10 Molly Land, Kathryn Libal, and Jillian Chambers Chapter 5 by Brad K. Blitz, “Protection through Revisionism? UNHCR, Statistical Reporting, and the Representation of Stateless People,” begins by identifying yet another gap in international protections for non-citizens – the way that stateless individuals are counted by the UNHCR. Blitz argues that international efforts to respond to the problem of statelessness have replicated and reinforced disparities by focusing on de jure statelessness. Blitz charts the history of how the UNHCR defined and collected information about stateless individuals, demonstrating that its internal decisions and methodologies adopted a narrow definition of statelessness that exhibited deference to the (often limited) way in which states counted “statelessness.” Blitz also critiques the results-based turn to standards and indicators as creating systemic incentives to underestimate statelessness. Blitz goes beyond identifying gaps, however, to generate recommendations for how the UNHCR might reform its approach, advocating a bottom-up approach that foregrounds the experiences of stateless individuals themselves. He argues forcefully that numbers matter, not only because of what they reflect about the world, but also because of their political authority. As he explains, “[w]ho is counted also tells us about governmental and institutional priorities and exposes biases about what counts, and how resources should be allocated.” According to Blitz, current approaches “reflect an increasingly top-down logic that ignores the lived experience of stateless people and undermines the provision of humanitarian protection to some who may need it.” Instead of a top-down managerialist approach to “success,” Blitz advocates focusing instead on how changes on the ground impact individuals and limit their ability to rely on citizenship to protect their rights. Definitions of statelessness and measures of success should foreground the lived experience of those who are stateless themselves. Chapter 6 offers a critical vision of restrictive internal and external immigration policies as part of a much larger system of global apartheid. In “Reflections on Anti-immigration Narratives and the Establishment of Global Apartheid,” Yajaira Ceciliano-Navarro, Tanya Golash-Boza, and Luis Rubén González Márquez examine the construction, organization, and maintenance of global apartheid ideology “around narratives that criminalize immigrants and immigration.” The authors underscore that restrictionist immigration policies in the Global North reflect a segregationist ideology that “adopts subtle mechanisms of control, removal, and exploitation of migrants worldwide,” which in turn preserves wealth for a small minority. Deterrent and punitive moves such as these result in the transformation of “freedom of movement” into a costly and dangerous process, where moving becomes a “privilege and not a right.” Examining the ways in which mechanisms of control, removal, and exploitation of immigrants is steeped in racist, segregationist logics allows us to see how these policies operate to allow wealthier countries to control the movement of non-White populations. The analogy offered by the authors to South African apartheid is helpful because it sheds light on how law (and the state) can codify and justify exclusionary https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914994 Published online by Cambridge University Press