Talk:Ecuadorian nationality law

Human migration category

As requested by User:SusunW, I have left this article in the Human migration category for now. I have started a debate at Category_talk:Human migration as to whether nationality law articles should be individually included in the Human migration category. I believe the key is to have consistency. Either all 130 nationality law articles should be included or none. Regarding my other edits to this page, if there are any problems with them, I would be interested to know by discussion on this page. Nationality law afficionado (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nationality law afficionado I reverted your changes previously because citizenship is not the scope of this article. Nationality law defines who is a member of a sovereign state, regardless of that state's governance type. I understand that the common British practice to use nationality and citizenship as synonyms has had world-wide impact, but from a legal standpoint it is incorrect to equate the two. Laurie Fransman, the leading British expert on nationality law, says, "Citizenship is concerned with the individual within the state; in the case of nationality, it is more concerned with the individual and the state in their international context".(Fransman's British Nationality Law, 2011, p. 4) and continues "In the UK rights, duties, and opportunities of citizenship do not flow exclusively from the possession of nationality".(Fransman, 2011, p. 5) Allan Rosas, a leading Finnish jurist says "Nationality is a concept primarily of international law for inter-state purposes (e.g., diplomatic protection), while citizenship is a conglomerate of special political and other rights granted primarily under domestic law and for domestic purposes".(Rosas, 1994, p 34) I do not want to have to revert your changes again as you reinstated them, and would appreciate you reverting them. If you want to write an article about citizenship in Ecuador, that will require sources on domestic law. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Ecuador has two laws: one concerning nationality and one concerning citizenship? If so, can you point me to the two laws? As far as I'm aware, there is only law about "nacionalidad ecuatoriana". Nationality law afficionado (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

After further thought, I think the request you are making is unreasonable. There are over 130 Wikipedia articles on nationality law. Every such nationality law article that I have looked at includes information about citizenship. In most of the countries, there is no significant distinction between citizenship and nationality. It is reasonable for the Wikipedia nationality law articles to include important legal information on both nationality and citizenship, as relevant to any given country. There are 0 Wikipedia articles on citizenship law. I don't want to start creating 130 separate Wikipedia articles on citizenship. Nationality law afficionado (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nationality law afficionado Sorry but I didn't know that you had responded, as you did not ping me and I have been busy on other articles. In answer to your first question, there are multiple laws which define both nationality and citizenship in every country. There is no law titled "nacionalidad ecuatoriana", as the legal framework is found in the constitution, naturalization, and migration statutes as well as international agreements. Likewise statues governing citizenship are found in local, provincial, state, and national legislation, as well as the constitution. While you may not believe that there is a difference between nationality and citizenship, legal experts do, as noted above. I would concur that migration information should be incorporated in nationality articles, i.e. establishing permanent residency, visas etc., because they have to do with international law and accommodating foreigners. But citizenship is about rights, privileges, and obligations under domestic law and is a completely different topic, again, not my opinion, as determined by experts. Bottom line is I am not going to argue with you about it and I'm not going to police your edits. I would appreciate the same courtesy. Unless there has been change to a law, something was worded poorly, or material was incorrect, removing cited information verified in secondary sources because it doesn't suit your point of view is not typically how wikipedia works. I need to get back to work, but if you want to continue conversation please take it to my talk page or ping me. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)