The Extraordinary Statelessness of Deepan Budlakoti 3 the dying days of the Harper government, specifically targeted Canadian-born individuals convicted of certain offences against the state (Government of Canada, 2014a).3 Such reforms are significant insofar as they introduce new mechanisms for producing de facto statelessness among the Canadian-born. As explored in this article, there are other, less scrutinized mechanisms in Canadian citizenship law (such as the “diplomatic exception” to jus soli), and administrative practice that can strip the citizenship of Canadian-born individuals in a political climate where citizenship deprivation becomes increasingly normalized as part of the larger trend towards “securitization” of citizenship. In this article, I pursue a sociology of statelessness by examining its localized production and connections to a broader (and in some instances, transnational) network of social and material relations. I do this through a case study of Canadian-born Deepan Budlakoti, who at age 22 was informed that he was in fact not Canadian, and lacking any other citizenship, was rendered stateless. I utilize Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as an analytical guide for exploring how Budlakoti’s citizenship was extinguished. The article is organized to, first, discuss the scholarly contribution of a sociology of statelessness to current debates on this most abject of statuses. Here, I examine the potential relevance of ANT to provide conceptualization of deprivation of citizenship, and its particular bearing on Budlakoti’s translation from a Canadian birthright citizen to a stateless person. Second, the article briefly addresses some dimensions of contemporary statelessness in Canada, including its context of production through reforms in citizenship revocation, its prevalence and the consequences for those holding this abject legal status. Third, I explore the Budlakoti case to reveal the networked production of statelessness. Here legal documental networks were central in creating the lived status of citizenship only to be replaced by another network of documents and other forces, which expunged that citizenship and produced statelessness. In the fourth part of the paper, I focus on how the government has utilized a listed exception in the Canadian Citizenship Act to jus soli citizenship, exempting the children born of foreign diplomats and their employees, to negate the two decades of Budlakoti’s government-assisted identity as a Canadian citizen. Finally, in the conclusion, I reiterate the social justice implications of the networked extinguishment of Budlakoti’s Canadian 3 Until recently, the Canadian-born have largely been secure in their citizenship status whereas there has been a long-standing tradition of revocation of citizenship for the foreign-born. Indeed, the grounds for revocation have undergone a process of expansion and contraction. Since 1868, grounds have expanded from misrepresentation or fraud during the process of naturalization, to “disloyalty to his Majesty” in 1919 to grounds of severe criminality in 1920 (Anderson, 2008, p. 85). In order to limit the discretionary powers of the government and promote the equality of all citizens, the 1976 Immigration Act made false representation or fraud during application for citizenship the sole ground for revocation (Anderson, 2008, p. 85). Studies in Social Justice, Volume 11, Issue 1, 1-26, 2017