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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very well written. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

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.

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.

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’m not saying it is. And yes. I am aware of that. I’ve been mentioning it plenty of times in this post already.

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

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.

Ok… but you are aware that the UN have set actual Human Rights?

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.

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.

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.

You’re not allowed to make a person stateless.

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.

Mating season absolutely implies the season during which mating is most probable to occur. There are many animals that follow this behavior despite being able to mate multiple times per year.

One good example from the top of my head is wild boar. They can pretty much mate all year round if they so wish. But choose not to. Their mating season is in spring, which is also the only time you’re not allowed to hunt them.

It’s actually the mother that will keep an eye on her young and make sure they stick to their mating season. If you shoot the mother, her children might just start mating at irregular times and thus bearing young multiple times per year, which isn’t that great considering they are an invasive species in a lot of countries.