Trump Says He’s Moving Forward With Ending Birthright Citizenship After Supreme Court Gives OK
The Supreme Court effectively blocked the judiciary’s ability to stop Trump from implementing a huge range of policies.
You're viewing a single thread.
Human rights are officially a thing of the past. None of us qualify for citizenship if he removes that definition.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Would help if you stopped using legal terms to argue moral ones then. Then you wouldn't get people like him arguing with you.
He's right, you are wrong. Full stop. Human rights is a legal term and defined in written word. Your issue is a moral not a legal one. You need to use proper terms and make yourself clear.
Blood right nationality and birth right nationality both are equally legal.
Going from one to the other is perfectly legally fine. Hell it's even morally fine. If anything there is less problems with blood right over birth right. As birth right nationality has frequent issues with births outside of the country, and since fewer countries use birth right it causes even more.
Yes it's all the America's that use it, but that's more a size of land mass not an actual population argument. By number of people, and countries blood right is the common method.
There are clear moral issues with WHY trump is doing this. And being upset at those reasons is perfectly moral. Hell I don't like him doing this either. It's for all the wrong reasons and being done in a fucked up way. But that doesn't mean switching citizenship methodology is bad or wrong would also just be objectively incorrect. It can be done in a perfectly legal AND morally acceptable way.
Trump just of course doesn't care about legal or moral thus the problems.
But humans rights it is not. Stop using a legal term that only quasi is connected to your words. It undermines your own stance. It only makes it hard to actually take you serious. It just makes you come across as trying to cause a panic instead of actually taking a stance.
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.
Very well written. I couldn't have said it better myself.
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.
It is a human right, just not one that is universally respected.
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.
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.
That's exactly the difference that Trump is harping on
Basically every country in earth does not use birth right citizenship. It's basically only a feature of new world colony countries.
The majority of the world does not use it. The americas may have a lot of landmass they do not have the majority of people.
It's mostly based on parentage or blood. You arnt ever born with out citizenship some country always lays claim to ownership of your person. But it's not normally based on the borders ownership, but the person's giving birth ownership.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Why would I define human rights by virtue of what a wiki says today?
Ok... but you are aware that the UN have set actual Human Rights?
Why on earth do you think not being listed in a particular document makes something not a human right
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.
It allows them to denounce citizenship of whoever they deem an enemy of the state. Hence then allowing to revoke the right of any and creating a fear state, behave or behead.
Along with setting precedent that an acting head can unilaterally change the foundations. Hence creating no quantifiable term for rights, as they then get to choose who benefits from them.
If the nation that held your birth and upbringing doesn't want you, what is your right anywhere else?
What are you talking about? It would allow them to revoke the citizenship of people born in the US to 2 non-citizens. That's not a significant portion of the population.
But it creates a precedent which is all the legality of systems needs. Most courts only work by if it has precedent or not. One precedent leads to another and another. Dude why am I explaining the domino chain fully elaborated in project 2025?
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.
You seem to be persistently missing that there’s a difference between morality and a declaration.
Eh... no... I'm, repeatedly saying that there is a difference and they are different.
It's absolutely NOT a question of morality. Morality is subjective, what you think is moral, someone else think is immoral. How can you not see that?
There are people who think it's immoral for two men to engage in intimacy. There are people who think it's moral. So which one is it? Is it moral or immoral? It's a personal, subjective thing.
Human Rights as they are. Are rights that should be guaranteed by every UN member, You are right that they were drafted in a period of time where LGBT was seen as a mental disability. But the fact that it doesn't exclude anyone over sexuality was a huge part in many places for their recognition and rights as humans, regardless of orientation.
There is far less subjectivity in the articles of the human rights, than there are in questions regarding morality.
For a Nation to change their system of how Citizens are adopted, is not a human rights violation. For a nation to have citizenship status being passed from parent to child, is not a human rights violation.
You can make every argument you want about WHY trump wants to make the change. You can argue the morality of it. You can argue the constitutional problems with it. But what it clearly isn't. Is a Human Rights violation. As long as there is a system in place where a citizens children get citizenship from birth. It is in accordance with Human Rights. There is no subjectivity in that.
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.
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.
It is basically the only form of citizenship in the USA, and since only citizens rights are respected by laws, meaning nobody has any guaranteed rights at all.
