7 ms·

And your country owes you why?

mihaic 4y ago
That's the general social contract that most people have as their mental model: "If I pay my taxes and do my part, my children will get the standard benefits of citizenship". Honestly, I'm not sure what use you see from asking this question.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  It's part of the socratic method. It's reasonable to ask why your country of birth owes you anything. Keep in mind not every country gives you citizenship from birth, so it raises the question of whether what you're saying really is correct. I would suggest if someone has worked somewhere for a decent amount of time they should not be disposed of so easily as the person in the article.
  - hsn915 4y ago
    > It's part of the socratic method. But that question wasn't. It was bad faith "gotcha!" question.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      I don't think so. The question is short but it illuminates an angle most people wouldn't think of. Or when they think of it, there's no satisfactory answer immediately apparent. There's why does any country owe you, and why does your country of origin in particular owe you.
- the_af 4y ago
  I understand your overall point and agree with it, but let me state that "paying my taxes" is such an American, money-centered worldview. Your country owes you citizenship even if you don't pay your taxes. It may punish you in other ways, but not by taking away citizenship.
widge 4y ago
Because if it is attacked, you have to defend it. This obligation to your country gives you the right to stay in it.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Corollaries: - People who can't "defend the country" don't get these rights: women, children, old people, people with religious exemptions, people with an unreasonable fear of being violently killed. - People who promise to come and defend will get these rights, regardless of where they were born? Do they just make a solemn oath or do they have to do boot camp and maintain their skills? I hope you can see this is not where your rights come from.
- the_af 4y ago
  You don't lose citizenship if you refuse to defend your country. Depending on the country, you may be jailed, fined or otherwise punished, but most countries won't take your citizenship away from you if you refuse to fight.
tdsanchez 4y ago
"And your country owes you why?" Because its a UN convention. https://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html https://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html
hsn915 4y ago
You could argue that even your country doesn't owe you anything merely for existing. You have responsibilities, not just rights. But for the purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming a person already has a country they belong to which does give them the right to stay. No other country owes you the right to stay. Singapore does not owe me the right to be there, let alone stay there. Each country is free to decide the rules for who it allows in and how long it allows them to stay and under what conditions. It's not a "human right".
- lordnacho 4y ago
  So where do stateless people such as myself belong (not stateless now, but previously)? There's corner cases in every rule, but there can be a lot of cases where people slip through the cracks.
  - hsn915 4y ago
    That's another discussion though. The topic at hand is someone who has a country and had an opportunity to work in another country is complaining that they have to go back to their home country because the work visa is not a permanent residence visa.
- rileymat2 4y ago
  One thing that I would like to push back on the idea that “It is not a ‘human right’”. A “human right” is a social term defined by the demands of the people living in that time collectively. There is no list we can check off, it is what people demand and can fight for. By asserting the right they very well could be /creating/ it.
  - mantas 4y ago
    With your definition of „human rights“ we can just abolish the term altogether. The beauty of human rights was that it was supposed to be a well-defined set of core things. Which can't be granted, they just shouldn't be stamped on. But now „human rights“ is becoming a very polarised topic with many bits where person A is forced to do provide something to person B because it's „human rights“. Does person A has a „human right“ to refuse to provide his service?

That's the general social contract that most people have as their mental model: "If I pay my taxes and do my part, my children will get the standard benefits of citizenship". Honestly, I'm not sure what use you see from asking this question.

lordnacho 4y ago
It's part of the socratic method. It's reasonable to ask why your country of birth owes you anything. Keep in mind not every country gives you citizenship from birth, so it raises the question of whether what you're saying really is correct. I would suggest if someone has worked somewhere for a decent amount of time they should not be disposed of so easily as the person in the article.
- hsn915 4y ago
  > It's part of the socratic method. But that question wasn't. It was bad faith "gotcha!" question.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    I don't think so. The question is short but it illuminates an angle most people wouldn't think of. Or when they think of it, there's no satisfactory answer immediately apparent. There's why does any country owe you, and why does your country of origin in particular owe you.
the_af 4y ago
I understand your overall point and agree with it, but let me state that "paying my taxes" is such an American, money-centered worldview. Your country owes you citizenship even if you don't pay your taxes. It may punish you in other ways, but not by taking away citizenship.

widge 4y ago

Because if it is attacked, you have to defend it. This obligation to your country gives you the right to stay in it.

lordnacho 4y ago
Corollaries: - People who can't "defend the country" don't get these rights: women, children, old people, people with religious exemptions, people with an unreasonable fear of being violently killed. - People who promise to come and defend will get these rights, regardless of where they were born? Do they just make a solemn oath or do they have to do boot camp and maintain their skills? I hope you can see this is not where your rights come from.
the_af 4y ago
You don't lose citizenship if you refuse to defend your country. Depending on the country, you may be jailed, fined or otherwise punished, but most countries won't take your citizenship away from you if you refuse to fight.

tdsanchez 4y ago

"And your country owes you why?" Because its a UN convention. https://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html https://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html

hsn915 4y ago

You could argue that even your country doesn't owe you anything merely for existing. You have responsibilities, not just rights. But for the purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming a person already has a country they belong to which does give them the right to stay. No other country owes you the right to stay. Singapore does not owe me the right to be there, let alone stay there. Each country is free to decide the rules for who it allows in and how long it allows them to stay and under what conditions. It's not a "human right".

lordnacho 4y ago
So where do stateless people such as myself belong (not stateless now, but previously)? There's corner cases in every rule, but there can be a lot of cases where people slip through the cracks.
- hsn915 4y ago
  That's another discussion though. The topic at hand is someone who has a country and had an opportunity to work in another country is complaining that they have to go back to their home country because the work visa is not a permanent residence visa.
rileymat2 4y ago
One thing that I would like to push back on the idea that “It is not a ‘human right’”. A “human right” is a social term defined by the demands of the people living in that time collectively. There is no list we can check off, it is what people demand and can fight for. By asserting the right they very well could be /creating/ it.
- mantas 4y ago
  With your definition of „human rights“ we can just abolish the term altogether. The beauty of human rights was that it was supposed to be a well-defined set of core things. Which can't be granted, they just shouldn't be stamped on. But now „human rights“ is becoming a very polarised topic with many bits where person A is forced to do provide something to person B because it's „human rights“. Does person A has a „human right“ to refuse to provide his service?