The quote “a person without a city is either a beast or god,” attributed to Aristotle, defines the social life of refugees. In the modern nation-state system, where our political geography and epistemology are territorially trapped, we impose upon ourselves limits to see and make policies for those who are not having citizenship. Regarding refugees, the language we use becomes humanitarian or moral, if not political. But a robust political interpretation is necessary to understand and critically examine who refugees are and how they are created. Even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines human rights as a given to those who are born as human, those who are stripped of their rights indicate the fault lines in that definition. Refugees are indeed among the examples of people who lost their rights because they were forced to leave the territory where they were citizens. Therefore, rather than merely being a human, what defines life with rights and dignity becomes citizenship which is defined by the sovereignty of the territorial state. In other words, it can be argued that in order to earn the status of a human being, one should belong to a group of people who are called citizens. And refugees can be easily made anything other than human beings in the interest of the nation or the sovereign state to which the people run for their lives. India’s 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act, which defines who can earn citizenship, provides adequate evidence for this argument. Even though the act went against the constitutional mandate (Article 14) and the basic components of the preamble that citizenship should not be awarded on the basis of religion, the government introduced the act and even criticised the previous governments for their failure to implement the same. The act includes people from six religions, such as Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Jain and Sikh from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan to access an accelerated pathway for citizenship, and the very same law does not cover Madhesis in Nepal, Rohingyas in Myanmar, Tamils in Sri Lanka, and Hui and Uyghurs in China, who have been facing persecution. What is evident from this is that for a person or a group of persons to get the status of a refugee, citizenship, asylum seeker or migrant, the final verdict should come from the nation-state or those at the helm of power.