14 Lucia M. Rafanelli case is representative of all stateless people’s circumstances. However, it offers a clear illustration of the political dynamic I want to expose here: that channelling political activity into statist institutions can further entrench the state system and its current structure. And, as we will see later, this case offers an equally clear illustration of what anti-statist resistance undertaken by a transnational coalition of stateless people could look like. Hong Kong is not party to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it does not grant asylum, and it identifies only a small percentage of asylum seekers as eligible for resettlement elsewhere.65 Moreover, Hong Kong law prohibits asylum seekers from working, compelling them to rely on meagre state assistance and whatever charity they can get, and the state bureaucracies they must navigate to file required paperwork and make formal claims on the government are notoriously complex and unresponsive.66 If asylum seekers were to comply with the laws and regulations governing them, and were to advocate for their interests and press their claims only via governmentapproved channels, this would mean refusing to work (becoming unable to support themselves) and slogging through ‘a confusing and punitive bureaucracy’ that exacerbates the precarity and uncertainty they already suffer.67 As one asylum seeker explained in 2014, government bureaucrats ‘treat you like you don’t exist.’68 This person compared their experience in Hong Kong to their experiences in their country of origin, which they had left to seek asylum: In my country we have no proper laws, we have no freedom.…But at least there is certainty. People need certainty to live—but here so many times I go talk to them— and they push me away. They show me their power by not talking to me….69 One could interpret this situation as follows: to comply with government regulations, Hong Kong’s asylum seekers must forego employment, putting themselves at the mercy of the state (and private benefactors) to secure even subsistence goods. They must subject themselves to government institutions that—since the asylum seekers do not enjoy formal membership in the state, and since the Political Authority Principle attaches political representation to state membership—can easily afford to ignore them. Any claims they want to make for basic goods, services, or recognition as asylees must be made through these institutions—despite the fact that they are slow, unresponsive, circuitous, insufficiently provide for asylum seekers’ needs, lack a government-approved accountability mechanism, and will not recognise any fundamental challenge to the government’s authority over asylum seekers. Compelling asylum seekers to press their claims through such institutions entrenches both the Political Authority and Sovereignty Principles. It reinforces the idea that the state is the actor with the rightful authority to decide what, if any, benefits asylum seekers are granted—reflecting the Political Authority Principle, which guarantees a full suite of benefits only to state members and the Sovereignty Principle, which guarantees states the right to deny membership at will. And it 65 Vecchio and Ham 2018, 202. Vecchio and Ham 2018. 67 Ibid., 207. 68 Quoted in ibid., 206. 69 Quoted in ibid. 66 https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297192500003X Published online by Cambridge University Press