you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Human rights are those required for human dignity and flourishing not those which are universally possessed in a world full of distress and toil.

Freedom of speech is one such commonly understood but often denied. For instance if the content of your speech can see someone removed from the land of their birth to one where they are stateless and homeless what other rights do they possess?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't think birthright citizenship qualifies as a "human right" - most countries that (officially) care more about "human rights" than USA does doesn't have that. Whether it should be removed or not is not for me to say, however. It's a switch away from what it has genuinely mesnt to be an American.

    Not having birthright citizenship doesn't (necesarilly) mean the newborn wouldn't have any citizenship at all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    There are many birthright citizens of all ages not just infants. They would instantly become homeless and destitute in a country where they may not speak the language and have no proof of citizenship even if they may eventually have some due to them eventually.

    Furthermore this is a vehicle to deny them other human rights by selectively removing people who are entitled by our constitution to citizenship for speaking against the government.

    Right of redress assembly speech to be secure in their person , and to be subject to the law not a ruler are all important rights herein denied.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You are still not allowed to make someone stateless. That has not changed.

    You seem to be confused as to what human rights actually are, rather than what you want them to be. I suggest you look at the wiki page.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Why would I define human rights by virtue of what a wiki says today?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Ok... but you are aware that the UN have set actual Human Rights?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Why on earth do you think not being listed in a particular document makes something not a human right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because it's factually not a Human Right?

    Your opinion of what you want them to be. Doesn't make it so.

    You have the right to a nationality. (Article 15) How you get one is up to each country. Most grant you one from either of your parents. Not the location you were born.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't think you are the arbitrator of what a human right is..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Correct. I am most certainly not. That would be the UN.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You are both pedantic and pathetic. Yes someone in danger of losing citizenship for speaking out politically and then sent to a gulag to die doesn't have a human right to continuity of citizenship under the law

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Article 15 doesn't give you the right to a specific nationality. It gives you the right to a, nationality. They can only take away your US Citizenship if you are also a citizen of another country.

    Otherwise you would involuntary be made stateless. And that would be a Human Rights violation.

  • source
  • parent