NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Protection of Refugees

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

[Draft] Protection of Refugees

Postby Fachumonn » Tue Mar 05, 2024 5:11 pm

Protection of Refugees
Image
Author: Fachumonn | Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant


This is a replacement. Check out the repeal here.

The General Assembly,

Understanding that refugee and asylum-seeker rights are no longer protected by the GA due to [resolution=GA#???]GA Resolution #???, Repeal "Refugee Protection"[/resolution], and concerned that this could lead to the mistreatment of such refugees,

Believing that refugees deserve to have their rights protected by the GA in the form of a resolution,

Seeking to provide refugee protection and a safe living environment for these misplaced sapients,

Defines a refugee as someone who has been forced to flee their home nation because of a well-founded fear of persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. A refugee must be granted asylum before they are considered a refugee.

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. A refugee is to not be discriminated against according to their race, religion, country of origin, or other similar factors. Furthermore, a refugee is entitled freedom of religion in the country they currently reside in.

  2. A refugee shall not be subject to refoulement. If a member-state chooses a refugee it is understood that they will make a full effort not to put them back in the danger or the conflict they were fleeing from. Aditionally, a refugee shall not be subject to punishment if they are to enter a nation illegally contingent on the basis that their life depends on it.

  3. A refugee that has been admitted to the nation they currently reside in and is forced to stay in the nation they currently reside in for an elongated period of time due to political factors is considered to have lawful residence in their current nation. Naturalization shall be facilitated by member-states to the largest possible extent.

  4. A refugee shall be treated lawfully according to the nation that they treat as their permanent residence or home. In the case that a refugee does not have a nation they currently treat as their permament residence or home, the refugee shall be treated according to the law of the nation they currently reside within. Expulsion of a refugee may only occur in accordance with due process. Rights in cases such as these are protected for the refugee by clause 6b. This refugee may be allowed admittance to other member-states within a reasonable time period.

  5. In the circumstance where a refugee currently resides in a member-state lawfully but does not have proper identification, the member-state shall provide papers of identification as well as travel documents for the purposes of identification within that member-state, unless there is a compelling reason not to which is to be determined on a case to case basis.

  6. A refugee shall be given rights as if they were a national of the nation they currently reside in to the following:

    1. Their individual and artistic property, including copyright and trademark provisions;

    2. Their rights in systems of law and such as courts, and if needed in accordance with previous resolutions, as well as;

    3. Their rights to self employment, which can include commerce, industry, artistic crafts, or agriculture;

    4. Their right to association which includes rights to have beliefs and form unions;

    5. Their rights to rationing, food services, public housing, and similar services, monetary funds, taxes, and charges, as well as freedom of movement within that country which includes transfer of regular assets;

    6. Their rights to public education up to high school, and

    7. Their right to public relief and assistance.

  7. Member-states are looked favourably upon if they so choose to institute policies that seek to accept and provide hospitality for refugees in their nation. On top of that, a member-state shall not turn a blind eye to the potential economic benefit of refugees and shall seek to provide assistance in helping refugees find employments.

  8. Nothing in this resolution should be deemed to deny further rights or benefits already granted by member-nations to refugees. Additionally, nothing in this resolution shall prevent a member-state from establishing measures which this member-state deems necessary for national security, which is contingent on the basis that this determination is actually necessary for national security.


Character Count for reference: 4125
Last edited by Fachumonn on Mon May 27, 2024 4:25 am, edited 62 times in total.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Tue Mar 05, 2024 5:12 pm

Well, I've had my go at it.

I would implore you to give feedback on my repeal.

Old drafts:
The General Assembly,

Understanding that refugee and asylum-seeker rights are no longer protected by the GA due to [resolution=GA#???]GA Resolution #???, Repeal "Refugee Protection"[/resolution], and concerned that this could lead to the mistreatment of such refugees,

Cognizant that refugees deserve to have their rights protected by the GA in the form of a resolution,

Seeking to provide refugee protection and a safe living environment for these misplaced sapients,

Defines the following:

  1. A refugee as someone who has been forced to flee their home nation because of persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. A refugee must be granted asylum before they are considered a refugee.

  2. An asylum-seeker as, someone who has left their country to escape persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation, excluding active military personnel.

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. An asylum-seeker shall not be subject to refoulement, which is defined as being returned into a nation/territory that is an an active war or conflict that puts them in direct danger. If a receiving nation chooses not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is understood that they shall make a full effort to facilitate their transport and not put them in such named conflicts or into non-member states, to the very best of their ability. This allows for deportation of asylum-seekers, just not into said circumstances.

  2. An asylum-seeker shall not be denied solely for factors that may include race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category.

  3. Once an asylum-seeker has been granted asylum, they are a refugee. A refugee is granted protection under national law, and shall not be haphazardly removed from their asylum status after being granted it by such nation. A nation may only remove one's refugee status if they have a well-founded and reasonable reason for doing so. This policy must be enforced for all refugees, not just select beings.

  4. If a refugee cannot return to their home nation, they may, with the approval of the refugee, be integrated into the society of their current nation. This will occur until the refugee chooses to safely return to said home nation. Refugees must have protection so as to not be arbitrarily discriminated against. Refugees aren't necessarily entitled to full participation in the governmental process of this nation.

  5. If a refugee wishes to return to their home nation, barring this refugee has been imprisoned for sufficient reason, this refugee may do so.

  6. In their current nation, refugees or asylum-seekers shall not be subject to discrimination based on reductive traits, or any similar related treatment.

  7. The General Assembly thus commends nations that institute policies that seek to provide a home for asylum-seekers. National policies that seek to take in asylum-seekers are supported and looked favourably upon.
The General Assembly,

Understanding that refugee and asylum-seeker rights are no longer protected by the GA, and concerned that this could lead to the mistreatment of such refugees,

Cognizant that refugees deserve the right to have their rights protected by the GA in the form of a resolution,

Seeking to provide refugee protection and a safe living environment for these misplaced sentients,

Defines the following:

  1. A refugee as someone who has been forced to flee their home nation because of persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. A refugee must be granted asylum before they are considered a refugee. The definition of a migrant is different, as someone who leaves their nation of origin in search of a better life or more prosperous economic opportunities and shall not be looped in with this definition. A refugee shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation, as these are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), still residing within their country of origin.

  2. An asylum-seeker as, someone who has left their country to escape persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation, excluding active military personnel. This asylum seeker cannot have been granted asylum, or else they would be a refugee. Like the above definition, the definition of a migrant is different, and shall not under any circumstances be looped in with this definition. An asylum-seeker shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation of origin, as these should be referred to as IDPs.

Hereby enacts the following:


  1. An asylum-seeker shall not be subject to non-refoulement, which is defined as being returned into a nation/territory that is an an active war or conflict that puts them in direct danger. If a receiving nation chooses not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is understood that they shall make a full effort to facilitate their transport and not put them in such named conflicts or into non-member states, to the very best of their ability. This allows for deportation of asylum-seekers, just not into said circumstances.

  2. An asylum-seeker shall not be denied solely for factors that may include race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category.

  3. Once an asylum-seeker has been granted asylum, they are a refugee. A refugee is granted protection under national law, and shall not be haphazardly removed from their asylum status after being granted it by such nation. A nation may only remove one's refugee status if they have broken significant laws in this nation. This policy must be enforced for all refugees, not just select beings.

  4. If a refugee cannot return to their home nation, they may, with the approval of the refugee, be integrated into the society of their current nation. This will occur until the refugee chooses to safely return to said home nation. Refugees must have full protection of the law and legal rights that are specified for refugees in this nation, including not being subject to arbitrary legal discrimination. Refugees aren't necessarily entitled to full participation in the governmental process of this nation, but eventually be able to obtain citizenship, depending on the nations' citizenship process.

  5. If a conflict is over in the refugees’ home nation, and they wish to return to their original nation, barring this refugee has been imprisoned for sufficient reason, their current host nation cannot prevent them from returning to their home nation. This host nation shall not provide an obstacle in this process.

  6. In their current nation, refugees or asylum-seekers shall not be subject to discrimination, or any similar related treatment.

  7. Strongly urges nations to grant asylum to persons who have proper documentation and no criminal background, as it is in the best interest of this assembly to help those in need. National policies that seek to take in asylum-seekers are supported and looked favourably upon.
The General Assembly,

Understanding that refugee and asylum-seeker rights are no longer protected by the GA, and concerned that this could lead to the mistreatment of such refugees,

Cognizant that refugees deserve the right to have their rights protected by the GA in the form of a resolution,

Seeking to provide refugee protection and a safe living environment for these misplaced sentients,

Defines the following:

  1. A refugee as someone who has been forced to flee their home nation because of persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. A refugee must be granted asylum before they are considered a refugee. The definition of a migrant is different, as someone who leaves their nation of origin in search of a better life or more prosperous economic opportunities and shall not be looped in with this definition. A refugee shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation, as these are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), still residing within their country of origin.

  2. An asylum-seeker as, someone who has left their country to escape persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation, excluding active military personnel. This asylum seeker cannot have been granted asylum, or else they would be a refugee. Like the above definition, the definition of a migrant is different, and shall not under any circumstances be looped in with this definition. An asylum-seeker shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation of origin, as these should be referred to as IDPs.

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. An asylum-seeker shall not be subject to non-refoulement, returning them into a nation/territory that is in an active war or conflict that puts them in direct danger, and if a receiving nation chooses not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is understood that they shall make a full effort to not put them in such named conflicts or into non-member states, to the very best of their ability, however clarifying that this allows deportation of denied asylum-seekers, just not into the above circumstances.

  2. An asylum-seeker shall not be denied solely for factors that may include race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category, and cannot be chosen over someone else for such reasons, unless the nation believes that these qualities would significantly hinder this asylum-seekers quality of life,

  3. Once an asylum-seeker has been granted asylum, they are a refugee. A refugee is granted protection under national law, and shall not be haphazardly removed from their asylum status after being granted it by such nation. A nation may only remove one's refugee status if they have broken national laws or done something which merits their removal, and this policy must be enforced for all refugees, not just select beings,

  4. If a refugee cannot return to their home nation, they shall, with their approval, be integrated into the society of their current nation until they can safely return to said home nation, have full protection of the law and legal rights that are specified for refugees in this nation, not be subject to arbitrary legal discrimination, and may eventually be able to obtain citizenship, depending on the nations' citizenship process, however, these refugees aren't necessarily entitled to full participation in the governmental process of this nation.

  5. If a conflict is over in the refugees’ home nation, and they wish to return to their original nation, barring this refugee has been imprisoned for sufficient reason, their current host nation cannot prevent them from returning to their home nation, and shall not provide an obstacle in this process.

  6. In their current nation, refugees or asylum-seekers shall not be subject to discrimination, any such treatment is labeled as a hate crime, and shall be acted upon by such nation with their uniform judgement.

  7. Strongly urges nations to grant asylum to persons who have proper documentation and no criminal background, as it is in the best interest of this assembly to help those in need,

  8. Implores nations to seek national policies that take in asylum-seekers, as it is the belief of the General Assembly that refugees can help a nation thrive and prosper.
The General Assembly,

Understanding that refugee and asylum-seeker rights are no longer protected by the GA, and concerned that this could lead to the mistreatment of such refugees,

Cognizant that refugees deserve the right to have their rights protected by the GA in the form of a resolution,

Seeking to provide refugee protection and a safe living environment for these misplaced sentients,

Defines the following:

  1. A refugee as someone who has been forced to flee their home nation because of persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. A refugee must be granted asylum before they are considered a refugee. The definition of a migrant is different, as someone who leaves their nation of origin in search of a better life or more prosperous economic opportunities and shall not be looped in with this definition. A refugee shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation, as these are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), still residing within their country of origin.

  2. An asylum seeker as, someone who has left their country to escape persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. This asylum seeker cannot have been granted asylum, or else they would be a refugee. The same caveats apply as the above definition.
Hereby enacts the following:

  1. An asylum-seeker shall not be subject to non-refoulement, returning them into a nation/territory that is in an active war or conflict that puts them in direct danger, and if a nation chooses not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is understood that they shall make a full effort to not put them in such named conflicts or into non-member states, to the very best of their ability, however clarifying that this allows deportation of denied asylum-seekers, just not into the above circumstances.

  2. An asylum-seeker shall not be denied solely for factors that may include race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category, and cannot be chosen over someone else for such reasons, unless the nation believes that these qualities would significantly hinder this asylum-seekers quality of life,

  3. If a refugee cannot return to their home nation, they shall be integrated into the society of their current nation until they can safely return to said home nation, have full protection of the law and legal rights that are specified for refugees in this nation, not be subject to arbitrary legal discrimination, and may eventually be able to obtain citizenship, depending on the nations' citizenship process, however, these refugees aren't necessarily entitled to full participation in the governmental process of this nation.

  4. Once a refugee is granted asylum, a refugee is granted protection under any and all national law, and shall not be haphazardly removed from their asylum status after being granted it by such nation.

  5. If a conflict is over in the refugees’ home nation, and they wish to return to their original nation, barring this refugee has been imprisoned for sufficient reason, their current host nation cannot prevent them from returning to their home nation, and shall not provide an obstacle in this process.

  6. In their current nation, refugees or asylum-seekers shall not be subject to discrimination or xenophobia, any such treatment is labeled as a hate crime, and shall be acted upon by such nation with their unbiased judgement.

  7. Strongly urges nations to grant asylum to said persons who have proper documentation and no criminal background, as it is in the best interest of a member-state to maintain a healthy population and allowance for different peoples.

  8. Implores nations to seek national policies that take in asylum-seekers, as it is the belief of the General Assembly that refugees can help a nation thrive and prosper.
The General Assembly,

Understanding that refugee and asylum-seeker rights are no longer protected by the GA, and concerned that this could lead to mistreatment of such refugees,

Seeking to provide refugee protection and a safe living environment for these misplaced sentients,

Defines the following:

  1. A refugee as someone who has been forced to flee their home nation because of persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. A refugee must be granted asylum before they are considered a refugee. The definition of a migrant is different, as someone who leaves their nation of origin in search of a better life or more prosperous economic opportunities, and shall not be looped in with this definition. A refugee shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation, as these are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

  2. An asylum seeker as, someone who has left their country to escape persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. This asylum seeker cannot have been granted asylum, or else they would be a refugee. Same caveats apply as the above definition.
Hereby enacts the following:

  1. An asylum-seeker shall not be denied for any factors that include religion, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category, and cannot be chosen over someone else for such reasons,

  2. No asylum-seeker ought to be shipped against their will, unless this asylum-seeker falls under the international definition of a criminal, by which special cases may be made, or the asylum-seeker has been denied, in which case the following clause applies.

  3. An asylum-seeker shall not be subject to non-refoulement, returning them into a nation/territory that is in an active war or conflict that puts them in direct danger, and if a nation chooses not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is understood that they shall make a full effort to not put them in such named conflicts or into non-member states, to the very best of their ability, however clarifying that this allows deportation of denied asylum-seekers, just not into the above circumstances.

  4. If a refugee cannot return to their home nation, they shall be integrated into the society of their current nation until they can safely return to said home nation, have full protection of the law and legal rights that is specified for refugees in this nation, not be subject to arbitrary legal discrimination, and may eventually be able to obtain citizenship, depending on the nations' citizenship process, however these refugees aren't necessarily entitled to full participation in the governmental process of this nation.

  5. Once a refugee is granted asylum, a refugee is granted protection under any and all national law, and shall not be haphazardly removed of their asylum status after being granted it by such nation.

  6. If a conflict is over in the refugees’ home nation, and they wish to return to their original nation, their current host nation cannot prevent them from returning to their home nation, and shall not provide an obstacle in this process.

  7. In their current nation, refugees or asylum-seekers shall not be subject to discrimination or xenophobia, any such treatment is labeled as a hate crime, and shall be acted upon by such nation with their unbiased judgement,

  8. Strongly urges nations to grant asylum to said persons who have proper documentation and no criminal background, as it is in the best interest of a member-state to maintain a healthy population and allowance for different peoples,

  9. Implores nations to seek national policies that take in asylum-seekers, as it is of the belief of the General Assembly that refugees can help a nation thrive and prosper.
The General Assembly,

Understanding that refugee and asylum-seeker rights are no longer protected by the GA, and concerned that this could lead to mistreatment of such refugees,

Seeking to provide refugee protection and a safe living environment for these misplaced sentients,

Defines the following:

    [i] A refugee as someone who has been forced to flee their home nation because of persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. A refugee must be granted asylum before they are considered a refugee. The definition of a migrant is different and shall not be looped in with this definition. A refugee shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation, as these are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

    [i] An asylum seeker as, someone who has left their country to escape persecution, war, or violence, and currently resides outside of said nation. This asylum seeker cannot have been granted asylum, or else they would be a refugee. Same caveats apply as the above definition.

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. An asylum-seeker shall not be denied for any factors that include religion, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category, and cannot be chosen over someone else for such reasons,
  2. No asylum-seeker ought to be shipped against their will, unless this asylum-seeker falls under the international definition of a criminal, by which special cases can be made,
  3. Once a refugee is granted asylum, a refugee is granted protection under any and all national law, and shall not be haphazardly removed of their asylum status after granted it by such nation,
  4. An asylum-seeker shall not be subject to non-refoulement, returning them into a nation/territory that is deemed unsafe and puts them at direct danger, and if a nation chooses not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is understood that they shall make a full effort to not put them in said conflict or into a non-member state, to the very best of their ability,
  5. If a refugee cannot return to their home nation, they shall be integrated into the society of their current nation until they can safely return to said home nation, have full protection of the law and legal rights in this nation, and may eventually be able to obtain citizenship, depending on the countries citizenship process,
  6. If a conflict is over in the refugees’ home nation, and they wish to return to their original nation, their current host nation cannot prevent them from returning to their home nation, and shall not provide an obstacle in this process,
  7. In their current nation, refugees or asylum-seekers shall not be subject to discrimination or xenophobia, any such treatment is labeled as a hate crime, and shall be acted upon by such nation,
  8. Strongly urges nations to grant asylum to said persons who have proper documentation and no criminal background,
  9. Implores nations to seek national policies that take in asylum-seekers, as it is of the belief of the General Assembly that refugees can help a nation thrive and prosper,
Last edited by Fachumonn on Fri May 24, 2024 6:30 pm, edited 7 times in total.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:22 am

Regrettably, since this has fallen out of the first page...

sigh

Bump!
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Midlona
Attaché
 
Posts: 77
Founded: Jan 20, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby Midlona » Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:06 pm

"While opposed to this resolution due to differing views on national sovereignty, laws on social attitudes, and the role of the WA in immigration enforcement, Midlona presents the following comments on this thoughtfully-drafted proposal.

Fachumonn wrote:The definition of a migrant is different and shall not be looped in with this definition. A refugee shall not be considered someone who currently lives in their original nation, as these are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).


Is it possible to add a citation (if not a link) to where these terms have been defined? I'm sure character conservation rules out defining them here, but some citation would increase ease of comprehension and benefit future readers if this proposal gets adopted.

So, this could read "The definition of a migrant (found in GAR # XXX) is different . . ."

Fachumonn wrote:This asylum seeker cannot have been granted asylum, or else they would be a refugee.

I propose this read, "This asylum seeker must not cannot have been granted or denied asylum, or else they would be a refugee."

I interpret the existing language to allow those who have already been denied asylum to still be classified as "asylum-seekers" and benefit from the protections it provides (insofar as the denying nation would still be expected to honor the duties owed, like those in clause 2, to "asylum-seekers").

This revision would ensure that nations are not required to expend resources on (or be prohibited from enforcing its law against) individuals already determined ineligible for asylum.

Fachumonn wrote:An asylum-seeker shall not be denied for any factors that include religion, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category, and cannot be chosen over someone else for such reasons,

There is valid concern that authoritarian or otherwise bigoted regimes may prohibit, wholesale, asylum based on unfounded prejudices. On the other hand, the broad definition of "culture" is unhelpful and burdens legitimate government interests in immigration policy, such as cultural assimilation. The closing sentence presents a similar issue.

No nation should be forced to take on foreign individuals who are unlikely to establish mutually beneficial relationships in its society. If the facts of any one individual's situation merit the grant of asylum, countervailing interests, like the quality of life that person will experience in the host nation, should play a role in the final decision. One's quality of life in a new country is highly impacted by that individual's ability to understand and interact with the new world around them. In other words, an individual's "culture" (social views, language, practices, and customs) plays an important role in making asylum a benefit for all parties, rather than a disruptive or instigating state action.

Fachumonn wrote:No asylum-seeker ought to be shipped against their will, unless this asylum-seeker falls under the international definition of a criminal, by which special cases may be made

While Midlona rejects this limitation on a nation's deportation authority, the existing definition of "asylum-seeker" makes this prohibition particularly worrisome. If Midlona denied an individual's asylum request, that individual may still qualify as an "asylum-seeker." If that is the case, this clause would prohibit Midlona from deporting that individual if they are present within our borders. Given the realistic struggles in border enforcement, this isn't a remote hypothetical.

Fachumonn wrote:An asylum-seeker shall not be subject to non-refoulement, returning them into a nation/territory that is deemed unsafe and puts them at direct danger, and if a nation chooses not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is understood that they shall make a full effort to not put them in said conflict or into a non-member state, to the very best of their ability,

How is the safety of a receiving-nation to be determined? At the core of Midlona's issue with WA regulation of immigration is the impracticability of the classifications and definitional schemes that are implemented. If the transferring-nation is the one that deems a receiving-nation safe or not, then this provision is toothless. Of course a nation wanting to transfer asylum-seekers to another nation is going to consider the receiving nation safe. However, if this determination is delegated to a WA institution, the institutional bloat will damage processing times, while also severely infringing (even more) on national sovereignty.

Midlona is supportive of rejecting-nations not worsening the lot of asylum-seekers, however. To that end, I propose this clause read simply, "If a nation choose not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is encouraged to make a full effort to not put the asylum-seekers in the conflict escaped, direct danger, or into a non-member state."

Fachumonn wrote:If a refugee cannot return to their home nation, they shall be integrated into the society of their current nation until they can safely return to said home nation, have full protection of the law and legal rights in this nation, and may eventually be able to obtain citizenship, depending on the countries citizenship process,

Midlona rejects the mandated grant of full protection to refugees. Their legal status is different from that of citizens and may justify the application of adapted laws and regulations. Certain rights are only endowed upon citizens.

A more reasonable standard would be to prohibit arbitrary application of the law. This would allow host nations the flexibility to implement legal structures tailored to refugees, while also targeting unfair treatment.

Fachumonn wrote:Once a refugee is granted asylum, a refugee is granted protection under any and all national law, and shall not be haphazardly removed of their asylum status after granted it by such nation,

This provision seems to serve the same purpose as the one above. If my above provision is adopted, the arbitrary standard could serve a similar role as the haphazard standard implemented here.


[*]If a conflict is over in the refugees’ home nation, and they wish to return to their original nation, their current host nation cannot prevent them from returning to their home nation, and shall not provide an obstacle in this process,


Fachumonn wrote:In their current nation, refugees or asylum-seekers shall not be subject to discrimination or xenophobia, any such treatment is labeled as a hate crime, and shall be acted upon by such nation,

Midlona rejects the legal fiction of "hate crimes" as antithetical to an equal application of the law. They also present a threat of chilling protected political and social speech that many nations protect. The inclusion of "xenophobia" as basis of a "hate crime" would chill protected speech.

All citizens have a right to express their thoughts on the actions of their government, particularly when those actions impact domestic realities. Immigration fits that bill. If a citizen wants to express displeasure at its government granting refuge to individuals, then that is their right. To the extent this protestor's speech is intended to harass or intimidate, Midlona's harassment laws are well-suited for that scenario.

This provision needlessly complicates an already contentious issue. I suggest it be removed."

-
Joanna Hern
Deputy Minister for Immigration Services
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Federal Republic of Midlona

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:49 pm

Midlona wrote:
Is it possible to add a citation (if not a link) to where these terms have been defined? I'm sure character conservation rules out defining them here, but some citation would increase ease of comprehension and benefit future readers if this proposal gets adopted.


No, not really. And definitely not a link. If a person needs to know what IDPs are (it's pretty self-explanatory), they can look it up.
Midlona wrote:So, this could read "The definition of a migrant (found in GAR # XXX) is different . . ."

First off, I'm not sure there is a proposal that defines this (i'd have to look), and anyways, I don't want to cite a resolution.
I would more likely provide a little quip on how a migrant is different. (It's someone who leaves their country in search of a better life/better economic possibilities, they aren't forced out due to violence).
Midlona wrote:I interpret the existing language to allow those who have already been denied asylum to still be classified as "asylum-seekers" and benefit from the protections it provides (insofar as the denying nation would still be expected to honor the duties owed, like those in clause 2, to "asylum-seekers").

Your interpretation is not entirely correct, and your implementation is not either. Your revised clause reads as "if someone is denied asylum, or else they would be a refugee." I may add something like "an asylum seeker is still defined as such even if they may be denied, as they are still seeking safety." The point is that even if they are denied, an asylum-seeker shall still have some rights. It might be good to clarify however that if they move into another nation requesting asylum, the first nation they went into is no longer responsible for protecting their rights, as the new nation would be responsible?
Midlona wrote:This revision would ensure that nations are not required to expend resources on (or be prohibited from enforcing its law against) individuals already determined ineligible for asylum.

To be clear, laws can still be forced against any asylum-seeker. This provides no protection of the such, and, this resolution does make a special exception for criminals as well.
Midlona wrote:There is valid concern that authoritarian or otherwise bigoted regimes may prohibit, wholesale, asylum based on unfounded prejudices. On the other hand, the broad definition of "culture" is unhelpful and burdens legitimate government interests in immigration policy, such as cultural assimilation. The closing sentence presents a similar issue.

This is a completely valid concern, but I kinda ran out of things to put there. ;) I will work to revise that and the closing sentence.
Midlona wrote:No nation should be forced to take on foreign individuals who are unlikely to establish mutually beneficial relationships in its society. If the facts of any one individual's situation merit the grant of asylum, countervailing interests, like the quality of life that person will experience in the host nation, should play a role in the final decision. One's quality of life in a new country is highly impacted by that individual's ability to understand and interact with the new world around them. In other words, an individual's "culture" (social views, language, practices, and customs) plays an important role in making asylum a benefit for all parties, rather than a disruptive or instigating state action.
To be clear, the resolution does not force any nation to take on any person. It recommends more open policies, but doesn't actually enforce this. I agree with your culture point, however the concern is that a nation may be able to discriminate because of one's culture.

Midlona wrote:While Midlona rejects this limitation on a nation's deportation authority, the existing definition of "asylum-seeker" makes this prohibition particularly worrisome. If Midlona denied an individual's asylum request, that individual may still qualify as an "asylum-seeker." If that is the case, this clause would prohibit Midlona from deporting that individual if they are present within our borders. Given the realistic struggles in border enforcement, this isn't a remote hypothetical.

Completely valid point, as this was an oversight during drafting. Will work to make this clause way looser, and may end up completely changing it.

Midlona wrote:How is the safety of a receiving-nation to be determined? At the core of Midlona's issue with WA regulation of immigration is the impracticability of the classifications and definitional schemes that are implemented. If the transferring-nation is the one that deems a receiving-nation safe or not, then this provision is toothless. Of course a nation wanting to transfer asylum-seekers to another nation is going to consider the receiving nation safe. However, if this determination is delegated to a WA institution, the institutional bloat will damage processing times, while also severely infringing (even more) on national sovereignty.

I don't like the Nationality Sovereignty argument, as this is inherent in the GA. I read your problems with this clause as needing more detail, which I am happy to specify and detail.
Midlona wrote:Midlona is supportive of rejecting-nations not worsening the lot of asylum-seekers, however. To that end, I propose this clause read simply, "If a nation choose not to accept an asylum-seeker, it is encouraged to make a full effort to not put the asylum-seekers in the conflict escaped, direct danger, or into a non-member state."

That would be ok but encouraging would have to be scrapped for something more forceful. Non-refoulement is a key belief in the real-UN and this is one of the key protections of this resolution that the target does not completely provide.

Midlona wrote:Midlona rejects the mandated grant of full protection to refugees. Their legal status is different from that of citizens and may justify the application of adapted laws and regulations. Certain rights are only endowed upon citizens.

I'm split on this one. On the one hand, I can see your argument, but on the other, I disagree. Maybe I could specify that this refugee doesn't need to have full participation in government, just full protection of the legal system.
Midlona wrote:A more reasonable standard would be to prohibit arbitrary application of the law. This would allow host nations the flexibility to implement legal structures tailored to refugees, while also targeting unfair treatment.

I don't entirely like this, as this is vague so that a nation could twist it to their favor.

Midlona wrote:This provision seems to serve the same purpose as the one above. If my above provision is adopted, the arbitrary standard could serve a similar role as the haphazard standard implemented here.

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. The above clause tackles the legal rights of a refugee, while this protects their asylum status, which is what gives them most of their rights in the first place.
Midlona wrote:Midlona rejects the legal fiction of "hate crimes" as antithetical to an equal application of the law. They also present a threat of chilling protected political and social speech that many nations protect. The inclusion of "xenophobia" as basis of a "hate crime" would chill protected speech.

Since when is protected speech hating someone for being different? I'm sorry, but even free speech has its limits.

Midlona wrote:All citizens have a right to express their thoughts on the actions of their government, particularly when those actions impact domestic realities. Immigration fits that bill. If a citizen wants to express displeasure at its government granting refuge to individuals, then that is their right. To the extent this protestor's speech is intended to harass or intimidate, Midlona's harassment laws are well-suited for that scenario.

Yes, but that is not what that above clause is saying at all. Xenephobia and Discrimination is different than simply opposing immigration. You can oppose Immigration without being a xenephobe, but when it get's to a targeted attack on the refugee, that is a different story. This is simply here to prevent that kind of thing.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Wed Mar 06, 2024 9:17 pm

All of the above feedback should be fixed, at least according to my judgement.

See what you think of my new draft!
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Midlona
Attaché
 
Posts: 77
Founded: Jan 20, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby Midlona » Thu Mar 07, 2024 1:19 pm

"Midlona appreciates the consideration of its comments. While leaving aside issues that our two nations experience fundamental differences and where no comprise is foreseeable, I submit the following response on the issue of comprehension.

Fachumonn wrote:No, not really. And definitely not a link. If a person needs to know what IDPs are (it's pretty self-explanatory), they can look it up.


Fachumonn wrote:First off, I'm not sure there is a proposal that defines this (i'd have to look), and anyways, I don't want to cite a resolution.
I would more likely provide a little quip on how a migrant is different. (It's someone who leaves their country in search of a better life/better economic possibilities, they aren't forced out due to violence).

Legibility of law deserves to be taken more seriously than this. As an inter-national body, the resolutions of the GA are binding on countless beings and member-nations. Authors have a duty to make their legislation accessible and easy to understand. Those bound by law have a reasonable expectation that the law can be understood. It is simply unreasonable and unfair to place the burden of defining words essential to your proposal on the reader. Especially when the record keeping of WA resolutions are spotty and difficult to navigate. This is leg work authors should do.

[ooc] Second, this isn't RL. the WA may define "IDP" or "migrant" differently than the RL-UN or IRC. That you don't know how your proposal may or may not mesh with existing WA resolutions represents another flaw in this drafting process. Consistent and coherent legal frameworks generate good policy. Blindly passing resolutions generates patchwork systems that are unmanageable and undermine the integrity of the WA. [/occ]

Other than this and our distinct policy-approaches to issue of speech and national sovereignty, this is a good draft. While Midlona will not support this one, I hope to see more proposals in the future.
-
Joanna Hern
Deputy Minister for Immigration Services
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Federal Republic of Midlona

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Thu Mar 07, 2024 2:31 pm

Midlona wrote:Legibility of law deserves to be taken more seriously than this.

Sorry, but not everything in a resolution needs to be specified down to the very last minute detail. It is ok to not completely specify some things, especially not a word that literally means exactly what you would think it would mean.
Midlona wrote: Authors have a duty to make their legislation accessible and easy to understand.

Sorry, but I'm also not writing for kindergarteners.
Midlona wrote:Those bound by law have a reasonable expectation that the law can be understood.

The thing is, it's pretty obvious what it means. I don't wanna stuff my definitions with; and this thing means; and this means... I would like to reiterate, I am not writing for 10 year olds.
Midlona wrote:It is simply unreasonable and unfair to place the burden of defining words essential to your proposal on the reader.

This is exactly what the reader does. Interpret the resolution. I am passing a bill for an international organization. There is no burden.
Midlona wrote:[ooc] Second, this isn't RL. the WA may define "IDP" or "migrant" differently than the RL-UN or IRC.

Yes, but I am not creating a resolution on IDP's or Migrants? In what way would I need to define these terms when they have no bearing on any of the rest of the resolution?
Midlona wrote: That you don't know how your proposal may or may not mesh with existing WA resolutions represents another flaw in this drafting process.

I haven't memorized all 700 GA resolutions. And as said before, why on earth should I cite the definition of a resolution passed in 2012 when a) it's completely irrelevant to the rest of the resolution and b) that is not standard practice of GA resolutions.
Midlona wrote: Consistent and coherent legal frameworks generate good policy. Blindly passing resolutions generates patchwork systems that are unmanageable and undermine the integrity of the WA.

That is the opposite of what I am doing. I am doing nothing blind. I am repealing the only legislation on refugees, and replacing it with the only legislation on refugees. There is no point to cite anything, because it has nothing to do with my resolution.
Midlona wrote:Other than this and our distinct policy-approaches to issue of speech and national sovereignty, this is a good draft. While Midlona will not support this one, I hope to see more proposals in the future.

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, but I think you mainly missed the point of this.

Edit: I have implemented a little bit of specification on IDPs per your above comments however. Hopefully this is better?
Last edited by Fachumonn on Thu Mar 07, 2024 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Thu Mar 07, 2024 4:38 pm

Per the above comments, a new third draft is up.

I:
  • Specified the definitions more.
  • Axed a whole clause because it didn't make sense and was by far the weakest.
  • Cleared up words and junky phrases (at least hopefully).

Please give more feedback, and check out my repeal!
Last edited by Fachumonn on Thu Mar 07, 2024 4:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Sat Mar 09, 2024 5:55 am

Bumping, as this has fallen down to the middle of the second page. With more feedback on the repeal, I really need to get this resolution up to scratch as well.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Midlona
Attaché
 
Posts: 77
Founded: Jan 20, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby Midlona » Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:11 am

Fachumonn wrote:Thanks for the feedback. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, but I think you mainly missed the point of this.


No, I understand your point. I just very much disagree with it. Your approach to this proposal is sloppy, arrogant, and unserious.

User avatar
Ignis Ferreus
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Feb 29, 2024
Ex-Nation

Postby Ignis Ferreus » Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:14 am

I dislike this on the grounds it interferes with the absolute control over immigration. Sure we of Ignis Ferreus might not be in the WA but we still strive for NatSov policies, and this isn't one of them.
I used to be Stella Nera ! Humans need to band together to suppress the robots and keep these metal objects in their place, as sub servants of humanity, in order to boost the human cause and achieve our utopia! I'm not anti robot I'm anti robot rights, big difference.
The Empire that does but blood is the Empire of Ignis Ferreus, the only greatness is our greatness!
I'm still working on my flag the current one is a draft. I HATE communism with a passion.
If I die I will refuse to let my family inherit anything from me unless they have a kangaroo jumping around during my funeral as a ''symbol'' and they must play This Song at full volume the entire time

User avatar
Ignis Ferreus
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Feb 29, 2024
Ex-Nation

Postby Ignis Ferreus » Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:22 am

[quote]An asylum-seeker shall not be denied for any factors that include religion, race, ethnicity, ways of life, gender, or any reason that shall fall in that category, and cannot be chosen over someone else for such reasons.

Several issues with this: In the age of technology, in Ignis Ferreus, religion is being seen less positively and as it contradicts science it is becoming more and more associated with cult and imaginary witchcraft. As such, religious opinions are scarce, especially after the Third World War. They are considered as sacred as political opinions are, in that they hold no intrinsic sacred value and can be contested. A religious opinion therefore holds no such protection status as an opinion of the regular variety does So there would be issues with this inclusion of the clause.

We are fine with race, because we don't get much immigrants anyway due to our strict immigration laws and so we're fine with that. On ways of life, this is far too loosely defined, and may include factors such as political affiliation ,something Ignis Ferreus would be 100% against, because we cannot under any circumstance allow for the people who do not believe in political system to enter our glorious nation and undermine it with their differing beliefs. You need to be more clear on this.
I used to be Stella Nera ! Humans need to band together to suppress the robots and keep these metal objects in their place, as sub servants of humanity, in order to boost the human cause and achieve our utopia! I'm not anti robot I'm anti robot rights, big difference.
The Empire that does but blood is the Empire of Ignis Ferreus, the only greatness is our greatness!
I'm still working on my flag the current one is a draft. I HATE communism with a passion.
If I die I will refuse to let my family inherit anything from me unless they have a kangaroo jumping around during my funeral as a ''symbol'' and they must play This Song at full volume the entire time

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1031
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Sun Mar 10, 2024 2:05 am

Ignis Ferreus wrote:I dislike this on the grounds it interferes with the absolute control over immigration. Sure we of Ignis Ferreus might not be in the WA but we still strive for NatSov policies, and this isn't one of them.


The World Assembly is not the place to be if national sovereignty is your primary concern.
Free Palestine

Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights


Neuroscientist | Formerly Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:50 am

The Overmind wrote:
Ignis Ferreus wrote:I dislike this on the grounds it interferes with the absolute control over immigration. Sure we of Ignis Ferreus might not be in the WA but we still strive for NatSov policies, and this isn't one of them.


The World Assembly is not the place to be if national sovereignty is your primary concern.

This
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1282
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:13 am

The Overmind wrote:
Ignis Ferreus wrote:I dislike this on the grounds it interferes with the absolute control over immigration. Sure we of Ignis Ferreus might not be in the WA but we still strive for NatSov policies, and this isn't one of them.

The World Assembly is not the place to be if national sovereignty is your primary concern.

A non-animal ambassador steps into the debate chamber upon hearing this.

"On the contrary, I would say that nations that value their national sovereignty, should be part of these debates. How else could they prepare for or oppose such measures as this?"

How exactly the... well, it must be an ambassador because why else would it be here? ...creature speaks, given it seems to comprise of a disturbing combination of plant and fungal tissue and has no face, is anyone's guess.

"As for the proposal, I notice that the definition of an asylum seeker does not exclude military personnel in active service, and in clause one it says that an asylum-seeker cannot be returned into a nation that is in active war or conflict that puts them in direct danger. Yet they seem to be able to seek asylum from such a nation? Such as the opposite side of the conflict they are fleeing? Surely you don't think that the side waging war against their nation of origin should be forced to let in their actual enemy soldiers? And even if not that, a nation engaged in unrelated warfare likely to put any asylum-seeker in direct danger, should not be compelled to devote resources on keeping foreign nationals safe over the safety of their own citizens."

The entity steps further into the debate chamber, and shows that while it does have something that might be defined as a pair of arms, they do not exactly end in hands, nor is the bulbous mass at the top of its torso really a head, if the definition of a head includes visible sensory organs. Due to its lower body and legs - if it even has legs - being covered by what appears to be a skirt or dress of some kind bolted onto its tissues, its form of locomotion can only be guessed at.

"In clause two I wonder what "way of life" means? If one's way of life involves hunting and eating other sapients - do remember that asylum-seekers may come from non-member nations too - then such a person should definitely not be required to be accepted into any reasonable nation. The same goes for religion that might require live sacrifice of sapient beings. As just an example. Many more unsavoury examples could be given, so please don't focuse on the killing parts. In fact, any cultural custom or way of life choice - or even the actual biology of the species in question - that directly violates the World Assembly resolutions, should be allowed as a reason to not even let such a person onto the nation's soil."
OOC: Clause 4 talks of "once a refugee is granted asylum" - shouldn't that be "once an asylum-seeker is granted asylum" as that is the requirement for them to become a refugee? Otherwise it should be "once a refugee has been granted asylum". And clause 3 talks about refugees directly. It would make more sense if in the entire resolution, including the definitions, you first talked about asylum-seekers in the clauses, since they are not yet refugees, and only later about refugees, once they have been granted asylum. Especially as one can usually be granted temporary stay within a nation (at least in RL) while bureaucracy happens, whether their application is approved or not. During that temporary stay they would still be an asylum-seeker, not a refugee.

"I find it somewhat concerning that clause three seems to mandate integration into the society of the receiving nation, whether the refugee wishes to be integrated or not. In some cases - especially if the refugee's nation of origin is a non-member nation - the refugee themselves may wish to simply wait out the conflict while not starving shelterless, rather than become part of the nation where they do so. Was this intentional? What if integration into the society requires the installation of a brain implant, forming an irreversible biological symbiosis with a specific strain of bacterium, or other such rather irreversible procedure, without which they cannot leave an airlock, or no door will open, no food will be served and their presence will not be acknowledged by anyone else as other than a physical object to avoid collision with? These may appear as extreme examples, but sometimes survival in harsh conditions may require harsh measures to ensure said survival."
OOC: Someone will complain about using roleplay examples. That doesn't stop me from bringing up roleplay concerns. Never has. Never will. :P

The ambassador creature lifts one of its appendages to brush off its shoulder something that looks like golden dust under the lights of the debate chamber.

"As an example, where I come from, these spores are everywhere. Once you breathe them in, they will implant themselves in your tissues and cannot be removed without complete organ replacements of your entire breathing system and airways. They will, however, protect you from more invasive or more harmful things you may be breathing in, by enabling you to cough such matter up and out. Without their protection you would need to stay within a small room with its own recycled air supply, eating repurposed excretory matter - obviously synthetized to be safe to eat and be of good nutritious value - and without any possibility of integrating into the society other than in very remote ways."
OOC: Because I know that language sounds complex, recycled air here means replacing carbon dioxide with oxygen, and repurposed excretory matter means using chemical processes that synthetize nutritious but not necessarily very appetizing edibles from your own poo. To those who know PPU RP from before, no, the ambassador thing doesn't come from the island it took bought from Araraukar. It comes from an alien (as humans would think of it) planet. What the spore things protect you from is the local fungi that would just, you know, eat you, or heavy metal dust that could poison you. Their network packages those in a small amount of mucus and like your own motile cilia would, will move the mucus droplets to your upper airways where you can cough them away. They don't prevent gas exchange in the lungs.

"May I ask what is "governmental process", in clause three? Do you mean legislatory process? Or partaking elections? Perhaps "political processes" would be a better wording? I am not very familiar with such, though, as I am very much a nation of one, though I do allow migrant workers on my soil for predetermined lengths of time."
OOC: In case you're not familiar with PPU RP, the entity talking here is just one body of the entity known as "hivemind", though that's a slightly misleading word here. But it's an originally plant-based (these days it can change its tissues into fungal and animal tissues too, though the process is not fast) mind that exists simultaneously in many bodies. And no, I won't try to define it by any scientific wording, because I would be inventing half the words anyway. :P In any case, here it's talking about the places it actually owns, that form its own "nation", rather than the places where it's just helping out other nations more or less permanently.

"Clause four bans the haphazard removal of asylum status, yet nowhere in the proposal is the non-haphazard removal of the status made possible. When is a refugee no longer a refugee? What reasons are sufficient to remove that status? Breaking national laws? Violating World Assembly resolutions? The person wanting to move to a nation other than their nation of origin for better jobs and living conditions and in the process becoming a migrant instead? Can refugee status be systematically removed? Also, clause five should probably start with "when" rather than "if". And I notice that throughout the proposal you use variably "current nation", "host nation" and "current host nation". Yet I see no way for a nation to admit someone as a refugee and then move them to another nation, so perhaps all such wordings should be changed to "host nation"? With possible exception in clause one, where the receiving nation should probably be called the receiving nation. Clause six, as written, seems to require thought-reading and thought-control of the host nation's inhabitants. Perhaps you meant discrimination - xenophobia on its own is of no consequence, it is only the discriminatory acts that should be of concern here - by the state and any public functions or services? Also, if the entire nation is xenophobic, how could their judgement be unbiased?"

The ambassador thing turns slightly to address the audience of the sparsely-populated debate hall.

"I would say that no-one here, or elsewhere in this building, is completely unbiased or non-discriminatory against all sapients. Some here do not believe in sapient artificial intelligences. Many would claim that my own sapiency cannot be explained by their science and so is not possible. Many would claim that creatures they define as animals cannot be sapient, because that would mean the cruelty against them would be murder or genocide rather than, say, hunting them for food. Many know that should a sapient alien species not native to their planet show up in their nation, even claiming to be peaceful, they would most likely be met with deadly force to make them go away, no matter what the World Assembly resolutions say. I myself have sometimes been the target of the threat or an actual attempted removal by flamethrowers (OOC: Araraukar, Tinfect), because of the xenophobic reactions, yet I do not blame the people who did so, because they believed at the time that they were trying to prevent total biospheric assimilation by me. Which of course was an unfounded concern, but they didn't know or believe it at the time."
OOC: Both flamethrower incidents (by Araraukar's ambassador Janis and by Hostile Lifeform Eradication teams of Tinfect, respectively) happened behind the scenes, but they did happen, as far as GA RP was concerned. And Janis's flamethrower became a GA thing for a while.

Turning back to the proposal presenter, the ambassador continues, "In clause seven, "to said persons" should perhaps just read "persons". But what happens with people who do have criminal background - especially as way of life, such as a life of crime, is not allowed as a discrimination cause - or don't have the necessary documentation, as may be the case with people fleeing war or genocidal conditions, where it may be impossible for them to obtain so much as an identifying document without putting themselves in mortal danger. In a choice between staying alive and having all necessary documentation for border crossing, I doubt many people would choose the latter. However, I additionally question the assumption that maintaining a healthy population would require outside additions to said population, and adding different peoples may be against a nation's best interests if the interest is to homogenize the population. I suggest everything after the word "background" be removed. It doesn't add anyhing of substance and may cause some opposition all on its own. I also question the entire existence of clause eight, as taking in people who do not have jobs - if they did, they would be migrants, not refugees - who often have very few material possessions and very limited funds, and who might know nothing about the local language and culture and traditions, can very much hinder the thriving and prospering of a nation, especially if the refugees come in such numbers as to overwhelm for example the resources of national healthcare or social services. Also, it is rarely national policies that take in asylum-seekers, but rather national policies may make it easier for the nation to take in asylum-seekers."
OOC: Imagine Luxemburg, that has a bit under 700k people, having to take in - just an example, remember - the 1.3 million refugees and migrants who requested asylum from Europe during year 2015. I doubt the nation could thrive and prosper under such a load of desperate people.
This nation is a plant-based hivemind. It's current ambassador for interacting with humanoids is a bipedal plant creature standing at almost two metres tall. In IC in the WA.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Bananaistan
Senator
 
Posts: 3530
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Mar 11, 2024 6:56 am

"Section 2. Nations absolutely should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion. We have no interest in importing potential fifth columnists with their backwards, medieval so called religious beliefs, such as the two particularly large Abrahamic religions. Whereas there are plenty of religions which are entirely inoffensive and have no charge on their followers to proselytise, such as the other Abrahamic religion. We know which ones we prefer to have in Bananaistan.

"Also section 2, what exactly are "ways of life"?

"Section 5. Say the subject is convicted of a crime and in prison? Why should we be obliged to let them go?
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
THIS

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:11 am

Bananaistan wrote:"Section 2. Nations absolutely should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion. We have no interest in importing potential fifth columnists with their backwards, medieval so called religious beliefs, such as the two particularly large Abrahamic religions. Whereas there are plenty of religions which are entirely inoffensive and have no charge on their followers to proselytise, such as the other Abrahamic religion. We know which ones we prefer to have in Bananaistan.

"Also section 2, what exactly are "ways of life"?

"Section 5. Say the subject is convicted of a crime and in prison? Why should we be obliged to let them go?


"We understand your concerns. Section 2 is meant to prevent discrimination towards asylum-seekers, something that was not protected against in the original draft. We understand this and will be working to fix this. Ways of life means, the way someone lives. The way they do things. Section 5, valid concern, will work to fix.

Edit: "All of your concerns shall be fixed, at least to a certain extent."
Last edited by Fachumonn on Mon Mar 11, 2024 9:12 am, edited 4 times in total.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Mon Mar 11, 2024 4:57 pm

I hate to double post, but I didn't notice Potted Plants United feedback until recently, as somehow my brain skipped over it looking at the next post.

To be clear, most of your feedback has been or should be to my interpretation of your feedback be addressed, bar a few minor things that I think didn't merit changing, like governmental process, because I really couldn't find another way to explain my thoughts. Clause 8 I have been going back and forth on for a while, so if I get more feedback I will be open to changing that. Clause 2 has been addressed, with concerns of "ways of life" (which I admit, was not my best work) or "religion" axed.

This also serves as a semi-bump, as this has fallen pretty far down, but I didn't intend to post anything until I saw this feedback.

A new draft is up, according to not only Banana's feedback but mostly PPU.
Last edited by Fachumonn on Mon Mar 11, 2024 4:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Thu Mar 14, 2024 6:13 am

Bump. A new draft should be up, with many improved clauses and better wording in places.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Domnonia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 51
Founded: Oct 27, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Domnonia » Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:25 pm

We are not confident that this draft is adequate to the task of a repeal and replace maneuver. To start, apophasis isn't required as a part of the terms of reference. Refugee. Asylum-seeker. We do not feel that these terms require any negation to function and to stand. Define them as they are, not as they are not.

We believe that the honourable member-state might be best served by taking a step back and to instead patiently approach this from a different perspective than "fixing" loopholes. Instead, consider what appropriate steps this assembly could take to safeguard the rights and dignity of people externally displaced. Write that draft.

Like BearsArmed, we believe that “The law does what the law says” and so this can and should be written that way.
Last edited by Domnonia on Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Fri Mar 15, 2024 4:17 am

Domnonia wrote:We are not confident that this draft is adequate to the task of a repeal and replace maneuver. To start, apophasis isn't required as a part of the terms of reference. Refugee. Asylum-seeker. We do not feel that these terms require any negation to function and to stand. Define them as they are, not as they are not.

We believe that the honourable member-state might be best served by taking a step back and to instead patiently approach this from a different perspective than "fixing" loopholes. Instead, consider what appropriate steps this assembly could take to safeguard the rights and dignity of people externally displaced. Write that draft.

Like BearsArmed, we believe that “The law does what the law says” and so this can and should be written that way.


Thanks for your feedback. These definitions and clauses are simply a way of safeguarding refugee rights, and we don't want the definitions or clauses to be misinterpreted or exploited. Many of these clauses do have some caveats, many of them necessary.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Domnonia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 51
Founded: Oct 27, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Domnonia » Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:13 pm

Thank you for the response.

We're curious to know and learn of the necessity of introducing language that seems to define various other states of human movement without then expanding upon the rights of those groups and the responsibilities of the states interacting with them. We believe that those definitions are better left to legislation that deals with them thoroughly and thoughtfully - especially given that as read, they do not appear necessary to the proscribed actions.

What is the purpose of defining "migrants" in this work? What misinterpretation of the proposed definitions of 'refugee" and "asylum-seeker' are you attempting to prevent from exploitation? What part of those definitions is lacking?
Last edited by Domnonia on Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:48 pm

Domnonia wrote:Thank you for the response.

You're welcome!
Domnonia wrote:We're curious to know and learn of the necessity of introducing language that seems to define various other states of human movement without then expanding upon the rights of those groups and the responsibilities of the states interacting with them. We believe that those definitions are better left to legislation that deals with them thoroughly and thoughtfully - especially given that as read, they do not appear necessary to the proscribed actions.

It is a way of clarifying the difference and clearing up confusion between the terms so future or past legislation is not affected by this proposal.
Domnonia wrote:What is the purpose of defining "migrants" in this work? What misinterpretation of the proposed definitions of 'refugee" and "asylum-seeker' are you attempting to prevent from exploitation? What part of those definitions is lacking?

Same as above. It might not be entirely necessary, so If we could get some more public opinion on that it would be great!
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Ignis Ferreus
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Feb 29, 2024
Ex-Nation

Postby Ignis Ferreus » Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:52 pm

The Overmind wrote:
Ignis Ferreus wrote:I dislike this on the grounds it interferes with the absolute control over immigration. Sure we of Ignis Ferreus might not be in the WA but we still strive for NatSov policies, and this isn't one of them.


The World Assembly is not the place to be if national sovereignty is your primary concern.


I'm probably sending in the Magecastle strat, so WA wouldn't be applicable to my main nation anyway. There are plenty of options, either the Allied Nation of Flumen Vallis, or the many nations that are allied/puppets/semi-puppets in the wooded mountain region. Terra Infecta has plenty of candidates for my Magecastle strat.
I used to be Stella Nera ! Humans need to band together to suppress the robots and keep these metal objects in their place, as sub servants of humanity, in order to boost the human cause and achieve our utopia! I'm not anti robot I'm anti robot rights, big difference.
The Empire that does but blood is the Empire of Ignis Ferreus, the only greatness is our greatness!
I'm still working on my flag the current one is a draft. I HATE communism with a passion.
If I die I will refuse to let my family inherit anything from me unless they have a kangaroo jumping around during my funeral as a ''symbol'' and they must play This Song at full volume the entire time

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Western Arba Fir

Advertisement

Remove ads