At the risk of getting philosophical, I believe the core of the problem revolves around the intersection of human rights and the state’s securing of those rights. Most (all) would agree that all humans are endowed with inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). The problem arises when the inalienability of pursuit of happiness runs into a border. States are the guarantors of those human rights and they can only *practically* do so for legal citizens (social contract and all). However, if my pursuit of happiness entails flouting your social contract who are you to deny me that right? Your correct answer is “I’m the one who protects your rights. No contract, no protection.” Practically speaking though, this just doesn’t fly. If the state adopted a strict interpretation of this line it would “allow” for the imprisonment, killing, enslaving etc. of folks who’s rights are not protected. Such a perspective is not only ethically/morally suspect but also politically infeasible. So the answer is some middle and muddy and blurry ground where the state doesn’t “want” to protect rights of the folks here without the tacit social contract entailed by citizenship, but it does anyway.
Ironically, it’s these same kinds of arguments that are made against decisions to “suspend” Geneva rights of captured terrorists. My question remains: how can you suspend something or protect something that someone does not have? The act of suspending or “taking away” rights begs the question that they existed and were held in the first place.
The solution is not easy. Either states and borders are meaningless or rights are not truly inalienable or we devolved into a mean nasty and brutish state of nature – red in tooth and claw.
