Even though the default
absolutist notion of national sovereignty has consistently undercut global
efforts to combat climate change and rid the world of nuclear weapons and even
war itself, to disregard territorial sovereignty altogether is also
problematic. Interestingly, both extremes treat international relations as a
Hobbesian state of nature, and disregarding national sovereignty even extends
the state of nature to within a country such that even national government is
presumed not to exist. Illegal immigration is a case in point. When sixty
thousand North Africans illegally entered Ceuta in the E.U. on July 30, 2026,
the utter disrespect for the rule of law as well as the E.U.’s territorial
integrity and legitimacy was palpable.
The disregard for governmental
sovereignty could be seen visually as videos taken at the time on Ceuta’s
Tarajal beach “reveal the chaos that accompanied the crossings, showing large
crowds running between the breakwater and the roads around the border area.”[1]
Sixty thousand people swimming over to a small city of just 19 square kilometers
provides a snapshot of just how easily illegal immigration can spiral into
mob-rule. Both Plato and Aristotle situate mob-rule as democratic decadence,
and thus, like tyranny, to be avoided. As Hobbes argues in Leviathan,
there is a good reason for government, given human nature. His theory differs markedly
from Locke’s theory of natural rights, save the right of self-preservation that
is inalienable according to Hobbes even though a sovereign has even the exclusive
right even to interpret divine writ. For Hobbes, no natural rights exist that
would limit the authority of a sovereign. None of these four historical philosophers
would claim that illegal immigration between modern nation-states is a natural
right. In fact, I suspect the four would be appalled at the utter effrontery in
ignoring a country’s territorial sovereignty.
The push-back from North Africa
backs up the disregard evinced by the people who illegally crossed into Ceuta.
That Morocco had regarded the cities of Ceuta and Melilla as “part of its own
territory since its independence from France and Spain in 1956” does not
justify the strategy of spinning the illegal crossings as part of a dispute on
sovereignty, for the people crossing were not doing so to protest that issue.[2]
Neither do the social and economic conditions in Morocco justify disregarding
another country’s government as if being unemployed justifies illegally
entering another country. “One of Morocco’s most popular news outlets Hespress
wrote that ‘the waves of incursions into Ceuta and the attempts to cross that
later extended to Melilla have brought back to the fore the debate on the
social and economic situation in the areas bordering the two enclaves. . . . What
happened once again shines a light on the cities’ connection with their
Moroccan environment and the complexities of their historical and sovereignty
dossier.’”[3]
Dossier? The attempt to primp the statement using misplaced diplomatic
language flies in the face of the sheer chaos on the ground in Ceuta on 30
July, 2026. Disagreements on a “dossier” do not justify tens of thousands of
illegal crossings in utter disregard for the laws and government of the
receiving city, state, and federal union.
The existence of the latter,
the European Union, in which Spain, which in turn includes Ceuta, is a state,
enabled the North Africans to exploit a vulnerability in the federal system, for
states’ rights ideologues (i.e., Euroskeptics) had been successful in blocking
a stronger federal role in patrolling the E.U.’s territorial borders. The extant
state-centric bricolage of immigration laws could easily be exploited without
the Commission being able to fill the gaps. The Schengen Agreement, which
allows for the free movement of people within the E.U., is flimsy at best. In
the wake of the chaos in Ceuta, “Italy’s Interior Ministry . . . ordered the
closure of the [state’s] sea and air borders with Spain, temporarily suspending
the Schengen free movement regime” between the two E.U. states.[4]
Imagine if Texas were able to close its borders to people coming from California
were its government to suddenly open the flood-gates to illegal immigrants
coming up from Mexico to California. We don’t have to imagine the government of
Texas sending illegal immigrants from that U.S. member-state to Illinois.[5]
Were the U.S. border subject only to a Schengen-like agreement between some of
the member-states, chaos could be expected not only by interlarding migrants,
but also between the states. The refusal of the E.U. state of Italy to accept
people arriving from another E.U. state undermines the E.U. itself, and
demonstrates just how fragile its state-dominated federal system has was even the
case in 2026.
The statement at the time by
Antonio Tajani, a state official of Italy, relates the state’s unilateral suspension
of Schengen regarding the E.U. state of Spain to shoring up the E.U.’s borders:
“The temporary suspension of Schengen with Spain is a necessary choice to safeguard
the security of our citizens and defend the European borders.”[6]
By “our citizens,” Tanjana was referring to those of the state of Italy, the
interests of whom are not necessarily the same as those of E.U. citizens
throughout the Union. This difference—between the interests of a part and the
whole of which the part is just a part—is precisely why the protection of E.U.
borders warranted more federal authority, rather than just the Schengen “patch-work”
that could so easily be undone by “necessary” choices by state governments. In
the U.S., the federalizing of regulating interstate commerce occurred because
states such as New York and New Jersey were penalizing trade from each other by
instituting duties under the Articles of Confederation. Whereas that
confederation, which lasted from 1981-1789, consisted of fully sovereign
countries, the E.U. states are semi-sovereign, just as U.S. states are because
both the E.U. and U.S. have enumerated competencies or powers reserved for the
federal level. By acting like a confederation with regard to border control,
the E.U. played into the hands of Morocco and its citizens who illegally
crossed into the E.U., such that E.U. citizens were vulnerable even to the
excuse that bad economic conditions in a country outside of the E.U. gives rise
to a natural right to enter the E.U. illegally as if no governments existed in
Ceuta, Spain, and the E.U. itself even with respect to its borders.
Were unemployment a suitable
justification to enter another country illegally, there would be chaos in both
the E.U. and U.S. as it would be “open season” from Africa and Central America
to cross international borders as if they did not exist. To disregard the laws
of another country by entering without its government’s permission is so
presumptuous in fact that the underlying mentality alone can be treated as a
red-flag. The vulnerability in the E.U.’s state-centric federal system was particularly
exposed because the government and state media of Morocco enabled such a
mentality by citing a sovereignty dispute and bad domestic social and economic
conditions as if these justify illegal immigration. In short, the E.U. should
not have had to rely on the Schengen Agreement, which was as of 2026 only between
some but not all E.U. states anyway. Even treating the sovereignty
dispute as a Moroccan-Spanish concern belies the structural integrity of the
E.U. as a federal union in which the E.U.’s borders are properly a matter of
concern to the Union rather than just its states.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Gabriele Barbati and Greta Ruffino, “Italy Suspends Schengen with Spain over Ceuta Migrant Crisis, Closes Air and Sea Borders,” Euronews.com, 31 July, 2026.
5. In fact, Chicago’s O’hare Airport closed its regional-bus transit facility to accommodate the incoming immigrants from Texas.
6. Gabriele Barbati and Greta Ruffino, “Italy Suspends Schengen with Spain over Ceuta Migrant Crisis, Closes Air and Sea Borders,” Euronews.com, 31 July, 2026.
