Besserer Rayas et al. Comparative Migration Studies (2024) 12:47 Unsurprisingly, those who can overcome paperwork hurdles may be wealthier and better connected than their co-nationals who remain with irregular statuses. This reality further accentuates the social class differences between who gains (partial) membership and who is excluded, leading to inequality within immigrant cohorts and displaced populations. Refugees and migrants with sustainable legal statuses fit into the broader categorization of quasi-citizens, defined as, “those persons who possess some rights and duties of membership in states that do not recognize them as full citizens” (Smith, 2017, pp. 817–818), and in many cases will have the prospect of eventually becoming nationals of the residence country through naturalization. Paperwork gaps in citizenship and immigration regimes inherently entail a dyadic dimension, of which residence states are aware; they know that their pre- and postmigration bureaucracy requirements hinge on the capacity and willingness of origin states to produce and provide such documents to their nationals (see Table 1). Although paperwork gaps can keep a large proportion of the foreign population in an irregular status – presenting well-known challenges to a state – receiving governments may nonetheless ignore the difficulties (especially forced) migrants face in obtaining required documentation. For immigrants, the effects of living without a regular status and with precarious citizenship are blatantly evident, infiltrating every corner of life, constraining the ability to work and drive, enroll in school, to marry, and seek healthcare. The situation presents perverse incentives for black markets of documents to emerge, migrant brokers to step in, and employers to exploit workers without formal contracts.2 It also presents moral dilemmas for doctors and teachers to turn a blind eye while medically treating and educating anyone, or their families, who are undocumented or stateless. Thus, paperwork gaps and resulting irregularity are problematic for foreigners as well as for the entire receiving population since they erode the cohesion and freedom within society (see Kukathas, 2021). Residence countries thus face the strategic decision whether to maintain their rules and standards of required documentation – even when facing large-scale displacement – or to bridge paperwork gaps by adapting the requirements and opening pathways to naturalization and regularization. Table 1 provides a conceptual map of the paperwork gap and its constituent elements. Residence countries can narrow, or close, paperwork gaps through unilateral actions; for instance, they can adjust their citizenship and immigration regime rules on paper by changing laws and procedures, or in practice by being flexible in implementation. Changes that narrow the gap in essence “bridge” bureaucratic procedures between origin and residence states – hence a paper bridge crosses the gap in Table 1 by facilitating the process of gaining legal status. In our analysis, we focus on four paper bridges Colombia built for Venezuelans and their children in the country. We focus on government learning (see Bennett & Howlett, 1992; Etheredge & Short, 1983; Freeman, 2006) by explaining how relevant state actors adapted and developed tools to address the paperwork gaps they identified. These gaps spanned the bureaucratic processes of naturalization and incorporation of Venezuelans. 2 As Sadiq (2009) shows, in some countries people can collect and hold a plethora of documents, but when states are unable to distinguish authentic versus forged or stolen documents, it becomes very difficult to determine who has citizenship or legal status. Page 5 of 20