332 R. Vecellio Segate countries (think about the DRC, Niger, Angola, Libya, Argentina, Sudan, Myanmar, Algeria, …), being internally displaced might push individuals farther from home than many cross-border migrants would be. Statistics on IDPs are unstraightforward to read, as displacement depends on extemporary causes that may unleash but also resolve relatively fast, so that the need ensues to distinguish between on-average yearly IDPs and IDPs at any given time. While a long-standing target for sociologists and anthropologists, IDPs have garnered the attention of public international lawyers and political scientists only relatively recently (Dirikgil 2022; Draper 2021; Orendain and Djalante 2021). Aside from the nonbinding UN Guiding Principles dedicated thereto, there is no detailed engagement with IDPs’ specific needs – let alone rights. As for the present paper, if these people are displaced internally, i.e. domestically, then why should we extend our analysis on borderline phenomena to them? I reckon there are at least three sound reasons to do so. First, as a follow-up to their displacement, IDPs might easily decide or find themselves forced to themselves become asylum seekers, nomads, or even stateless individuals. This occurs most frequently through forced displacement, which is why a positive obligation is bearing on States (for instance under the Palermo Protocol) to ensure that internal displacement does not turn into human trafficking, and were this regrettably to happen, that those affected enjoy protection of their privacy as a form of protection of their identity (Human Rights Council 2023, §58). The second reason is that internal displacement is set to increase dramatically in decades to come, mostly owing to climate change, corporate pollution, ecosystem collapse, fragile and failed States, unplanned overurbanisation, and conflicts over resource access, ownership, and distribution. Legal and policy classifications based on ‘hazards, exposure, vulnerability, and capacity’ (Cantor 2023, 12) will need to adapt to on-the-ground realities whereby local institutions’ failures in protecting their territories and people will translate into civic detachment and trust withdrawal from local communities. This makes it essential to foster preparedness on the identity side, too, all the more considering that when paper documents go missing or irreparably damaged, local administrators who typically serve as introducers might well have fallen victims to the very same disasters that displaced those in need of identity onboarding. The opposite side of the argument – and the third reason – is that those very same local administrators are precisely those who most probably contributed to (or failed to prevent, also out of bribed connivence) the disasters which caused the displacement; hence, one would not want them their maladministration to administer IDPs’ identity (re-)onboarding! Of course, when it comes to IDPs, the problem to be addressed is not their first identity onboarding, but rather the combination of: (1) documents going missing or