I'm on my phone and can't check right now but I'm fairly confident there is global consensus (Geneva convention? or UN or similar) on when/how citizenship is a human right and that there is no such consensus on immigration being a right (modulo refugees), so no, these are not comparable.

Looking around I only found this, which seems to go more in the “open citizenship to everyone” direction:

https://worldinterfaithharmonyweek.com/equal-citizenship-rig...

Or this kind of thinkpiece going basically in the same direction.

https://forestshakespeare.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/citizensh...

I’d be really interested if you could point me to what you were refering to.

I'm not sure what you searched for but you shouldn't need obscure sources like that for this... a bit of quick searching re: citizenship rights found [1] for me from the UN. Whereas for migration there's [2] which makes it clear there is no universal agreement on migration rights. [3] seems to make it even more clear that it's up to countries to decide migration policy. I'm sure more can be found via some more searching.

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/Nationality.aspx

> The right to a nationality is a fundamental human right.

> States shall introduce safeguards to prevent statelessness by granting their nationality to persons who would otherwise be stateless and are either born in their territory or are born abroad to one of their nationals.

> States shall also prevent statelessness upon loss or deprivation of nationality.

[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/migration/pages/migrationand...

> It is increasingly clear that a lack of human rights-based migration governance at the global, regional and national levels is leading to the routine violation of migrants’ rights in transit, at international borders, and in the countries they migrate to.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Compact_for_Migration

> The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. [...]

Thanks, this was in a very good read. I didn’t look it ip from the right angle I think.

It is very interesting that it’s a right to have _a_ nationality, with nothing more really.

It makes sense for all the issues described in the doc , and it also anchors the notion that except some specific cases that can trigger violations of human rights, a state basically does what it wants regarding who get nationality and who doesn’t, or how it deals with migration.

It reminds me a lot about rules in EU countries forbiding from evicting people from their home during the winter, or more broadly rules requiring to provide help to someone in situation of danger.

It seems a pretty bad mischaracterization of what I posted above to say "except some specific cases that can trigger violations of human rights, a state basically does what it wants regarding who get nationality". It's the exact opposite. The whole point was that in general states cannot strip away your nationality except for the specific minority of people who have another one.