How a Concept of Membership Informed by Human Rights Language and National Sovereignty Provides Insight into a State’s Duty to Undocumented Immigrants
Date
2012
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Haverford College. Department of Philosophy
Haverford College. Department of Philosophy
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Haverford users only
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
This paper focuses on the question of whether a liberal democratic state possesses certain obligations to nonmembers who reside illegally within its borders, especially in a modern world that prioritizes both the principles of national sovereignty and human rights. Embedded within this question are three key concepts: membership, human rights, and national sovereignty. It is my contention that human rights and national sovereignty speak to different aspects of membership and both offer important values for a political community’s discussion of membership. As a result, it is possible for conflicts to emerge between these two principles. However, rather than resolve this conflict through determining whether human rights or national sovereignty should be the dominant principle shaping membership, political communities should consider both national sovereignty and human rights language when thinking about issues of membership. Therefore, neither principle is universally prioritized over the other. This is because the conflict between human rights language and national sovereignty can provide a fruitful tension in which to frame political discussions about membership. The tension can prove productive for political discourse, because it highlights several political concerns, like the human right to dignity and the state’s right to control its borders, that political actors should consider when addressing questions of membership. I then apply this view of how human rights language and national sovereignty inform membership to the critical political issue of illegal immigration. Specifically, whether in a liberal democratic state this tension between national sovereignty and human rights language in regards to membership brings to light certain state obligations to nonmembers who reside illegally within its borders. Ultimately, while there is no one way for a liberal democratic state to handle illegal immigration, every state must, and the complexity of this problem needs to be confronted. As such, I do not propose a single solution. Rather, I present several ways a state may conceptualize membership in relationship to immigration that respects national sovereignty and also places limits on national sovereignty. Therefore, while each political community’s solution should balance the preservation of the state with the recognition of certain obligations to nonmembers, each state interprets this balance for itself in a way that is aligned with its own professed values.