The legal status and living conditions of migrants in host countries reflect
contemporary forms of inequality arising from the uneven distribution of
wealth and power among states. Over the past decades, the transnational social
impacts of global movements of people have raised concerns about the
appropriateness of the premise of self-contained nation-states, which have led
some authors and social actors to reevaluate the notion of nation-based
citizenship and to consider alternative conceptions that fit better to the
changing complexities of international migration. In 2008, a constitutional
amendment in Ecuador introduced the concept of universal citizenship, granting
citizens’ rights independently of national affiliation. This provides a
valuable case study for the exploration of the real implications of a de-
nationalized citizenship when adopted under the current international
framework, and particularly for understanding the way normative orders and
migration policies in transnational social spaces are interconnected. This
article examines the way in which the rights of both emigrants and immigrants
are included in the Ecuadorian Constitution and analyzes three cases that
reflect the kind of interdependent limitations and constraints that Ecuador
faces for its migration policy choices and constitutional rules on universal
citizenship, including its unintended consequences
