8 Molly Land, Kathryn Libal, and Jillian Chambers included in Part I, which examines the failure of rights to be recognized or secured by governments and international organizations. Chapter 2 by Kristy A. Belton and Jamie Chai Yun Liew examines the limitations of the global–national governance nexus for non-citizens, focusing on how states increasingly are “unmaking citizens.” The authors argue that a patchwork of national laws governing who can be a citizen – including variations of citizenship acquired at birth or through naturalization – renders citizenship “an inadequate foundation upon which to base human rights.” Legal barriers to citizenship have been created and fortified that exclude individuals because they are indigenous, female, or members of an ethnic minority, while other laws deprive individuals of citizenship based on criminal behavior or national security interests. Thus, citizenship – already an arbitrary concept that is often rendered ineffective by political or bureaucratic forces – is today even more precarious as a foundation for rights, as governments are increasingly depriving citizens of their claims to formal belonging on the grounds of national security or the war on terror. The chapter highlights that “citizenship is not necessarily a neutral and stable status upon which to base rights, freedoms, and protections” because the law that grounds citizenship is not itself neutral. Modern citizenship law is based on international political practice that favors state sovereignty. Thus, although treaties and conventions would come to recognize the significance of citizenship through the human right of nationality, “no international organization exists, whether as creator, arbiter, or enforcer, of citizenship laws for any state.” Belton and Liew write persuasively that “[p]erhaps citizenship was never meant to be more than an international ordering principle of people(s) and we have tied notions of human rights, equality, and justice to a concept that was never built to hold them.” Chapter 3 by Jacqueline Bhabha, “Zero Humanity: The Reality of Current US Immigration Policy toward Central American Refugee Children and Their Families,” illustrates the way in which even basic obligations owed to refugees within a state’s territory are currently being eroded. Bhabha examines the Trump administration’s policy of family separation to illustrate the impacts of anchoring rights on citizenship, and she calls for international action to remedy the deficiencies of national practice. Bhabha details the intensification of policies of deterrence since 2016 to block or prevent “humanitarian migrant children and families” entry into the United States, force them to leave the United States while awaiting asylum adjudication, or leave them to languish for long periods in harsh detention conditions. She argues that these policies are not only inhumane and in violation of binding domestic and international legal obligations, but also “futile.” She underscores that the so-called zero tolerance policies, which have an explicit intent to “deter” asylum seekers, including children, from entering the United States, are in fact “zero humanity” policies. One way the United States is able to perpetuate its “zero humanity” policies, Bhabha explains, is by its failure to ratify international treaties that would impose https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914994 Published online by Cambridge University Press