I am still reading through Arendt’s ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’. She is interesting about universal human rights, suggesting that since they are not enforceable because they are too abstract – the right to happiness might be a good example – there is no legal system that recognizes our essential humanity as such because it is so ill-defined. She prefers much more concrete rights such as the right to a home and protections from a national polity. If we lose our home, and the right to legal protections from our national governments, such as those who become refugees, we lose the opportunities to act politically or have an opinion. Refugees can not be sent to some uncivilized other place because the whole world is divided into nations which exclude outsiders to maintain their borders. The saddest aspect of this is that these people are innocent. They are outsiders because of the actions of others – such as warlords and imperialists.
Another reason for the movement of populations, is climate change and the failure of harvests. People facing starvation are forced northwards. They are not welcomed by nation states, worried about being overwhelmed by minorities and they face the rule of police and border forces rather than parliamentarians, representing individuals with a home and the right birth origin. Arendt points out that a criminal has more rights than a migrant, as he/she is in a legal system that upholds basic rights.
Migration is set to increase. Where do universal human rights fit in? They do not seem to be enforceable and are too abstract to be useful. Do shifting populations presage the ending of the nation state? How do we include these innocents into our societies?
Walking whilst ill 