96 Unwanted and ambivalent citizenship DAPL protests is that the individuals involved have both demonstrated loyalty to the country and demonstrated their rejection of certain of its actions. This shows that individuals can defend the integrity of a State militarily and see no inconsist ency (for there is no inconsistency) in also using force to oppose some of its actions. Indeed, their rejection arguably takes on symbolic significance because of their military service. In cases of voting and of military service, the potential ten sions in plural citizenships become apparent. And in these cases it also becomes clear that it is not only citizenship that is at play within these tensions. It is the interaction of citizenship and noncitizenship in the individuals’ relationships with the States in question in a context where noncitizenship is left unacknowledged. Nomadism New dimensions of this emerge when we consider nomadism, another way in which an individual may relate with multiple States. Settledness is, for the most part, implicit in traditional liberal democratic theoretical frameworks based around territorial States with mostly fixed populations. For this reason, the nomadic critique of liberal democratic theory is important to consider. There have long been difficulties in understanding the relationships of nomadic indi viduals with such States. On the one hand, there is the wider suspicion of people who move, whether between States or within States – and the relationship of this with the considerations of plural allegiances discussed above. On the other hand, there are the policies and structures that impose settledness, whether intention ally or unintentionally, and the implications of challenging them. The word ‘nomad’ refers here either to a member of a community which by tradition has more than one fixed place of residence, or to an individual who in fact has more than one or no fixed location of residence. The latter includes the temporary agricultural workers and the highly paid professionals who make use of globalised labour markets. For the purposes of this chapter, the two forms are similar. Both challenge standard citizenist understandings of how people organise their lives. In both cases this may include those who engage in patterns of circular movement, returning to certain fixed locations according to season, for example. It may also include those who move linearly, from place to place, without regular return.61 This movement can be within recognised States, or between them. And the individuals concerned may well be formal citizens in at least one of the States involved, but this might also not be the case. When move ment is between States, the challenges to the settled citizenist construction become particularly clear, but nomadic movement within a State also problem atises State structures that assume settled citizenship. 61 Judgement is withheld here on how long term the period of movement needs to be, or the periods of stays, to be considered nomadism. Instead, cases are considered where one of these types of nomadism is considered to pertain by some or all of those involved (e.g. the State, the individual movers, the local community) and examine ways in which this challenges settled liberal demo cratic citizenist assumptions.