Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/03 nationality— defined themselves as members of indigenous communities (78% Aymara, 3% Quechua). While some children were entitled to their parents’ nationality, poverty and the long distances involved had made it impossible for these families to register them at the nearest consulate, let alone travel back to their countries of origin to do so. Most parents contacted on the ground lived in poverty, and their irregular migratory status forced most of them to work precarious jobs. In addition, lacking nationality, their children endured discrimination and significant rights violations that impacted them negatively. The team heard cases of denial of educational benefits and even care at public health facilities, in one case resulting in a six-year-old boy losing sight in one eye. The main commitment with the individuals interviewed as part of this project was to pursue every available option to obtain recognition of their or their children’s right to Chilean nationality. These came down to two: Apply through administrative channels, or file a constitutional nationality claim with the Supreme Court. Having determined that the administrative route was cumbersome and long-drawn-out —in some cases taking over a year— and taking into consideration the additional goal of seeking redress for all affected by this massive violation of rights, the legal clinic team opted to go to Court. While there was no previous history of collective nationality claims, the Chilean Supreme Court had ruled time and again against an exclusionary interpretation of the jus soli nationality rights of locally-born children of undocumented parents. These factors led the organisations involved to conclude that the best bet was to file a nationality claim on behalf of all persons identified within the project, plus everyone else whose nationality was denied per the information and figures provided by the Civil Registry. Prior to filing, the organisations made their case to major media outlets in order to maximise public impact.26 It was the first such action in Chilean history and the sheer number of cases involved helped garner significant media attention, which was welcomed as a valuable tool in an eventual negotiation with the State on the confirmation of Chilean citizenship for all CTF-registered children. 5. The Supreme Court Stage After weeks of work in both Santiago and northern Chile, on November 10, 2015 a collective nationality claim was filed with the Supreme Court. Prior to this, a last major hurdle to be surmounted involved obtaining power of attorney from the claimants, a requisite for legal representation, which the law requires to be witnessed by a notary public or court clerk. This requirement, which in actual practice limits access to justice, was met courtesy of a sympathetic notary public based in Arica who agreed to travel through the Azapa Valley to witness these documents. Unfortunately, many of these rural indigenous parents lacked Chilean identity cards or a foreign passport. As granting power of attorney requires proof of identity, in these cases they could not be issued. Although not exactly what the law requires, letters of authorisation were substituted. Obtaining and printing out 167 birth certificates from the Civil Registry web site, drafting the appeal, and recounting all 167 personal stories, inter alia, also demanded significant effort. Here, the strong support and commitment of all partners, especially of law clinic students, proved invaluable. 26 El Mercurio, Niños invisibles, November 11, 2015, page A2; La Tercera, “Recurren a la Corte para nacionalizar a 161 hijos de migrantes”, November 11, 2015, page 25; Revista Viernes, 77: “Niños sin bandera”, November 27, 2015, page 12; Las Últimas Noticias, “3.500 hijos de inmigrantes recibirán nacionalidad chilena”, December 18, 2015, page 16. 6