“bringing in”), which cannot but mean that the refugee may have sent the assets to the country before he personally came there or thereafter. The same must be true as regards “stateless persons”. 3. The second paragraph uses the same expression “sympathetic consideration” as Article 11. For the meaning of these words, see the Comments to Article 11. 4. It is obvious from Article 7 (1) that in the case of transfers not covered by Article 30 (1), a stateless person enjoys the same rights as granted aliens generally in the same circumstances; Article 7 (2) and ff. are also applicable. Paragraph 2 recommends more favourable treatment wherever possible. Article 31 Expulsion 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a stateless person lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a stateless person shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the stateless person shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a stateless person a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary. 1. This article reproduces the wording of Article 32 of the Refugee Convention without any changes. At first there was considerable opposition in the conference to the inclusion of such a provision in the Convention. The representatives of several states indicated that their Governments would have to make a reservation to this article if adopted. The difficulties which 214 they envisaged related in the main to the question of the interpretation of “public order” and of the word “lawfully” (in their country). Similarly there was opposition to the second sentence of the second paragraph as conflicting with the regulation of certain countries. It was also pointed out that the provisions enacted to implement the Refugee Convention could not be applied to stateless persons because of lack of co-operation with the High Commissioner for Refugees, Various proposals were submitted regarding replacement of the words “public order” and “lawfully in the country” (for instance, with “habitually resident”), but finally the Belgian-Israel suggestion to leave the article as it was drafted by the Refugee Conference prevailed. The different parts of the article were then adopted with varying majorities and the whole 215 article was agreed upon by a vote of 16 to 1, with 4 abstentions. 2. For an understanding of the importance of this provision it is necessary to state that, under international law, every state is, in principle, competent to expel at any moment any alien who has been admitted into its territory. It does not matter whether the alien is there on a 216 temporary basis or has settled down for professional or business purposes. In practice, expulsion is mostly governed by the special law governing the status of aliens. 214 For instance, the Swedish representative pointed out that under Swedish law an alien who failed to support himself honestly or contumaciously did not fulfil his duties toward the state or private persons and could be expelled. If the expression "public order" did not cover such instances, there would be a question whether Sweden could ratify the Convention without a reservation (SR.10, p. 5). Cf. the Swedish amendment E/CONF.17/L.10. 215 216 For the discussion, see SR.8, pp. 8-13; SR.10, pp. 4-7. L. Oppenheim, International Law, seventh edition, London, New York, Toronto, vol. 1, p. 631. Cf. also the statement of the representative of the UN Secretariat in the Ad Hoc Committee in SR.40, p. 14.