huge disparity exists in the rights of the citizen and the stateless who lack government protection.25 The U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice E. Warren described that to be stateless is to lack “the right to have rights.” This description remains pertinent to this day.26 In understanding the disadvantages of statelessness, we need to confirm the legal function of nationality in the real world. For the sake of convenience, to set forth the function in a simplified manner, initially it springs to mind that within interstate relations, a state is entitled to extend diplomatic protection to persons having its nationality while obligated to receive/readmit persons having its nationality. 27 In domestic matters, nationals are given priority in most circumstances such as immigration, residency, right to vote, assuming public posts, social security, and property rights. In private international law, nationality is the connecting factor for applicable family and inheritance laws. Stateless persons are likely to be deprived of these benefits.28 Inhumane treatment of stateless persons, reflected in their description as “non-persons,” becomes most evident in the deportation context.29 International law allows the state to 25 Brouwer, supra note 15, p.2. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), p.102. In “Why Citizenship?” Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol.35 (1994-95), p.300, Stephen Legomsky, S., states “Every individual needs one sovereign state to play the role of guardian angel.” In Trop v. Dulles, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a petitioner who had been denied application for a U.S. passport. A U.S. citizen serving as a private in the U.S. Army escaped from the Army stockade during World War II, and his application for a passport was denied based on the 1940 Nationality Act. Justice Earl Warren stated that “Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. Denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment.” Later, the Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253, 1967) that “all U.S. citizens retain the constitutional right to remain a citizen … unless he voluntarily relinquishes his citizenship”. See Kerber, supra note 3, for more details. 27 In everyday life, we are more likely to be exposed to consular protection rather than diplomatic protection. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulates in Article 36(1) (a): “consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State.” Detailed provisions about communication and visiting rights of the consular officer follow. Consular protection is generally granted based on nationality. A recent ICJ ruling reconfirmed the importance of consular protection. It ruled that failure by the U.S. to give notification to two German nationals of their right to consular protection was a violation of international law, demanding the U.S. to review and reconsider the conviction and sentence. LaGrand Case [2001] ICJ Rep. 466. 28 The discussion in this paper has simplified the function of nationality. In reality, mainly by virtue of the influence of international human rights law, the function of nationality in protection, immigration and social security has been significantly reduced. See Okuda, supra note 3, pp.35-39. 29 See supra note 4 for “non-persons”. John Torpey describes “how states and the international state system stripped private entities of power to authorize and forbid movement and gathered that power unto themselves. This was not limited to international borders.” Torpey, J., The Invention of the Passport: 26 14