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.
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
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
“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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
“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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.