this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2022
1 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43856 readers
1892 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the rule is that the State always has the exclusive and discretionary right to regulate immigration. The exception to this rule is it being legally tied to an international treaty, notably the 1961 convention relating to the status of the refugees.
According to classic international legal theory, the State is the political organization beholding discretionary power over its territories. What lies within its borders is nobody else's business. That being said, times of disarray and conflicts require flexible solutions to mitigate humanitarian disasters, which may be seen to a certain extent as being derogatory to the State's sovereignty. This is how for instance the law of war, jus in bello, came to be. Same case for the refugee law.
So all in all, regulating immigration is the principle, limiting this regulatory power is the exception.
This question seems to be posed in a moral context, specifically reference humanitarian disasters. You are coming at it from a legal aspect, which can be entirely disconnected from morality.
The question seems akin to a question like "If the villages in the area are being pillaged and the villagers need refuge, does the king have a right to keep his castle closed to villagers who didn't work his fields just because he owns the castle." or "Was it morally acceptable for Noah to not take any people other than his family onto the arc".
I could be reading it entirely wrong, though.
That is a fair point. I understood 'right' as 'prerogative' and not as a moral notion. Still, I think that my argument gives an interesting legal perspective to the discussion herein.