The ″three kinds of rural property rights″ (three rights) issue related to migrant farmers settled in the city is a major theoretical and practical concern, and addressing it is critical for the success of China’s new urbanization as well as agricultural and rural modernization. Under the philosophical concept of unity between logic and history, this paper examines the ″three rights″ issue from the perspective of integration and interaction in the logical structure of collective land ownership in rural China and the historical evolution of China’s urban-rural dual structure. The research finds that the ″three rights″ issue related to migrant farmers settled in the city occurs during the transition from an exploitation-oriented urban-rural dual structure to a new, protection-oriented dual structure. Farmers’ membership in the rural community is the foundation and essence of the ″three rights″, and the ″three rights″ are, in turn, the result and embodiment of this membership. The formulation of public policies regarding the ″three rights″ of migrant farmers should be directed by appropriate theories. At this new juncture in China’s development, in terms of the relationship between migrant farmers’ loss of membership in the rural community and the transfer of their ″three rights″, we should not cling to the principle of causality, which has been followed before and at the beginning of China’s reform and opening-up and which would render all ″three rights″ invalid whenever a farmer loses his or her membership in the community. However, we also should not completely follow the doctrine of abstraction, under which the ″three rights″ are completely independent of the farmer’s community membership. Rather, a more moderate principle of causality should be adopted. Under this approach, the principle that membership in the community underpins a farmer’s ″three rights″ is maintained; however, the ″three rights″ would continue to be retained by the farmer for an appropriate time period after he or she loses community membership. Only after it is certain that the farmer’s membership does not need to be, or should not be, reinstated should the farmer’s ″three rights″ be rescinded. Categorically rejecting the suggestion that farmers could ″exchange the right to rural land for urban resident status″ might appeal to public opinion today but may prove to be a fundamental mistake in the long run. In the future developmental stages of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, the ″three rights″ issue and the policies required to address the issue should continuously evolve. Given China’s limited land resources and large population, working with migrant farmers and convincing them, in an orderly manner and when appropriate, to forego the ″three rights,″ especially the right to the contractual management of farmland and the right to use house sites, is a strategic requirement for the success of the new urbanization as well as agricultural and rural modernization. The existing policy on this issue states that, at the present stage, foregoing the ″three rights″ should not be a precondition for farmers to gain urban resident status. In this policy statement, the timeframe — ″at the present stage″ — should not be interpreted as blurred and infinite. A time period of 2011-2035 should be appropriate for this purpose. Before 2035, there is still value for migrant farmers in maintaining the ″three rights.″ After that point, this practice will no longer be justified by the new reality. As a result of the differences between the various aspects of the ″three rights,″ the approach and roadmap through which migrant farmers finally abstain from claiming the ″three rights″ will present a varied mode of association with time and space.