The constitution says people born here are citizens and they’ve decided to pretend it doesn’t. Why would an organization they want to withdraw from or a treaty they don’t recognize get more weight?
And what’s the stateless person going to do if they’re wronged? Sue?
Constitutions can be altered, amended. Which seems to be what Trump wants to do.
I’m just telling you that the majority of countries does not have birthright citizenship. It’s something you inherit from your parents. Provided they file for it if you’re born outside of a hospital or abroad.
And no. Birthright citizenship is not a human right.
And yes, someone becoming stateless against their will, would have to sue.
I’m not arguing for or against it. Not my bone to pick.
The president doesn’t get to change the constitution, or amend it. Congress doesn’t even have that power, the most they can do is present it to the states.
What you’re doing is arguing that a non-binding statement or a treaty that the US isn’t a party to is somehow a better source for morality and defining what constitutes a human right than decency or thinking for yourself.
Don’t outsource your conscience to dead guys from the 40s.
If someone was born here, they can be one of us. Both constitutionally and morally. The UN and Trump have fuck all to do with morality. Kicking someone out of their home because of where their parents are from is wrong.
As for the lawsuit… Where would they sue? On what possible grounds do you think that would even get a hearing? Who do you think would enforce the ruling?
The US has signed no treaty agreeing to not make people stateless.
What possible standing would anyone have to argue in court that a country denied them citizenship, particularly if, as you say, no one has a right to citizenship in any particular country? Or is jus soli citizenship a right but only if you don’t have any other option?
Someone definitely have the power to amend the Constitution, seeing as you have several amendments. No?
Again. What you want Human Rights to be. Doesn’t change what they actually are.
You don’t think that everyone will have different opinions of what should and shouldn’t be included? So how would you ever be able to say what they are?
Why do you seem to think that morality would be limited to Human Rights? Things can not be a right, and still immoral. Morality is also a very subjective thing.
What isn’t subjective. Is the Human Rights as determined by the UN.
I’m not going to argue about who and who doesn’t get to be a US citizen. But changing the way nationality is given, is factually not a Human Rights issue.
You can say it’s a constitutional issue. But it sure isn’t a Human Rights one.
As to the last part. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not going to speculate in the legal defense. You asked what they would do, sue? And the answer is yes.
Congress can vote to propose an amendment, and then send it to the states to be voted on and ratified.
The constitution is an agreement between states creating and restricting the federal government. Federal and federated come from the same root.
You seem to be persistently missing that there’s a difference between morality and a declaration.
Human rights are a question if morality. Like any moral or philosophical question people debate things and eventually come to some form of understanding, which might beget a document outlining the understanding, and possibly laws detailing actions to be taken to protect certain rights.
The universal declaration of human rights is a set of human rights people were able to agree on. That doesn’t make it any less subjective or arbitrary. It also doesn’t make it exhaustive or definitive.
Why not look to the American Convention on Human Rights? It’s similar but slightly different to the UDHR. Provides more protection for jus soli citizenship, but also more abortion restrictions. So is bodily autonomy a human right, or is the right to life beginning at conception a human right? Even taken exclusively as a strict legal term, the set of human rights isn’t without debate.
The universal declaration of human rights isn’t universally recognized. Most conceptions of human rights would find them to apply even if your government rejects a UN declaration or failed to sign a treaty.
As another example, the UDHR doesn’t acknowledge sexual orientation or gender identity. People try to interpret parts of it as implying them, but it’s blatantly an incomplete document. And that’s okay, since it’s not an exhaustive list. It was drafted when people didn’t agree that lgbtq rights were human rights. They were and are human rights without a piece of paper bestowing them.
Human rights are like any other morality question: subjective, and held in tension between individual beliefs and the various beliefs of society at large.
If your answer to something is to say that it’s illegal, it’s not unreasonable to ask which law makes it illegal, and why you think that matters when that law doesn’t apply to the nation in question.
You’re not allowed to make a person stateless.
Says who? The UN? A treaty the US didn’t sign?
The constitution says people born here are citizens and they’ve decided to pretend it doesn’t. Why would an organization they want to withdraw from or a treaty they don’t recognize get more weight?
And what’s the stateless person going to do if they’re wronged? Sue?
Constitutions can be altered, amended. Which seems to be what Trump wants to do.
I’m just telling you that the majority of countries does not have birthright citizenship. It’s something you inherit from your parents. Provided they file for it if you’re born outside of a hospital or abroad.
And no. Birthright citizenship is not a human right.
And yes, someone becoming stateless against their will, would have to sue.
I’m not arguing for or against it. Not my bone to pick.
The president doesn’t get to change the constitution, or amend it. Congress doesn’t even have that power, the most they can do is present it to the states.
What you’re doing is arguing that a non-binding statement or a treaty that the US isn’t a party to is somehow a better source for morality and defining what constitutes a human right than decency or thinking for yourself.
Don’t outsource your conscience to dead guys from the 40s.
If someone was born here, they can be one of us. Both constitutionally and morally. The UN and Trump have fuck all to do with morality. Kicking someone out of their home because of where their parents are from is wrong.
As for the lawsuit… Where would they sue? On what possible grounds do you think that would even get a hearing? Who do you think would enforce the ruling?
The US has signed no treaty agreeing to not make people stateless.
What possible standing would anyone have to argue in court that a country denied them citizenship, particularly if, as you say, no one has a right to citizenship in any particular country? Or is jus soli citizenship a right but only if you don’t have any other option?
Someone definitely have the power to amend the Constitution, seeing as you have several amendments. No?
Again. What you want Human Rights to be. Doesn’t change what they actually are.
You don’t think that everyone will have different opinions of what should and shouldn’t be included? So how would you ever be able to say what they are?
Why do you seem to think that morality would be limited to Human Rights? Things can not be a right, and still immoral. Morality is also a very subjective thing.
What isn’t subjective. Is the Human Rights as determined by the UN.
I’m not going to argue about who and who doesn’t get to be a US citizen. But changing the way nationality is given, is factually not a Human Rights issue.
You can say it’s a constitutional issue. But it sure isn’t a Human Rights one.
As to the last part. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not going to speculate in the legal defense. You asked what they would do, sue? And the answer is yes.
Congress can vote to propose an amendment, and then send it to the states to be voted on and ratified.
The constitution is an agreement between states creating and restricting the federal government. Federal and federated come from the same root.
You seem to be persistently missing that there’s a difference between morality and a declaration.
Human rights are a question if morality. Like any moral or philosophical question people debate things and eventually come to some form of understanding, which might beget a document outlining the understanding, and possibly laws detailing actions to be taken to protect certain rights.
The universal declaration of human rights is a set of human rights people were able to agree on. That doesn’t make it any less subjective or arbitrary. It also doesn’t make it exhaustive or definitive.
Why not look to the American Convention on Human Rights? It’s similar but slightly different to the UDHR. Provides more protection for jus soli citizenship, but also more abortion restrictions. So is bodily autonomy a human right, or is the right to life beginning at conception a human right? Even taken exclusively as a strict legal term, the set of human rights isn’t without debate.
The universal declaration of human rights isn’t universally recognized. Most conceptions of human rights would find them to apply even if your government rejects a UN declaration or failed to sign a treaty.
As another example, the UDHR doesn’t acknowledge sexual orientation or gender identity. People try to interpret parts of it as implying them, but it’s blatantly an incomplete document. And that’s okay, since it’s not an exhaustive list. It was drafted when people didn’t agree that lgbtq rights were human rights. They were and are human rights without a piece of paper bestowing them.
Human rights are like any other morality question: subjective, and held in tension between individual beliefs and the various beliefs of society at large.
If your answer to something is to say that it’s illegal, it’s not unreasonable to ask which law makes it illegal, and why you think that matters when that law doesn’t apply to the nation in question.