IDU Regional Forum
Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Printable Version

+- IDU Regional Forum (https://idugov.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Government Square (https://idugov.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=101)
+--- Forum: WA Delegate's Bureau (https://idugov.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: General Assembly Resolutions (https://idugov.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+---- Thread: Poll: Forced Banishment Ban (/showthread.php?tid=389)


Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Sober Thought - 12-12-2005

Forced Banishment Ban
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Waterana

Description: Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens from their home nation as punishment for various crimes/actions.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having dual citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation?s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these criminals. This forces those receiving nations to put their own people at risk, and to deal with the problems that the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid, whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation?s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing a punishment that forces both dangerous and non-dangerous criminals to seek refuge in other states is grossly unfair and unjust to the international community.

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent or temporary banishment from their home nation, as a punishment for any reason against a native born, dual or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, dual or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, dual or naturalised citizens to agree voluntarily to permanent banishment from their home nation. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim?s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, dual or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Any native born, dual or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile from their home nation if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home nation.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Sober Thought - 12-13-2005

I vote AGAINST.

There are many RL examples which related to my RL country, but even if there weren't, I would still be against it. Unfortunately, it muddies the waters by adding citizens by birth and naturalisation, singles as well as duals. If substantially rewritten to meet my concerns, I would vote for it.

Cases where citizenship should be stripped:

A. War criminals: Many war criminals -- suspected, accused and convicted in absentia -- emigrated to Canada. In order to stay, they lied during their naturalisation process. Quite apart from the basic crimes they have or may have committed, this is fraud. Ergo, no perjurer or defrauder should benefit from their crimes. They should be sent back to their country of origin, no matter what punishment they may face in their homeland.

B. Ordinary criminals: In the large city I live in, there are many people who for whatever reason have not availed themselves of the naturalisation process and remain foreign citizens. Some of these commit crimes. When their sentence is up, some violent offenders are deported to their native lands. This is true even if they have been in Canada for decades, emigrated as children and have known no other country. Citizenship is not a formality or nicety, it means something. And if it doesn't mean anything to them, then they can find out what it means in their country of origin.

Naturalised citizens who commit crimes should not be deported; this would be a gross injustice. The only exception is in (A) or if they lied about their ordinary criminal past during the naturalisation process.

C. Petulant renouncers (hello, Lord Black of Crossharbour!): A small number of people for bizarre reasons of their own choose to renounce the citizenship of the country of their birth. This is their right. However, when it suits them, they claim the protection of that country. Sorry, it doesn't cut it.

Conrad Black so desparately wanted his peerage that he renounced his citizenship and publicly derided Canada and the Canadian government. Fine. He got his noble title, and finally his dubious accounting and business practices caught up with him. Now he's playing the Canadian card, but it's out of the deck; if necessary, he should be deported to the US like any other accused.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Lawtonia - 12-13-2005

Lawtonia votes against this Resolution. Citizenship issues are a matter of National Sovereignty not International Law.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Antrium - 12-13-2005

Antrium votes against.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Groot Gouda - 12-13-2005

I'm fairly indifferent to this one. Can't say I'm against it, not even after reading ST's arguments. I'm also not really concerned about sovereignity. But because it seems a lot isn't taken into account, I won't vote for this as well. Abstaining for the moment.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Mikitivity - 12-13-2005

Here are my thoughts:

- The idea itself is different and nice,
- There are a few details that we could perhaps fix,
- Waterana is a nation typically most of us agree with (yes, this is a factor for me -- I think that just in the real UN that Mikitivity sometimes bends to political pressures of its allies). Smile

I'm leaning towards voting for, but when I read it was wondering what this did to felons. Can they still vote, or can citizens not vote?

In the US it wasn't crystal clear to me what a felon's legal status is ... I think technically they are still citizens, but that they become disenfranchised (can't vote). But they have some rights, and other rights are lost to them. For example, felons can't serve on juries (which means they can't interpet the law ... something I agree with) and their are some jobs for which they can't apply. I'm not certain if they can run for political office ... that might be a state-by-state rule.

Anyways, when I read the resolution, I substituted "resident" for "citizen" and liked it much better, in that the focus is banishment ...

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Keeslandia - 12-13-2005

The Empire opposes the resolution. We are persuaded by the nimble discussion provided by the noble representatives from Sober Thought.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Mikitivity - 12-13-2005

Sober Thought ... I reread your arguments and they are actually very convincing. Could you consider reposting your statements on the UN forum and specifically asking that Waterana (the author) or another proponent try to politely analyse your thoughts?

If you don't want to do this, perhaps another of our nations could, because they might have some answers to these experiences, but they are very thought provoking.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Groot Gouda - 12-13-2005

I have already taken the arguments to UNOG to see what they think, and mentioned them on the UN forum as well (at least the first one). Not a lot of responses though.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Mikitivity - 12-13-2005

Actually your news article on the UN forum should be reposted here somewhere since it is a regional newspaper. Smile BTW, I loved it, and think Deerhood Bay will need to be Wikified soon.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Grosseschnauzer - 12-13-2005

When for some reason others start the thread on the current UN proposal at vote, please note the date the voting rnds.

In this instance
Quote: Fri Dec 16 2005[/quote]

I will cast the region's vote late on Thursday night ET.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Malabra - 12-16-2005

Against, if it's not too late.

Poll: Forced Banishment Ban - Grosseschnauzer - 12-16-2005

You're not late.

Quote: Vote FOR    [ 0 ]    [0.00%]
Vote AGAINST  [ 7 ]  [87.50%]
ABSTAIN  [ 1 ]  [12.50%][/quote]

I will cast the region's vote against the proposal as reflected in this poll.