Re: Right to travel revisited

Boracay Bill wrote somberly:
On Sep 16, 2:46 am, Dirty Sick Pig <drtysicpig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Chris Blunt wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:16:59 GMT, Dirty Sick Pig
<drtysicpig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Boracay Bill wrote:
"illegal" from the standpoint of Philippine Law????? could you be a
bit more specific than that? Could you perhaps specify which
particular Philippine law you believe makes this "illegal"?
What is illegal is NOT, repeat, *not*, accepting jobs overseas. What is
illegal is leaving the country in contravention of its travel laws.
Yes, people have a right to travel anywhere, but yes, too, that is not
absolute because legitimate governments have the right to regulate the
overseas activities of its citizens.
Do they have that right? I live in the Philippines and I don't think
I'm subject to the laws of the country I'm a citizen of while I'm not
there.
Depends on the home country's laws, but you probably are. Lack of
enforcement, such as the requirement to file income tax returns (even if
no taxes are owed) doesn't negate a law unless specified to be so.
Filipino citizens, even if immigrants in another country, are required
to register with Philippine embassies or consulates. This is not
bull***, as many Filipinos who have benefited from emergency services
to include evacuations or legal intervention can tell you.

And there is that thing about traveling to, or settling in, a country
whose activities are inimical to the interests of the home government.

I left that country 30 years and have few connection with it
now. They have no power to regulate my activities while I'm living in
another country.
No, they don't, a far a your personal activities go. Why, were your
activities regulated while you were in your original country? If not,
why should it start just because you're overseas?

I was referring to activities that may be legal in the Philippines but
illegal in the host country. For example, joining picket lines,
actively participating in partisan politics, or buying properties or
objects through subterfuge. Never forget that not all countries afford
foreigners all the freedoms exclusive to its citizens.

Why are governments involved in its citizens abroad? Because personal
acts of their citizens may become embarrassments to the nations at the
very least, or may land such persons in the local hoosegow with serious
charges such as espionage, rioting, "estafa," or meddling in the host
country's official internal affairs. Or, heaven forbid, "disrespect to
the monarch or a national institution." That last one may be funny, but
try folding a Turkish paper bill with a crease crossing Mustafa
Atatürk's face and spending it anywhere in Turkey.

Geez, Bill, are you fucking drunk?
I don't know whether he's drunk or not, but Bill is one of the few
people here whose posts I find worth reading
Same here. I just felt a small amount of vehemence in this last post.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've sensed before when he's on the road or
harried; or pissed off. Let me show you:

BREAKING NEWS: "In a news release marked "urgent," the sudden spread of
sexually transmitted diseases among the expatriate male population of
Boracay Island was disclosed by health authorities. A national health
advisory was immediately put into effect. Among its mandatory
provisions, which include razing, will be the quarantine of all male
foreigners on the once beautiful and peaceful island with a healthy
population."

I've never been wrong so far.

Perceptive BWAHAWRING Pig

I find more extensive responses here this morning than I expected;
some from DSP and some from Chris Blunt. I'll comment on both below.

First DSP:

DSP Said, "International law (read agreements) state that host nations
are required to notify alien's embassy so that they can ensure their
rights are protected."

I did? :) Anyway, International Law is not just formal agreements, but the usual, reciprocal and cordial acts practiced by governments and their representatives in dealings with each, in each other's countries and in third party countries, regardless of the state of diplomatic relations between the countries. For example, ambassadors of warring nations may not shoot it out, but merely give each other a very slight nod and a very cold shoulder. This is more like a gentleman's agreement, that is why when El Presidente Chavez violated this gentleman's agreement, El Rey Juan Carlos felt justified in ripping Chavez a new *** in public.

That is possible. I don't know whether or not it is true generally. I
suspect that this is probably the subject of individual consular
agreements concluded between sovereign states. Could you provide
specifics sufficient to identify the particular agreement which you
claim requires host nations to notify alien's embassy so that they can
ensure their rights are protected? If that's too much trouble, don't
bother. In the absence of such specifics and a perusal of the
agreement(s) in question, my general understanding is:

See my response immediately above.

1. It may be a practice commonly accepted between nations that host
nations might notify an alien's embassy in cases of problems involving
an alien, but I doubt that this is done in anything approaching 100%
of cases. Consider persons arrested, tried, and convicted for
commission of felonies in the US for example. Let's say two persons
are caught red-handed holding up a San francisco liquor store, are
tried, are convicted, are sentenced, and are incarcerated in state
prison. Those persons will be treated as violators the laws of the
state of California while under the jurisdiction of that state. They
may or may not be asked at some point in their processing whether or
not they are nationals of a country other than the US. If they are
nationals of a country other that the US, they may or may not make
this known. If they are nationals of a country other that the US,
they may or may not also be US nationals. If it comes to light that
they are (for example) Mexican nationals, the state of California may
or may not notify US Federal agencies that California has these
particular Mexican nationals incarcerated. If such notification is
made, the US may or may not notify the government of Mexico of this.
If the Mexican government is so notified, that government may or may
not work to ensure the rights of these particular Mexican nationals
are protected. (without researching this, my understanding is that
there are some tens of thousands Mexican nationals currently
incarcerated in US prisons)

2. In cases of multiple nationality, a sovereign state holding in
custody one of its own nationals may or may not allow access to that
person by consular representatives of other sovereign states where
that person also holds nationality. Consider Mexico, for example (see
http://www.sre.gob.mx/tramites/nacionalidad/leynacionalidad.htm#II,
particularly Articles 12-14), and Iran (see the Dual Nationality
section of http://www.voyage.gc.ca/dest/report-en.asp?country=132000),
and China (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huseyincan_Celil). Other
examples probably exist.

3. Regarding point 2 above, consider that once a person is iside the
jurisdiction of a sovereign state, that state may impose its
nationality on that person involuntarily.

Oh, yes! This is specially a testy issue in countries with the draft or some other form of mandatory national service, and nations that grant automatic-no-need-to-apply citizenship ..... ***, Bill, you took the words out of my ass with your:

Consider, for example, a woman from another country who weds an
Iranian national and then travels to Iran with her husband. Iranian
nationality will be imposed on that woman, as she is the wife of an
Iranian national. Point 2 above then applies in her case. (Again, see
the Dual Nationality section of
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/dest/report-en.asp?country=132000)

Yeah, yeah. But I thought of it FIRST, guys! BWAHAWR!

DSP said (multiple times), "What is illegal is NOT, repeat, *not*, accepting jobs overseas. What is illegal is leaving the country in contravention of its travel laws. Yes, people have a right to travel anywhere, but yes, too, that is not absolute because legitimate
governments have the right to regulate the overseas activities of its
citizens "

Let me break that down point by point.....

DSP said, "What is illegal is NOT, repeat, *not*, accepting jobs
overseas."

OK. We agree on that.

DSP said, "What is illegal is leaving the country in contravention of
its travel laws."

Yes, but nations which, like the Philippines, and like nearly all
other nations, have signed and ratified the ICCPR (see
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm) have thereby incurred an
obligation to abide by its provisions. Particularly, they have some
obligation to abide by the following:

We've been over this several times. I still maintain that regardless of provisions of the strictest treaties and covenants, nations will, without exception (except if being run by Democrats/Liberals), put their national interests first and foremost.

DSP said, "Yes, people have a right to travel anywhere, but yes, too,
that is not absolute because legitimate governments have the right to
regulate the overseas activities of its citizens "

In general, yes. Witness, for example, the criminal sanctions which
the U.S. government imposes on U.S. citizens committing acts in
foreign countries which, if committed in the U.S., would be considered
child rape. I'm not aware of specific cases, but I would guess that
the U.S. might even seek to extradite such persons from foreign
countries where they are resident in order to prosecute them in the
U.S. for those acts committed outside of the U.S. However, that has
little, if anything, to do with the subject under discussion in this
thread -- the right of a person to leave one's own country,
specifically the right of Filipinos to travel outside of the
Philippines.

DSP said, "Constitution and International Law. A country may not
deprive its citizens abroad of services that may tend to make those
citizens burdens to the host nations."

It could be argued that this requirement, as far as the RP goes,
derives from Article II, Section 4 of the RP constitution ("The prime
duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. ...", see
http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw2.html). The specifics are a
bit of a stretch, however. I would doubt that there is generally such
an obligation placed on sovereign states by international law;

Oh, heck, yeah, Bill! It's the generally recognized and accepted diplomatic principle of "Curb Your Own While They're On Our Lawn."

And as far as constitutions go, the rules of statutory construction state that constitutions are to be read as prescriptive, mandatory, must-do-this-and-do-that, and any doubts in interpretations will generally point to the must-do-this-and-do-that provision.

it's possible, but I would like to see specifics. Such an obligation
might be agreed in individual consular agreements between particular sovereign states.

International Law is about 85% tradition due to long usage, practice and acceptance by nations. Ten percent, believe it or not, emanate from national laws, e.g., a U.S. state's ability to negotiate trade treaties with other countries and send official trade and goodwill representatives overseas under its own state constitution. The remainder are written treaties, agreements, and other understandings between nations. Written and unwritten international laws are co-equal, interpreted and applied in a very finicky manner by the international diplomatic corps and their national headquarters.

DSP said, "And the Philippine Government has the duty to its people
not to look like a blubbering idiot overseas. Not always
accomplished, but the intent is there."

No argument.

DSP said, "Geez, Bill, are you fucking drunk?"

No.

Boracay***!

Chris said, "Do they have that right [ (responding here to "people
have a right to travel anywhere") -- BB ]? I live in the Philippines
and I don't think I'm subject to the laws of the country I'm a citizen
of while I'm not there. I left that country 30 years and have few
connection with it now. They have no power to regulate my activities
while I'm living in another country."

In some cases you arguably might have such responsibility and they
might arguable have such power. Note my earlier example of a U.S.
citizen living overseas and having committed what the U.S. government
would consider child rape while outside the U.S. Consider a U.S.
citizen living overseas who, while overseas, commits treasonous acts
against the U.S. Consider a U.S. citizen who, while overseas, takes up
arms against the U.S.

DSP said, "Depends on the home country's laws, ..."

Yep. However those laws are only enforceable once the person in
question is back within the jurisdiction of the home country.

Yes. Be careful boarding a vessel, aircraft, vehicle or goat cart officially flying your county's flag; ditto with stepping inside your embassy's outer gate. Voila, you're home sweet home!

"Please sign for this subpoena and that summons, and while you're here, your draft letter is hereby delivered to you by no less than your glorious embassy's Sergeant of the Guard!" Extraterritoriality iz der term por dis krap.

Extradition might be one means to place that person within such
jurisdiction.

Or a totally sane person may voluntarily place himself under any jurisdiction, including another embassy (refuge).

Or he can be kidnapped by his nice and natty Legal and Cultural Attaches. Military attaches don't do those silly things, as everyone knows.

DSP, responding to Chris, went off on side-issues about national
governments regulating the activities of foreign visitors, about
governmental concern that actions by its nationals abroad may cause it
governmental embarrassment, etc. I'll skip responding to this except
to opine on-topic that concern over potential governmental
embarrassment would not generally rise to the level of sufficient
justification for a government to deny its nationals the right to
travel.

I'm surprised, Bill, that you refused the opportunity to apply what other governments do and can't do internationally to the Philippine government. I deliberately used that "side issue" style because I don't know if Chris The Blunt is a citizen of the U.S.A. or a subject of the Vatican when it was still Protestant. So it was kinda hard for me to do the explanation in the first or second person.

Inebriated Boracay Pig
.