This is paper is an argument analysis of citizenship and its allocation using an interpretation of Linda Bosniaks theory of Divided Citizenship. The starting point of this paper is the absence of a thorough or exhaustive legal definition of citizenship and legal binding and enforceable citizenship allocation laws within international migration law. Referring primarily to the absence of principals of social justice and global ethics within the legal framework. In total this leads to a multitude of different ethical problems. Therefore, there is a need for researching and evaluating alternative definitions and principles concerning citizenship and its allocation beyond the most common ones.The research material of this paper consists of chapters from two books Spheres of Justice by Michael Walzer and Scales of Justice by Nancy Fraser. The conclusion of this paper is that the combination of the “all subjected-principle” and “the membership-principle” are best suited to the demands that a wide definition of citizenship poses. Citizenship and its allocation are today less and less dependent on the state itself and can today easily be supplemented by other institutions depending on geographic and political needs, while still using democratic governance. Therefore, it is desirable to link the allocation of citizenship to the goal of establishing participatory parity. Deliberative democracy is the necessary foundation of all political organization. All other forms of citizenships and rights are necessary preconditions for people to be able to participate in the political process and protect all equal value of all people. The denial of citizenship is always the first in a long train of abuses.