Topics Justice

Question Throughout history, it seems people have refuted the principle of "rights acquired by birth", often because it is contradictory to democracy. Concerning illegal people (people without papers), I feel there are strong similarities, as basically they are criminalised for staying in otherwise public area's, while people who were born there gain that right automatically. Why is it, that it seems completely acceptable to criminalise people just for "being" somewhere, while this seems ridiculous from an ethical point of view? Why isn't "Kein Mensch ist illegal" a basic human rights principle?

Accepted:
July 6, 2006

Comments

The practice "seems completely acceptable" to us, citizens of the wealthy countries -- presumably because we are used to it and seem to benefit from it. I doubt that it seems completely acceptable to the majority of the world's poor.

Is the practice acceptable? Our practice of private property is often defended on the ground that it greatly increases human wealth -- so that human beings on average, or perhaps the poorest 20% on average, are better off than would otherwise (under any alternative practice or none at all) be the case. In a similar way, one could defend national jurisdictions with rights to exclude foreigners. Here, however, the argument is very unlikely to succeed. Many economists have argued that national mobility restrictions greatly dampen productivity worldwide. And such restrictions also make it very much harder for the poorest and most vulnerable human beings to protect themselves and their families. I agree they have a human right to move or to enjoy some compensating equivalent protections of their basic needs.