3. Paragraph 1 deals with the expulsion of stateless persons lawfully in the country, which means that no such safeguards exist in favour of stateless persons unlawfully in the territory of the state, except those which may result from the application of the Resolution of the Final Act discussed below. In other words, while, as a rule, stateless persons lawfully in a country may not be expelled except on the grounds and in the manner prescribed in Article 31, illegal stateless persons may be expelled without such grounds, and without the guarantee of para. 2, except insofar as the aforesaid Resolution may apply. The prohibition of the expulsion of stateless persons lawfully in the country means in substance that, once a stateless person has been admitted or legalized, he is entitled to stay in the country indefinitely and can forfeit this right only by becoming a national security risk or by disturbing public order and provided these grounds are established in accordance with the procedure prescribed in para. 2. 4. There was no unanimity in the Stateless Persons Conference regarding the interpretation of the word “lawfully”. The representative of Sweden thought that this word was open to two interpretations: stateless persons who had lawfully entered a country whose permission to stay had not elapsed or those who has entered the country unlawfully and had subsequently obtained permission to stay. On the other hand, the representative of Denmark thought that overstaying the period for which a stateless person who entered the country lawfully was admitted might be deemed for convenience to constitute a breach of “public order”, meaning that such a person 217 could not per se be regarded as “lawfully” in the country. It is to be assumed that the interpretation put on the word “lawfully” by the Swedish representative is correct and that it cannot be considered expulsion if a stateless person, who was admitted to a Contracting State on a temporary basis with a travel document issued by another Contracting State, is refused permission to stay there beyond the authorized period. Technically he would be a refugee “unlawfully” in the country. 5. The meaning of “national security or public order” is the same as elsewhere in the Convention (e.g. Article 28). There was some dissatisfaction in the Ad Hoc Committee and the Refugee Conference with the vagueness of the expression “public order” and the different interpretations given to the term in different countries, because of the existing divergencies in the 218 social systems or legal prohibitions. The Committee felt that it was necessary to take into, account the meaning which this term had acquired in certain systems of law. It was of the opinion that the deportation of aliens who had been convicted of certain serious crimes would be 219 permissible under this article, if such crimes are considered in that country as violations of “public order”. The Refugee Conference felt that specification of grounds for deportation must be 220 left to the Jurisdiction of the state concerned . On the other hand, "public order" would not in the view of the Ad Hoc Committee, permit the deportation of aliens on “social grounds”, such as 221 indigence or illness or disability. Deportation on the basis of indigence would also conflict with Article 23 of the Convention. 217 It was this contention which induced the British representative in this conference to propose the substitution of the words "habitually resident" for the expression "lawfully". A lively exchange of views for and against the change ensued, which resulted, as stated above, in the decision to leave the article unchanged. 218 For a discussion of this term and its meaning in French and common law, see i.a. Document E/L.68 (a paper submitted to the ECOSOC by the UN Secretariat in connection with the draft Covenant on Human Rights) and E/CN.4/528, pp. 7176. 219 For the view of the Refugee Conference on expulsion of common criminals, see i.a. SR.3, p. 15 (the British representative). See also the unchallenged statement by the British representative in SR.14, p. 24 of the Refugee Conference that "public order" was deemed to include matters relating to crime and public morals. 220 221 SR.14, p. 18. E/ 1850, para. 29. Cf. also the statement by the French, Canadian and British representatives, who summed up the discussion in the conference as "making it clear that the words 'public order' could not be construed as including mere indigency" (SR.15, pp. 8 ff). See also Resolution 309 (XI) B of the ECOSOC and E/AC.32/SR.20, para. 75 ff. and E/AC.32/SR.40, pp. 23 and 28. Such a reservation appeared advisable because in many continental states destitute aliens are, without formalities, arrested by the police and reconducted to the frontier (Oppenheim, op.cit., p. 634).