Human Rights, Not the Rights of Citizenship
An important belief behind the creation of the Declaration of Independence was the notion that there are human rights which cannot be alienated by positive law. If civil law opposes those rights, then civil law has lost its authority. One of the sad things we see today is that many people believe these rights are given to us by the state, so that if someone is not a citizen of a given state, they no longer are granted them. This is the basic error which we see being practiced by the United States today as justification for man abuses against the dignity of the human person.
Abortion Is accepted because the woman is a citizen with a right to her body, but the child within her womb is not a citizen of the United States, and so is not given human rights. Illegal immigrants, because they are neither citizens within the United States, nor registered to the United States so that they are given a protected status by the state, are thus seen as free game who do not need to be accorded basic human rights – this is the foundation behind the controversial Arizona State Law. Terrorists, because of their unusual status, are seen as not being protected by the Geneva Conventions, and so once again, justification is made to deny them basic human rights. It is interesting to see how suspected (not even convicted) terrorists are now becoming targets of the state; if they are American citizens, the state now wants to strip them of their citizenship, all so they can be mistreated and their basic human rights ignored. After all, once we can see they are not citizens given protection by the civil state, they are free game and can be tortured.
We must return to our roots, and remember it is not because one is a citizen that one has inalienable rights, but because one is a human person. The state must be judged by these rights, and if it fails to grant the non-citizen their basic human dignity, the state has failed and has become a tyranny. The issue of life is united to the issue of torture and immigration reform. All three have as their basis the dignity of the human person. Sadly, very few people think this through, and so they will argue inalienable rights for some cases, and fall for the “citizens rights” the next. We need to move beyond this before we find out more of our human dignity is seen as merely a boon given to us by the state. What will it be next?
Comments are closed.
Wow! I am not sure what you are saying. It seems that you are saying we should not incarcerate criminals, have any immigration policy at all, and basically no boundaries.
Does that mean then that our government can seek taxes from other countries as well?
What kind of world are you painting? And by the way, does that mean that the ones God sends to hell have the same rights as the ones he has endowed his own children with?
I think you might want to think your position through a little better.
Henry, your central point I find to be sound; that rights derive from something other than national citizenship. They are derived from natural law and are “unalienable” as our Declaration states. However I cannot accept your characterization of the Arizona law as being a violation, of basic human dignity, certainly not without also decrying the national immigration laws that it purports to enforce. How can Arizona be offending human rights and human dignity, without US immigtation laws also doing the same thing, and if so are you calling for repeal of them as well? Given your views can you support any enforcement of immigration law beyond keeping known criminals out? And how would you analyze Mexico’s own punative immigration laws which make our own look quite benign by comparison?
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/node/26831
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/closing_borders_will_not_solve_immigrant_woes_say_vatican_officials/
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2002_88_90/rc_pc_migrants_pom88-89_blume.htm
From the last:
e. Legal or illegal, documented or not
Undocumented or irregular migration is an issue that arouses many emotions. Without going into details of a complex question, I simply want to state the principles on which the SDC operates regarding this question.
But first a preliminary remark: There are no illegal migrants, for migrants are persons, and no person is illegal. Persons can engage in illegal movements but their Creator does not do illegal things. There is a need to change language that already carries with it a judgement. I believe Church documents are already correcting their previous language as we have in the Message of 2000, which speaks of “‘clandestine’, men and women in illegal situations”. Ecclesia in America n. 65 calls for attention “to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non‑legal immigration”. This is only respect for the truth. Illegality is not necessarily a result of personal bad will. Judgement needs to be suspended when we speak about people, particularly at this moment when the tendency to judge is very strong. The dignity of a person in an irregular situation does not expire as a visa or a passport does.
Here are its most important points on this issue:[29]
While illegal immigration has to be prevented, the criminal activities that exploit immigrants must also be combated. In the long-term there has to be international co‑operation which aims to foster political stability and to addresses the causes of irregular migration.
The Church respects civil law, including migration law, but also advocates that it be just.
Anti-immigrant propaganda can infect the Christian community, which has to be helped to understand why some migrants act illegally.
Migrants in such situations need to be helped to live and, when possible, to regularize their status. If a the community gives shelter to migrants in irregular situations, the aim is not “civil disobedience” but the defense of people who have not been properly treated before the law or whose cases merit review.
When no solution is foreseen, these migrants can sometimes be helped to be accepted in another country. If that fails, they need to be assisted to return in dignity and safety to their country of origin.
The Church is called to advocate with governments for more adequate legislation, in particular for the case of de facto refugees who cannot return home without risking their lives.
The Church is the place where these immigrants are “recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters. It is the task of the various Dioceses actively to ensure that these people, who are obliged to live outside the safety net of civil society, may find a sense of brotherhood in the Christian community” (n. 5).
One final point is that there are situations where there is no legal way to be regularized or to return home. Solidarity calls for finding a way out of such situations. In 1998, as one example, Pope John Paul II, during the Fourth World Congress for Migration, spoke about his Jubilee year plea for condoning or reducing international debt. He then appealed for something analogous for migrants: a significant gesture “through which reconciliation, a dimension proper to the Jubilee, would find expression in the form of an amnesty [in Italian, sanatoria] for a wide range of those immigrants who, more than the others, suffer the drama of precariousness and uncertainty, that is, those who are illegal.”[30] It is notable that some episcopal conferences have taken up that call in their respective countries.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/documents/rc_pc_migrants_doc_19830214_refu_past-care_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19981009_migranti_en.html
From the above link
Migration is a problem whose urgency increases with its complexity. There is a tendency almost everywhere today to close borders and to tighten controls. However, people are talking more than before about migration and in ever more alarming tones, not only because the closing of borders has led to uncontrolled waves of illegal immigrants, with all the risks and uncertainties inherent in this phenomenon, but also because the harsh living conditions which are at the root of this growing migratory pres-ure show signs of further deterioration.
2. In this context it seems appropriate to stress that it is a basic human right to live in one’s own country. However this right becomes effective only if the factors that urge people to emigrate are constantly kept under control. These include, among others, civil conflicts, wars, the system of government, unjust distribution of economic resources, inconsistent agricultural policies, irrational industrialization and rampant corruption. If these situations are to be corrected, it is indispensable to encourage balanced economic development, the elimination of social inequalities, scrupulous respect for the human person and the smooth functioning of democratic structures. It is also indispensable to take timely measures to correct the current economic and financial system, dominated and manipulated by industrialized nations at the expense of developing countries.
Indeed, the closing of borders is often caused not merely by a reduced or no longer existing need for an immigrant work-force, but by a productive system based on the logic of labour exploitation
Excellent post, but your opinions on the Geneva Conventions are a subject of concern. The purpose of the GC are to protect soldiers and citizens, not to grant rights to terrorists, unconventional combatants, whatever term is acceptable.
Each group has to follow specific rules to enjoy the protections of the GC – soldiers wear uniforms, follow a chain of command, do no shoot civilians, etc. Civilians stay out of the way, do not carry arms or act aggressively towards the combatants, and they will not be shot. The problem is that the GC does not provide protection to those who choose to violate the rules. If you point a gun or set an IED at a soldier, whether or not you are in uniform, you become a legitimate target. Historically these people were lined against a wall and shot, no questions asked.
Today we have chosen to keep them alive because they have intel value and hence become entitled to certain rights, but which ones?
I would enjoy hearing what human rights you feel they are entitled to. Could you expand a little on the concept of human dignity? And does it really matter that under the GC they have willingly given up the right to life?
Navy
The thing is — once we start saying “terrorists” change the rules, then no one has protections and everyone can be declared a “terrorist.” Indeed, the whole mistreatment and abuse of people — who were not involved in any conflict and just collected as “terrorists” and left to rot indicates the whole problem. Again, human rights — first and foremost. GC were a means by which the rules of just war were to be applied. Of course, what we now have is the US thinking of loopholes — the letter not the spirit of the law – and it is clear, it is circumventing its own views of the GC which were held for severla decades in our recent acts of aggression.
The whole “they don’t have any rights” mentality is wrong. Torture is an intrinsic evil. Period. End of story.
Just Google “Patriot act used in non terror related cases”. It’s a buzzword (terrorism) used to describe anyone who disagrees with the official position.
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/images/news/miac-militia-2009.pdf
This report was sent to the states by homeland “security”. We Pro-Lifers made the watchlist.
Exactly, Henry. The Enlightenment-era consitutional founders of the United States saw the the world through the prism of the Hobbesian social contract. The unborn, the foreigner – sorry, not part of the contract. Let’s appeal instead to the “Universal” Declaration of Human Rights. Let’s take Maritain over Jefferson.
MM
Exactly. The pro-life community in the US (so-called pro-life) seem easy to remove the dignity of the human person based upon civil rights; they don’t get they have just accepted the evil which creates abortion. Until they accept the inalienable rights of the human person’s dignity, they are pro-life in name only, and make claims for politics and not life.
Just a FYI
While I will still being doing some posts, my time for comments will be less for a week or so; it is why my responses are not as thorough as I would like. I am still going to try to get approvals done
Whatever other rights they may have, terrorists have none under the Geneva Convention as they do not respect International law governing the conduct of warfare.
As to the subject of illegal immigration, there is no way to read any Catholic teaching as demanding open borders, or precluding enforcement of US immigration laws, at least not based on any writings which have been issued. Making broad general points about human dignity without demonstrating through persuasive argument why a particluar provision of law is violative of it accomplishes nothing. Border enforcement is an obligation of sovereign civil authorities. In principle it is no more violative of human dignity than laws against trespassing or theft.
“Whatever other rights they may have, terrorists have none under the Geneva Convention as they do not respect International law governing the conduct of warfare.”
LOL. Does the United States? Seriously, the idea that “they don’t have rights” shows “inalienable rights” are alienable.
Whatever other rights they may have, terrorists have none under the Geneva Convention as they do not respect International law governing the conduct of warfare.
In addition to what Henry said, there is also the matter of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. From the summary:
The majority also found that the procedures in question violate the “at least” applicable Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It found that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Conventions did not apply:
* It erroneously relied on Johnson v. Eisentrager, which does not legally control in Hamdan’s case because there was then no deviation between the procedures used in the tribunal and those used in courts-martial;
*It erroneously ruled that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Art. 3 affords minimal protection to combatants “in the territory of” a signatory; and
*Those minimal protections include being tried by a “regularly constituted court,” which the military commission is not.
Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan.
[~end quote~]
Hamdan was aapparently a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden. He did not wear a uniform and al Queda is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Court found that the Conventions have some applicability to Hamdan’s status anyway.
It might, for american Christians, be the hardest thing in the world to see Christ in a terrorist. But that is precisely the point of this Christian thing, isn’t it?
Excellent post, Henry. You clearly hit a nerve — a nerve connected to the line past which most american Catholics will not go.
Thanks, Michael. Yes, I thought it important to connect the dots which people try to avoid.
You’re certainly right that certain rights are natural human rights, which all humans have by their very being. These come before the existence of any polity, and a polity may not legitimately deny them without just cause. (I say “just cause” because clearly there are situations where certain rights are ceded. For instance, one has the natural right to liberty — but the Church would not question the justice of imprisoning someone for murder, even though this is a restriction on his personal liberty.)
That does not, however, necessarily mean that all “rights” are natural human rights. There are also state granted “rights” which are the product of an implicit or explicit social contract. A basic example of these would be the right to vote. It is certainly not a human right to vote. If one lives in a true monarchy, one does not vote. That does not mean that the state is unjustly taking away one’s “right to vote”.
Much controversy, however, revolves around which rights are natural rights and which ones are civilly granted rights. For instance, many consider it a violation of human rights for “enemy combatants” (meaning, essentially, people who would be POWs except that they were fighting out of uniform, not members of a recognized army, and contrary to the “laws of war”) to be imprisoned without being given a civilian trial before a judge and jury. However, American style judge and jury criminal trials are not historically or globally the norm, and so one might question where it is in fact a human right to have this particular sort of justice proceeding before being imprisoned.
The point Henry makes so well, that seems to be missed is that regardless of who you are you should have certain rights. We may not like that a captured Osama Bin Laden would be allowed to be silent and not forced to talk to his interrogators, and we are pretty certain he would not grant the same rights to his captives, but that is what the bill of rights (and more so Christianity) is all about. We treat people as people, regardless of how they act or treat us.
As for the actual application of this double standard, many of the people sent to Guantanamo Bay were not Al-Qaeda or terrorists. They were Afghans defending their country against an invader. We can argue about the justification or necessity of that invasion, but there is no doubt that we invaded Afghanistan and some of it’s citizens resisted that invasion. Does this justify their torture and indefinite confinement?
Abortion Is accepted because the woman is a citizen with a right to her body, but the child within her womb is not a citizen of the United States, and so is not given human rights.
It is not that an unborn infant is not a citizen. It is that an unborn infant is not recognized as a person.
David
Which does mean, not recognized as a citizen
Good topic, Henry. I agree with the part of the premise that to be legitimate, government must perform a primary role to protect natural rights of all men. You connect some very distant dots, however, when you assert enforcment of immigration laws are a denial of these natural human rights. Not sure where you get “free game” from the Arizona law.
Good points, Darwin.
It seems to me the legitimacy of “due process” seems to be overlooked in this discussion. The aborted baby gets no due process, the person reasonably suspected of being the country illegally does, according to teh verbiage of Arizona’s new law. Under the law, the requirement for police who encounter illegal immigrants – er, undocumented immigrants(?) – is to treat them with due process, although it is initiated from a different locus of power (the local and state police).
Is it not?
It is not that an unborn infant is not a citizen. It is that an unborn infant is not recognized as a person.
Actually, what’s at issue is the personhood/citizenship of the pregnant woman. No person, whether they are a citizen or not, has the right to use any other person’s body without their consent. Even if it’s a matter of life and death. Laws are different in different places, but I’ve never heard of a law that, say, requires mandatory organ donation. Our most basic human right is the right to our own bodies. Laws prohibiting abortion are asserting that women do not have this basic human right. It makes no difference what status you consider an embryo/fetus to have.
Actually, we are not given free reign with our bodies; no system has ever suggested it. Laws, in fact, always regulate what we do with our bodies, and, hate to say it, things like the draft also indicates positive demands the state can make about our bodies (with, of course, restrictions to that as well). It is naive and unhistorical in the least to think there is such an absolute right to do anything we want with our bodies, and no one can make expectations on them
Having acknowledged that we do not have absolute rights to our bodies and that if a woman truly does not want a baby there are steps she can take (such as not having intercourse) to insure that, a law that requires a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want to conclusion is still an extreme burden on her. I believe this burden is justified because I believe life begins at conception and we have no right to terminate another life. But we must acknowledge this burden in order to accept that if we place this burden on a woman, we individually and collectively are responsible for helping the woman with this burden.
This becomes important in discussing things like the health care bill and its effects on abortion. Though it may not go as far as the Church would wish in preventing abortion, it goes farther than we could have hoped in helping women carry their pregnancies to term. The discussions I have always seem to end up that those most willing to ban abortion are least willing to help women who are pregnant and those most willing to help pregnant women are those least willing to ban abortions. I do believe the Church is an exception to this.
Before someone comments, I do know that a woman, or child, who is the victim of rape or incest cannot prevent her pregnancy regardless of her most extreme efforts. I look forward to the day when this group of women represents even a few percentage of those seeking abortions.
hi i am rezvaneh and study human rights my tesis is human rights and citizenship tanks evry body that help me