> Isn’t pretty much everybody where they are today because of mass migration of their ancestors?

That's a preposterous argument. You're basically saying it's okay for host countries and culture to be wiped off the face of the planet for the sake of unrestricted migration. Why on earth would anyone want that to that happen to their country?

It's one thing to migrate en masse into unoccupied land. It is a different matter to migrate en masse into an existing society. Whenever the latter has happened, it has led to the destruction of the host society.

> My government doesn’t tell me where I can travel.

This has nothing to do with travel. Citizenship isn't the privilege of traveling. It is a legally enshrined commitment made to some society. The idea of global citizenship is simply vacuous. Hence my question above. it's it's about being able to flit about the world as your please, then it's an abuse of the term because that's not citizenship.

Scotland has been in a Union with England for 300 years, with a great deal of migration and no barriers between the nations. Has Scottish culture been "wiped off the face of the planet" in that time? No.