Introduction
The question of what does as a state owes an individual first invites anyone to differentiate between an “insider” and an “outsider.” In many countries such as the United States and Australia, an insider is generally regarded as a person born in the country or an immigrant who has moved to the country either on a short-term or permanent basis. Such individuals must demonstrate the ability to share in the country’s values and also demonstrate the various cultural competencies of the country. With this in mind, it creates two groups of individuals including the compatriots and the foreigners. One of the most fundamental questions is whether states should treat insiders better than the foreigners? Scholars have viewed this as more of a moral and legal question given that one of the factors to determine a failed state regards how it treats its foreigners. The state owes its citizen the obligation to protect rights and property. However, the major ethical dilemma emanates from the question as to whether the state should further the interests of its own citizens than that of the outsiders especially when the citizens are already well-off.
What the States Owe Its Citizens
The issue as to whether the state has special duties to the compatriots has been debated for many years. Miller (2008) in support of the compatriots said, “We must protect them and their property from attack both domestically and when they are abroad; we must provide for their basic needs.” In many countries such as the US, it is only the eligible citizens but not foreigners that are accorded the right to engage in democratic practices such as voting and occupy political offices. In most countries, it is only the nation’s citizens that are allowed to hold public office. Most importantly, the government has an obligation to guarantee the people their rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights or the Amendments in the American Constitution. It remains critical to note that the power belongs to the people. Therefore, leaders are only custodians, and after they form a government, they must remain keen to exercise it in the best interest of the people. Goodin, in his argument named "Fellow Countrymen" attempts to explain why he thinks the government owes its people. He states "that the standard presumption is that compatriots take priority over foreigners, at least in the case of duties to aid" (Goodin, 1988). The state owes its people special treatment because citizens are the primary taxpayers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Most fundamentally, they hold an inherent possession of the land, which provides them with the right to enjoy government favors indiscriminately. Another argument postulated by Miller suggests that "the political self-determination of national communities matter" (Miller, 2008). Thus, this means that the state owes its citizens more than it does to the outsiders. The government must ensure that it protects the freedoms of the people. It should also guarantee that people enjoy their resources and that all their basic needs are significantly fulfilled (Brock, 2008). In this case, the basic needs refer to any conditions that allow individuals to live a decent life.
Morality Surrounding the Government’s Tendency to Favor Its Citizens
In many instances, governments have tended to favor its people compared to the foreigners. However, in some few cases, some states have gone to an extent to favor its foreigners more than the insiders. However, it remains critical to note that the international laws state that each country has an obligation to the foreigners. Some of the instances where states have gone contrary to the needs of the citizens include taking away their property and putting it under public purpose, taxation, or diverting a dam to disadvantage the individuals living downstream among others. However, as a convention, many governments have demonstrated the need to remain loyal to its citizenry and focus on achieving their dreams and desires rather than the foreigners. Outsiders such as refugees, illegal immigrants, and foreigners such as tourist are a common phenomenon. The primary questions here is as to whether it would be morally right for the government to further the interests of the local citizens especially if they are in a better position compared to their foreign counterparts. According to Goodin, no state has an ethical responsibility of protecting the interest of the foreigners. He states, “Absent treaty obligations, we have no such duty-legally, anyway-to assist needy noncitizens beyond our borders” (Goodin, 1988).Therefore, according to Goodin, even if the state has satisfied the needs of its locals beyond the required levels, it cannot be compelled to focus on the foreigners.
It is only the international treaties that have ensured that countries can look at the interests of the outsiders. It is, therefore, a question of legality more than it is morally. Goodin goes on to postulate that even within the borders of a particular country, more emphasis can be put on the citizens rather than foreigners (Goodin, 1988). However, he cautions that care should be taken to ensure that the level of attention that a country gives to its aliens meets the pre-set international standards. It is morally right, therefore, for a state to focus on the needs of the citizens since they share a similar status. Treatment of noncitizens should, however, remain tied to the international standards. Many countries are already on tight budgets and fixed resources. Any additional expenditure outside their prospects means that the insiders will eventually suffer in the long-run.
Conclusion
State has many favors that it owes its people. First, it is important to note that a government is elected by the citizens thereby in the process exchanging sovereignty with the leaders. As a result, the state will need to protect the rights of the citizens and ensure that they receive resource and basic needs for their personal advancement. Also, it is moral for the government to prioritize the need of its people as opposed to that of the foreigners even if the latter is already well-off. Governments are only obligated by international laws to cater to the needs of the aliens. However, this does not provide it with the license to disregard its people who should always come first.
References
Brock, G. (2008). What do we owe others as a matter of global justice and does national membership matter? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11(4), 433-448.
Goodin, R. E. (1988). What is so special about our fellow countrymen? Ethics, 98(4), 663-686.
Miller, D. (2008). National responsibility and global justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11(4), 383-399.
