‘Rainbow Statelessness’ Given the above, and the failure of statelessness ‘to break free from its legal origins’, 35 the dearth of work around SOGIESC within statelessness studies is perhaps unsurprising. Besides passing references to the issue of SOGIESC within the wider context of statelessness for children born by surrogacy, 36 which has itself attracted increased attention within statelessness studies in recent years, 37 the literature barely touches on (risks of) statelessness for LGBTIQ+ individuals. As statelessness studies has recently begun to incorporate more interdisciplinary and intersectional approaches, researchers have considered the respective nexuses between statelessness and other phenomena, such as human trafficking 38 and displacement, 39 and it is high time to add the SOGIESC–statelessness nexus to the agenda. Indeed, a recent blog post by the European Network on Statelessness advocates for the need to bring intersectional feminist analysis to statelessness work, as well as ‘to find common ground and build coalitions with activists working on intersecting issues like child rights, women’s rights, LGBT+ rights, and others’. 40 Further reasons for the absence of including SOGIESC within statelessness studies may relate to the limited visibility of the issue. Unlike ethnic or religious communities significantly affected by statelessness (such as the Kurds of Syria or Rohingya of Myanmar), LGBTIQ+ individuals experiencing (risk of) statelessness are likely to be much more dispersed throughout society. Individuals affected by the SOGIESC–statelessness nexus may further choose not to come forward and readily disclose their status of double marginalisation — in public or with those working on either issue. This has been demonstrated to be the case in studies of undocumented LGBTIQ+ individuals (within the ‘UndocuQueer’ movement) who have had to contend with ‘being in the shadows and the closet simultaneously’. 41 There may be pressure to identify with one oppressed identity over the other, as well as stigmatisation and marginalisation of each issue within movements focused on the other. Discrimination on SOGIESC grounds that could result in statelessness can also be somewhat invisible given that it is unlikely to feature explicitly in nationality laws in the way of gender discriminatory (that is, anti-mother) provisions on passing citizenship onto children. Rather, it may take more ad hoc forms of 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Jason Tucker, ‘Why Here? Factors Influencing Palestinian Refugees from Syria in Choosing Germany or Sweden as Asylum Destinations’ (2018) 6 Comparative Migration Studies 1, cited in Brennan (n 33) 170. See, eg, Sanoj Rajan, ‘International Surrogacy Arrangements and Statelessness’ in Institute on Stateless and Inclusion (ed), The World's Stateless: Children (Wolf Legal Publishers 2017) 380. See, eg, Claire Achmad and Sanoj Rajan, ‘Statelessness and Surrogacy’ (Panel, UNHCR and Tilburg University, Global Forum on Statelessness, 15 September 2014) <https://www.unhcr.org/537c6e269.pdf.>. See also Claire Achmad, ‘2014: The Year International Surrogacy Came to the Fore’, The Conversation (Blog Post, 26 December 2014) <https://theconversation.com/2014-the-year-international-surrogacy-came-to-the-fore35495>. Laura van Waas et al, The Nexus between Statelessness and Human Trafficking in Thailand (Wolf Legal Publishers 2015). Zahra Albarazi and Laura van Waas, Statelessness and Displacement: Scoping Paper (Report, Norwegian Refugee Council and Tilburg University 2016). Nina Murray, ‘Join the Feminist Revolution in Work to Address Statelessness’, European Network on Statelessness (Blog Post, 18 July 2019) <https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/joinfeminist-revolution-work-address-statelessness>. Jesus Cisneros and Christian Bracho, ‘Coming Out of the Shadows and the Closet: Visibility Schemas Among Undocuqueer Immigrants’ (2019) 66(6) Journal of Homosexuality 715, 716. 70