How should a nation treat foreigners within its borders?

Translation: quotations from Emer de Vattel are quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852), not his original words.

OCR: 10 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation should allow foreigners to enjoy the same innocent advantages within its borders that it grants to all other nations, unless there is a particular and lawful reason for exclusion. He argued that refusing such advantages without reason constitutes an injury and an injurious distinction. "we cannot exclude any one nation from the benefit of the general permission, without doing her an injury, unless there be some particular and lawful reason for refusincr to that nation what is granted indiscriminately to others." [1]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that foreigners remaining citizens of their own country are bound by the laws of their own country, particularly those affecting the character of citizen, and must conform to them in the disposal of their personal property and movables, but are not subject to the local laws of the country where they reside if those laws do not pertain to their citizenship. "The foreigner, remaining a citizen of his own country, is still bound by those last-mentioned laws, wherever he happens to be, and is obliged to conform to them in the disposal of his personal property, and all his movables whatsoever." [2]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation has the liberty to grant or refuse foreigners the privilege of possessing immovable property within its territory. If granted, such property remains subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the country, and to the same taxes as other property of the same kind. [3]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel held that a nation should observe certain rules in its conduct towards foreigners, including that foreigners are subject to the laws, punishable according to the laws, and due protection in their disputes and property. He also believed that foreigners continue as members of their own nation and that the state has no right over their person or property. "99 General idea of the conduct a state ought to observe towards foreigners 171 ... 108 The state has no right over the person of a foreigner ... 109 nor over his property" [4]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation should respect the jurisdiction of other sovereigns and only interfere in the causes of their subjects in foreign countries under specific circumstances. [5]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation should treat foreigners within its borders in a manner guided by humanity, justice, and the law of nations, with the intention of securing the rights of all parties and preventing disturbances. He emphasized that the treatment should be determined by principles such as the duties of humanity, the rights and interests of the host state, and the rights of the foreigners' home state. (key quote above) [6]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation should treat foreigners within its borders by requiring them to be subject to the general laws made to maintain good order, and that foreigners who commit faults should be punished according to the laws of the country. He also believed that disputes between foreigners or between a foreigner and a citizen should be determined by the judge of the place and according to the laws of the place. [7]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation should not detain foreigners except for very particular reasons, such as during times of war to prevent knowledge from being communicated to the enemy. He also believed that foreigners should be free to leave the country at any time and that their property rights should be respected, as they remain citizens of their own nation. [8]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that the practice of escheatage, which excludes foreigners from inheritances and rights, is inhumane and should be abolished or mitigated. He argues that such laws originated from treating foreigners as enemies and should only be used by way of retaliation, not as a general practice. [9]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation has the right to exclude foreigners from certain activities unless laws declare otherwise, and may grant privileges to foreigners if authorized by laws. He argued that the nation, as the possessor of a country, has the right to appropriate advantages of the land and that foreigners do not have a natural right to hunt, fish, or appropriate treasures within a state's territories. However, a nation may choose to grant privileges to another nation or foreigners in general, as long as these rights are validly ceded. "No foreigner, therefore, has a natural right to hunt or fish in the territories of a state, to appropriate to himself a treasure found there, &c." [10]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation has the liberty to refuse foreigners the privilege of possessing immovable property within its territory, and that such a refusal does not constitute an injury to foreigners, as they cannot claim any right in the territories. "nobody has a right to complain of such prohibition ; for, he may have very good reasons for acting in this manner : and, as foreigners cannot claim any right in his territories (§ 79), they ought not to take it amiss that he makes use of his power and of his rights in the manner which he thinks most for the advantage of the state." [3]

• ACTION (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel described the practice of escheatage, which excludes foreigners from inheritances and rights, as inhumane and in need of abolition or mitigation, but also acknowledged that it was practiced in certain states and justified in some cases. "The law of nature cannot suffer it to bo put in practice except by way of retaliation." [9]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Emer de Vattel believed that a nation should treat foreigners within its borders in a manner guided by humanity, justice, and the law of nations, with the intention of securing the rights of all parties and preventing disturbances. [6]

2. He argued that foreigners should be subject to the general laws made to maintain good order, and that they should be punished according to the laws of the country if they commit faults. [7]

3. Disputes between foreigners or between a foreigner and a citizen should be determined by the judge of the place and according to the laws of the place. [7]

4. Emer de Vattel emphasized that the state has no right over the person or property of a foreigner, and that foreigners should be free to leave the country at any time. [4]

5. However, he also acknowledged that a nation may exclude foreigners from certain activities unless laws declare otherwise, and may refuse them the privilege of possessing immovable property within its territory. [3] (inference)

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific modern context of how a nation should treat foreigners within its borders in the 21st century, but it provides principles on the treatment of foreigners under the law of nations.

Extrapolation: Emer de Vattel would likely argue that a nation should treat foreigners within its borders by upholding their rights under the law of nations, ensuring their protection, and requiring them to conform to the laws of the host country. However, he would also acknowledge that a nation may impose certain restrictions on foreigners, particularly regarding property and specific activities, as long as these restrictions are justified and not inhumane.

Competing readings: One reading is that Emer de Vattel advocated for the humane treatment of foreigners and the protection of their rights under the law of nations. Another reading is that he supported the sovereign's right to impose restrictions on foreigners, particularly in matters of property and certain activities, as long as these restrictions are justified and not inhumane. The record itself supports both readings, as it includes passages that emphasize the rights of foreigners and others that justify restrictions.

Confidence: Moderate, as the record provides relevant principles but does not directly address the specific modern context of the question.