UN Voting - Forced Banishment Ban

[Ness Snorlaxia]

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.

Voting ends 16 December, 2005!

[kumma]

I vote Against

[Kritschboilek]

me vote no

[itza chichen]

i vote against

[evilcartyen]

Mussst....follow.....crowd.....must....say....no...

[Jerry Christ]

I oppose this resolution. Who gets to be a citizen of a nation and who doesn't should be the sole discretion of the nation itself. It is perfectly in their right to revoke citizenship if a citizen breaks the rules, so long as the banishment is a stated and known punishment beforehand. Furthermore, if other nations do not wish to provide a home for the banished citizen, they don't have to.

[Gnidrah]

I vote AGAINST this proposal.

[izia]

I will wote for. I meen that all people shall have the rigth to have a place to live. And if nobody will accept a banished person, where shall he go? And if he is arested where shall they send him? And what shall be done with this person? Shal he get executed? Is this just a way to justify death penalty?

[nockmarr]

I'm not sure on this yet, the problem of "where the banished person will go" is definitely an issue, but like as not they would seek asylum in a nation willing to give it. If the nature of their crime is such that no nation will accept them as a citizen because they are such an abhorable person yet for whatever reasons their crimes don't justify imprisoning them ....well, I suppose they would become a nomad wanderer without a nationality, squatting in an abandoned mine shaft hunting rodents for food. But, think actions and consequences. Obviously they did something bad, that warranted their expulsion in the first place, if they have to scrape and scrounge to rebuild their new life or clear their name well, its a consequence of their action ne? So in light of that, I am against the proposal because I feel that people need to take responsibility for their actions and get themselves out of their own mess. Our world has so many different types of nations ....surely someone would have a government type that would fit with that individual and offer them asylum. Just as some nations accept immigrants, refugees, etc. and some do not, it would be the burden of challenge on the individual in question to seek out a new home for themselves.

I agree that it should be the right of the nation to choose who gets to be a citizen of that nation and who does not have the right to stay within their borders. Though I think that the situation wouldn't be an issue often, as imprisonment is more common than exile, unless the exile is offered as an alternative to imprisonment. You know, "Ok, you are found guilty, instead of remanding you to prison instead we never want you to set foot on this coutnry again" kind of thing.

And they become someone else's problem, yes, but the point is that the recipient nation would have to willingly accept them --- some would and some would not. So it isn't burdening anyone with this individual, every country has the right to say 'no, you can't emigrate here.' Perhaps there will be a nation that sympathizes with the cause of said individual and welcomes them with open arms. The world is vast enough that there is always 'somewhere' to go, just maybe it isn't the nicest place. But they were exiled for a reason and if they can't live in a luxurious resort that is their first choice well, hey, its punishment for a crime right?

[izia]

First, if they shuld live as a cinde of nomad wanderer without a nationality, the only option to get money is to do crime. And i don't want to have a murder in my back yard, eating eating my trash. And shal a goverment live on the toght that other nations are going to delth with my problems. Another problem is, ho is responebole for proving that this person still lives? Or shal this peron end to exsist in the ofical sysem?

[nockmarr]

Why not? Do they need to exist in the official system ?

The only option to make money is not crime. People who think like that are the ones that end up being criminals. Plenty of people without citizenship of a country can find employment, in many countries. The countries that do not allow this? Don't accept the refugee. I'm not sure what you're saying in the middle of the paragraph about other governments dealing with your problems ...? As stated, their emigration would be allowed by that government or disallowed by it. So they wouldn't be tackling anything they didn't willingly agree to.

[izia]

Well, when they not are apart of official system, then they have nowhere to go, to complain if they are abused. And issent it to brake the law to work without a workpermisson?
And if two persons ho not exsist official get a child, dose this child exsist? Persons ho dose not exsist in the official system are easy offers of human trade and slavery.

[nockmarr]

But if this person ceased to exist in the official system, it is a consequence of their own actions, not something imposed upon them by the exile. Cause --- > Effect. Cause: Do something that breaks the law of your nation, Effect : Exile from nation. Consequences : Forced to get a job, find a place to live, and build your life again, etc. just like all contributing members of society must do at one time or another.

Who said anything about working without a work permission? You're avoiding the fact that some nations *will* offer asylum to refugees and victims of exile, because of the way those countries are run. In this situation, there is no problem. I find it impossible to believe that there would be absolutely no country to turn to. Would the individual perhaps need to fulfill a contract of work or labor in exchange for citizenship of a new country? Possibly. Would all their possessions belong to their new country? Possibly. But its doubtful that there would not be a roof for them to live under. You underestimate how resourceful a person can be in times of need.

And if they are a scumbag who doesn't want to work to make something of themselves and is going to turn to mugging people, well, the local authorities will pick them up and throw them in jail. Most people will probably find that their freedom, even if they have to work to put food on the tale, is more enjoyable than sitting in a prison cell.

[kumma]

Wow! A serious conversation!
This woul be a time for celebration
:cucumber: :beerchug: :cucumber:

[Ness Snorlaxia]

Yes, occasionally there is a serious discussion. But this isn't one of the sillier forums.

Anyway, UN voting has concluded. I have voted AGAINST this resolution based on popular opinion.

15 TOTAL
12 AGAINST
5 FOR

Thanks to all who voted!