4 ms·

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 di

by 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?
  - rileymat2 4y ago
    I think you are making a distinction between positive rights and negative rights; not human rights. If it was supposed to be a a well-defined set of core things, where are you drawing that set from?
    - mantas 4y ago
      IMO human rights is a subset of negative rights. Can it be a non-questionable human right to force others to provide you something? Granting people that others will provide them something is fine. But it must be possible to discuss such topics. Human rights, IMO, shall be a very pure set of things that are not up to discussion, even with rather fringe views. Regardless of political quadrant. Of course, some freaks will always question anything. But wide wide majority (think 95% if not 98%) shall sign off on that.

by hsn915 4y ago

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?
- rileymat2 4y ago
  I think you are making a distinction between positive rights and negative rights; not human rights. If it was supposed to be a a well-defined set of core things, where are you drawing that set from?
  - mantas 4y ago
    IMO human rights is a subset of negative rights. Can it be a non-questionable human right to force others to provide you something? Granting people that others will provide them something is fine. But it must be possible to discuss such topics. Human rights, IMO, shall be a very pure set of things that are not up to discussion, even with rather fringe views. Regardless of political quadrant. Of course, some freaks will always question anything. But wide wide majority (think 95% if not 98%) shall sign off on that.