top 90 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 123 points 1 year ago* (26 children)

Lest we forget:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pretty hard to argue that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.

    Which means the Constitution is dead letter.

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

    That goes both ways, and states need to start acting on it. They need to start passing a flurry of laws criminalizing ICE tactics. Pass laws making it a felony to:

    • Conduct law enforcement while masked

    • To search homes without a warrant

    • To enter various protected locations for law enforcement purposes when there isn't an immediate threat.

    They need to take cues from the anti-abortion playbook. Pass a law requiring all immigration detainees be transported in limousines. Require ICE to old prisoners in five star hotels. Require immigration officers to have at least two doctoral degrees. Make it a felony to do immigration enforcement without doing these things. Just start writing dozens of crazy laws criminalizing every aspect of ICE's operations. Then let the individual ICE agents try and challenge them individually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Better than that remove all immunity from law enforcement officers if...

    They do not have a signed judicial warrant.

    They do not verbally and visually identify themselves and the branch or organization they work for.

    Without those two things, they cannot be verified as law enforcement acting in official capacity, and they should be treated as regular civilians. If a bunch of regular Joes jump out of a van and try to black bag you, you should have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.

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

    I would go even further. A masked individual tries to abduct people? It's perfectly legal for anyone to shoot them dead right on the spot. Law enforcement who dress like human traffickers should be put in the ground like human traffickers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    It is just a fucking piece of paper.

    If the judges and politicians and police don't care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.

    It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

    North Korea of America is where we are now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.

    Russia can't - they're struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.

    UK & EU certainly won't invade, at most they'd send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)

    Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

    Mexico might just on principle (payback's a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

    Same for South American Asian and African countries.

    That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.

    The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y'all are busy destroying your country.

    Putin's plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Mexico might just on principle (payback’s a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

    More accurately, we literally can't be bothered. Our state of affairs doesn't allow for a war, and by that, I mean that a huge national protest would ensue, and many politicians would strike it down for many reasons. Nobody here is interested, and after fighting narcos for so long, we'd rather have peace.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

    Canada just needs to send one guy over to say “you should be our eleventh province” and most of New England will say “yes please, I’m sick of whatever shit the regressives are doing now”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

    No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don't have the logistics for it.

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

    Other nations wouldn't invade. But in the event of a civil war, you can be certain they would be sending in plenty of heavy weaponry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Other nations wouldn't invade. But in the event of a civil war, you can be certain they would be sending in plenty of heavy weaponry.

    The US has more military equipment and munitions than the next 5 ranked countries put together - why on earth would there be a need to send weapons ?

    Secondly who would be sending weapons ? Russia needs to finish their own war before they could send help to Trump (who will probably have the bulk of the reserves initially), China is unlikely to want to side with either faction, although I'm sure they'd be happy to sell "consumer" Mavic drones to both sides (a la Ukraine).

    The remaining western democracies have barely enough capacity to keep Ukraine afloat, although they would side with a pro-democracy anti-Trump faction if it garnered enough support to have a chance but with the massive stockpiles in the US being 100x what the rest of the west has it would be like pissing in the ocean.

    In the event of a civil war pro-democracy Americans need to bring military commanders on side so they can utilise existing US stocks - you have the biggest ammo and weapons dumps in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The problem is and has always been "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

    People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn't born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

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

    I saw a person trying to all caps "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" screaming that this specific clause somehow is the piece that excludes birthright citizenship because something something loyalty to other countries?

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

    So like ....kids of illegal aliens are ... sovereign citizens?

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

    I think the argument was that if your parents are not naturalized citizens, then that means they're not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. So like, if the parents 'owe allegiance' to their previous country then it makes the kid a citizen of the parents' original country, and not the U.S.

    But it's all actually bullshit to try and justify not wanting brown people to be U.S. Citizens tbh.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    He is much closer to his stated goal

    The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all

    He has stated he wants.... Needs this

    On Exactly why he has been vague

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

    That means him first motherfucker because Trump is a birthright citizen. His grandfather was an immigrant.

    Not like me is like 12 generations removed but still immigrant. Except on my mother's side that native American. But guess Trump will deport them too, because if you got technical they also are immigrants.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (56 children)

    Human rights are officially a thing of the past. None of us qualify for citizenship if he removes that definition.

  • source
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [+] -33 points 1 year ago (55 children)

    Birthright citizenship is not a human right. It's pretty much only a thing in North and South America.

    You can say a lot of things. But proclaiming it as a loss of human rights is not it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    It is a human right, just not one that is universally respected.

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

    Having a nationality is a Human Right. Being afforded nationality in the country you were born in, isn't.

    A common example are couples working abroad. They might give birth abroad, but that doesn't mean their child will automatically be a citizen of that country. Because the vast majority of countries does not grant citizenship for just being born there. You get citizenship if one of your parents is a citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The problem is that birth right citizenship is in the constitution. So if Trump can get rid of that, he can get ignore the Bill of Rights as well.

    EDIT: Also basically every country has birthright citizenship usually be having a citizen as a parent. What is different in the Americas is jus soli, so being born in the country making you a citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago*

    No. Basically every country does NOT have birthright citizenship. If I was born in Spain, that would not make me a Spanish citizen. Since neither of my parents are Spanish citizens.

    I would get citizenship from my parents. Not from the location I was born.

    Edit: ok I see now what you mean with "birthright citizenship". But that's not the term used elsewhere. Yes. Everyone born has the right to a citizenship. But since we cannot be made stateless.... you will never end up born without it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (32 children)

    You're arguing that people don't have the right to live where they were born and have lived their entire lives.
    If that's not a human right, than basically nothing is.

    Also, "only" north and south america? That's not a trivial portion of the world that you can just "only" away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    I'm not arguing anything. I'm informing you of what the reality is.

    33 countries have it. All but two are in Americas.

    The rest have citizenship inherited from your parents. Meaning. Even if I was born in Portugal. It wouldn't make me a Portugeese citizen. I would still be a Swedish citizen. Since my parents are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    The rest have citizenship inherited from your parents.

    And most of them have expedited rules for naturalization of children born in the country to parents who are there legally. One exception I know about is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf countries, where it's nearly impossible to get citizenship if your father isn't a citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.

    Yeah. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution plainly says that there are more rights than are enumerated.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Human rights is a legal term and defined in written word.

    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.

    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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    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.

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

    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.

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

    You have demonstrated that you cannot distinguish the two.

    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?

    That's your quote. "Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?". That shows you are unable to distinguish law and moral, since you seem to think everything legal has to be moral.

    You can try to move the goalpost as much as you wish. It's still not going to change the facts of what Human Rights are. The only thing you're showcasing is your ignorance. And in saying things which you do not understand, you undermine what actual Human Rights violations encompass.

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

    I cannot face palm hard enough. You actually lack reading comprehension that hard.

    That section does not imply that I think morality and the law are identical. That's me believing that you do, and making an assertion that your beliefs would lead you to the indefensible position that the Holocaust wasn't a human rights violation.
    Also before I realized that you were being pedantic in ignorance, as revealed by you defending the notion that the Holocaust wasn't a human rights violation.

    I choose to interpret that you're ignorant of philosophy, and now also not fluent enough in English to actually properly engage in this type of conversation, rather than think you're a person who sees nothing wrong with the Holocaust.

    In summary: "human rights" are a philosophical and ethical concept discussed under that and other names for thousands of years. That concept has clear implications for the law, and so the term is also used in a legal context. Most people refer to the philosophical context because morality is above the law.

    Seeing as I no longer have confidence in the ability of this discussion to go anywhere due to communication impediments, I'm done. Have a good day.

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

    I did not once suggest that what is legal, must be moral. That is your assumption. Not mine.

    Why would you think I see nothing wrong with the holocaust? I stated in no uncertain terms I find it immoral and not ok. That is the opposite of not seeing anything wrong. And you have the gall to critique my reading comprehension...

    "Human Rights" is a Declaration of rights made by the UN. Your personal opinion of how you want them to be perceived. Does not alter what they are, how they came to be, or what they encompass.

    Most people refer to the philosophical context because morality is above the law.

    That is a wild statement. Morality is definitely not above the law. In some very religious countries, morality is law, but that is as far as it will go.

    What basis do you have for proclaiming "most people" refer to the "philosophical context"? You pulled it out of your ass.

    You turn to insults because you lack the education to make proper arguments. And just like the trumpers, you cannot admit you've been wrong, so you double down no matter how silly it gets. Good luck with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

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

    I agree that UN is not wonderfully effective at enforcing Human Rights. That is fair and valid criticism. I don't think they're very good at enforcing anything to be honest.

    You may have the opinion that it shouldn't be in the UN's domain to determine Human Rights. But matter of fact is. The Declaration of Human Rights is something the UN made. They did determine them. It has already happened. I strongly advise everyone to go and read them. You will probably find that everything you wish was there, is actually in there. There are a total of 30 articles. So it's not a particularly long read.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Historically, rights are conceded by governments in the face of overwhelming pressure.

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

    Sure but half the world isn't operating that way right now. What the USA is doing is moving to match Europe and eastern countries, it absolutely is for the wrong reasons, but unfortunately within their ability to do so

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

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

    That's a fair point of discussion. I stand by what I said as a valid response to the claim that government bestows a right, but no, it's not as universally agreed upon in as I implied.

    I'd argue that regardless of if a right is a fiat of nature or claimed by the people, that the right is still outside the government. People have the right to this and that, and the government can choose to infringe, respect or protect them, but they didn't create the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Sure like torture, but just being born a human doesn't give you citizenship in half the world. Countries get to decide who gets citizenship. Laws are how they are.

    Like A as a human you have the right not to be killed, but B citizenship (which is belonging to a nation not the world) is granted by that nation.

    Like their are stateless people even. They don't get auto citizenship

    Sure like torture, but just being born a human doesn't give you citizenship in half the world. Countries get to decide who gets citizenship. Laws are how they are.

    You would have to cite a source because I don't see any reference of UDHR and other treaties that declare citizenship in a specific country to be a human right. Just that you have a right to nationality and right to change it. But countries retain sovereign control over how they grant citizenship, within limits set by international law.

    As a born human you have a right to take on your parents citizenship or the country you happened to be born in if that is their law, but you don't get to choose willy nilly it is set by blood right or birth right laws

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

    "Laws are how they are", so why shouldn't your government get to torture you? Just stating where you draw the line doesn't make the line valid.

    It's commonly held to be a human right to not be stateless. Why is it a human right to have a country, but not a human right to have your home be that country?

    Why are people in general not deserving of citizenship in the place they call home?

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

    Its not your "home" if the countries laws say it isn't. Humans rights say people should not be stateless, however it doesn't mean you auto gain citizenship of the a random country you are born in, same as some don't get your citizenship of your parents origin. You get one or the other as your citizenship, or apply for it.

    As a hyperbolic example: Imagine your get a lottery win, buy yourself and your spouse one of those islands and start your own country, suddenly everyone hears about it and lands boats to have babies there, now they are your citizens and you owe the social services to a 1000 babies as is their right as a human.

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

    First, you actually can get citizenship from where you were born as well as by blood. It's pretty common. They have dual citizenship. Done.

    Your example is not as persuasive as you think. If I'm a nation, of course I need to care for the babies that live within my borders. Are you a monster?
    I'm gonna have to tax and get help from the the parents, but that's pretty normal for a nation to do.

    Countries exist for the people that live there. If you live here the country is for you.

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

    The first one of course that's what I meant its determined by the counties laws, no human rights.

    The second if you had 100000 show up and not pay tax, you would start changing your mind. The point was the laws for the country you build are established by you, not those arriving

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

    Why would they not pay tax? They're living here, working here, buying things here. Those are where we collect taxes.

    When your rational for "your parents came here illegally, so now you have to live in a country you've never known and don't speak the language" is "someone might not be paying taxes"... You're being cruel to no purpose.

    What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" is also defined by the laws of countries. That doesn't mean that we don't determine that some punishment is a human rights violation. Likewise, deciding to punish someone for the behavior of their parents is violation of human rights.

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

    First one: situations like the UK that had very good social support (Dole) even if not working, and so everyone flocked there from neighbouring countries in Europe and middle east and abused it. You had rampant fraud. Not every person is a hard working tax payer, some people are opportunists.

    Anyway, just so you don't get the wrong impression, I'm not a believer in the USA removing Birthright citizenship, I'm just arguing the facts about countries choose how their own citizenship works, not some fundamental universal idea. Like there is that human right belief in democracy. But going to North Korea and demanding they be democratic because its your human right to access it is not going to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • It pretty much is a loss of human rights indirectly, though. Losing birthright citizenship essentially means going through whatever processes he wants to become a citizen and gain the benefits of citizenship (voting, social programs, etc.). It also means he can use it as an excuse to deport whoever, which has usually ended up involved stripped those deported of their rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    What people like you tend to forget, is that most countries (at least European countries that I know of), might not grant birth citizenship, but do grant citizenship by marriage, as soon as you marry someone from the country, you can apply for citizenship, meanwhile you can spend 40 years married to an american, living in the country and having 5 kids, and still not be considered american... That only happens there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    First ones to be deported should be melania and baron

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    9 comments in c/legalnews@lemmy.zip view that post