established economic or political power, particularly Chinese immigrant communities and religiouslydefined groups (whether Muslim in a Buddhist-majority region or non-Muslim in a Muslim-majority region), are differentially included and sometimes excluded from citizenship altogether. For Chinese communities, it seems most likely that their non-inclusion is part of an attempt to weaken their influence in the economic sphere—this is especially clear in the bumiputera laws in Malaysia, but also holds up in Myanmar. Colonial ‘migrants’, often South Asian communities who worked as laborers, governors, or auxiliaries in colonial armies, were deeply involved in the power inequalities of the period, often with the effect of marginalizing the ‘indigenous communities’ in the region. The exclusion of colonial-period ‘migrant’ groups seems closely linked to compensation for historical political inequalities and oppressions. In both of these cases, the excluded groups are specifically targeted by legal clauses, seemingly with the goal of reparative justice. For borderzone groups, however, the motivations are more complex, and each case is unique. In all three states, numerous borderzone groups are included in the community of citizens, while only some are excluded. This differentiation makes some trends possible to ascertain. First, excluded borderzone groups tend to not fit the ‘national’ archetype of each contemporary state, especially in regard to religion. Second, excluded groups are often nomadic, semi-nomadic, or have a history of nomadism, while those included are more often sedentarized. Such groups present a greater threat to states, particularly when moving often and collectively across boundaries. Further, nomadic lifestyles are less ‘legible’ to the state and interact with territory differently, often lacking permanent residences and the documentation residency entails, entailing logistical challenges (Scott, 1998). Third, many excluded groups had been ‘state’-averse for centuries, even posing threats to the ‘state’ as bandits or pirates, and did not register at independence, later finding the window of opportunity closed while the state simultaneously encroached further into the non-state spaces they occupied (Sather, 1997; Cheah, 1988). Finally, excluded groups tend to live in the hardest to reach spaces of the nation-state, whether in wetland areas or high mountains, and as such they were left off of early censuses and could not register at a later date. Often, some combination of these factors exists; they cannot be viewed exclusively. In each case, individual studies are necessary to best understand the context. Greater questions remain about the intentionality of borderzone group exclusions vis-à-vis the first two groups, particularly given the logistical challenges mentioned. Nevertheless, each state is hesitant to confront the presence of such groups directly, aside from largely grouping them into the ‘immigrant’ category as well, often referencing members of such groups as ‘illegal’ or ‘irregular’ immigrants (Petcharamesree, 2015; Acciaioli et al., 2017). In this way, being considered a ‘migrant’—at any point in history—seems to be reason enough to be differentially included or excluded entirely from citizenship.     25