and significant geopolitical piece of the rapprochement reached by the French and British at the turn of the 20th century, leaving it as the only uncolonized territory in Southeast Asia (Christie, 1996; Owen, 2014). The European powers drew hard borders for the first time, in places where there had previously been fluidity. This mapping “gave birth to Siam” (Thongchai, 1994) and to the other countries of Southeast Asia, making the territory ‘legible’ for administrative, military and economic operations, while crystallizing divisions and boundaries (Scott, 1998). These borders have largely remained unaltered to this day, despite numerous secessionist movements. Most highland groups were left at the margins, straddling the new borders—this had repercussions on their inclusion in the later emerging nation-states (Scott, 2009). Colonial administration practices varied widely and had enormous impacts on the citizenship laws drafted after decolonization. Colonial migration practices also played a huge role in later formulations of citizenship law, particularly in the case of the British colonies. Migration patterns, for the purposes of labor or governance, largely occurred within the British colonial universe—of the 28 million Indian emigrants up to 1940, 27 million of them went to Ceylon (contemporary Sri Lanka), Burma, or Malaya (Amrith, 2011). This type of mass movement between colonies was rather unique to the British. It was also manipulated intentionally and strategically. This manipulation is documented in British colonial officer John Furnivall’s 1948 piece Colonial Policy and Practice, which describes how the British divided labour racially by importing a labour force and controlling the mobilities in society through raciallydefined professional and status boundaries (Furnivall, 1948). This ‘divide and rule’ technique, termed the “imperial labour reallocation strategy” by Madhavi Kale, generated significant hostility towards the immigrant populations, though their movements were often forced and involuntary (Kale, 1998). British Burma provides an excellent example. Upon capturing the territory, the British regime brought in workers from other distant parts of British India to fill administrative posts, act as police officers and soldiers, and, though mass immigration policies, create a new export labour economy (Christie, 1996). These strategies were considered ‘vital’ to British control and development (Clarke et al., 1990). However, the mass influx of a new, asymmetrically powerful population led to significant tensions. Indian soldiers conscripted into the British military, known as ‘colonial auxiliaries’, particularly caused outrage, as they were often employed to violently quell unrest among local populations. These practices had lasting repercussions. Despite lingering tensions at the end of the colonial period, many members of these ‘colonialera immigrant’ populations stayed, as families were often generations removed from their pre-colonial spaces of existence. The effects of this can be seen in the contemporary Indian populations of Myanmar (5% of the overall population), Malaysia (7%), and Singapore (8%), many the descendants of colonial     12