- Question
Should people be able to choose what country to live in?
What if freedom of movement worked on a global scale? While it is technically possible to become a resident of almost anywhere you choose, some nations impose pretty stringent citizenship requirements- and often that residence is conditional. The question intersects with issues of immigration, cultural history and identity.
Yes, unconditionally- choice of citizenship should be a universal right
This position holds that everyone should have an unconditional right to choose where they live. It argues freedom of movement is already an essential right within nations and should apply globally, that state citizenship is arbitrary and outdated, and borders unjust.
Yes, conditionally- people have the right to choose where they live based on heritage or culture
Passports cannot be handed out indiscriminately, but those with a blood or ancestral connection to a country should not have their right to citizenship obstructed. Jus Sanguinis, or citizenship of descent, is commonplace is many countries, but rarely goes far enough- it should be extended to the capability of nations such as Ireland or Italy.
No, the choice of assigning citizenship should be down to the state
A nation’s identity is always in the balance. This can be easily tipped by unregulated movement. Abandoning border control and allowing a free-for-all of state residence would be a disaster wherever it was implemented. It is not a human right and should be at the state’s discretion.