Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/01 the 1948 Union Citizenship law framework but where a decision had not yet been issued upon the entry into force of the 1982 law. In both cases, their rights were unjustifiably restricted vis-a-vis full citizens. The law does not only deny naturalised and associated citizens’ full participation rights, but also access to the liberal professions and higher education. Discriminatory practices often take place regardless of a persons’ official citizenship status. The ‘non-national’ groups to be excluded are not only the descendants of British colonial workers but in practice extend to a wide variety of indigenous Muslim and Hindu communities, ethnic Chinese groups, descendants of Ghurka soldiers and others, all of different origins and history.14 Giving these persons a right to participate in the polis would—according to Ne Win’s line of argument—amount to alien rule. The exclusionary objective—based on a highly entrenched and commonly accepted postcolonial ‘us’ and ‘them’ narrative—of the 1982 Citizenship Law was made clear during its introduction. While presenting the law on 8 October 1982 General Ne Win stated that, “[r]acially, only pure blooded nationals will be called citizens”. The law would not treat equally the rest of Myanmar inhabitants – which he referred to as ‘guests or mixed blood’. For those, he stated, “[w]e will therefore not give them full citizenship and full rights. Nevertheless, we will extend those rights to a certain extent. We will give them the right to earn according to their work and live a decent life, no more.”15 Ne Win’s narrative follows a strong essentialist orientation, where the authenticity of the ‘indigenous races’ is stressed against the ‘others’, who are in essence outsiders: a social inheritance of the colonial past. In this sense, the law aims to redress colonial immigration, considered to be a historical wrong due to the influx of ‘others’. According to such narrative, during the colonial times, a large number of ‘foreigners’ entered the territory of Myanmar seeking economic opportunities. Hence, the law follows a sui generis ethnicised jus sanguinis approach where citizenship applicants need to prove they descend from one of the recognised national groups (and/or its 135 sub-groups). Naturalisation of foreigners through residence is hardly possible (requiring residence before 1948).16 In absence of adequate naturalisation procedures, members of some communities, particularly ethnic Chinese, were relegated to ‘foreigner national’ status despite their longstanding presence and up to now hold Foreigner Registration Cards (FRCs). In all, the 1982 law imagines a Myanmar where only members of certain essentialised groups have a right to be part of the polis. For some reason these oddly defined 135 ethnic groups have been widely accepted as “categories of analysis”.17 Hence, all of the ‘others’ are often despised as ‘mixed-blood’, and automatically presumed to come from elsewhere. The definition of which group is or is not recognised is needless to say primarily based on political expediency: for example, the ethnic Chinese Mon Wong from Shan State were partially recognised by the outgoing government in March 2016 allegedly in return for their military support against insurgents.18 It is worth noting that the 1982 law leaves open other avenues for citizenship acquisition. Persons who were citizens at the time the law was enacted are supposed to retain their full citizenship.19 Children with one parent full citizen and the other associate or naturalised citizen are also entitled to citizenship.20 Moreover, third generation naturalised and associated citizens are also supposed to attain full citizenship.21 The thinking behind 14 Elayne Linn-Ee Ho & Lynette J. Chua, “Law and Race in the Citizenship Space of Myanmar, Spatial Strategies and the Political Subjectivity of the Burmese Chinese”, 39(5) Ethnic and Racial Studies, 896–916. 15 Speech of General Ne Win presenting the 1982 Citizenship Law, 8 October 1982. 16 Article 7 and 45 of the 1982 law open the possibility of naturalisation for foreigners who have entered and resided in Myanmar prior to 1948 and for foreign espouses of citizens in some cases. 17 Brubaker, 1996, 13–15. 18 The Irrawaddy, “The Mon Wong face Backlash” <http://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/the-mong-wong-burmasnewest-citizens-face-backlash.html>, 6 May 2016. 19 Art. 6, 1982 Citizenship Law. 20 Art. 7 (b) and (c), Ibid. 21 Art. 7 (d), (e) (f), Ibid. 3