NATION

PASSWORD

[ABANDONED-ish] Political Rights of Expatriates

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Boston Castle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 140
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

[ABANDONED-ish] Political Rights of Expatriates

Postby Boston Castle » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:34 pm

Hi everyone! Giving this whole authorship thing another go!

Check spoiler for some notes...

1. I am aware of the efforts to repeal "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance". If y'all collectively wish to repeal it, I'm not going to stand in the way of it-obviously enough people concur that there are issues with the resolution that it probably ought to be repealed anyways. That being said, I am reserving the right to work on another version of it for the future, though admittedly that replacing that res once repealed isn't a priority right now.

2. Do be aware that I will be going home in a couple of days and I don't have home internet, so do not flip out if I'm not super prompt in responding. For those of you in the WA Discord set up by IA, feel free to DM me with questions, comments, and concerns. My goal is to hopefully have this through drafting by January, but obviously, let the people of the Assembly decide when they think it's getting ready for a vote.

3. A request of sorts. PLEASE continue to do IC stuff, I know that's what we're here for. However, please be more direct in your critiques and what you would like addressed. I found it a little difficult to follow along with some stuff in the debate over "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance" and I want to make sure I'm addressing everyone's concerns/comments adequately. :)

4. Assistance in doing the fancy WA thing at the top rather than the standard box format would be fantastic. I am just not that fluent in BBCode.


Political Rights of Expatriates

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild


The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation,

UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of emigrant communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law,

NOTICING that this deficiency in existing legislation could result in discrimination both legally-sanctioned and otherwise legally permitted, HEREBY:

  1. Defines the following terms for the purpose of this law;

    1. ”Expatriate” as any person resident in a nation other than their birth nation provided they were i) not born in the nation they are resident in and ii) do not hold citizenship in the nation they are resident in,
    2. ”Community” as any organization which represents, as their primary mission, a particular ethnic, religious, or linguistic group whose origin is outside of the member nation they headquarter in,
    3. ”Birth nation” as the nation in which a person was born;
  2. Requires member states to allow the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying;

    1. Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,
    2. Member states may not require these political organizations laying claim to representation of specific communities to operate solely in their community of interest;
  3. Clarifies that states may not deprive an expatriate of the right to citizenship in their birth nation as a prerequisite for residency in the nation they plan to emigrate to; and

    1. Excepting that if an expatriate attempts to acquire citizenship in their new nation of residence, member states may impose differing standards for citizenship for children of expatriates and may require one parent to obtain citizenship for a child born in their jurisdiction to automatically be a citizen of said member state;
  4. Further clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

    1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
    2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community subject to prior and standing World Assembly legislation,
    3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in, though,
    4. Reserving that member nations may restrict the political and civil rights of expatriates where the law provides for the abrogation of those rights by declaration of a state of emergency, martial law, or other scenarios where civil and political rights are curtailed by the government.


    Edit 9: “ unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law and...” deleted from clause 4(b).

    [b][i]Edit 8: “ and subject to prior and standing World Assembly legislation” added to clause 4(b) after discussions with Maowi.


    Edits 7: “clarifies” added to beginning of clause 3, “excepting that if” added to clause 3(a), “further clarifies that” becomes clause 4.

    Edits 6: “The General Assembly” added at the top. “Emigrant” has replaced “these” in front of communities in introductory “Understanding” clause. Full quotation marks added in front of terms I define in clause 1. “In which” replaced “where” in Clause 1(c). “To” removed before “allow” in clause 2. “To” added before “obtain” in clause 3(a).

    Edit 5: “though” added at the end of clause 4(c).

    Edits 4: Clause 3 overhauled to narrow scope within reason, “in his home nation” in clause 3 changed to “in their birth nation”. New Clause 4(d). “ If an expatriate attempts to acquire citizenship in their new nation of residence,” added to new clause 3(a).


    Further requires that member states honor citizenship agreements as agreed upon by other member states in regards to dual citizenship, though clarifying;


    Edit 3: Second "in regards" in Clause 4(a) changed to "relating".

    Edits 2: "mandating" in Clause 3 changed to "clarifying".

    Edits 1: Original 3(a) struck. New 3(b) added. "For the purposes of this law" struck from new 3(a).


    Member states are required to enforce citizenship law requirements only on citizens or residents born in their nation.
    Last edited by Boston Castle on Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:44 pm, edited 20 times in total.
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Untecna
    Chargé d'Affaires
     
    Posts: 428
    Founded: Jun 02, 2020
    Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

    Postby Untecna » Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:08 pm

    Boston Castle wrote:Hi everyone! Giving this whole authorship thing another go!

    Check spoiler for some notes...

    1. I am aware of the efforts to repeal "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance". If y'all collectively wish to repeal it, I'm not going to stand in the way of it-obviously enough people concur that there are issues with the resolution that it probably ought to be repealed anyways. That being said, I am reserving the right to work on another version of it for the future, though admittedly that replacing that res once repealed isn't a priority right now.

    2. Do be aware that I will be going home in a couple of days and I don't have home internet, so do not flip out if I'm not super prompt in responding. For those of you in the WA Discord set up by IA, feel free to DM me with questions, comments, and concerns. My goal is to hopefully have this through drafting by January, but obviously, let the people of the Assembly decide when they think it's getting ready for a vote.

    3. A request of sorts. PLEASE continue to do IC stuff, I know that's what we're here for. However, please be more direct in your critiques and what you would like addressed. I found it a little difficult to follow along with some stuff in the debate over "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance" and I want to make sure I'm addressing everyone's concerns/comments adequately. :)

    4. Assistance in doing the fancy WA thing at the top rather than the standard box format would be fantastic. I am just not that fluent in BBCode.


    RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation, Incorrect, plenty of nations block immigration and emigration.

    UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of these communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law, -Cough Cough- Some nations may already do this, so don't make it necessarily apply to them.

    NOTICING that this deficiency in existing legislation could result in discrimination both legally-sanctioned and otherwise legally permitted, HEREBY:

    1. Defines the following terms for the purpose of this law;

      1. ’Expatriate’ as any person resident in a nation other than their birth nation provided they were i) not born in the nation they are resident in and ii) do not hold citizenship in the nation they are resident in,
      2. ’Community’ as any organization which represents, as their primary mission, a particular ethnic, religious, or linguistic group whose origin is outside of the member nation they headquarter in,
      3. ’Nation of origin’ as the nation where a person originates from;
      That is an obvious fact.
    2. Requires member states to allow for the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying; The clarifications below contradict this statement.

      1. Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,
      2. Member states may not require these political organizations laying claim to representation of specific communities to operate solely in their community of interest;
    3. Further requires that member states honor citizenship agreements as agreed upon by other member states in regards to dual citizenship, though mandating;

      1. Member states are required to enforce citizenship law requirements only on citizens or residents born in their nation, So as long as the person in question wasn't born in their nation of current residency, the nation can defy all legislation previously passed covering citizenship law and can use it to their benefit?
      2. Member states may not, for the purposes of this law, deprive an expatriate of the right to citizenship in his home nation as a prerequisite for residency in the nation they plan to emigrate to;
    4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

      1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements in regards to their nation of origin,
      2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
      3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in. If they don't hold citizenship in the nation they live in, as referenced in the definition for "expatriates", why should they be able to vote or have full rights? They aren't a true citizen, they are more or less a resident alien. Also, see top marking.
    Last edited by Untecna on Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Pacifism, economic growth, capitalism, right-wing parties, except far right parties, gay rights, abortion rights, birth control, stopping global warming, knowing Delaware is a real state, cheese
    Buy my oil, it's quality oil
    Biden, fake news, socialism/communism, constant war, old Sonic design, fascism, people who use fascism to refer to conservatives like they're using the right definition.

    News: New Provisional government seizes power, 10th season of "Necromancer" released, oil discovered in Jerusalem.

    Proclaimed doubleposter of AN Video Game: make an achievement

    User avatar
    Separatist Peoples
    GA Secretariat
     
    Posts: 15588
    Founded: Feb 17, 2011
    Civil Rights Lovefest

    Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:58 pm

    Ambassador Bell looks over the Untecnan notes on his copy of the transcript before leaning forward to activate his microphone:

    "The author may disregard almost all of the Untecnan commentary. I will review comments line by line.

    Untecna wrote:RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation, Incorrect, plenty of nations block immigration and emigration.]


    "It is not the case that nations may block emigration. Prior law protects the right to emigrate. To the extent that it deals with emigration, the author may disregard this claim."
    UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of these communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law, -Cough Cough- Some nations may already do this, so don't make it necessarily apply to them.

    "The author may disregard this comment, as it fails to comprehend the term 'necessarily'. Logically, it is sufficient, but not necessary, that some communities do not protect these rights. Ergo, the original source is logically correct, and the author may disregard this comment."

    [*]’Nation of origin’ as the nation where a person originates from;[/list] That is an obvious fact.

    "The author may disregard this comment as it fails to distinguish between surplusage and a definition for the purpose of clarity."
    [*]Requires member states to allow for the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying; The clarifications below contradict this statement.

    Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,

    "The author may disregard this comment, as voluntary association is not segregation, and the comment fails to make any meaningful distinction between the two."
    Member states are required to enforce citizenship law requirements only on citizens or residents born in their nation, So as long as the person in question wasn't born in their nation of current residency, the nation can defy all legislation previously passed covering citizenship law and can use it to their benefit?

    "The author may disregard this comment as it confuses state actors with individuals."

    [*]Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in. If they don't hold citizenship in the nation they live in, as referenced in the definition for "expatriates", why should they be able to vote or have full rights? They aren't a true citizen, they are more or less a resident alien. Also, see top marking.

    "The author may disregard this comment, as it does not appear to correctly interpret the premise of 'dual citizenship' by equating nonresident citizens with resident aliens, a phrase with a logically opposite meaning.

    "The C.D.S.P. has no official position on this draft, merely an official position on poor reasoning."

    His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
    Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

    User avatar
    Ardiveds
    Envoy
     
    Posts: 326
    Founded: Feb 28, 2018
    Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

    Postby Ardiveds » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:37 pm

    "Ambassador, we would like a little clarification, does this resolution mandate the legalization of duel citizenship?"
    If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
    If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:47 pm

    Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, we would like a little clarification, does this resolution mandate the legalization of duel citizenship?"

    "It does not, though if you believe it does, I would be willing to change the wording of Clause 3.

    The intention of Clause 3 (the original part, not 3(a) or 3(b) is to say that if a citizen of state A wishes to become a citizen of State B that if State A requires that the person give up their citizenship in order to become a citizen of State B that State B must honor that."

    OOC: Thanks for bringing this up, I'm going to try to re-work clause 3.

    Edit: Yeah, old 3(a) was perilously close to that line. Eliminated. Did think of a new 3(b) that might be salient though.
    Last edited by Boston Castle on Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Tinfect
    Negotiator
     
    Posts: 5084
    Founded: Jul 04, 2014
    Democratic Socialists

    Postby Tinfect » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:38 am

    OOC:
    Since you mentioned wanting help with getting the code right for the fancy header; if you mean the dividing line for between the header and the resolution text, that's the done with these:
    Code: Select all
    [hr][/hr]

    Don't put anything between them, and you do need both tags. It'll come out like this:

    Sole exception is in factbooks, where, for some reason, the closing tag is extraneous.
    To note; if you want the text after the line not to be spaced an extra line down, it needs to be on the same line as the tags when writing.
    Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
    Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
    Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


    Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

    Imperium Central News Network: Military Oversight announces Doctrinal Reform Plan, upcoming military trials | Former Intelligence Director Taraen Vallir, additional operatives executed | 200 year old Varat destroyer found in Balder orbit at historic shipyard location, presumed malfunction of still-installed warp drive | Archive Systems, Hyperpulse Network briefly disabled following accidental release of experimental assistance program | Indomitable Bastard #283
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:34 am

    Tinfect wrote:OOC:
    Since you mentioned wanting help with getting the code right for the fancy header; if you mean the dividing line for between the header and the resolution text, that's the done with these:
    Code: Select all
    [hr][/hr]

    Don't put anything between them, and you do need both tags. It'll come out like this:

    Sole exception is in factbooks, where, for some reason, the closing tag is extraneous.
    To note; if you want the text after the line not to be spaced an extra line down, it needs to be on the same line as the tags when writing.

    OOC: Thanks for the help! Think I've got it figured out now.
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Bananaistan
    GA Secretariat
     
    Posts: 2717
    Founded: Apr 20, 2012
    Civil Rights Lovefest

    Postby Bananaistan » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:53 am

    "Opposed. There is only one political party in Bananaistan and while people are generally free to form whatever associations they like, it would seem to be a bit pointless to form political organisations which are constitutionally prohibited from taking part in elections.

    "If you were to strip that away, there is nothing here that is not already covered by the entire gamut of civil and political rights resolutions already on the books which apply to all residents of member nations regardless of their nationality."
    Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
    Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
    General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
    There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
    Ideological Bulwark #281

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:22 pm

    Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed. There is only one political party in Bananaistan and while people are generally free to form whatever associations they like, it would seem to be a bit pointless to form political organisations which are constitutionally prohibited from taking part in elections.

    "If you were to strip that away, there is nothing here that is not already covered by the entire gamut of civil and political rights resolutions already on the books which apply to all residents of member nations regardless of their nationality."

    "Ambassador, I think you misunderstand clause 2(b), which says that if, for instance, a Bananaistanian(OOC: demonym?) organization were to form in Boston Castle-I could not force it to only operate among Bananaistanian expatriates, and clause 4(c), which says that I cannot stop Bananaistanian citizens from participating in your elections if you allow for voters abroad to participate in national elections."
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Araraukar
    Post Marshal
     
    Posts: 15317
    Founded: May 14, 2007
    Corrupt Dictatorship

    Postby Araraukar » Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:18 pm

    Boston Castle wrote:
    Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed. There is only one political party in Bananaistan and while people are generally free to form whatever associations they like, it would seem to be a bit pointless to form political organisations which are constitutionally prohibited from taking part in elections.

    "If you were to strip that away, there is nothing here that is not already covered by the entire gamut of civil and political rights resolutions already on the books which apply to all residents of member nations regardless of their nationality."

    "Ambassador, I think you misunderstand clause 2(b), which says that if, for instance, a Bananaistanian(OOC: demonym?) organization were to form in Boston Castle-I could not force it to only operate among Bananaistanian expatriates, and clause 4(c), which says that I cannot stop Bananaistanian citizens from participating in your elections if you allow for voters abroad to participate in national elections."

    OOC: I think Banana's talking about BostCastlians (or whatever, cba check your nation page, sorry) forming a political organization in his country. After all, the "expatriate" (the definition should have an article if it's meant to be a noun instead of an adjective, by the way) refers to someone from another country living in yours. So why should foreigners be allowed to form political parties in a one-party or no-party (dictatorial) system? You can't mandate democracy without running into the Ideology Ban illegality.

    IC: "And exactly why should nations give political "rights" to non-citizens when they do not give them to their own citizens? What's so special about foreigners who don't want to live in their own country?"

    OOC: Could 4.b. have some controls on the organizations, because "claims to provide representation" sounds really dodgy. Could it be required to be a registered organization? Like any organization that provides representation of any people would normally need to be?
    - Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
    Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
    Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
    Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
    Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:43 pm

    Araraukar wrote:
    Boston Castle wrote:"Ambassador, I think you misunderstand clause 2(b), which says that if, for instance, a Bananaistanian(OOC: demonym?) organization were to form in Boston Castle-I could not force it to only operate among Bananaistanian expatriates, and clause 4(c), which says that I cannot stop Bananaistanian citizens from participating in your elections if you allow for voters abroad to participate in national elections."

    OOC: I think Banana's talking about BostCastlians (or whatever, cba check your nation page, sorry) forming a political organization in his country. After all, the "expatriate" (the definition should have an article if it's meant to be a noun instead of an adjective, by the way) refers to someone from another country living in yours. So why should foreigners be allowed to form political parties in a one-party or no-party (dictatorial) system? You can't mandate democracy without running into the Ideology Ban illegality.

    IC: "And exactly why should nations give political "rights" to non-citizens when they do not give them to their own citizens? What's so special about foreigners who don't want to live in their own country?"

    OOC: Could 4.b. have some controls on the organizations, because "claims to provide representation" sounds really dodgy. Could it be required to be a registered organization? Like any organization that provides representation of any people would normally need to be?

    1. OOC: I've never come up with a demonym. Castellians would work.

    2. IC: "Ambassador, I see your point, striking "political" before organizations in 2(a) should hopefully ameliorate your concerns."

    3. Yes, this is an OOC response, but I don't think I can make it IC: The purpose of this resolution isn't necessarily to grant them new rights so much as to shore up existing rights and codify them into law.

    4. I suppose 4(b) could require registration, though I'm not entirely sure how that work unless it was something like registration of non-profit organizations (similar to 501(c)(3)s, etc. in the US), political parties (a la Elections Canada, the Federal Election Commission, etc.), or lobbying organizations (US, for instance, apparently requires registration with the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House). Anyways, I see your point and I'd be open to hearing suggestions for how to shore that up/fill the gap.

    5. OOC: Also forgot to address it, Clause 1 covers all the definitions-including that of expatriate.
    Last edited by Boston Castle on Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:04 pm

    Not rushing anyone, but would like to work on this today or tomorrow before I leave school for home.

    Bump.
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Tinhampton
    Negotiator
     
    Posts: 7425
    Founded: Oct 05, 2016
    Anarchy

    Postby Tinhampton » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:07 pm

    Boston Castle wrote:4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

    1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
    2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
    3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in.

    Is this intended to be a complete/definitive or partial/indicative list of the "political and civil rights of expatriates" that "member states may not infringe on?"
    The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

    Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491
    Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; current WA Delegate of Auctor; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
    Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:25 pm

    Tinhampton wrote:
    Boston Castle wrote:4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

    1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
    2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
    3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in.

    Is this intended to be a complete/definitive or partial/indicative list of the "political and civil rights of expatriates" that "member states may not infringe on?"

    "Complete/definitive as these are not, to my knowledge, necessarily covered in regards to non-citizens in WA law. However, if the Ambassador wishes to see them expanded upon, I would be happy to hear their suggestions to make this list as exhaustive as he would like it to be."
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:03 pm

    OOC: Bump again. Sorry for doing it so soon after my last, but I'm leaving uni tomorrow and I don't know if I'll be back on the forums until toward the end of the week.
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Honeydewistania
    Minister
     
    Posts: 2254
    Founded: Jun 09, 2017
    Capitalist Paradise

    Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:04 pm

    "Wouldn’t this proposal make more sense under the democracy category? Opposed, by the way."
    Last edited by Honeydewistania on Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

    Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
    Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
    Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
    Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

    The MT Army Warrior
    Need me? Click here!
    Biggest acheivement: Spelling

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:18 am

    Honeydewistania wrote:"Wouldn’t this proposal make more sense under the democracy category? Opposed, by the way."

    "I suppose it could, Ambassador, but I wasn't entirely sure if Furtherment of Democracy would be the area to file this under. While I regret your opposition, I am curious, is there anything I could change that would win your support?"
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Boston Castle
    Spokesperson
     
    Posts: 140
    Founded: Aug 21, 2020
    New York Times Democracy

    Postby Boston Castle » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:30 pm

    Some edits have been made. Would be nice if y’all could review them. :)
    WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
    Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

    Blighted Author of GA #522

    User avatar
    Kenmoria
    Negotiator
     
    Posts: 6468
    Founded: Jul 03, 2017
    Corporate Bordello

    Postby Kenmoria » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:44 pm

    “I’ve put some comments on my paper copy of the draft in red pen.”

    Political Rights of Expatriates

    Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild


    RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation, For grammatical reasons, you should prefix the entire legislation with ‘The General Assembly,’ or ‘The World Assembly,’ so that there is something doing all of these preambulatory verbs. Also, though this is a rather niche point, I don’t think you can confidently say that a citizen in every member nation has emigrated. Perhaps add ‘that can be’ before ‘employed’. However, this is a minor point.

    UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of these communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law, Which communities? You’ve implied the existence of an emigrant community above, but never spelled it out. I recommend clarifying that you are referring to immigrant communities in this clause.

    NOTICING that this deficiency in existing legislation could result in discrimination both legally-sanctioned and otherwise legally permitted, HEREBY:

    1. Defines the following terms for the purpose of this law;

      1. ’Expatriate’ as any person resident in a nation other than their birth nation provided they were i) not born in the nation they are resident in and ii) do not hold citizenship in the nation they are resident in, This is another minor point, which does show that the legislation is rather good, but your quotes on all these definitions are entirely closing quotation marks. I suspect your ambassadorial keyboard, or typewriter, depending on your nation’s technology, might be having an error.
      2. ’Community’ as any organization which represents, as their primary mission, a particular ethnic, religious, or linguistic group whose origin is outside of the member nation they headquarter in,
      3. ’Birth nation’ as the nation where a person was born; I think ‘in which’ would sound and be preferable to ‘where’ here. It sounds more formal.
    2. Requires member states to allow for the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying; The word ‘for’ here is unnecessary.

      1. Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,
      2. Member states may not require these political organizations laying claim to representation of specific communities to operate solely in their community of interest;
    3. Member states may not deprive an expatriate of the right to citizenship in their birth nation as a prerequisite for residency in the nation they plan to emigrate to; and

      1. If an expatriate attempts to acquire citizenship in their new nation of residence, member states may impose differing standards for citizenship for children of expatriates and may require one parent obtain citizenship for a child born in their jurisdiction to automatically be a citizen of said member state; You are missing the word ‘to’ before ‘obtain citizenship’ here,
    4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

      1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
      2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
      3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in, though,
      4. Reserving that member nations may restrict the political and civil rights of expatriates where the law provides for the abrogation of those rights by declaration of a state of emergency, martial law, or other scenarios where civil and political rights are curtailed by the government.
      A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
      Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
      Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
      NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
      Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
      This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
      However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
      Current ambassador: James Lewitt

      For more information, read the factbooks here.

      User avatar
      Boston Castle
      Spokesperson
       
      Posts: 140
      Founded: Aug 21, 2020
      New York Times Democracy

      Postby Boston Castle » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:46 pm

      Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve put some comments on my paper copy of the draft in red pen.”

      Political Rights of Expatriates

      Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild


      RECOGNIZING that emigration is a practice employed by citizens of every nation, For grammatical reasons, you should prefix the entire legislation with ‘The General Assembly,’ or ‘The World Assembly,’ so that there is something doing all of these preambulatory verbs. Also, though this is a rather niche point, I don’t think you can confidently say that a citizen in every member nation has emigrated. Perhaps add ‘that can be’ before ‘employed’. However, this is a minor point.

      UNDERSTANDING that the legal rights of these communities have not necessarily been protected in national or international law, Which communities? You’ve implied the existence of an emigrant community above, but never spelled it out. I recommend clarifying that you are referring to immigrant communities in this clause.

      NOTICING that this deficiency in existing legislation could result in discrimination both legally-sanctioned and otherwise legally permitted, HEREBY:

      1. Defines the following terms for the purpose of this law;

        1. ’Expatriate’ as any person resident in a nation other than their birth nation provided they were i) not born in the nation they are resident in and ii) do not hold citizenship in the nation they are resident in, This is another minor point, which does show that the legislation is rather good, but your quotes on all these definitions are entirely closing quotation marks. I suspect your ambassadorial keyboard, or typewriter, depending on your nation’s technology, might be having an error.
        2. ’Community’ as any organization which represents, as their primary mission, a particular ethnic, religious, or linguistic group whose origin is outside of the member nation they headquarter in,
        3. ’Birth nation’ as the nation where a person was born; I think ‘in which’ would sound and be preferable to ‘where’ here. It sounds more formal.
      2. Requires member states to allow for the formation of political organizations which represent the interests of, culturally or politically, expatriate communities, though clarifying; The word ‘for’ here is unnecessary.

        1. Member states must not engage in segregationist policies in requiring expatriates to be members of political organizations which lay claim to community representation,
        2. Member states may not require these political organizations laying claim to representation of specific communities to operate solely in their community of interest;
      3. Member states may not deprive an expatriate of the right to citizenship in their birth nation as a prerequisite for residency in the nation they plan to emigrate to; and

        1. If an expatriate attempts to acquire citizenship in their new nation of residence, member states may impose differing standards for citizenship for children of expatriates and may require one parent obtain citizenship for a child born in their jurisdiction to automatically be a citizen of said member state; You are missing the word ‘to’ before ‘obtain citizenship’ here,
      4. Clarifies that member states may not infringe on the political and civil rights of expatriates, such as;

        1. Restricting their right to fully exercise their civil rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press in regards to statements relating to their nation of origin,
        2. Restricting their freedom of assembly as regards to membership in any organization which claims to provide representation for a diaspora community unless said organization is found to be in breach of existing national law,
        3. Restricting their right to freely participate in national elections via any means provided by the nation which they hold citizenship in, though,
        4. Reserving that member nations may restrict the political and civil rights of expatriates where the law provides for the abrogation of those rights by declaration of a state of emergency, martial law, or other scenarios where civil and political rights are curtailed by the government.

        “Thank you, Ambassador, for your assistance. I will review these and inform you when your critiques have been addressed.”

        OOC Edit: thanks for your help, your suggestions have been adopted.
        Last edited by Boston Castle on Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
        WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
        Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

        Blighted Author of GA #522

        User avatar
        Honeydewistania
        Minister
         
        Posts: 2254
        Founded: Jun 09, 2017
        Capitalist Paradise

        Postby Honeydewistania » Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:31 pm

        Boston Castle wrote:
        Honeydewistania wrote:"Wouldn’t this proposal make more sense under the democracy category? Opposed, by the way."

        "I suppose it could, Ambassador, but I wasn't entirely sure if Furtherment of Democracy would be the area to file this under. While I regret your opposition, I am curious, is there anything I could change that would win your support?"


        "We echo this comment:
        Bananaistan wrote:"If you were to strip that away, there is nothing here that is not already covered by the entire gamut of civil and political rights resolutions already on the books which apply to all residents of member nations regardless of their nationality."

        "
        Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

        Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
        Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
        Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
        Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

        The MT Army Warrior
        Need me? Click here!
        Biggest acheivement: Spelling

        User avatar
        Boston Castle
        Spokesperson
         
        Posts: 140
        Founded: Aug 21, 2020
        New York Times Democracy

        Postby Boston Castle » Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:04 am

        Thinking of submitting this next week
        WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
        Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

        Blighted Author of GA #522

        User avatar
        Kenmoria
        Negotiator
         
        Posts: 6468
        Founded: Jul 03, 2017
        Corporate Bordello

        Postby Kenmoria » Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:10 am

        “I have a bit more grammar to share: clauses 1, 2 and 4 use the commonly-employed style of starting a clause with a verb, meaning that the whole legislation can be read as one cohesive sentence. However, clause 3 uses the equally acceptable style in which each clause is a separate sentence. Either is fine, but not both.”
        A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
        Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
        Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
        NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
        Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
        This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
        However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
        Current ambassador: James Lewitt

        For more information, read the factbooks here.

        User avatar
        Boston Castle
        Spokesperson
         
        Posts: 140
        Founded: Aug 21, 2020
        New York Times Democracy

        Postby Boston Castle » Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:17 am

        Kenmoria wrote:“I have a bit more grammar to share: clauses 1, 2 and 4 use the commonly-employed style of starting a clause with a verb, meaning that the whole legislation can be read as one cohesive sentence. However, clause 3 uses the equally acceptable style in which each clause is a separate sentence. Either is fine, but not both.”

        “Thank you for that, Ambassador, will fix that later.”

        OOC: Finished
        Last edited by Boston Castle on Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
        WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
        Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

        Blighted Author of GA #522

        User avatar
        Boston Castle
        Spokesperson
         
        Posts: 140
        Founded: Aug 21, 2020
        New York Times Democracy

        Postby Boston Castle » Thu Nov 26, 2020 7:11 pm

        Giving y’all a ~72 hour notice. (Probably closer to like 3 1/2 days)
        WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenberg
        Professional dissident perpetually struggling with BBCode.

        Blighted Author of GA #522

        Next

        Advertisement

        Remove ads

        Return to General Assembly

        Who is online

        Users browsing this forum: Attempted Socialism, The Boras

        Advertisement

        Remove ads