All Ears to the Ground These actions highlight the human costs associated with the ‘legal identities for all’ agenda. As such, they challenge the international development sector to: find ways to identify situations in which registration, census making and other processes cause harm and adapt approaches accordingly; rethink the role of identification and enumeration as foundational to the delivery of welfare and development; and focus not on national statistics for counting and identifying stateless people, but rather focus on how to effectively deliver development and humanitarian support to people who are safer when they remain uncounted or unidentified by the states in which they live. The second mode of resistance considered how groups collect and exhibit historic documents to draw attention to state practices of document stripping and identity erasure. This practice highlights the significance of group identity and group persecution in exclusionary citizenship regimes. As such, it challenges the anti-statelessness sector to look beyond initiatives that seek to increase individual access to civil registration and documentation, and consider how to integrate anti-statelessness initiatives with those of other sectors working on group persecution, including international criminal law initiatives and conflictsensitivity and peace-building initiatives. It also challenges those working with identification registration technologies to consider ways to ensure that digitisation can give humans more control over their data and identities vis-à-vis states. The third mode of resistance focused on community-centred knowledge production to counter state discourses that diminish or erase their histories and identities. This challenges the anti-statelessness sector to centre the knowledge and analysis of people affected by statelessness at the same time as decolonising its own knowledge production practices and approaches to international policy. It asks the sector to fund and amplify local research initiatives and arts platforms, whilst at the same time taking steps to reduce the dominance of their own expertise. This challenge remains despite the existing efforts within the sector to level the playing field and to actively create spaces for people affected by statelessness. The fourth mode of resistance focused on countering statelessness through self-registration. This action exposes the problems and gaps associated with state legitimacy being tied so closely to documentation and legal identities. It challenges scholars and policy actors to reach beyond the methodological nationalism inherent in our work. It asks the sector to find ways to look beyond the state in supporting local forms of registration and identity recognition, as well as promoting international recognition of a broader range of documents including reciprocity of recognition of those issued by autonomous administrations and non-recognised states. It asks other states receiving refugees and migrants to reduce the burdens of documentation, and to build escape lanes for the stateless off the super-highway of the ‘legal identities for all’ agenda. The fifth mode of resistance underlines how not all forms of citizenship violence can be addressed through campaigns to end statelessness. Statelessness is one outcome of citizenship violence; there are many others, including the weaponisation of citizenship regimes and ID systems. Understanding responses on the ground as strategic compliance or subversion points to the urgent need to address citizenship violence in more holistic ways, by analysing the vast battlefields of citizenship violence that stretch far beyond statelessness. All these challenges are, of course, not easily addressed. Not least because they sit within a much broader set of unequal power relations between states, humans and 29