Frost Comparative Migration Studies (2024) 12:23 manifest in Jordan’s identity as an Arab state, accepting of fellow Arabs fleeing conflict, versus Israeli efforts to send more Palestinians to Jordan, thereby demanding that Jordan adopt an exclusionary response, at least publicly, to stem the further displacement of Palestinians from their homes. Unfortunately, the latter tension remains painfully relevant in 2024 as Jordan refuses to accept more refugees from Gaza, despite the catastrophic humanitarian situation there, because Israeli precedent suggests they will not be allowed to return. In addition to the causes, the implications of intentional ambiguity are also important. When individuals do not know what their rights are, it is difficult to defend them. Likewise, hidden intentional ambiguity can transfer exceptional power to line ministers, producing unstable policies that street-level bureaucrats and other executive leaders have trouble tracking. In other work, I examine the effects of intentional ambiguity on those the policy governs as well as on policymakers and enforcers.48 Although this paper focused on Jordanian cases, intentional ambiguity could occur in other “developing” refugee host states. Secondary sources suggest that it is common for these states to say one thing and do another in their refugee policies. For example, other host states, including Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, and Kenya, have offered refugee groups access to nationality in law, while simultaneously denying them or diminishing this access in implementation (Dick, 2002; Hovil & Lomo, 2015). On the other hand, other states, including India, Thailand, Sudan, and Côte d’Ivoire, have prohibited refugee groups from accessing nationality and citizen rights in law, while granting these refugee groups rights in implementation that are the same or similar to citizen rights, including access to certain work sectors, education, and healthcare (Fielden, 2008; Kuhlman, 2002; Lui, 2007). Future research would benefit from assessing whether these law-regulation gaps are cases of intentional ambiguity. In addition, intentional ambiguity may characterize some migration policies in the global north. For example, accounts of family separations on the southern U.S. border highlight similarities between these policies and intentional ambiguity. Specifically, the Trump administration repeatedly denied that a family separation policy existed (Cordero, 2018), even as government insiders told journalists that it did exist and provided details about the ways Border Patrol agents implemented it (Jordan & Dickerson, 2019). This discrepancy points to a parsing apart of law and regulations in U.S. migration policies (Calavita, 2016, 118–120). Future research would benefit from exploring these apparent similarities and the conditions under which intentional ambiguity could emerge in democratic regimes. Lastly, intentional ambiguity may characterize law-regulation gaps in other policy areas. For example, interviewees in Jordan pointed out similar dynamics in the government’s handling of women’s rights reforms, where policy changes took place in law but not in implementation. Economic reforms as part of International Monetary Fund restructuring packages represent another area where policies seem to change more in law than implementation. However, the extension of intentional ambiguity beyond 48 Author in progress co-authored manuscript, with Steven D. Schaaf, titled "Citizenship in the Shadow of Law: Identifying the Origins, Effects, and Operation of Legal Ambiguity in Jordan." Page 15 of 18