The article started off with questionable leaps ("What perhaps does deserve comment is that all direct 1989 allusions are indirect allusions to 1933.", really?), started talking about human rights by looking at the US declaration of independence (and not, say, the UN declaration of human rights), all to finally succumb into drivel like "The reunification of Germany did not challenge existing political categories." (Uh huh, and we just invented 'refugee' yesterday?) The author doesn't make clear why refugees' human rights are an issue. He doesn't care to elaborate why it's about their human rights, specifically. Okay, yeah, it's not an article discussing practical things, I get it, which why I'm not listing a hundred other complaints, but even as a theoretical exploration of stateless peoples' rights it falls short of being interesting.