[Draft 1] - Repeal: GA279 - Right to Emigration

[Simone]

The World Assembly (WA),

Affirming that it is a fundamental right for individuals to freely exit from a nation without hinderance;

Noting that the target resolution allows individuals to be prevented from leaving a WA state, subject to certain conditions, but these conditions contain several loopholes that can be exploited by others to deliberately impede someone from leaving a WA state, such as:

1. Exemption “b” permitting anyone “undergoing legal proceedings” to be prevented from leaving a WA state fails to:
   1. distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings, nor the parties involved;
   2. consider the severity of any legal proceedings, or whether they are frivolous in nature;
2. Exemption “d” for probable cause to commit a crime does not account for the scenario of certain actions by an individual being a crime in one WA states but not another, and require a more nuanced solution that accounts for, for example, the severity of the crime or any appeals;

Horrified that as a result of these loopholes, well-resourced malicious actors, government-affiliated or otherwise, can effectively prevent anyone from leaving a country through vexatious litigation, or a potential emigrant can be beholden to an inefficient court system or entangled in endless legal proceedings due to engaging in a profession that is prone to civil litigation;

Looking forward to the WA passing future resolutions that affirm the right to exit a WA state without the said flaws;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, Right of Emigration.

 

[Simone]

Target of repeal
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... ?start=278

Introduction

1. I am not about to repeal a resolution by a former VD of TNP (and former Minister for MoWAA) and a commended author whom I overlapped with in TNP without careful thought. This is not one of the resolutions cited in Abacathea's commend, and I believe this is not one of Abacathea's best work.
2. The main issue is actually Exemption B - it is worded in such a way that ignores the severity of the offence (speeding tickets vs murders) and the fact that "legal proceedings" can be broadly read to mean civil proceedings, and these proceedings can last for years or decades (say inheritance law). The case of William Jennens lasted 117 years, and of course was the basis for Bleak House by Charles Dickens.
3. In modern US law, Marshall v Marshall (ie the Anna Nicole Smith one) has been ongoing since 1996 and involved two roundtrips to the US Supreme Court, and both the plaintiff and the defendant died before the conclusion of the case. (It started January 25, 1996 and ended October 24, 2022, 26 years). It's patently unfair to hold someone from exiting a nation when a case can last 26 years.
4. The most horrifying scenario is that if a billionaire hates someone, that billionaire can simply file enough lawsuits against someone for the next 100 years and prevent that person from leaving. Suits lawsuits would not be frivolous, for example, if say the billionaire is suing someone who is a competitor in the same industry and there are arguably valid reasons such as restraint of trade or employment etc.
5. The civil litigation loophole would also apply to someone who works in a very litigious industry, such as construction or insurance.

Direct replacement: "Right to exit a member state"
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=543198

Other solutions

1. Dual citizenship arrangements (this has passed as GAR695) - also this deals with voluntary renouncement of citizenship
   viewtopic.php?f=9&t=535825
2. Tightening of bail conditions (to provide the basis for tightening criminal charges definitions): viewtopic.php?f=9&t=535832 (this has passed as GAR688)
3. Exemption A is already handled by various reforms regarding quarantine so I have nothing further to add. Any changes that may be required can be handled by quarantine reforms on that end. That is still ongoing in terms of reforming medical quarantine.
   viewtopic.php?f=9&t=536266

Discussions

1. Original discussion thread back in 2013/14: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272863
2. Earlier discussion in 2011 from Sanctaria: viewtopic.php?t=92255

 

[Simone]

Repealed.