There is nowdays a great movement of people from the most poor regions of the world to Europe and the other western countries. The European states, facing the worst crisis after 1929, seem to be not able to manage what seems to represent an unstoppable exodus. These moving people, escaping famine and wars, are searching a better chance of life for themselves and for their sons.
The European citizens, mostly those paying the high price of the crisis, in terms of unemployment and cut of public services, don't want these mass of desperates from Asia and Africa occupying their spaces in their towns, consequently diminishing the resources already scarce because of the crisis.
I wonder who owns the most valuable right between those who have firstly occupied the European lands and who secondly comes in search of fortune.
The question might seem rethoric and the answer quiet easy to be done. But , on the contrary, I find hard to debate the matter, above all if I try to look at it with a gaze of proof, avoiding a selfish a narrow minded approach.
Since long time ago, ethnic groups, countersigned by common uses and language, have started conquering lands, fencing them whith enforced borders and calling them states. So the earth now is fractioned in to 190 states, more and less, which one with its own laws, flags and soldiers, the most numerous, the most powerful. Talking about natural rights and from a point of view not merely nationalist are we sure that each of these state has the right to close its borders to the arriving people and to push them off?
I mean: it's really so pacific and clear that Africa belongs to Africans, China to Chinese and America to Americans?
And what kind of right behold the single states of Europe to declare themselves owners of the lands their ancestrals have conquered centuries ago may be taking them off from the former inhabitants? What if we start reasoning about the earth belonging indinstinctly to the all humanhood ?
I have worked the following principles:
1. The earth belongs to all human kind indistinctly and pro quota;
2. The human groupes who have closed portions of land, sea and sky, whatever they have called them, are running those territories on behalf of the whole humanity;
3. Hence every man born on the earth has the same rights and same duties anywhere on the earth no matter who is ruling the territory where he's standing;
4. Every man born on the earth has the right to move and to stay anywhere on the earth no matter who is in charge in those lands, or seas or skies he wants to move to or stay;
5. Every man has the right to be able to exercise the previous rights and therefore he must be welcomed and nurtured for a reasonable time until he is able to work and legally obtain his own livelihood or move to another place;
6. Every man, anywhere he lives, is compelled to respect the rules, the customs and the laws generally observed by the sedentary population who inhabits the territories he moves to ;
7. All the natural resources, wherever they might be set, belong to the whole manhood, no matter who temporarily is exploiting them.
1. to be continued...