stating that any child of foreign migrants could only be registered if his or her parents were in regular migratory status at time of birth. Further, the judge instructed registrars that the testimonies of unauthorized migrants could not be accepted in registering births in Brazil. The judge also ruled that giving false testimony over a birth was a federal crime punishable by 1–5 years in prison, and that any witnesses who aided in the commission of such crime would also incur the same criminal liability.141 Although the judge’s order was unconstitutional, at least one local notary and his employees have followed it in practice under the belief it was a correct interpretation. Pastoral do Migrante, a local NGO that works with immigrant communities, confirmed that the policy exists and remains in place, and that some immigrants remain subject to the policy.142 Some local officials justified the existence of such a policy in interviews carried out by a local researcher in August 2015, stating it was a necessary tool to address unauthorized migration and to avoid giving undocumented people access to social security benefits, (although they are legally entitled to them).143 The case of Guajará-Mirim may be viewed as a local problem, and it is not clear if this problem exists in other municipalities. However, this case suggests that similar practices could occur, particularly in remote regions. It reveals that judges exert a considerable degree of discretion on these matters and that an administrative order within the judge’s judicial power can have far reaching effects and be difficult to challenge. The situation in Guajará-Mirim shows how Brazil’s decentralized system of providing identity documents, combined with discretion granted to local actors, can make it difficult to obtain nationality as a practical matter, especially for indigenous peoples and others living in remote areas. BORN IN THE AMERICAS 47