14 P. ZISS stuckedness by limiting alternative mobility strategies that Syrians accessed as refugees such as resettlement and applying for asylum elsewhere. The case of Syrians with citizenship of Turkey shows that legal citizenship did not necessarily translate into rights in practice. Instead, rights were qualified and conditional on class and being read as Turkish in a context of high levels of racist discrimination. While some research on Syrians in Turkey has argued that higher-class Syrians are largely protected from racist discrimination (Şimşek 2021), my study argues that legal status overlaps with inequalities based on race and class in ambivalent and complex ways (see also Gonzales and Sigona 2018; Nimer and Rottman 2021). More broadly, I contribute to the critical literature on citizenship as a global regime of population and mobility control (Hindess 2000; Sharma 2020). I argue that the case of Syrians with citizenship of Turkey questions narratives of a clear and linear hierarchy between citizenship and other forms of status. Although citizenship in Turkey provided access to some equal economic and social rights in theory, the high degree of racist dis­ crimination as Syrians means that it was simultaneously experienced as a loss of economic and social opportunities associated with the otherwise highly precarious temporary protec­ tion status, including free healthcare and avoiding tax payments. Greater mobility across and within the borders of Turkey coincided with the closing down of irregular and huma­ nitarian mobility strategies in a context where Syrians felt that they could not stay in Turkey. This ambivalent effect on mobility was not only shaped by the relative value of Syrian and Turkish citizenship. It was also influenced by their respective position in the global citizenship regime: the Turkish passport provided relatively greater mobility rights but was not at the very top of the global citizenship hierarchy. As a result, Syrians experienced the rights and status associated with Turkish citizenship as simultaneously mobilizing and immobilizing in spatial, social and economic terms. Instead of assuming a clear and linear hierarchy between citizenship and other statuses, I argue to pay closer attention to the complex and nuanced decisions that migrants make when naturalizing, including difficult choices between deportability, on the one hand, and ambivalent restrictions of mobility and opportunities, on the other. Citizenship, in Turkey and elsewhere, should be seen as an ambivalent institution of both status and rights and of social and mobility control, or in the words of one interlocutor, a ‘knife with two sides’ that cuts both ways. In this context, I argue to conceive of naturalization as a technology of territorialization, understood as state practices that perform territorial sovereignty and reinforce the idea that persons should only have rights as citizens of nation-states (Malkki 1992; Sharma 2020; de Noronha 2022). Conceiving naturalization as territorialization, simultaneously mobilizing and immobilizing, can help contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the hierarchical relationship between different citizen­ ships, migrancy and irregularity. While Syrians and other migrants have little choice to nat­ uralize to escape the precarity of temporary status and avoid the violence of deportation, they also invite deeper questions as to whether the status of legal citizenship is the only means to achieving rights on equal terms. Note 1. Pragmatic and strategic considerations of citizenship and naturalisation are affectively and emotionally embedded, as migrants develop a sense of identity with and expectation of