|
May 21, 2006
Back in 1795 Immanual Kant wrote an essay called 'Towards a Perpetual Peace' which articulates certain conditions that nations must respect if there ever will be perpetual peace. Kant say that nobody expects the philosopher to come out and tell generals and kings how to run the world and how to articulate principles. But if there is going to be perpetual peace among nations, then there needs to be certain conditions. He then lays them out.
Kant says that the constitution of every state must be a republican constitution, that is, it must permit representation; that the nations of the world should move towards a cosmopolitan federation where they regulate their relationships with one another according to laws; and that they should increasingly seek a common body of laws. He also says in the third definitive article of Perpetual Peace that there is one right that belongs to a human being, as a human being in the world community, and that is the right to hospitality. That is, if someone comes upon your shores through need, or for commerce or barter, and if their purposes are peaceful, you cannot deny them access. You cannot deny universal hospitality, particularly if it will mean their destruction.
The right to universal hospitality, that is, the right of human beings to seek contact with one another, to seek access to each other's land, to seek access to resources is a fundamental human right, needs to be regulated, and there is a certain margin as to how much, for example, you owe to the stranger who comes up on your land. What kind of obligations do you owe to this stranger?
Kant's own formulation is somewhat more minimal than I would like it to be, because he says you have a right of visitation but not a right of long-term stay. The host can determine that. We can argue that the human right to visitation is more extensive than Kant makes it out to be, and that nations have stronger obligations to exiles and refugees which are different than the obligations to immigrants.
This is done by the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees in 1951, and its protocol added in the sixties. All states, who are signatories to the Geneva Convention have the obligation to conduct themselves vis-a-vis refugees and asylum-seekers in a particular way. The most important aspect of this is that if someone reaches your shores and raises a claim to refuge and asylum, you as the state have an obligation to examine the veracity or truthfulness of that claim and reach a decision. You have an obligation here not to send the refugee back without having examined this claim. You ought not to send the refugee back into the point of danger.
Australia evades/violates this obligation by preventing refugees from setting foot on Australia soil in the first place. Australiai's attempts to control refugees and asylees from coming in has seen some harsh measurements being put in place towards refuge- and asylum-seekers.
Border crossings are seen as a quasi-criminal activity unless accompanied by the right kinds of papers.Arendt argued that it was precisely at the point at which we are in fact being a human being and not a citizen that ought to have entitled one to certain rights and to certain protections. But today, at this point--stateless--- it seem as if one has nothing. That to be stateless was basically to become a complete pariah, and that to be a stateless person was also to be rendered in a way rightless. But the whole notion of universal human rights is rights that accrue to us or belong to us in virtue of our humanity, not in virtue of our citizenship or membership of a bounded nation state.
|
I was introduced to Kant's essays on that topic after arguing on IRC for the Australian Republican ideal of universal citizenship which is defined by being under the jurisdiction of a government, rather than accident of parent or geography at birth.
I got told it was "Kantian". Ended up writing something on it; The natural state between nations.
Back to refugees, the unversalist principles in Australian Republican doctrine enforce political rights for any individuals under the jurisdiction of a government. Citizenship is a function of being an individual who interacts with a government. It is not a privilege and more a description of the contractual engagement between individual and government.
Native born, immigrant, temporary worker, or refugee. There is no difference.