A/HRC/37/51 national tributaries) traces its roots to national struggles for independence and selfdetermination. Despite declarations of universality, it has historically found traction in discourse that links rights with citizenship and belonging. While such rhetoric can build support for human rights, it does so at the cost of the rights of non-nationals and other people on the move who struggle to claim belonging. Furthermore, citizenship laws are, by their nature, frequently politicized and often drafted by dominant groups. As such, they are inherently problematic as a basis for denying the rights of non-dominant groups. 32. As many have noted, the idea of citizenship has become in practice a “vast and proliferating bureaucracy from which flow categories of people marginalized by, excluded or disqualified from citizenship and the rights which flow from this status”. 5 An unforgiving gap has developed between the ideal of deepening democracy through citizenship and the abjection of “illegal” populations from the rights and protections of citizenship through the enforcement of often brutal and inhumane immigration control. Paradoxically, at a time when citizenship is becoming a tool used to control and exploit people on the move, financial capital moves almost without restriction. Nonetheless, full citizenship remains the main goal of much activism by and for people on the move. This can inadvertently reinforce the correlation between citizens and non-citizens. Some defenders of people on the move, notably the sans papiers movement, follow a contrary strategy: engaging in claims for citizenship while also critically questioning citizenship as a system of governance and control. The struggles of defenders of people on the move cannot and should not be reduced to advocacy for citizenship, but understood separately as critiquing the ethical foundations of citizenship. VI. People on the move as human rights defenders 33. People on the move can themselves be human rights defenders. In some instances, their journeys result from threats and risks that arise from their activities as human rights defenders at home. In other cases, people already on the move become human rights defenders after having suffered or witnessed human rights violations. In either case, people on the move who are defenders face particular challenges as a result of their displacement and the restrictions and vulnerability that they endure as people on the move. A. Displacement due to violations of the rights of defenders 34. The violation of human rights, ranging from the active repression of political opponents to the more general denial of economic opportunities, is a frequent cause of migration. Like the members of society within which they operate, human rights defenders are subject to these violations, and in many cases they subsequently become people on the move in response to them. More bluntly, some defenders are forced to flee because of threats and violence. 35. As the Special Rapporteur noted in his previous report (A/HRC/31/55, civil society and State relocation initiatives have helped defenders to remove themselves from immediate danger and to have some time for rest and respite. In some cases, defenders find safety in another location within their own country; at other times, they have to seek refuge abroad. Relocation initiatives may take different forms: from emergency shelter in safe houses to temporary hosting arrangements with sympathetic civil society organizations, shelter city programmes, through to the provision of scholarships and fellowships at universities. In all such cases, human rights defenders become people on the move in order to find protection. Such initiatives need greater support and good practices should be identified and promoted, particularly with respect to the psychosocial well-being of defenders in such schemes and managing transition, return or more permanent exile. States, UNHCR and other actors should ensure that their actions and policies support, rather than undermine, such a bottom-up approach to protection by civil society itself. 5 10 Imogen Tyler, “Designed to fail: A biopolitics of British citizenship”, Citizenship Studies, vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 61-74.