592 Wendy Hunter and Francesca Reece puts citizenship norms at risk in a way not witnessed for generations, similar forms of hidden politics in other countries have allowed rights-violating governments to emerge as de facto victors (Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion 2020, 11). The Dominican case may therefore illuminate others. For example, the Indian government under Narendra Modi (2014–present) has tasked millions of Muslims with providing evidentiary proof that they are Indian citizens, an unrealistic demand in a country where a sizable share of the population lacks official papers. Similarly, the rollout of a new biometric ID system in Kenya that requires prior documentation has raised the controversial question of who is a Kenyan. Many ethnic Somalis with long-standing, multigenerational residence in the country (and who by Kenyan law are legal citizens) have been unable to muster the requisite evidence. The story we tell focuses on the use of bureaucratic obstacles to deprive people of citizenship-confirming documents. Bronwen Manby (2020, 197) encapsulates well what the Dominican saga represents more broadly: In the vast majority of cases, people deprived of citizenship have not been subject to any formal invocation of deprivation provisions in the citizenship law. Rather, they have simply been denied a document that confirms citizenship. Sometimes, they have never had such a document even though entitled in the law; sometimes officials have destroyed documents they previously held; sometimes a document is cancelled on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud; sometimes, there is just an indefinite delay in renewing a document that has expired, or a failure to take a decision. Thus, the methods most often used to denationalise a person are not to invoke the formal processes of deprivation, but simply to deny that he or she ever had citizenship to start off with and assert that any previous recognition was either in error or obtained by fraud. Administrative obstructionism is an especially apt strategy for eluding international pressure because it tends to unfold across a series of decisions over time, transfers responsibility from a highly visible leader to dispersed and faceless bureaucrats, and is exceedingly difficult to monitor. Monitoring devolves into tracking individual cases and the myriad ways in which minute procedures go awry. Proceedings drag on, and media attention to the original rights violation inevitably withers. The difficulty that international actors experience in countering this strategy means that a strong domestic opposition movement, complete with on-the-ground legal assistance, is necessary to sustain pressure on a rights-violating government. This is lacking in many contexts. Our contribution is both analytical and practical. In extending the Americanist public policy notions of administrative burdening and blame avoidance (“administrative obstructionism”) to the matter of denationalization, we suggest a way to think about how governments can commit violations yet limit criticism. Since the international human rights system typically responds to egregious “bright-line” violations, more subtle yet purposeful measures can defuse a conflict and reduce international attention over time. The employment of such measures appears to be on the rise globally. We also seek to inform readers that the denationalized status of many DominicoHaitians persists even though news coverage has dwindled. A collective resolution of the problem remains imperative, as lacking Dominican citizenship comes with serious adverse consequences, including being barred from formal sector employment, the electoral registry, some public schools (Alrabe et al. 2013),2 and the public health system (Corbacho, Brito, and Osorio Rivas 2013). Fear of deportation is ever present, which can force Dominicans of Haitian ancestry to pay bribes to police and other state authorities (Amnesty International 2015). The situation is grave and enduring. 2 Katherine Buckingham, Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic, interview with author, November 14, 2016, Austin, Texas, US. https://doi.org/10.1017/lar.2022.48 Published online by Cambridge University Press