The case studied in this paper was selected because of the enormously high rate of statelessness in Myanmar. Such a focus has obscured the fact that most countries in the region have effectively no statelessness, or at least much lower rates. There seem to be clear reasons why. In Singapore (Article 121 (1965a)), Lao PDR (Article 11 (1990)), Indonesia (Article 4 (2006)), and Vietnam (Article 14 (2008)), for example, citizenship is attained by birth, regardless of their parent’s status: these jus soli principles put an end to hereditary statelessness. Similar laws could make an enormous difference in Myanmar, as well as in Malaysia and Thailand. In Indonesia, where President Suharto famously claimed that all Indonesians are “equally indigenous” (Murray Li, 2000), certain clauses specifically protect against statelessness, wherein, for example, citizenship can only be lost so long as “the incumbent does not become stateless because of such negligence” (2006: Article 23 (L.)). For most of the history of statelessness theory, statelessness itself was considered to be an exception to the rule, a product of simple failed oversight (Bloom et al., 2017). This study has shown why this understanding is unacceptable and untrue. Statelessness is not inevitable nor accidental. Rather, the opposite is true. Statelessness is actively produced as a method of excluding particular groups from access to rights and resources. This clear demonstration then must be taken one step further: because statelessness is actively produced by states, it cannot be ‘solved’ apolitically—the mere existence of stateless groups and individuals demands political action. Until politics are brought back into the discussions on ending statelessness, all efforts will merely be window dressing.                                                                                                                         1 The information throughout this section comes from Brinham (2018), who has changed Nural’s name for security purposes. 2 I use this term rather than ‘borderland’ to avoid a terrestrial bias, as many groups live along aquatic boundaries. 3 In the 1948 Act, ‘racial group’ was used instead of ‘ethnic group’, and the Rakhine region was referred to as the Arakanese region (Union of Burma, 1948). All else is verbatim.     26