|Welcome to UN Organizations. We hope you enjoy your visit.|
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
|DECLARING: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they reside and this right shall not be obstructed by any nation.|
Here may be a problem. Some nations do not wish to support unmitigated and uncontrolled immigration. You should allow states to set their own limits on immigration.
You might want to define 'emigration' as the lawful transfer of permanent resident status between nations, whereas a refugee is someone who takes temporary residence status for an emergency purpose, often bypassing lawful processing.
Many refugees (displaced persons -- DPs) who cross international borders thereafter seek resident status, but nations are not under any obligation to take them in. Such refugees might be given an opportunity to return home or to emigrate to other nations instead.
For instance, in the well-documented situation of the failure of the state of Rinconiaa (International Democratic Union region), emigrants, or more properly, refugees, crossed over to Poking the Devil with the ostensible goal to settle in Domnonia. They never got that far. Many of them fell into problems in PD itself.
Right now, the situation in the former Rinconiaa and PD is unstable. Refugees are claiming that they are 'emigrating' to PD, whereas the local populace sees them as refugees and wants them to move on, or back home where they came from. Both central governments have failed, and so claims of what is 'lawful' immigration versus unlawful 'squatting' or siezing of land and property is highly contentious.
Unless you put bounds on this resolution, you are giving hordes of wandering displaced persons the right to disrupt adjacent nationstates, claiming it is 'emigration,' and cannot be prevented.
1. Give each state the right to control immigration, either by delay or denial, as they see fit. Even if the individual has a right to seek to emigrate, they cannot unilaterally impinge upon another state's sovereignty and demand residency.
2. Make a distinction between lawful emigrants (who seek permanent residence or citizenship) and displaced persons (refugees).
3. Add a provision that no government may pass laws to, or outside of law, incarcerate, torture, fine, penalize or take any other punitive or discriminatory action against an individual who lawfully seeks to emigrate, other than to charge fair and reasonable fees for application processing. This applies during the process, and any time thereafter (such as a repercussion of a failed attempt to emigrate, or returning to the state as a visitor after emigration), so long as said individual does not violate any other laws of the state.
4. Export taxes and duties are not waived or infringed by emigration rights. If an individual wishes to take a vast sum of money or property overseas, they would still be liable for export taxes and duties on it.
5. Nations of immigration have a right to request medical records or examinations of emigrating individuals. Processing and testing fees should be reasonable, but may be passed on to the applicant emigrant. Tests should be reasonable and not exhaustive, limited to the most common and serious contagious diseases and medical conditions prevalent.
6. Emigration can be prevented for medical reasons based on the positive detection of a serious medical condition in an individual, especially contagious diseases. The nation of emigration must provide notification to the nation of immigration. The nation of immigration must reply with a clearly-written waiver confirming the health condition of the individual and accepting responsibility as part of the individual's immigration. Without a waiver, the individual's application for emigration can be denied or delayed.
7. Also prevent emigration for anyone who has a parental or guardian responsibility for a minor unless the minor will be emigrating with the parent or guardian, or there is clear documentation of the transfer of care to another parent or guardian, and any financial support responsibilities and/or rights of visitation clearly stipulated and settled.
Member No.: 83
Joined: 1-October 05
The current proposal, after furthur debate, is this:
|In an effort to promote the human rights of all peoples, this resolution shall mandate global emigration rights.|
DEEPLY DISTURBED: that many people are treated inhumanely in the nation in which they reside,
RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" resolution and its promotion of the freedom of choice.
ALSO RECOGNIZING: the "Universal Freedom of Choice" act does not cover an individual's freedom to chose a country to reside in.
DEFINING: Emigration as the movement of people out of their home country. This is very different from immigration which is defined as the movement of people into a country.
OBSERVING: that families and relationships are split up when people are not allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.
EMPHASIZING: that people should be allowed to pursue residence in another nation than the one in which they currently reside.
DECLARING: that all individuals have the natural right to leave the country in which they reside and this right shall not be obstructed by any nation.
NOW MANDATING: that all people shall be allowed to emigrate from the country in which they reside.
FURTHER DECLARING the only people exempt from full emigration rights are those who are either charged with, serving a sentence for, or under investigation of a criminal offense; minors who do not have consent from their legal guardian(s); those confined to a hospital or treatment center who are suffering a medical condition that impedes their judgement; those under a subpoena to a court; or those interned (including but not limited to prisoners of war) during times of conflict.
ACCEPTS: that this resolution has no effect on the immigration policies of individual nations.
As a reply to suggestions above:
1. This resolution does not deal with immigration, and other regions have the right to regulate that as they please.
2. I do not see a reason for this. Refugees would be considered, if the immigrated country allows for it, lawful immigrants as well.
3. The "Declaring" clause should take care of this.
4. This resolution is on the emigration of persons, not goods, so the government may regulate goods being exported.
5. That concerns immigration, not emigration.
6. If someone has a medical condition that does not impede their judgement, under the new revision of the proposal of the resolution they should be allowed to emigrate. Countries they are immigrating to, however, may stop them from entering the country upon a medical examination.
7. Under the new revision, minors may not emigrate without permission from legal guardian(s). Financial support issue may need clarification, however, and I will look into this.
This has been under new debate on the jolt forums, and I believe it is almost ready for submission. Any other comments on the resolution, or suggestions on getting it to a vote once proposed?