Under that article, it makes Fatma Turkish, not stateless. Otherwise, she's Swiss.
Even New Zealand is set to deny citizenship to those born in NZ of non-residents. NZ claims that this will reduce the burden on the public purse. As much was discussed in the media 2-3 months ago.
Throughout the 90s, New Zealanders flocked to Australia for the Dole (etc). That was before the crackdown (initiated, I think under Keating).
Do I agree with the proposition, as stated?
No, I do not, but it appears that as a matter of Swiss law, that's the position.
Under UN Human Rights, I would suspect that, as a matter of international law, the Swiss proposition is wrong.
Ditto under European Union Law (ie: violates principles of human rights under the EU Laws administered by Brussels).
Trouble is, Switzerland is neither a member of the United Nations, nor of the UNHCR and, as such, is not in a position to be judged on that basis.
Similarly, Switzerland is not a member of the EU and, therefore, is not subject to those HR laws administered by the European Court.
Does this make it any better, or any more, right?
No.
But the question that should really be asked is, to what extent are the international community sufficiently outraged to ensure that Switzerland administers its own HR laws in an internationally compliant and recognisable way?
Afterall, it wasn't so long ago that the UN and the UNHCR took a broadswipe against Australia over the perceived HR conditions of detention centres such as Baxter (etc).
Funny, that.
The international (primarily, non-aligned) community criticises Australia's HR record, and are joined in the process by any number of fringe elements in Australia, including the Democrats and the Greens, and yet when it comes to something like the Swiss situation, there is complete and utter silence from all concerned.
Now, why is that?
I have, therefore, answered your question and raised, by way of reply, several questions of my own.
