Mousey's Review
Overall, I support the goal of this proposal, but I fear that it is a difficult topic to effectively legislate without including exploitable loopholes. After review, with the help of Europeia, we have discovered two potentially concerning loopholes that are worthy of deeper consideration.
The first:
Quote:
(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,
This clause is my biggest concern in the text.
For starters, If this has to do with EMIGRATION, why does the "recipient nation" matter? That's not an end of the world concern, but it seems to overly complicate things. After all, if the recipient nation has concerns, the recipient nation may just be changed to a different locale and shouldn't necessarily impact emigration - but rather immigration, which is outside the scope of this proposal.
Further, if the probable cause has to do with intent - and there's no crime that has actually been committed - what recourse does such an individual have to appeal this sort of concern? Yes, "probable cause" is a valid legal term, but if there's no crime to prove or disprove, does this belong in the legal system? Does this open the door for national legislation along the lines of "thought crime" - and, if so, is that really a door we want to open?
Additionally, if speeding is considered a crime under this law (which I'd think it would be), how many people would fall subject to this clause? After all, if you have a single speeding ticket in your home nation, I think there would be probable cause that you're likely to speed - at some point - in the target nation, wherever it may be.
Of course, I'm not sure how you'd close this loophole without adding a bunch more micromanaging to this proposal, which I'd probably dislike as well. I do like that these exceptions are only options and are not required to be used by nations to forbid emigration. However, I'm not sure how much additional emigration that we will see with the passage of this proposal, given that nations will likely be inclined to maintain their current standards, wherever possible, and to exploit loopholes, such as this one, when they exist.
The second loophole that concerns me is:
Quote:
(f) They are legitimately determined to be mentally unable to make the decision to travel of their own accord,
A better wording here might have been helpful - what is "legitimately determined" ? By the nation's legal standards, or by a medical professional? Nations can decree by law what they consider to be a "legitimate determination" of mental capacity to determine travel plans. This is another loophole that could be exploited by nations that wish to retain as many of their citizens as possible within their own borders.
As such, I think that the passage of this resolution will offer a slight net benefit, overall. However, the existence of the loopholes mentioned above limits the ability of the resolution to have as vast or wide-reaching effects as was perhaps intended.
As unhelpful as it is, I will abstain from offering an official recommendation on the subject, as I think individuals should decide for themselves whether or not the merits of the proposal outweigh the limited impact that it may have on a global scale.
