Do you think that Iranian living abroad (immigrants) should have the same rights as those living in Iran?
Perhaps, one of the most controversial issues vastly raised in international human rights atmosphere is undoubted asylums rights. This subject has been discussed from different dimensions intractably. It is clearly decided to turn attention to what extent the governments are allowed to prevent the immigrants from their benefits of the original citizenship rights. A profoundly glanced view at TV shows, programs, news, podcasts and footages approves how spread it is through the world to attract public concern, especially regarding the rights of women, children and people who are prone to serious mental and physical damages. Both Immigrants and asylums have immigrated permanently due largely their escape from fighting or political trouble in their own countries. Therefore, such a change of their situation is likely to live better or more conveniently as well. Probably, the were not also able to articulate their opinions explicitly. Irrespective of their reasons to decide about their own and families’ destinations, they accede to live in another country alternatively. Two main attitudes come so as to justify concerning the kind of tackling them for categorizing it into non-touching rights and the restricted applications original nights. The latter one is acceded nowadays more regionally and internationally. Some lawyers and policy makers believe that the acceptance of the latter notion is more likely to meet the profits of aristocracy. This kind of such an attitude is extremely arid. Hence, the states and officials are not authorized legally and in terms of the archetype of naturally rights to dictate some artful policies and approaches limiting people’s night’s due to their decisions on new chosen place of the life. They excuse the people’s decision to immigrate just focusing on their attribution in relation with applying their government’s duties. It is not fully acceptable legal or logical evidence to be prevented from some or all of their rights. Meanwhile, the people living in Iran or overseas are apt to enjoy all the rights given them naturally by their citizenship status. On the other hand, some scholars and legal officials attempt to restructure and reshape their kind of governmental conducts in order not to limit the citizens’ nights influenced by their immigration positions. While they are in perfect accord with making a serious and clear difference between people immigrating to another country and those who live within their societies. It is crystal clear, if not, the public apathy will be on the rise. Whereas there is reason to abdicate their rights, giving unlimited freedom and rights is not a formidable approach. They, meanwhile, accord with applying some restrictions in their access and benefits of national rights. They are not absolutely authorized to live as a citizen with the past perfect rights in favor of their decisions consequences. The matter is not concerning reward or punishment. It is just a legal consequence. Some reasons including security, safety, national benefits, political points and economic policies are here to apply some constraints for double citizens. The regulations linking to assets lease or purchase agreements in their previous territory’s like Iran apply conditionally. Working in some official positions is sensitively in condition of their citizenship. Having edited above points, it is an academically expanded approach to either limit some rights or suspend them in result of immigrating to another country. Nonetheless, it is not allowed to constrain unconditionally. It depends on their situation and cases by case, it is a must to be applied differently. It is sheer truth that the principal rights of the citizens are not to be abolished, due to the existence of their originally natural rights given to human by their creation.