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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
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
“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.