Read: Carens, J. (2009) The Case for Amnesty “http://bostonreview.net/forum/case-amnesty-joseph-carens” Carens argues that social membership (typically produced by time) ought to generate legal membership. By his lights, this is why amnesty is a matter of justice for undocumented people in the U.S. who have robust social ties in the U.S. In some cases, though, social memberships don’t plausibly generate a duty to recognize a legal membership. For example, if a student spends 8 years at Stanford, it isn’t obvious that they ought to have a right to permanent or ongoing legal membership to Stanford, its facilities, its services, and so on. What explains the difference? Or, if nothing explains the difference, then this looks like a counterexample to an important principle in Carnes argument. What should Carens say in that case? For your paper, state your view, make the best arguments for it, consider the strongest argument or two against your view, and reply.