‘Rainbow Statelessness’ international ART cases has been argued to put children at risk of statelessness, 103 there is growing evidence that LGBTIQ+ parents have recently been subject to greater levels of scrutiny to determine biological parenthood than applies to heteronormative married couples. The most high-profile cases of children born to rainbow families being denied US citizenship have been represented by legal defence actors, Lambda Legal and Immigration Equality. 104 The Department of State has ruled in contradiction of the principle of ‘birth-right citizenship’ where any child born to a US citizen automatically becomes a citizen also, on the argument that since one of the parents is not biologically related to the child, the child has been ‘born out of wedlock’. 105 Immigration Equality has referred to this as ‘a new double standard for citizenship: one for the children of gay couples and one for the children of straight couples’. 106 It is noted that most of these children have not in fact been at risk of statelessness since the surrogacy or other assisted reproductive arrangements took place in countries where jus soli nationality laws operate (eg Canada) and safeguards against being born statelessness are in place. That said, the practices of insisting on biological rather than intentional interpretations of parentage in cases of samesex relationships have the potential to result in statelessness in cases where the constellation of circumstances is different. While far from an exhaustive survey of cases where children born within the context of rainbow families have been (at risk of becoming) stateless, the above selection presents a strong basis for considering that LGBTIQ+ parents face particular vulnerability in securing citizenship for their children when using ART within an international dimension. Given that same-sex couples are known to be a key demographic within the clients for international surrogacy, further research is needed to better understand the unique risks that might affect this profile of parents. CONCLUSION The testimonies and situations presented in the above sections provide support for the argument that a SOGIESC–statelessness nexus does indeed exist. The identification of cases relating to all world regions — that is Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa, the Americas, Africa and Europe — demonstrates the global scope of this nexus. This is perhaps unsurprising given 103 Brittany M Nichol, ‘A Child Without a Country: Dissolving the Statelessness of Children Born through Surrogacy’ [2016] (3) Michigan State Law Review 907. 104 ‘Children Born Abroad to Married US Same-Sex Parents Are US Citizens, Lambda Legal Tells Courts’, Lambda Legal (Blog Post, 16 January 2020) <https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20200116_kiviti-and-mize-gregg-msj-filing>; ‘Fight for Families! Update’, Immigration Equality (Update, 2020) <https://www.immigrationequality.org/fightforfamilies/#.XiQ9BFMzY1i>. See also Jennifer Hansler, ‘Trump Admin is Denying Citizenship to Some Children of Same-Sex Couples’, CNN (online, 18 May 2019) <https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/17/politics/kiviti-child-uspassport/index.html>. 105 Susanna Heller, ‘The Trump Administration is Denying Citizenship to the Children of SameSex Couples Because They Were Born “Out of Wedlock”’, Insider (online, 15 May 2019) <https://www.insider.com/trump-state-department-denied-citizenship-to-same-sex-coupleschildren-2019-5>. 106 Scott Bixby, ‘State Department Continues Fight to Strip Gay Couple’s Two-Year-Old Son of Birthright Citizenship’, Daily Beast (online, 8 May 2019) <https://www.thedailybeast.com/state-department-continues-fight-to-strip-gay-couples-twoyear-old-son-of-birthright-citizenship>. 84