Notably, several arguments and views try to determine the criteria that should be used in categorizing an individual as qualified to enjoy duties and rights of a country. The following paper seeks to reemphasize Paulina Espejo’s observation that people need to reimagine the conception of citizenship and community by adopting the “ius situs model of inclusion.”
One of the common perceptions of how people should be considered in regard to rights and duties of a given country is based on the membership-based views, which tend to be underinclusive compared to the “The System of Place-Specific Rights and Duties” under the ius situs model (Ochoa Espejo, 2016) . Under the membership-based views, the main problem is that they tend to exclude those who need to be included. As a common and prominent perception, membership is regarded as the traditional way in which rights in states are distributed. The main consideration under this view is if any newcomers to a state meet the criteria set in order to be part of the “community” associated with the state which could include the ethnic identity, socialization or association (Ochoa Espejo, 2016) . In this way, it is clear that the application of membership-based view makes a state or a country to be underinclusive since many will be left out.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The other common argument is based on the Proxy-For-Membership Views, which is premised on the perceptions that the right to stay in a place should be depended upon the strength of the existing ties to the place that has been created by one’s presence and that such a right should be granted to individuals with long presence in the place (Ochoa Espejo, 2016) . Although the two grounds of this views show that they have distinguished themselves from associational, ethnic as well as socialization perceptions, it should be emphasized that the presence in a place is a proxy for membership based on socialization, thus unable to take the aspect of “place” seriously as is the case with ius situs model of inclusion”.
In reference to the above arguments, it would be prudent if American authority and all stakeholders, especially in the department of immigration, can apply the Paulina Espejo’s “ius situs model of inclusion” (Ochoa Espejo, 2016) . According to this model, people should acquire the rights and duties of the state simply by being present or staying in that state or country instead of belonging to a “community.” In this regard, the ius situs, or the right and duties, should be extended by American authorities to cover most of the political and social rights that are enjoyed by those who are considered as members of the “community.” Although it may not be possible to grant all rights and duties to non-Americans, the flexibility with which they are allowed to carry on with their activities provided they are not breaking the law will make them feel part of the “community” (Ochoa Espejo, 2016) . In reference to the American case, the problem of immigration can be solved by the application of this model since it addresses the moral and legal relevance of territorial attachment. At the same time, the ius situs thinking moves the discussion of the ethics of immigration beyond membership and citizenship in communities. In fact, this is one way in which America can enhance its “free world” status.
Apparently, several arguments and views try to determine the criteria that should be used in categorizing an individual as qualified to enjoy duties and rights of a country (Cornelisse, 2010) . However, it is clear that most of them fail to focus on the presence and place factors. In this regard, it is important for America to apply the ius situs in solving its immigration problem.
References
Cornelisse, G. (2010). Immigration detention and human rights: Rethinking territorial sovereignty . Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Ochoa Espejo, P. (2016). Taking Place Seriously: Territorial Presence and the Rights of Immigrants. Journal Of Political Philosophy , 24 (1), 67-87. doi:10.1111/jopp.12061
