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...