   
   1. ignores the scenario of a citizen’s arrest, if that is permitted by a WA state;
   2. ignores that a mere arrest warrant does not imply that someone is guilty of an offence;
   3. does not guarantee an individual’s right to due process;
4. Exemption “d” for probable cause to commit a crime does not account for the scenario of certain actions by an individual being a crime in one WA states but not another, and should only be reserved for serious crimes banned throughout WA states;

Believing that, the only way to address the said issues is by repealing and replacing the target;
Hereby repeals GAR#279, Right of Emigration.

[Simone Republic]

Bump

[Simone Republic]

Bump

[Coders]

The Ambassitor for Coders stands:

In 1a - 1c, Your points have no meaning, even if it is a civil trial, the person should not be able to emmigate for the length of the trial to ensure they show up. For 1b, the sevirty does nothing, if a WA state holds to the practice of due process, everyone is treated the same in the legal system so they will be barred from emmigration if the state decides that for all.

3b or "ignores that a mere arrest warrant does not imply that someone is guilty of an offence;" Even if person may not be guilty of a crime, expemtion c of GAR#279 effectifly stops people with arrest warrents from leaving the country. They can then be put though the legal system faster and if they are found not guilty, they can emigrate if they want to.

3c or "does not guarantee an individual’s right to due process;" That is becuase that is not what GAR#279 is about. GAR#279 is protecting the right to emigration. Not the right to due process

He sits down

[Simone Republic]

The Ambassitor for Coders stands:

In 1a - 1c, Your points have no meaning, even if it is a civil trial, the person should not be able to emmigate for the length of the trial to ensure they show up. For 1b, the sevirty does nothing, if a WA state holds to the practice of due process, everyone is treated the same in the legal system so they will be barred from emmigration if the state decides that for all.

3b or "ignores that a mere arrest warrant does not imply that someone is guilty of an offence;" Even if person may not be guilty of a crime, expemtion c of GAR#279 effectifly stops people with arrest warrents from leaving the country. They can then be put though the legal system faster and if they are found not guilty, they can emigrate if they want to.

3c or "does not guarantee an individual’s right to due process;" That is becuase that is not what GAR#279 is about. GAR#279 is protecting the right to emigration. Not the right to due process

He sits down

1. Try having a civil trial that lasts 26 years and see if you want to migrate.

2. Ditto - an arrest warrant is not guilty of an offence and I have a current bail reform resolution to address this point.

Bump. Not quite last call but also likely to be coming sooner rather than later.

[Simone Republic]

Bump on the World Assembly Official Bumper

[The Ice States]

Hereby repeals the target resolution.

Last things first -- this is a relatively minor nitpick, but you should replace "the target resolution" with the actual name of the resolution.

Regarding the arguments themselves,

does not specify due process...

does not guarantee an individual’s right to due process;

Why does the target need to do this given the various due process resolutions, such as GA #37 and GA #580?

ignores the scenario of a citizen’s arrest, if that is permitted by a WA state;

ignores that a mere arrest warrant does not imply that someone is guilty of an offence;

Why does it need to do this? Theoretically even nations which allow citizen's arrest will prohibit frivolous citizen's arrests.

[Simone Republic]

Hereby repeals the target resolution.

Last things first -- this is a relatively minor nitpick, but you should replace "the target resolution" with the actual name of the resolution.

Done

Regarding the arguments themselves,

*snip*

I've cut it all out. The most problematic issue as I mentioned is the fact that the "litigation" exemption does not distinguish between civil and criminal, and that's fatal enough when you can basically sue someone for 20 years plus, or if you work in an industry filled with litigation (construction, auto insurance, etc.) That alone is horrifying enough for me to want to repeal this resolution.

This has gone to draft 3 as it's quite different to the previous last call which has been renamed draft 2.

[States of Glory WA Office]

ignores that a mere arrest warrant does not imply that someone is guilty of an offence;

Neville: True, but I think there is still an interest in allowing member states to prevent targets of an arrest warrant from leaving the nation and avoiding arrest, especially for serious crimes.

Exemption “d” for probable cause to commit a crime does not account for the scenario of certain actions by an individual being a crime in one WA states but not another, and should only be reserved for serious crimes banned throughout all WA states;

Neville: I agree with the core argument but not with the proposed solution. If the action is banned both in the émigré's home state and in the state to which the émigré is moving, I see no reason why the home state cannot prevent emigration for that purpose even if that action isn't banned in some other WA state.

[Simone Republic]

ignores that a mere arrest warrant does not imply that someone is guilty of an offence;

Neville: True, but I think there is still an interest in allowing member states to prevent targets of an arrest warrant from leaving the nation and avoiding arrest, especially for serious crimes.

I yanked the entire "exemption C". What's horrifying is exemption B failing to distinguish between civil and criminal legal proceedings.

Exemption “d” for probable cause to commit a crime does not account for the scenario of certain actions by an individual being a crime in one WA states but not another, and should only be reserved for serious crimes banned throughout all WA states;

Neville: I agree with the core argument but not with the proposed solution. If the action is banned both in the émigré's home state and in the state to which the émigré is moving, I see no reason why the home state cannot prevent emigration for that purpose even if that action isn't banned in some other WA state.

The main target I suspect is countries that passed travel bans due to sex offenders going abroad to abuse children (Britain, Australia). But the existing resolution is kind of too broadly worded. If sex offenders need to be banned form travelling abroad, it can go into a specific resolution on sex offenders.

[The Ice States]

I've cut it all out.

1c is still there. If it's removed, I can support this.

[Simone Republic]

I've cut it all out.

1c is still there. If it's removed, I can support this.

Gone. Not as important as the "civil lawsuits" proceedings loophole which is truly horrifying.

[Simone Republic]

Bump on the World Assembly Official Bumper, now available at twice the previous price.

[Simone Republic]

ignores that a mere arrest warrant does not imply that someone is guilty of an offence;

Neville: True, but I think there is still an interest in allowing member states to prevent targets of an arrest warrant from leaving the nation and avoiding arrest, especially for serious crimes.

Exemption “d” for probable cause to commit a crime does not account for the scenario of certain actions by an individual being a crime in one WA states but not another, and should only be reserved for serious crimes banned throughout all WA states;

Neville: I agree with the core argument but not with the proposed solution. If the action is banned both in the émigré's home state and in the state to which the émigré is moving, I see no reason why the home state cannot prevent emigration for that purpose even if that action isn't banned in some other WA state.

The last bit I've taken out to simply refer to crimes being in one state not necessarily being a crime in another. The solution is in the replacement which I think I need to gather more feedback on the exact wording. It now just says "require a more nuanced solution;"

[Simone Republic]

Bump.

[Cessarea]

Councillor Feathers-of-Burgundy exhaustedly walks into the General Assembly chambers, realising his allotted place to speak had just begun. Before it moves on to the next delegate, he hurries to his seat, sits down, and immediately gets back up before finally saying something:

"Apologies, my means of transportation has met an uncomfortable amount of speed bumps on its way here, and we were significantly slowed down by them. I have read this repeal proposal yesterday, and upon convening with the Cessarean World Assembly Council, I believe we have nothing but full support to show for this repeal. We will vote in favour of it when it comes to voting. We will deliver our position on the proposed replacement, made by the same nation, in due time.

...We will also see to it that our concerns over nearby speed bumps are voiced to the proper authorities of the WA."

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*

This is coming sometime in January or February. But getting this resolution off the books is quite important because of its inherent flaws.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The second part of the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t grammatically cohere. It should be as follows ‘[…] or a potential emigrant can be beholden to an inefficient court system […]’.)

[Simone Republic]

(OOC: The second part of the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t grammatically cohere. It should be as follows ‘[…] or a potential emigrant can be beholden to an inefficient court system […]’.)

Fixed.

Replacement draft:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=543198

[Simone Republic]

*Bump* on the World Assembly Official Bumper, plenty of which are still in stock at Simone Republic's merchandise warehouse in WAHQ.

The replacement probably still needs a bit of work, but I am bumping the repeal now.

The replacement is here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=543198

[Simone Republic]

Bump as the replacement looks ready for prime-time.

[United States Of Alpha]

So what does this repeal mean? Does it give citizens more ways to emigrate?

[Marcmen]

As the Marcmen Commonwealth sees it, there is no reason for this legislation to be repealed in its entirety when this resolution could've been an amendment instead to clarify the law with the stated intentions. In the interim, while a replacement World Assembly Law is being drafted, many corrupt authoritarian States are going to deny their citizens the right to immigration with ease. GAR#279, at the very least, cost these governments funds and legal resources if they wanted to abide by the law. This resolution does nothing for that, and we'll therefore vote against it.

[Mechanocracy]

As the Marcmen Commonwealth sees it, there is no reason for this legislation to be repealed in its entirety when this resolution could've been an amendment instead to clarify the law with the stated intentions. In the interim, while a replacement World Assembly Law is being drafted, many corrupt authoritarian States are going to deny their citizens the right to immigration with ease. GAR#279, at the very least, cost these governments funds and legal resources if they wanted to abide by the law. This resolution does nothing for that, and we'll therefore vote against it.

Amendments unfortunately do not exist for the General Assembly. Repeals are the only option to remove inadequate or otherwise defective GA resolutions, be it for a replacement or for simple removal.