In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” (1951), the political theorist Hannah Arendt wrote:
“The conception of human rights based upon the assumed existence of a human being as such broke down at the very moment when those who professed to believe in it were for the first time confronted with people who had indeed lost all other qualities and specific relationships – except that they were still human. The world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human. .... (Refugees knew) that the abstract nakedness of being human was their greatest danger.”
Sadly true... Isn't it ridiculous to argue that a sovereign nation-state has a right to control its borders and decide who can get in but a human, any human does not have a right to go anywhere s/he wishes on the planet s/he was born by the mere fact that s/he is a human.
We have rights as citizens, and we have more rights if we are a citizen of a “great” country. We do not have rights as humans.
As Joe Humphreys writes in the article "Stop Kidding Yourself, You Have No Human Rights" in the Irish Times:
“Arendt witnessed how those without a state were “expelled from humanity”, and the same applies today.
Slavery is better than being stateless, she wrote, as “to be a slave was after all to have a distinctive character, a place in society more than the abstract nakedness of being human and nothing but human”.
Think about that the next time you bleat about your right to something. Think about what’s being done to refugees in your name. Their vulnerability is ours.”
Yes. Their vulnerability is ours. And deep inside, we all know that. That's why the resistance not to accept a basic human right: the right of movement. And while we are at it, the extension of that, i.e. the right of settlement, the right to choose where you want to live and work. Why not?
Just because some people were not born within the imaginary boundary that you dictate is not an answer. Just because people speak a different language or follow a different religion is not an answer either. Security, or rather the "feeling of security" is not an answer either. Actually, I don't know of any logical answer to that question. The ridiculuous irrational stupidity of politics, of dividing and generalizing people according to the spot they were born on earth has to be done away with.
If not?... As long as the political arena stays the way it is, i.e. As long as we see countries as on a political map, as long as there are countries, "sovereign" nation-states and its "not so sovereign" citizens, as long as there is the belief in a government to protect us and to defend our rights, as long as we keep the status quo of states, we have no chance to a better world.
To me, the best message would be... To break down the artificial barriers between people. Our goal should be to install a new world software where man does not fear man. Only when it dawns on us that real security can only be achieved through solidarity with humanity, we have no chance of any improvement in the world. A shot at -not total but a decent amount of- peace is only possible through ending statehood.
What's the biggest problem that needs to be done away with in the world?
It's the irrational politics, it's states and statehood stupid!