The authors will refer to I. Kant’s work “Toward
Perpetual Peace”. This work is chosen because it raises the problems not only
of morality, but also of the transcendental justification of law and citizenship
(external freedom), that today is more important than ever, because we live not
just in the era of globalization, but in the era of mass migration of some
peoples, which is caused by wars in their states. And, this is not a temporary
evacuation, and for many - a conscious choice to emigrate in the search for
prospects, a better life, integrate into a new society. According to modern
scientists, “the world will never be the same as it was ten years ago, the
world will change, and people will change (from appearance to culture), climate
change in the future can cause new migrations” [2]. This Kant could not even
imagine (otherwise he would express himself on this subject in his works),
although he foresaw globalization, but imagined it differently: “… a violation
of right on one place of the earth is felt in all, the idea of a cosmopolitan
right is … a supplement to the unwritten code of the right of a state and the
right of nations necessary for the sake of any public rights of human beings”.
Migrants have no illusions about the future (after the end of hostilities in
their country) unification of their country with the host country, they are
often ready to accept another citizenship (of the host country). Kant also
understood this, and history confirmed: people resolutely don’t want to form a
state of nations (civitas gentium), “thus rejecting in hypothesi what is
correct in thesi” but realize, that in order to achieve peace, it is necessary
not only to stop hostilities and wars, but a union of peoples is desirable, so
Kant: “This would be a league of nations, which, however, need not be a state
of nations”. Coming to a permanent residence in a state, according to Kant, it
is reasonable to accept the citizenship of a given state (if the authorities, of
course, do not mind). Otherwise we should expect a relation to ourselves or as
a guest (hospitality in the representation of Kant goes back to the ancient
tradition) or as a visitor (speaking in modern language, as a tourist). For a
long time to be only a guest and be only a visitor (and, according to Kant's
conviction, everyone has the right not to automatically become a guest, that
would impose certain obligations on the receiving side, but only the right to
visit another state: “originally no one had more right than another to be on a
place on the earth” means to occupy a passive life position and deny yourself
the right to freedom. Thus, real migrants remain either to remain guests, or
integrate into a new society. Of course, migrants are not tourists, and they
claim the right not to visit, but to hospitality and help in integrating into a
new culture for them. At the same time, Europeans are trying to remain faithful
to the ideals of the Enlightenment. According to this, assistance in
integration means not making migrants conform to certain patterns of behavior
or uncritically join the existing opinions and attitudes, this would be
contrary to their right to self-determination, the right of freedom (according
to Kant, the right innate to man): and “The right of human beings must be held
sacred, however great a sacrifice this may cost the ruling power”.Help should
consist in the development of their ability to judge, of their ability to
dialogue, that’s because the development of the ability to judge is carried out
in the process of exchanging empirical arguments and in trying to find
philosophical grounds. The latter is much more difficult, but more effective,
if we take into account the prospect for the future, taking into account the
construction of a joint civil society, because “by principles of freedom a
state constitution that can continue valid is first possible”. The problem, of
course, is the isolation of migrants from the main population that threatens
with the fact that they would prefer to live in isolation, guided by their
values, and cannot fully integrate. A few years earlier, the idea of building a
multicultural society was proclaimed, but this idea did not justify itself,
moreover, led to a greater stratification of Western European society.
Therefore, today it is necessary to recognize, that if people want to belong
together to some society, state, then they must agree on the norms and rights
with which they all could agree (the common will of the people, since the time
of Rousseau, is the principle of all rights), and Kant anticipates the
communicative ethics of Jurgen Habermas: “My external (rightful) freedom is,
instead, to be defined as follows: it is the warrant to obey no other external
laws than those to which I could have given my consent” [3].