from reasons of “public order” and “public safety” to “national security.” In this highly securitized post-9/11 environment, these allegedly non-arbitrary reasons have taken on an amorphous shape such that a variety of citizen “actions” or “activities” are made to fall under these grounds. Several of the case studies addressed in this Symposium serve as cases in point. In her article, “Stateless in the Dominican Republic: A New Turn in AntiHaitianism,” Bridget Wooding explains how a 2013 constitutional court ruling in the Dominican Republic resulted in the creation of a permanent underclass who could be exploited for the Dominican State’s economic gain. Her article demonstrates how the creation of stateless persons can generate humanitarian problems across borders, and also shows the ways in which human migration can be intimately tied to statelessness. As her article demonstrates, however, the root of statelessness in the Dominican Republic is racism or its Dominican equivalent of “anti-Haitianism.” Rendering people stateless because of perceived ethnic differences also lies at the heart of the case study that Zeineb Alsabeehg discusses in her article, “From citizen to stateless – the lost rights: Examples from Bahrain.” Alsabeehg’s article adds another layer to the citizenship deprivation tool wielded by States, as it shows that even those who are “natural born” (that is, they are not naturalized citizens) can have their citizenship revoked if the State deems that they are a national security threat and/or have committed an act of treason. Her piece illustrates how the use of denationalization is not simply a tool of authoritarian governments during the World Wars’ era, but remains a tactical tool in the present as well. While Alsabeehg’s piece demonstrates the impact of statelessness upon a person’s (and his/her family’s) ability to enjoy other human rights, it serves as a reminder that what the States give (citizenship), they can also take away. Moving from the Caribbean and the Gulf States, Julija Sardelić’s article invites us to explore the case of Europe when it comes to statelessness. Her work reveals that statelessness is not a “one size fits all” condition as it is possible to enjoy some rights, even as a stateless person. In “Complex Realities of Minority Statelessness in Europe and Beyond,” Sardelić shows how stateless Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic States of Estonia and Latvia enjoy basic rights and a certain level of protection, but other minorities, such as the Roma, are less likely to enjoy such rights and protections in their respective European-country residences. Her piece thus demonstrates how individuals can still live and be treated “as if” they were stateless, even when they do not necessarily fall under the international legal definition of a stateless person. Regardless of whether an individual is “de facto” (“as if” or “in practice”) stateless or whether she or he is “de jure” stateless (recognized as such under international law), a stateless person is always vulnerable to having any and all rights and protections negated. In many countries, the stateless can be denied marriage and birth certificates. They can be easily trafficked or indefinitely detained. They can be relegated to specific http://community.apsanet.org/migrationcitizenship/home 9