The article concerns the issue of repatriation from an anthropological point of view. In the case of ordinary practices of the reproduction of the boundaries between different Kazakh groups of East Kazakhstan the author raises the question of authenticity («Kazakhhood») as an important element of the categorization process. «Boundaries» (relational boundaries) are understood as symbolic and everyday boundaries, and the question concerns social categorization of «native»-»foreign» whithin Kazakh society. In many ways this conception of «boundaries» is based on the ethnicity analysis by Fredrik Barth, who focused his attention on the process of reproduction of boundaries between different communities and on the procedures of inclusion of new members in the group. Cultural citizenship, being the other component of the analysis of the article, is a dual process of internal and external institutionalization within intramural authority network confined by the nation-state and civil society. The concept of «groupness» (introduced by Rogers Brubaker) is well suited for the analysis of the case of Shygys (settlement of repatriates in the East Kazakhstan region) when a conflict situation, much provoked by the authorities, forced repatriates from different cultural backgrounds to unite and oppose local society and the authorities. At the time of study the boundaries, in accordance with which division within the particular Kazakh community takes place a in practice and every day interaction, were as follows: Russian-Kazakh Russian-repatriates Local Kazakhs-repatriates Repatriates from Mongolia-repatriates from China Repatriates who arrived in the 1990s – who moved in the 2000s city Repatriates – village repatriates (Shygys) China repatriates from the Altai region – China repatriates from the area Tarbagatai. These boundaries are largely constructed by the state policy towards immigrants- by formalising the status of «oralman» which grants all preferences. Using «Kazakhhood» (the notion of «ethnic Kazakhs» which is largely understood in terms of essentialism) as a resource for creation of Kazakhs nation, without taking into consideration complex nature of grassroots categorizations, authorities provoke conflicts. And these, in turn, contribute to the emergence of new categories and identities (the case of groupness in Shygys). Significant dividing factors in the pairs above have been identified, they are language (the Russian language is crucial for theEast Kazakhstan, with the Kazakh language being meaningful as was shown in the case of the «Mongols» and «Chinese»), religious traditions, cultural and professional preferences, as well as the concept of «Kazakhhood» (authenticity). All these factors intertwist and are situational in nature.