2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(2) second-class citizenship are invoked and become useful tools for conceptualising variations and hierarchies within citizenship regimes. 124 It raises the question of what inclusion in a state’s national community entails and requires that inclusion be considered as a concept beyond formal citizenship status. Rather, it exposes the need to consider ongoing processes of ethnicisation and the role of ostensibly universal citizenship regimes in ‘masking’ underlying differentiation along the lines of ethnicity. Ultimately, each participant’s narrative contains stories of oppression. To consider the status of Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, it becomes imperative to not only ask what is required in order to be considered a full citizen, but also to seek to understand why Kurds have been systematically subjected to oppression. Appadurai’s concept of predatory identities becomes a valuable conceptual tool for understanding how the majority groups of particular nation-states come to perceive themselves and the nation as being threatened by the existence of minority ethnic groups. 125 Participants’ narratives of cultural assimilation can thereafter be understood in light of the majority groups’ fear of the assertion of minority identities. As narratives attest, this process can squander any assertion of Kurdishness to the extent that individuals develop a need to discipline themselves and their children to act in accordance with the norms of the majority ethnic group. In focusing on the process of ethnicisation rather than on ethnicity as a bounded concept, it must be recognised that Kurdish ethnicity is complex and cannot be reduced to an externally bounded and internally homogenous entity. Relatedly, the ways in which Kurds conceptualise their exclusion and the grounds by which they advocate for their inclusion are largely reflective of the boundaries along which they have been excluded. Thus, the exclusion of Kurds within Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran is not inherent, but rather stems from the ongoing articulation of the national communities’ boundaries of exclusion along the lines of ethnicity. It is here valuable to return to thinking about Kurdistan as a stateless nation. Importantly, referring to Kurds’ status as a stateless people does not necessarily suggest that the establishment of a sovereign Kurdish state is the most desirable outcome for the group, as the breadth of opinions within the participants’ narratives suggests. However, it does require that Kurdistan’s historical context of being briefly considered, but never recognised, as a sovereign state is acknowledged when considering the notion of the state as an emancipatory actor. Furthermore, the analysis of Kurds in the Netherlands illustrates that differentiation and exclusion within citizenship regimes is ongoing beyond the historically Kurdish-populated Middle Eastern nation-states, albeit along different lines of exclusion. It thus becomes imperative to challenge the presumption of an ultimate desire to be included within pre-existing nation-states and instead demands that focus is placed on how Kurds envision their exclusion to be addressed and how they imagine inclusion. 124 Batchelor (n 23); Bosniak (n 28) 1305. 125 Appadurai (n 36). 306