that having to re-apply for naturalized citizenship inherently undermines their claims to belonging in the nation-state. Finally, a concluding section raises further questions emerging from the study, bringing other bodies of thought into the frame and calling for additional research. Methodological Limitations The ways citizenship is experienced in reality differs from what is written in text, as documented widely in work on cultural citizenship (Rosaldo, 1994; Rosaldo, 2003; Ong, 1996), graduated citizenship (Ong, 2006), differentiated citizenship (Young, 1989; Young, 1999; Smith, 2011) and blurred citizenship (Sadiq, 2009), for example. Given this paper’s primary focus on legal texts, it will not explore these concepts greatly beyond anecdotal references. It will, however, show how many of these forms of citizenship are produced by legal texts themselves, in combination with outside factors. Kamal Sadiq’s (2009) work is particularly worth mentioning so far as methodological limitations go, as he describes how ‘illegal’ immigrants are able to acquire citizenship through forged documents in Pakistan, India and Malaysia. In some cases, the initial forged documents provide access to further, legal documents, allowing citizenship to be accessed through informal channels by people ‘illegally’ resident. As such, oftentimes the ‘illegal’ immigrants will end up with greater access to citizenship and its rights and services than members of communities within the states, assisting the propagation of narratives of stateless persons as ‘illegal immigrants,’ which is fairly common discourse in the region (Allerton, 2017; Acciaioli et al., 2017; Allerton, 2018; Petcharamesree, 2015). Sadiq does not discuss the use of these methods by stateless residents, but they may also access citizenship in this way. Second, while most citizenship laws have official translations, a few have only ‘unofficial’ translations, which could lead to some specific words being mischaracterized. In such cases, I have been careful to compare multiple translations wherever possible. For numerous specific critical words, I reproduce the word in the local language while outlining different ways it is translated and the various meanings it entails. Third, the paper is limited to a specific geographic region, and is not necessarily generalizable to other situations worldwide or even within Southeast Asia, which has an enormous diversity of governance structures and citizenship laws. Given the scope and brevity of the paper, some comments and histories will be generalized—outliers exist. On the other hand, the specificity of the cases reveals some critical aspects of statelessness more broadly: that it is actively produced, rather than emerging as an ‘unintended side effect’; that it is particularly prevalent among communities perceived to be ‘non-     7