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.
states don’t have rights, people do. people have the right to do whatever they want as long as they aren’t impeding anyone else’s such freedoms or harming them. imo migrants that work within the existing system, take up jobs, and make an honest living aren’t individually doing that, so they have a right to migrate. but in some cases, large influxes of population can collectively create economic hardship for everyone in an area, and so only in cases where that is actually happening, the pre-immigration residents have a right to regulate the population influx, probably through their elected form of state. this sort of immigration that strains resources, and also often brings people incapable of doing work in their new environment, happens often in developing nations from rural areas to urban ones, and almost always those migrants are accomodated and welcomed, mostly because the state doesn’t have the resources to stop them, and individuals are generally kind to those around them. i really really doubt, however, that this has ever happened in the US, Canada or (modern) Europe. imo (which could be wrong) people there are just worried about being forced to live alongside those that look and talk and act differently, and they don’t have a right to oppose that because anyone who does that is not impeding anyone else’s freedom or harming them
This is a difficult topic. Here in Italy the mass migration of the past decade has caused cultural difficulties, as well as some economic fears and resentment. I am myself an immigrant, but not a refugee. I believe in a right to refuge, but also in a responsability to try to assimilate without losing your identity. There is racism here against newcomers, but I find most people are open and welcoming to those that try to be a positive part of the community.
