12 Daiva Stasiulis understanding was further reflected in Budlakoti’s inclusion in 1997 on his mother’s Canadian passport until he was 14 years old, and his own separate successful application for a Canadian passport thereafter. The government “clearly had no issue with his status” in issuing these Canadian passports to Budlakoti (Behrens, 2015, n.p.). For two decades after his 1989 birth and the issuance of a Canadian (Ontario) birth certificate, arguably a powerful actant that enrols other documents that are gateways to Canadian citizenship rights (e.g., passports, social assistance, health care coverage), Deepan’s networked existence as a Canadian citizen was unremarkable. The courts in Budlakoti dismiss such evidence of Deepan’s citizenship by simply arguing that the issuance of passports is “not determinative of citizenship” and merely reflects administrative errors on the part of passport-issuing authorities (Budlakoti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 855, para. 39). Like many children of working class parents, Budlakoti had a difficult childhood; he ran away from home and became a ward of the Ontario state, where he witnessed and experienced violence in group homes. Like many other troubled Canadian youth in foster care, he fell into a life of crime as a young adult, was incarcerated and served his sentences. In December 2009, he was convicted of break and entry and was sentenced to four months. In late 2010, he was convicted of both weapons and narcotics trafficking and sentenced to three years in jail. While incarcerated, a prison official profiled Budlakoti as someone whose citizenship status should be investigated by Canadian immigration officials. This instigated private discussions of Budlakoti’s status among officials of Citizenship and Immigration Canada leading to a decision in 2011 that he was in fact not a Canadian citizen. It also led to a decision that as a permanent resident, Budlakoti was inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of “serious criminality” under the provisions of s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C 2001, c 27). One can only speculate what combination of his brown skin, dark beard and “foreign” name became significant actants in casting suspicion on Deepan Budlakoti’s “genuine” status as a Canadian citizen. Budlakoti’s case has often been treated unsympathetically by the mass media.17 Unlike victims who are portrayed as innocent or hapless, insofar as he has had significant brushes with the law, notice paid to his criminal convictions has often superseded focus on the fact that after two decades of his life as a documented and Canadian-born citizen with full protection of the state, he was deprived of his Canadian citizenship and rendered stateless. Viewed through the lens of “crimmigration,” however, the decidedly hostile and punitive action of the Conservative government to the issue of Budlakoti’s legal status reflects “double punishment,” the revival of practices 17 According to Kane’s (2013) analysis of Canadian print media’s coverage on the stateless in Canada, the stateless are frequently depicted as enemies, dangerous and tricksters. The stateless are deemed blameworthy and the harsh effects of their legal and/or de facto statelessness diminished by the print media’s use of quotation marks or the qualifier “so-called” when discussing “stateless” persons. Studies in Social Justice, Volume 11, Issue 1, 1-26, 2017