Jump to content
Science Forums

Philosophy of human migrations/who has the right to live in a country......


keysi

Recommended Posts

Hi so as part of a zoology degree, I'm doing a human geography class and learning about the current European Migrant Crisis. Just wondering if anyone has ever written about what it really means to be allowed on to a particular piece of land, who has the right to live where. I'm assuming philosophy would be the best place to start but if it's better suited in the political science forum feel free to move this there. 

Not just or the present day, though I am interested in that too, but historically. Maybe even if anyone has ever written on the very first human migrations out of Africa, not in an archeological or paloeological sense but in a "who now owns this and can live here sense"

 

Thank you in advance, stay safe guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many studies have been done on this subject.

According to Google, there are four major forms of migration: invasion, conquest, colonization and emigration/immigration.

The first three on the list should require no explanation.

The final category can be further subdivided into migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.

Migrants are persons who willingly change the country of their residence for multiple reasons and purposes such as the search for better job opportunities or healthcare needs. These migrants may relocate through legal channels, but not always.

Refugees are usually associated with people who must unwillingly relocate as fast as possible because of oppression by other groups or the government in their present country of residence. Such refugee migrants will most likely relocate undocumented.

Asylum seekers relocate predominantly in order to escape degradation of the quality of their lives and personally, I find it difficult to distinguish them from refugees, other than the fact that generally asylum seekers do not need to relocate as urgently as refugees.

Who owns the land? I think it boils down to which group migrated there first and if they have sufficient numbers or military strength to hold off, or at least be able to exert control over, those who arrive later.

This source, Topic 8B, touches on the subject of sovereignty and how nation states are defined and how  they evolved in a globalizing world.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/2/2021 at 2:25 PM, OceanBreeze said:

Many studies have been done on this subject.

According to Google, there are four major forms of migration: invasion, conquest, colonization and emigration/immigration.

The first three on the list should require no explanation.

The final category can be further subdivided into migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.

Migrants are persons who willingly change the country of their residence for multiple reasons and purposes such as the search for better job opportunities or healthcare needs. These migrants may relocate through legal channels, but not always.

Refugees are usually associated with people who must unwillingly relocate as fast as possible because of oppression by other groups or the government in their present country of residence. Such refugee migrants will most likely relocate undocumented.

Asylum seekers relocate predominantly in order to escape degradation of the quality of their lives and personally, I find it difficult to distinguish them from refugees, other than the fact that generally asylum seekers do not need to relocate as urgently as refugees.

Who owns the land? I think it boils down to which group migrated there first and if they have sufficient numbers or military strength to hold off, or at least be able to exert control over, those who arrive later.

This source, Topic 8B, touches on the subject of sovereignty and how nation states are defined and how  they evolved in a globalizing world.

 

 

 

 

If you ask me, whoever owns the land is whoever runs the land; whoever expends/maintains by far the most work and effort to keep the land intact and operating. This isn't always a good thing, however, namely in the case of an owner of land who operates said land with great immorality; in such a situation, I do not believe the subjects of the land have any direct obligation towards those superiors who have succumbed to corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...