“I’m not arguing anything” they say, arguing that it’s not a human right.
Get the fuck out of here with your double think.
Portugal and Sweden not respecting a human right doesn’t make it not a human right. Given how gleefully so much of Europe seems to be to deny people who have lived in the country for generations citizenship, to restrict their freedom or religion, or to just watch them fucking drown, I’m not super keen for the US to use Europe as a role model for human rights regarding citizenship.
Again, if taking someone from the only home they’ve ever known to live someplace they’ve never been, don’t speak the language, and have no citizenship isn’t a human rights violation, then nothing that matters is.
I don’t give a shit if Sweden says it’s fine.
Most of the world is blood right citizenship, you inherit it from your parents. Which is actually helpful if abroad on a trip and you get born you automatically get citizenship of where your parents normally would reside as a citizen, The person you were commenting on is correct, human rights has nothing to do with sovereign nations laws on who becomes a citizen. Its not a right as a human to take on the citizenship based on the continent and boundaries you live in because countries are a construct. Think back to all the border changes in places like prewar Germany. Your border could change, it doesn’t change what country “you belong to”. American having Birthright sort of made sense because it was the " new world " at the time.
By no means do I support what USA admin is doing, they are absolute assholes. But not liking it doesn’t make it a human rights violation
The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that’s not a right, then there are really none of significance.
Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.
Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.
The rights of people matter more than those of nations.
Rights are bestowed by governments though. We have moved passed roaming the land and setting up a homestead wherever you like, we now have governments that scribe boundaries and zone land, it is no longer “freedom”. If you are worried about citizenship and your parents move it is on them to pursue PR and then citizenship, then the same for their children.
Human rights exist outside the context of government.
That’s the Enlightenment interpretation, but it’s certainly not the only one taught in philosophy classes. There’s also a view that rights are negotiated, and that when a government fails to respect a right, it’s as good as gone until the government is again forced to concede it. In that interpretation, rights are not God-given, they’re fought for.
It is not the UN’s domain to determine human rights. It’s its job to recognize and (ideally) to promote and protect them. And it’s not wonderfully effective at that part of its job.
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?
The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not an exhaustive or definitive list.
Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you’re actually full of shit on the concept of morality.
There was no consensus on what should be global human rights before 1948 that is correct.
Before that, the only rights you had, were the ones afforded to you by your lord, king, queen, emperor, president, prime minister, etc.
For a very long time, all over the world. A lot of people had, literally. No rights at all. They were used, sold, worked, as slaves.
So it’s a wonderful thing that a bunch of countries came together and tried their best to determine some basic Human Rights that everyone should adhere to. Being afforded citizenship of the country you’re currently inside at the time of birth. Is not one of them.
If you ever bothered to actually look into them. You might find article 15 of interest.
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
You have the Human Right to belong to a nation. But it does not stipulate which nation. Nor how you acquire the nationality. Some countries have it as the place where you were physically born. Others have it as an extension of your parents nationality.
I could explain this further if you so wish. But I doubt you’d care for it. In any case. What you personally think should and shouldn’t be a human right, won’t change the status of the actual Human Rights. Just like what you personally think should and shouldn’t be legal in your country, won’t change the status of the laws currently put in place.
I understand the legal theory of human rights perfectly well, thanks though.
What you seem to be missing is that legality isn’t the end of morality, but an agreeable approximation endorsed by a government.
The universal declaration of human rights isn’t even that. It doesn’t carry the weight of law.
It seems that you’re arguing that no one should be denied a nationality, but that no one needs to grant you one. So your right to a nationality can be violated by… No one? Someone has to let you in, but no one in specific is responsible, and you can be stripped of it as long as it’s not arbitrary. You have the right to change it, but not to anything in particular. Is that about right?
This is of course ignoring the provision against exile, protection of freedom of movement and residence, or the right to return to your homeland. Although you seem to believe that a right to return to your homeland has no basis in where your homeland actually is.
Interesting. Maybe using a document weighed to be inoffensive to powerful nations shouldn’t be taken as the highpoint of morality. It’s almost like any statement that might create the connotation of “moral obligation” is couched in layers of exceptions or vagueness.
Did you know the Holocaust was perfectly legal? And, since you say we didn’t even have human rights before then, just the whim of the ruler, it wasn’t even a human rights violation to gas children and burn their bodies!
Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?
People who can’t see the distinction between morality and legality are disgusting.
Things can be legal, and still immoral. Just like things can be illegal, but still moral.
Law and morality are two separate things. They are not bound by eachother.
I personally don’t think it’s moral for a 40 year old to go and pick up 18 year olds. But it’s perfectly legal. My opinion of the morality of it, is not going to change the legal status.
The nation of your parent is responsible for your nationality. I’ve said it numerous times by now. Are you not following along?
You are correct. It was not a Human Rights Violation because that did not exist as the time. That doesn’t make it moral. That doesn’t make it ok.
Your whole thing seems to be if something is legal, it’s also moral. Why do you think that has to be the case?
You do realise that you’re literally (and I don’t use that word carelessly) the person who is unable to distinguish morality from legality.
Your reading comprehension is lacking if you think I’m failing to distinguish between legality and morality.
You’re failing basic comprehension that human rights are a concept that exists outside of the law. The law referring to human rights does not make the law the arbiter of human rights.
Read a book, and think about where you went wrong that you’re arguing that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
I get that you think you’re being pedantic about what you think is a legal term being misused. You’re not. You’re being an asshole about an ethics term being used properly in a context you were ignorant of.
Would help if you stopped using legal terms to argue moral ones then. Then you wouldn’t get people like him arguing with you.
He’s right, you are wrong. Full stop. Human rights is a legal term and defined in written word. Your issue is a moral not a legal one. You need to use proper terms and make yourself clear.
Blood right nationality and birth right nationality both are equally legal.
Going from one to the other is perfectly legally fine. Hell it’s even morally fine. If anything there is less problems with blood right over birth right. As birth right nationality has frequent issues with births outside of the country, and since fewer countries use birth right it causes even more.
Yes it’s all the America’s that use it, but that’s more a size of land mass not an actual population argument. By number of people, and countries blood right is the common method.
There are clear moral issues with WHY trump is doing this. And being upset at those reasons is perfectly moral. Hell I don’t like him doing this either. It’s for all the wrong reasons and being done in a fucked up way. But that doesn’t mean switching citizenship methodology is bad or wrong would also just be objectively incorrect. It can be done in a perfectly legal AND morally acceptable way.
Trump just of course doesn’t care about legal or moral thus the problems.
But humans rights it is not. Stop using a legal term that only quasi is connected to your words. It undermines your own stance. It only makes it hard to actually take you serious. It just makes you come across as trying to cause a panic instead of actually taking a stance.
The concept of human rights and the morality of how those with power act towards those without has been discussed under many names for millennia. It’s been discussed under the name “human rights” long before we started using it as a legal term. Hint: where do you think the legal term came from?
Philosophy pertaining to the law is not that same thing as the law.
It’s actually in the founding documents of our country that human rights are not defined by the legal system, and that we can only specifically enumerate a subset that we find critically important.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
This makes sense because the philosophical works that were inspirational and popular amongst the founders were those of natural rights philosophers of different sorts quite concerned with human rights in general. You can see it in how the preamble is basically a summary of them.
All that aside: being shocked that someone is discussing morality when discussing human rights is naive and a cop out for a shitty opinion.
Alright, I felt bad and went back to try reading. I got to the bit where it seems you think the US only has jus soli citizenship (speaking of needing to use the right term) instead of both “by blood” and “by soil” and stopped again. Supporting both is actually quite easy. Possession of a US birth certificate makes you a citizen. Either parent being a citizen makes you a citizen. More problems arise from “by blood” citizenship, since you need to present the child and proof of parental citizenship before someone with authority to decide if the credentials are valid. A US citizen born abroad results in quite the bundle of paperwork as well as in-person consulate visits. Being born in a US hospital it’s a short form where a hospital official affirms where they were born. The rest is just vital records for statistics.
“I’m not arguing anything” they say, arguing that it’s not a human right.
Get the fuck out of here with your double think.
Portugal and Sweden not respecting a human right doesn’t make it not a human right. Given how gleefully so much of Europe seems to be to deny people who have lived in the country for generations citizenship, to restrict their freedom or religion, or to just watch them fucking drown, I’m not super keen for the US to use Europe as a role model for human rights regarding citizenship.
Again, if taking someone from the only home they’ve ever known to live someplace they’ve never been, don’t speak the language, and have no citizenship isn’t a human rights violation, then nothing that matters is.
I don’t give a shit if Sweden says it’s fine.
Most of the world is blood right citizenship, you inherit it from your parents. Which is actually helpful if abroad on a trip and you get born you automatically get citizenship of where your parents normally would reside as a citizen, The person you were commenting on is correct, human rights has nothing to do with sovereign nations laws on who becomes a citizen. Its not a right as a human to take on the citizenship based on the continent and boundaries you live in because countries are a construct. Think back to all the border changes in places like prewar Germany. Your border could change, it doesn’t change what country “you belong to”. American having Birthright sort of made sense because it was the " new world " at the time.
By no means do I support what USA admin is doing, they are absolute assholes. But not liking it doesn’t make it a human rights violation
The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that’s not a right, then there are really none of significance.
Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.
Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.
The rights of people matter more than those of nations.
Rights are bestowed by governments though. We have moved passed roaming the land and setting up a homestead wherever you like, we now have governments that scribe boundaries and zone land, it is no longer “freedom”. If you are worried about citizenship and your parents move it is on them to pursue PR and then citizenship, then the same for their children.
Historically, rights are conceded by governments in the face of overwhelming pressure.
I’m fairly certain that you either never took or utterly failed basically any civics or philosophy class.
Human rights exist outside the context of government. It’s why something can be legal and still a human rights violation.
That’s the Enlightenment interpretation, but it’s certainly not the only one taught in philosophy classes. There’s also a view that rights are negotiated, and that when a government fails to respect a right, it’s as good as gone until the government is again forced to concede it. In that interpretation, rights are not God-given, they’re fought for.
You’re either willfully being ignorant. Or just lack fundamental understanding of what Human Rights are. It’s something set by the UN.
Birthright Citizenship is not included. Period. It is not a Human Right to be a citizen in the country you’re born.
You can have the opinion that it should be. But it is in fact not.
Most countries. As in, all of them except 33. Have it so you get citizenship from either or both of your parents.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
It is not the UN’s domain to determine human rights. It’s its job to recognize and (ideally) to promote and protect them. And it’s not wonderfully effective at that part of its job.
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?
The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not an exhaustive or definitive list.
Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you’re actually full of shit on the concept of morality.
Yeah. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution plainly says that there are more rights than are enumerated.
There was no consensus on what should be global human rights before 1948 that is correct.
Before that, the only rights you had, were the ones afforded to you by your lord, king, queen, emperor, president, prime minister, etc. For a very long time, all over the world. A lot of people had, literally. No rights at all. They were used, sold, worked, as slaves.
So it’s a wonderful thing that a bunch of countries came together and tried their best to determine some basic Human Rights that everyone should adhere to. Being afforded citizenship of the country you’re currently inside at the time of birth. Is not one of them.
If you ever bothered to actually look into them. You might find article 15 of interest.
You have the Human Right to belong to a nation. But it does not stipulate which nation. Nor how you acquire the nationality. Some countries have it as the place where you were physically born. Others have it as an extension of your parents nationality.
I could explain this further if you so wish. But I doubt you’d care for it. In any case. What you personally think should and shouldn’t be a human right, won’t change the status of the actual Human Rights. Just like what you personally think should and shouldn’t be legal in your country, won’t change the status of the laws currently put in place.
I understand the legal theory of human rights perfectly well, thanks though.
What you seem to be missing is that legality isn’t the end of morality, but an agreeable approximation endorsed by a government.
The universal declaration of human rights isn’t even that. It doesn’t carry the weight of law.
It seems that you’re arguing that no one should be denied a nationality, but that no one needs to grant you one. So your right to a nationality can be violated by… No one? Someone has to let you in, but no one in specific is responsible, and you can be stripped of it as long as it’s not arbitrary. You have the right to change it, but not to anything in particular. Is that about right?
This is of course ignoring the provision against exile, protection of freedom of movement and residence, or the right to return to your homeland. Although you seem to believe that a right to return to your homeland has no basis in where your homeland actually is.
Interesting. Maybe using a document weighed to be inoffensive to powerful nations shouldn’t be taken as the highpoint of morality. It’s almost like any statement that might create the connotation of “moral obligation” is couched in layers of exceptions or vagueness.
Did you know the Holocaust was perfectly legal? And, since you say we didn’t even have human rights before then, just the whim of the ruler, it wasn’t even a human rights violation to gas children and burn their bodies!
Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?
People who can’t see the distinction between morality and legality are disgusting.
Things can be legal, and still immoral. Just like things can be illegal, but still moral.
Law and morality are two separate things. They are not bound by eachother.
I personally don’t think it’s moral for a 40 year old to go and pick up 18 year olds. But it’s perfectly legal. My opinion of the morality of it, is not going to change the legal status.
The nation of your parent is responsible for your nationality. I’ve said it numerous times by now. Are you not following along?
You are correct. It was not a Human Rights Violation because that did not exist as the time. That doesn’t make it moral. That doesn’t make it ok.
Your whole thing seems to be if something is legal, it’s also moral. Why do you think that has to be the case?
You do realise that you’re literally (and I don’t use that word carelessly) the person who is unable to distinguish morality from legality.
Your reading comprehension is lacking if you think I’m failing to distinguish between legality and morality.
You’re failing basic comprehension that human rights are a concept that exists outside of the law. The law referring to human rights does not make the law the arbiter of human rights.
Read a book, and think about where you went wrong that you’re arguing that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
I get that you think you’re being pedantic about what you think is a legal term being misused. You’re not. You’re being an asshole about an ethics term being used properly in a context you were ignorant of.
Would help if you stopped using legal terms to argue moral ones then. Then you wouldn’t get people like him arguing with you.
He’s right, you are wrong. Full stop. Human rights is a legal term and defined in written word. Your issue is a moral not a legal one. You need to use proper terms and make yourself clear.
Blood right nationality and birth right nationality both are equally legal.
Going from one to the other is perfectly legally fine. Hell it’s even morally fine. If anything there is less problems with blood right over birth right. As birth right nationality has frequent issues with births outside of the country, and since fewer countries use birth right it causes even more.
Yes it’s all the America’s that use it, but that’s more a size of land mass not an actual population argument. By number of people, and countries blood right is the common method.
There are clear moral issues with WHY trump is doing this. And being upset at those reasons is perfectly moral. Hell I don’t like him doing this either. It’s for all the wrong reasons and being done in a fucked up way. But that doesn’t mean switching citizenship methodology is bad or wrong would also just be objectively incorrect. It can be done in a perfectly legal AND morally acceptable way.
Trump just of course doesn’t care about legal or moral thus the problems.
But humans rights it is not. Stop using a legal term that only quasi is connected to your words. It undermines your own stance. It only makes it hard to actually take you serious. It just makes you come across as trying to cause a panic instead of actually taking a stance.
Very well written. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Citation needed. That’s seriously such a preposterous stance that I actually skipped reading your entire response after I got to it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
The concept of human rights and the morality of how those with power act towards those without has been discussed under many names for millennia. It’s been discussed under the name “human rights” long before we started using it as a legal term. Hint: where do you think the legal term came from?
Philosophy pertaining to the law is not that same thing as the law.
It’s actually in the founding documents of our country that human rights are not defined by the legal system, and that we can only specifically enumerate a subset that we find critically important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
This makes sense because the philosophical works that were inspirational and popular amongst the founders were those of natural rights philosophers of different sorts quite concerned with human rights in general. You can see it in how the preamble is basically a summary of them.
All that aside: being shocked that someone is discussing morality when discussing human rights is naive and a cop out for a shitty opinion.
Alright, I felt bad and went back to try reading. I got to the bit where it seems you think the US only has jus soli citizenship (speaking of needing to use the right term) instead of both “by blood” and “by soil” and stopped again. Supporting both is actually quite easy. Possession of a US birth certificate makes you a citizen. Either parent being a citizen makes you a citizen. More problems arise from “by blood” citizenship, since you need to present the child and proof of parental citizenship before someone with authority to decide if the credentials are valid. A US citizen born abroad results in quite the bundle of paperwork as well as in-person consulate visits. Being born in a US hospital it’s a short form where a hospital official affirms where they were born. The rest is just vital records for statistics.