Jump to content

People are not born in countries.


S..

Recommended Posts

Just now, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Yeah I don't think we're gonna agree on this. I'm a practical person; I was born English/I was born in England/I'm an English citizen are synonyms to me. I don't really care though, it's not somet I feel about strongly.

That's again, your choice. That's the whole point. You choose to be English or to claim that you were born in England, or that you're an English citizen.

If the nationality that you choose is not something that you feel strongly about, that's your choice as well.

 

I feel strongly about my nationality, which is why I don't care to have another; and that is my choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, S.. said:

If you travel anywhere without stating that you were born in a country, you face imprisonment and physical abduction to be sent to the area labelled as America.

 

Uh...no.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sally said:

Uh...no.  

Yes, you have to represent the national identity that's been selected for you.

 Passports are required for travel and birthplace has to be the country that's been selected for you.

If you don't agree, then no passport = "illegal traveller" = abduction, imprisonment, and relocation if you are found somewhere other than the "birthplace."

 

You are not allowed to leave the "birthplace" until you comply, speaking the language and proving "strong ties" etc. that ensure you represent the chosen birthplace.

You are not allowed to travel with strong ties to anything other than the birthplace under any circumstance unless you accept the birthplace label and carry it with you.

 

All of this even though we are not born in countries to begin with.

Those labels are forced onto us after we are born and non-acceptance means physical abuse if you attempt to travel freely or associate to a label that you choose freely rather than under force.

 

It's easier if people believe they are "born in countries" and have no choice or freedom in the matter of their associations to begin with.

However, people are born naturally and are associated later on, so they have equal rights to their liberty. People are not born in countries.

There are no paperwork or legal options available to anyone, anywhere, unless they accept the national identity that's selected for them.

That's an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume for a second that countries aren't a thing and they're just a bunch of "labels" and you're not born there and just technically associated with one.

 

Now what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Homer said:

Let's assume for a second that countries aren't a thing and they're just a bunch of "labels" and you're not born there and just technically associated with one.

 

Now what?

There wouldn't be any issue unless you were physically abused or forced into an area until you agree to accept the association as your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S.. said:

You are not allowed to leave the "birthplace" until you comply, speaking the language and proving "strong ties" etc. that ensure you represent the chosen birthplace.

You are not allowed to travel with strong ties to anything other than the birthplace under any circumstance unless you accept the birthplace label and carry it with you.

Dude what are you even talking about. I don't know what countries you are thinking about but I am not aware of any which don't allow you to leave until you speak the language or prove "strong ties". My parents first took me abroad when I was 6 months old, I sure as hell didn't speak English or have strong ties to the country. Since I've spent about a 3rd of my life living in other countries I don't even consider myself to have "strong ties" now. A colleague is using her maternity leave to travel around the world with her infant, again the lack of language ability is no obstacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, theV0ID said:

Dude what are you even talking about. I don't know what countries you are thinking about but I am not aware of any which don't allow you to leave until you speak the language or prove "strong ties". My parents first took me abroad when I was 6 months old, I sure as hell didn't speak English or have strong ties to the country. Since I've spent about a 3rd of my life living in other countries I don't even consider myself to have "strong ties" now. A colleague is using her maternity leave to travel around the world with her infant, again the lack of language ability is no obstacle.

Your parents had to prove that they had strong ties to the country and that you were their child and to claim that you represent the national identity. There statement also isn't taken as matter of fact unless there's additional ties to witnesses and authorized national staff members that gave their stamp of recognition on the association to both your parents and the national identity.

 

All of this was done to you before you even knew that "liberty" is a word or that should be similar to "freedom."

Later in life, you simply comply with tradition; easy peasy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no personal harm directly to you if it doesn't impede your travels or your physical location at any given moment.

However, if you were taken out at 6 months and later in life realize that you're not a citizen of the US ...

... but every country attempts to force you to live in The United States, because the nation itself is demanding you ...

 

... then it might be a problem.

 

Also, the vice versa for anybody that is a US Citizen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, S.. said:

Your parents had to prove that they had strong ties to the country and that you were their child and to claim that you represent the national identity. There statement also isn't taken as matter of fact unless there's additional ties to witnesses and authorized national staff members that gave their stamp of recognition on the association to both your parents and the national identity.

 

All of this was done to you before you even knew that "liberty" is a word or that should be similar to "freedom."

Later in life, you simply comply with tradition; easy peasy.

No, all they needed was my birth certificate and a  recognisable photo to get a passport. Nothing about representing national identity (what would that even involve, painting my face with the union jack?), or proving "strong ties to the country", or making any statements at all really. Maybe getting a passport in the UK is a lot easier than other countries but I doubt it's that complicated in many places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theV0ID said:

No, all they needed was my birth certificate and a  recognisable photo to get a passport. Nothing about representing national identity (what would that even involve, painting my face with the union jack?), or proving "strong ties to the country", or making any statements at all really. Maybe getting a passport in the UK is a lot easier than other countries but I doubt it's that complicated in many places.

Birth certificates require that you are visibly seen exiting a womb by an authorized national. You are then written to be a national yourself and to represent the national identity. "ENGLAND" 

 

No person who is born naturally without such a national witness is authorized to carry a birth certificate or to partipate in society.

These are "undesirable people" or people that are called "illegal" as an excuse to have whatever force is desired used against them.

 

If you parents already had this done to them, then they would usually carry the tradition:

As that is how things are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, S.. said:

No person who is born naturally without such a national witness is authorized to carry a birth certificate or to partipate in society.

My cousin was born on the floor in my aunts bathroom with no witnesses at all and she still has a birth certificate. That was accidental, but Unassisted Childbirth, or free birthing as it is sometimes called, is legal (in the UK), and babies born thus also get birth certificates. Most developed countries have universal registration. But sure  getting a birth certificate is a problem in some developing countries where poverty, ignorance, and bad systems make it difficult to register, and unregistered people are basically invisible. Those unregistered people were still born in those countries though.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Moonman said:

Depends if that country wants to foot the bill for my continued existence. They might me extradited to face punishment in Italian courts. They might deport me and just let Italy do as they please. I might not have even been born in Italy or the country I committed the crime in, so why should they deal with all this inconvenience? What if every criminal everywhere decides they're Italian and expects accommodation from the local embassy and its ambassadors? It's a diplomatic conundrum.

 

But my point stands that people can identify with a country when they do not belong to it and I don't see how that's practical. Why should somebody that wasn't born in England, has never lived in England and doesn't speak English have any right to be English? I'm protective of our national sovereignty because we have had Islamists live here before who have tried to turn England into a Islamist state with Islamic values, like Omar Bakri Mohammad, and your idea gives more freedom and ammunition to such people because it breaks down the barriers that designed to keep such outside threats at bay.

It doesn't have to be complicated: FOREIGN destroyed something that NATION claims to own. The claimed FOREIGN asks not to be harmed by NATION because it is FOREIGN and therefore feels entitled to destroying NATION. ... ... ... The answer to that is NO. FOREIGN can get bent while NATION takes out the stick and reminds FOREIGN of it's place. Long story short: somebody claiming to be foreign is subject to punishment by the one damaged and if the one(s) damaged don't desire to punish, then that's fine. Who has an issue with that?

 

Back to the English thing: That person has every right to be English, but that doesn't mean that they can just up and travel to England unless they prove ties to England. Right now, it's backwards: people aren't allowed to go to England unless they first claim to be foreign and to have strong ties to a foreign country. That might sound crazy, but that's because people are claiming to be born in countries and are using that as an absolute condition where some people simply will never be recognized unless they first prove that they represent a foreign nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theV0ID said:

My cousin was born on the floor in my aunts bathroom with no witnesses at all and she still has a birth certificate. That was accidental, but Unassisted Childbirth, or free birthing as it is sometimes called, is legal (in the UK), and babies born thus also get birth certificates. Most developed countries have universal registration. But sure  getting a birth certificate is a problem in some developing countries where poverty, ignorance, and bad systems make it difficult to register, and unregistered people are basically invisible. Those unregistered people were still born in those countries though.

 

 

You are ignoring the fact that the parents are national. It may or may not have been more difficult to do this to your cousin, but the fact remains that your cousin wasn't born in the country: Your cousin was born naturally and then associated by the parents or whomever the national was that went and associated the national identity to your cousin through the birth certificate.

 

For the rest of your cousin's life, they must represent the nation according to the certificate and the stance of all nations.

The people that don't have birth certificates to begin with weren't born in foreign countries either: yet they are forced to live in an area that people deem theirs or otherwise treatred as undesirable, alien, illegals.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moonman said:

They do have an issue when they have to pay money to house, accommodate and punish a foreigner. They should be able to hold other nations accountable for their own.

 

If you're an illegal immigrant in America and you commit a crime, don't they deport / extradite you instead of imprisoning you? It's a grey area for sure. But I know of cases where America has attempted to try people for crimes that weren't committed in America. Didn't they want to convict Julian Assange? My memory is sketchy but I feel like I read somewhere that Sweden refused to extradite him. Either way, you're saying it doesn't have to be complicated, but it already is because crime and these such systems designed to punish and rehabilitate are diverse so there's no one shoe size fits all solution.

 

Why do they have every right to be English? 

 

I do understand your point that certain nationalities can be a hindrance as much as a blessing. I get that completely.

The person committing the crime is associating themselves with the offended nation. The offended nation has to recognize the offender in-part as their own.

Currently, people are treated as "foreign," national funds are depleted, and the offender is then quickly set free to repeat the offense, further injuring the country.

If a foreign nation shows interest in the criminal, then the offended nation clearly knows the foreign nation IS associating themselves to the crime and the criminal.

Either way, the criminal should to be punished by the offended nation unless the offended nation chooses to swallow the harm of the foreign nation.

 

As for rights: Every person has a right to represent a national identity without being forced to represent one against their will. This is the virtue of being born equal in liberty.

If somebody chooses to represent a nation that you, I, or others are already choosing to represent, then that adds to our nation.

If we don't like the new additions, then we treat them the same as any person of our nation that we don't like.

 

Countries, nations, and identities, are meant to represent us: not the other way around.

We hinder our own grown often enough, but it's a real problem when everybody says we are not allowed to grow because we are born (foreign).

How can we add to a nation if the requirement is to die and try again to be born elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, S.. said:

...For the rest of your cousin's life, they must represent the nation according to the certificate and the stance of all nations...

I'm confused by what "represent the nation" and "the stance of all nations" means, as it's possible for people who were born in one country to decide to live in a different country and--by taking a knowledge test about that country's laws and customs and paying fees--now have citizenship of that country, instead of the one they were born in.

 

https://www.history.com/news/the-history-of-birth-certificates-is-shorter-than-you-might-think

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/220-million-children-who-dont-exist-a-birth-certificate-is-a-passport-to-a-better-life-so-why-cant-8735046.html

 

Yes, I understand that there are people in poor areas who don't have a birth certificate. I thought I read about some countries that agree to have them come to their country, offer them special, refugee status (because they understand their situation of not having a birth certificate, being from a war-torn country, etc.) and help with obtaining legal paperwork and becoming a citizen of a country they weren't born in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

I'm confused by what "represent the nation" and "the stance of all nations" means, as it's possible for people who were born in one country to decide to live in a different country and--by taking a knowledge test about that country's laws and customs and paying fees--now have citizenship of that country.

 

https://www.history.com/news/the-history-of-birth-certificates-is-shorter-than-you-might-think

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/220-million-children-who-dont-exist-a-birth-certificate-is-a-passport-to-a-better-life-so-why-cant-8735046.html

 

Yes, I understand that there are people in poor areas who don't have a birth certificate. I thought I read about some countries that agree to have them come to their country, offer them special status and help with obtaining legal paperwork and becoming a citizen of a country they weren't born in.

Except that people aren't born in a country to begin with. They are associated to one country after they are born, which they must accept as their own prior to being allowed to "live" anywhere. You aren't allowed to travel to any country unless you first claim that the country that somebody associated to you is your own country.

 

This means that nobody has access to any method of travel unless they represent a country that might not be there own.

People are not born in countries to begin with. We're born naturally and then a country, label, or national identity is associated to us:

And yet we must claim that we are born in the associated country or nation and carry that name or else we are not allowed to exist.

 

This is a problem if you have nothing to do with the associated country or nation and have no interest in representing their name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, S.. said:

Except that people aren't born in a country to begin with.

There is no rational underpinning to this statement, which you have constantly repeated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sally said:

There is no rational underpinning to this statement, which you have constantly repeated.  

The bulk of the underpinning is that we are associated to countries after we are born.

 

That is a rational statement, which is a known and established fact, to explain that we are not born in countries.

If we are associated to a country after we are born, then it stands to reason that we are born without a country.

 

We are born naturally... and people associating us to a country... does not mean that we are born in a country.

It just means that "I called you a piece of dirt."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

we are associated with countries at and before birth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, gisiebob said:

we are associated with countries at and before birth.

Before we are born we can not be associated, because we do not exist.

 

Your argument has no rational underpinning. 

 

A label does not magically appear at birth and form a birth certificate, culture, etc that a baby then tells you it carries and represents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, S.. said:

Before we are born we can not be associated, because we do not exist.

we exist in utero, and even before that the idea of a child being born to parents of certain nationalities can certainly exist. 

25 minutes ago, S.. said:

A label does not magically appear at birth and form a birth certificate, culture, etc that a baby then tells you it carries and represents.

a baby has no say in the country that it was born in nor does the baby have a say in what nationality it is. under certain circumstances, and when an adult, a person can get citizenship of a different country or be allowed to live in another country without citizenship. so there are what you could call “options” later on in life, that being said, there is absolutely no choice in nationality or country of birth. no one is given that right, and i don’t think people should be. i have no idea how this is an issue. it would be far too unorganized and confusing if people were not considered to be “born in a country”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, S.. said:

Your argument has no rational underpinning.

very cute.

 

in a material sense we have always existed, however the novel arrangement of parts we quantify as living is existent of a fetus well before birth.

 

if you instead wanted to argue that spiritually we do not exist before birth, there is no way to dictate the correctness of faith, so sure, however the vessels that we will inhabit remain very much existant before birth, and in being betrothed to us can be assumed as extensions of ourselves even should they not be inhabited by us as of yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kenny. said:

we exist in utero, and even before that the idea of a child being born to parents of certain nationalities can certainly exist. 

a baby has no say in the country that it was born in nor does the baby have a say in what nationality it is. under certain circumstances, and when an adult, a person can get citizenship of a different country or be allowed to live in another country without citizenship. so there are what you could call “options” later on in life, that being said, there is absolutely no choice in nationality or country of birth. no one is given that right, and i don’t think people should be. i have no idea how this is an issue. it would be far too unorganized and confusing if people were not considered to be “born in a country”. 

Birth is the creation of existence. To claim that we exist before we are born is a contradiction.

People are not born in countries and babies have no concept of nationality, let alone the English language. 

 

If you grow up in an English culture and represent an English nationality,

then you are not magically Russian because somebody claims that you were "born in Russia."

 

This is a problem.

People are born naturally and naturally develop their citizenship and association to a country.

A label being forced onto somebody does not change who they are or force them to actually represent that label.

 

That's what you do when you say somebody is "born in this label."

You are saying that you will force them to be associated to that label and everything it represents.

Through the use of physical force, which is used to bring people to a "birthplace" or "birth country" you are attempting to violently associate the person to a country.

 

That does not mean that they were born in that label or that country.

All it means is that people are violently trying to claim that there is no freedom as a justification to do harm to others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, S.. said:

Birth is the creation of existence.

sure, but does not a fetus exist before it exits the womb. maybe you wouldn’t consider it to be a person at that point (which is an entirely different discussion) but still the physical thing exists. the idea that an expecting parent would have of a child to be born exists, if that parent were Russian and living in Russia, the baby would (in almost every case) be Russian when born. 

 

17 minutes ago, S.. said:

If you grow up in an English culture and represent an English nationality,

then you are not magically Russian because somebody claims that you were "born in Russia."

let’s say the baby was born in Russia to Russian parents, okay? then the child is raised in the UK, speaks English, and is only familiar with that culture. it does not make the child British, nor is it a choice to make unless certain circumstances are presented. how exactly is that a bad thing, may i ask you? what is the issue with the child being told of their Russian heritage, place of birth, or anything like that? the child IS Russian whether they want to represent that country or not. to imagine a world like the one your are describing, where a child is not considered a certain nationality until they understand and choose for themselves, is absolute nonsense. it’s not as much a label, as a FACT. the fact that the child is Russian, through the parent(s) heritage AND place of birth. if a country is a plot of land (that is characterized by culture and other things) OF COURSE they can be born in a country 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kenny. said:

sure, but does not a fetus exist before it exits the womb. maybe you wouldn’t consider it to be a person at that point (which is an entirely different discussion) but still the physical thing exists. the idea that an expecting parent would have of a child to be born exists, if that parent were Russian and living in Russia, the baby would (in almost every case) be Russian when born. 

You are the one calling them Russian. That does not mean they are Russian when they are born.

 

16 minutes ago, kenny. said:

it’s not as much a label, as a FACT. the fact that the child is Russian, through the parent(s) heritage AND place of birth. if a country is a plot of land (that is characterized by culture and other things) OF COURSE they can be born in a country 

If I walk over to your area and call it "Idiotland," when you are born: that does not mean you are born in Idiotland.

Forcing you to claim that you are from Idiotland, because I say you are born in Idiotland: does not make you from Idiotland.

Saying "NANANANA IT IS A FACT. IT IS NOT A LABEL. IT IS A FACT. YOU ARE FROM IDIOTLAND." does not change the fact that you were born naturally.

It does not change the fact that you are free to choose if you are from Idiotland or if you represent Idiotland.

 

If every other person on the planet calls your area Idiotland... that still does not mean you were born in Idiotland.

You can choose to be, because that's what everybody calls you because you were born... but you can also choose to be sane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

Countries are distinct entities in political geography. You are tacking on "cultural identity" to the definition of the word "country", when that's not the definition.

 

I was born within the geographical bounds that define the country of Canada. Just like I was born in X hospital, in Y city, in Z province. I can't see how that can be refuted.

 

Maybe you are referring to citizenship. Being born in Canada means I became a citizen of Canada by birth. This granted me democratic rights, freedom of expression rights, health care access, etc. that are unique to Canadian citizens. In return, I have to obey Canada's laws and respect the rights of others. And no, it didn't mean that I was suddenly doomed to a hockey-loving, maple-syrup-gluggling, sorry-saying future. It only has meaning in a legal sense. I could also get citizenship in another country if I so chose, e.g. through marriage or naturalization. There are options if you don't agree with the legal responsibilities of being a citizen of a country.

 

What would be your alternative? If people were born without citizenship and only chose later in life, what kinds of rights would they have before they chose? What governing body would determine those rights? What kind of health care would be available? Taxes that would be paid? When would people have to decide? Plenty of stuff starts to break down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

Countries are distinct entities in political geography. You are tacking on "cultural identity" to the definition of the word "country", when that's not the definition.

 

I was born within the geographical bounds that define the country of Canada. Just like I was born in X hospital, in Y city, in Z province. I can't see how that can be refuted.

 

Maybe you are referring to citizenship. Being born in Canada means I became a citizen of Canada by birth. This granted me democratic rights, freedom of expression rights, health care access, etc. that are unique to Canadian citizens. In return, I have to obey Canada's laws and respect the rights of others. And no, it didn't mean that I was suddenly doomed to a hockey-loving, maple-syrup-gluggling, sorry-saying future. It only has meaning in a legal sense. I could also get citizenship in another country if I so chose, e.g. through marriage or naturalization. There are options if you don't agree with the legal responsibilities of being a citizen of a country.

 

What would be your alternative? If people were born without citizenship and only chose later in life, what kinds of rights would they have before they chose? What governing body would determine those rights? What kind of health care would be available? Taxes that would be paid? When would people have to decide? Plenty of stuff starts to break down.

Countries are not physical things. If they were, then we couldn't form them.

People associate dirt to the label, as well as other things.

Your popping out of a vagina above some dirt that somebody called Canada doesn't mean you were born Canadian.

You just popped out and were also labeled... later you claim that you were born in Canada,

because everybody says that's how it is and you will need to represent Canada in order to be in compliance.

 

You weren't born in Canada to begin with. You were just born naturally and chose to be a citizen of Canada because it was convenient.

 

Stuff doesn't break down if people are protected as children.

People are people. Where people are is where people are.

There will be people governing those people in that area etc.

The same goes for travelling. If you travel far away, you're governed by the people you travel to:

and hopefully people that you left behind will come rescue you if you piss everybody off.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most ridiculous thread I've yet seen on AVEN, and that says a lot.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sally said:

This is the most ridiculous thread I've yet seen on AVEN, and that says a lot.  

Discriminating against people according to birth is probably the most ridiculous thing that I've heard of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...