[DRAFT] Recommendation Repeal Right of Emigration

[Sil Dorsett]

The "Right of Emigration" resolution was well intended to prevent governments from trapping their residents within their borders, but was very broad in its approach, using a wide-reaching mandate with limited exceptions rather than a narrow and focused mandate that specifically targeted despotic dictators. "Right of Emigration" does not consider every possible reason why a person may want to leave their country, or why a government would have reason to compel a person to stay.

However, the author of the repeal has stated that there are no plans to replace the target resolution, and would try to repeal any successful attempt at a replacement. The repeal is also based on a lack of exceptions for attempts to avoid the effects of civil judgments, even though a failure to abide by civil judgments in most cases is a crime, which is covered in the existing resolution. The repeal also mentions the need to maintain adequate labor for war industries, but ignores the more fundamental right of civilians to preserve their lives.

Voting for the repeal of "Right of Emigration" returns the full responsibility of outbound border control law to individual states, while voting against the repeal retains the World Assembly's version of outbound border control which, except for very rare and specific instances, covers most cases in which a person's right to emigrate would be suspended, but otherwise guarantees it.

Spoiler: V1

The "Right of Emigration" resolution was well intended to prevent governments from trapping their residents within their borders, but was too broad in its approach, using a wide-reaching mandate with limited exceptions rather than a narrow and focused mandate that specifically targeted despotic dictators. "Right of Emigration" fails to consider all possible reasons why a person may want to leave their country, or why a government would have reason to compel a person to stay.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote for this resolution.

 

[Pallaith]

See my comments in the WALL thread. We may also want to make some kind of admission about the lack of a replacement.

 

[Pallaith]

Upon further reflection, I believe our best course of action is not to issue an explicit recommendation, but rather, as we did with Repeal Condemn DEN, state the best arguments for and against that exist and leave it to the voters to cast their vote as they see fit. It is the best way to honor the clear arguments people from both sides have expressed and better reflects our rather fractured view of this resolution. The author of the target resolution made some excellent points in defense of the resolution that should also be considered, and the author of this repeal defended the lack of a replacement.