@Nokomisstate your questions set me thinking, so I thought I should respond. I am afraid, my thoughts ran to some length.

I trust I am not too far from where I should be.

Your tweet "I planned to take it down the road of companionship & separate sovereign communities 1. Animals in the wild 2. Animals as denizens/migrants/liminal 3. Full citizen-domesticated need animals-classic animal rights theory in Zoopolis."

1. Animals in the wild should obviously have rights, they are no less part of this world than anyone else.

2.Those rights would obviously travel with them, so the second question is, for me, not necessary. Because non humans tend to travel as part of their annual cycle. They do not recognise borders, so those borders are irrelevant.

However, for me, it begs a different question as well, should those rights be extended to humans? I was always against "freedom of movement" within the EU, I believe far better mechanisms should have been employed to increase the opportunities,

for those residents from less wealthy countries, which joined the EU, freedom of movement levelled the playing field by reducing the standards of living of those in the wealthier nations, when it should have been used to raise standards for all.

They were further used to reduce the rights of all. They were, and are, effectively a control mechanism. But then I believe the EU is the single most dangerous and corrupt entity on earth. If we remove nationhood as an idea, then of course freedom to roam becomes a reality.

Passports, and other measures of that ilk, are nothing more than control mechanisms. For the wealthy to retain wealth and power and to ensure the less wealthy stay in their place. Passports can be bought, rather than deserved.

Even with separate nations, freedom to move is not a problem in moral societies. Borders are invisible and imaginary, what difference moving from Leeds to Liverpool or London to Cairo?

Part of the need for passports and control is also to do with trade I believe. I don't believe in trade, it is capitalist. Obviously, non humans should not be transported by humans.

So, if we give non humans back, the rights we have stolen, we also need to address the rights we are allowed, because if all are equal then all have the same rights.

3. I would not differentiate between wild and domesticated animals in any real sense, the obvious difference is that domesticated animals depend on humans for food, however, that is only because we subjugate them.

in a world where rights were shared equally by all, human and non, that would not be the case. All animals would be wild. Animals would be free to move as they wished, stop where they wished, do as they wished, without fear prejudice or hindrance.

All would be full citizens of the world.

The one right, which perhaps non humans do not need is the right to vote, although in my ideal world, humans would not need that either.