deportation may be afraid to access health services or birth registries, risking the statelessness of their children. Meanwhile, families who have fled a country may fear approaching the consulate of their country of origin to access citizenship for their children. Stateless persons are also the group perhaps most likely to go uncounted. Even when they do not move, they are often absent from census data and development measures, and when they move, there may be no record of them. This can make it difficult to know their needs and to hear their views. Stateless persons are largely unrepresented in national, regional or global processes. They are uncounted and disenfranchised, their very existence may even be denied. With no State to advocate on their behalf, it is crucial that the protection and empowerment of stateless persons insofar as this is related to migration (even where this is not immediately obvious), is part of the implementation of the GCM. This must include special efforts to reach out to stateless persons and their advocates to query potential impacts on stateless persons of all aspects of the GCM. Because there are a lot of different contexts of statelessness, it is crucial that responding to statelessness takes into account this complexity. This is why, for example, the 1954 Statelessness Convention recognises the need for a State to offer citizenship to people born on its territory if they would otherwise be stateless and at the same time for a State to offer citizenship to people born to its citizens overseas if those people would otherwise be stateless. But ending statelessness cannot be the only policy approach. When considering migration governance, it is crucial also to protect the rights of stateless persons. This includes ensuring that they are not subject to policies intended for migration control even when they have never moved. Statelessness in the Compact Statelessness has long been largely absent from considerations relating to global migration governance. This also reflects a broader absence of statelessness from global policy frameworks and relative ignorance of statelessness among global actors.vii A fact which is understandable, given the obscurity imposed by the situation of statelessness for example. Yet statelessness is addressed in the New York Declaration and in the drafts of both the global compacts. The annexed Table 1 shows the different ways this is done and how it has changed through the drafting process. Following the consultation period, the content of the zero draft of the GCM, while imperfect, was stronger and more rights-focused than many observers anticipated. It formalised the consideration of statelessness in the context of global migration governance. It also offered concrete ways to improve conditions for stateless persons and those at risk of statelessness, and to avoid risk of statelessness. The final draft of the GCM differs in key ways. First, there are some things to be celebrated. For example, it still recognises the need to consider statelessness in global migration governance. The document also includes recognition of the obligation under international law to eliminate gender discrimination in nationality laws. It will be important to build upon this, as well as the material set out in the zero draft, during the implementation phase. However, there is also reason for serious concern with the final draft of the GCM. As can be seen in the annexed Table 1, it retracts in almost every dimension from commitments in the zero draft both to protect the rights of stateless persons and to avoid the risk of statelessness. This is particularly concerning because strong State commitments in these areas are already set out in existing treaties, some of which are almost unanimously ratified. For example, the final draft does not acknowledge the international law commitment for States to offer citizenship to those children born in their territories who would otherwise be stateless. The position of international law relating to statelessness with respect to key aspects of the GCM is presented in detail (though non-exhaustively) in the annexed Table 2. Understanding the final document in the context of this trajectory and its non-binding nature has implications for advocacy efforts. For example, while municipal registration cards have remained in the GCM, their nature 3 of 8