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.