The Plight of the Rightless: Mapping and Understanding Statelessness in Tripoli-V1.3 Some Mukhtars do not demonstrate any interest in helping stateless people because they consider them all non-Lebanese. “I don’t deal with them, they are outlaws,” says one Mukhtar in Mheitra. Another Mukhtar admits that he is “against giving the nationality to any Maktoum El Qayd. They all Syrians, Tsiganes, etc.” and adds “I have been Mukhtar for 22 years and I haven’t handed any Ta’arif paper in my career, because it is a first step towards the right to request the Lebanese nationality for people who do not really deserve it.” Mukhtars are supposed to be the first local resort for local people. As the stateless are not legally registered, this makes Mukhtars an even more important reference that represents the State, is close to vulnerable groups, and can be sensitive to their needs. However, interviews reveal very different tendencies among Mukhtars, ranging from a transactional attitude, to carelessness or to direct discrimination. Access to Services and Coping Mechanisms Access to basic rights and services is the obligation of the Lebanese State towards its citizen and residents. Stateless people are deprived to have many of these rights, and when they are entitled to access some services, either they are unaware of it, of public servants themselves are unaware of the State’s obligations. This is why the Stateless are finding alternative ways to cope with the lack of services and daily challenges. Access to Healthcare One out of every three stateless persons currently living in Tripoli declared having access to hospitals (37%), compared to a slightly lower local average (32%). Stateless persons have multiple ways of accessing hospitals. For instance, 17% of stateless respondents rely on mediation [wasta] through acquaintances they know, or other political or religious figures they can resort to. Fifteen percent have already resorted to fraud through borrowing someone else’s ID in order to access hospitals and 30% have never borrowed any IDs for that purpose but declared their willingness to do so whenever needed in situations of health emergency. Only 5% declared having regular non-fraudulent access to hospitals. These fraudulent attitudes motivated by the need to survive, can clearly socialise people into irregular and later criminal behaviour. Many studies have shown that as an individual fails to develop self-control, the likelihood of delinquency and crime increases.50 Moreover, the fact that stateless persons have no official right to healthcare, whether private or public, goes against what is provided in Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights51 which is part of customary international law binding all States. On the other hand, 56% of the stateless chose dispensaries as one of their two main options for seeking healthcare services, compared to 40% who chose pharmacies. Nevertheless, 9% declared having no other option but to go to either a dispensary or a pharmacy exclusively. This 50 Michael Gottfredson, Self-Control Theory and Crime (Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2017). Article 25 (1) stipulates: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” 51 36