Stateless People and the Claim-Against

When reading through the essay "Human Rights as Rights" and learning about the different rights theories, I found myself quite convinced by Nickel's argument for entitlement-plus theory. With the addition of a "claim-against," it certainly seems to be more thorough and applicable to the idea of a right than simple entitlement theory. As Nickel proposes, a right without a claim-against is nothing more than a high priority goal. There must be a two-way interaction with rights: an individual claims ownership of a right to something, while another entity protects that individual's claim. Thus, entitlement-plus theory is a satisfactory solution to both ends.

The importance of the claim-against came into view when we discussed the Texas law prohibiting illegally immigrated children from receiving public education in the state. We talked about whether it should be every UDHR signatory's responsibility to protect, and in this case provide for, an individual's rights. We learned that one's rights stem from his citizenship of a sovereign state, and that said state is the one that is supposed to provide for his rights, such as that to an education. In this case, although Texas would be denying children of an education, it would technically avoid violating their rights by deporting them to their home country.

However, do things change when an individual's country of origin is no longer recognized as a sovereign state? Does he still have a claim to his rights? I think a good example of this can be found in the movie The Terminal. A man arrives in the United States for a visit, but is detained and refused leave from the airport when officials discover that he is from a country that just erupted into civil war. Due to the war, the United States no longer recognizes the country's sovereignty, and so will not allow a nationless man into the U.S. While it is a rather lighthearted movie, it still raises serious questions. The protagonist is already being denied free movement within a state, so what other rights could have been violated on the basis of him being stateless? This seems extremely unjust, as he certainly had no control over the U.S.' decision to change their opinion of his country's sovereignty.

Of course, this is only a movie, so perhaps the specific logistics of it are inaccurate. However, the point remains: why should stateless people be stripped of their rights when they are otherwise identical to other human beings? I believe that there is a strong necessity for an overarching claim-against, higher than simply state-level. I know that this evokes a question as to who, in fact, should take responsibility for the stateless, and I don't have a definite answer to that. I am certain, though, that someone must.