President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship in the US has sparked legal battles and concerns over the future of immigration law, while also highlighting differing citizenship policies worldwide.
President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship in the United States has ignited legal challenges and raised concerns among immigrant families. For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has guaranteed that anyone born on U.S. soil is granted citizenship, a cornerstone of American immigration policy.
However, as part of his efforts to curb migration, Trump has proposed denying citizenship to children born to migrants who are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas. The move has been met with sharp criticism from immigrant rights groups, but public opinion appears to be somewhat in favor of the proposal. A recent Emerson College poll indicated that more Americans support Trump’s stance on birthright citizenship than oppose it.
But how does this proposal compare to citizenship laws around the world?
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), is not the standard in most countries. The U.S. is one of approximately 30 nations—predominantly in the Americas—that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within its borders. This principle was a hallmark of U.S. immigration law, particularly after the Civil War, when the 14th Amendment was passed to secure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants.
In contrast, many countries in Asia, Europe, and parts of Africa follow jus sanguinis (right of blood), where a child’s nationality is inherited from their parents, regardless of where they are born. Other nations, like Canada, operate under a hybrid system, granting citizenship to children of permanent residents, regardless of whether their parents are citizens.
John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of California, San Diego, notes that while jus soli has been common throughout the Americas, each nation had its own unique path to adopting the policy. “For example, some involved former slaves, some did not. History is complicated,” he says. In the U.S., the 14th Amendment addressed the legal status of freed slaves, ensuring their children were also granted citizenship.
Skrentny argues that birthright citizenship served strategic state-building purposes for countries emerging from colonial rule. “For many, birthright citizenship, based on being born in the territory, was a key tool in forming a stable nation-state,” he explains. “For others, it guaranteed that indigenous populations, former slaves, and their children would be full members of the nation.”
However, as concerns about immigration and national identity have grown, many countries have revised their citizenship laws in recent years. India, for example, once granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on its soil but tightened its rules in response to concerns over illegal immigration, particularly from neighboring Bangladesh. Since 2004, children born in India are only citizens if both parents are Indian or if one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant.
In many African nations, which once adhered to jus soli under colonial-era legal systems, citizenship laws have evolved to require at least one parent to be a citizen or a permanent resident. In Asia, countries like China, Malaysia, and Singapore primarily determine citizenship through descent, rather than place of birth.
In Europe, changes have also been significant. Ireland was the last European country to allow unrestricted jus soli, but in 2004, following a referendum, it amended its constitution to require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident for a child to gain citizenship.
One of the most severe changes occurred in the Dominican Republic, which in 2010 amended its constitution to exclude children of undocumented migrants from citizenship. A 2013 ruling retroactively stripped tens of thousands, primarily of Haitian descent, of their Dominican nationality. The international community, including rights groups and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, condemned the decision, though the Dominican Republic later passed a law to regularize the citizenship status of some Dominican-born children of immigrants.
Skrentny believes these changes reflect a broader global trend. “We are now in an era of mass migration and easy transportation. Individuals can now be strategic about citizenship. That’s why this debate is now happening in the U.S.,” he says.
Within hours of Trump’s executive order, lawsuits were filed by Democratic-run states, civil rights groups, and individuals challenging the legality of the action. Two federal judges have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, including Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, who sided with five pregnant women who argued that denying citizenship to their children would violate the U.S. Constitution.
Most legal scholars agree that President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship through an executive order. “This is not something he can decide on his own,” said Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional law expert at the University of Virginia. The order is currently on hold as it moves through the courts, and its future remains uncertain.
If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could face a challenge in how the Court interprets the 14th Amendment. Trump’s Justice Department argues that the amendment only applies to permanent residents, excluding diplomats and other temporary visitors. However, opponents contend that other U.S. laws apply to undocumented migrants, suggesting the 14th Amendment should as well.
As the legal process unfolds, President Trump’s controversial proposal continues to stir debate, highlighting the tension between national security, immigration policies, and the rights of migrants in an increasingly globalized world.
Leave a Reply