Trump's Plan to End Birthright Citizenship: A Global Perspective

The concept of birthright citizenship is not universally accepted, and recent actions reflect a global trend towards stricter citizenship regulations amidst growing migration concerns.

President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship has ignited a wave of legal disputes and raised concerns among immigrant families. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has long asserted that anyone born on US soil is a citizen, a principle in practice for nearly 160 years. However, Trump's push to deny citizenship based on the legal status of the parents—whether undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas—questions this long-held norm. A recent Emerson College poll indicates that many Americans support Trump's initiative, prompting a look at global citizenship norms.

Globally, birthright citizenship—known as jus soli, or right of the soil—is not commonplace. The US is one of approximately 30 countries that grant automatic citizenship to those born on its territory, primarily found in the Americas. In contrast, most nations in Asia, Europe, and parts of Africa embrace jus sanguinis (right of blood), whereby nationality is inherited from parents, regardless of birthplace. John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of California, San Diego, remarks on the unique historical contexts of just about every nation adopting jus soli, with roots often tied to colonial histories and the status of former slaves.

In response to increasing immigration and changing national identities, numerous countries have tightened citizenship regulations in recent years. For instance, India's approach shifted in 2004, barring citizenship for children born to parents without legal status. Many African nations, having historically aligned with jus soli, revised their laws post-independence to incorporate parent citizenship criteria. In Asia, citizenship laws tend to be even more stringent, often only recognizing lineage-based nationality, as evidenced in nations like China and Singapore. Europe witnessed significant amendments too, such as Ireland abolishing unrestricted jus soli following a referendum in 2004.

Amid these global trends, the Dominican Republic drastically revised its citizenship laws in 2010 by excluding children of undocumented immigrants. A more controversial 2013 ruling retroactively denied citizenship to many, particularly affecting those of Haitian descent, raising fears of statelessness among thousands. Such actions drew widespread condemnation from international bodies, prompting the nation to establish a pathway for citizenship based on birthplace for children of immigrants.

The crux of Trump's proposal now faces legal hurdles, with several lawsuits already filed against the executive order. Following immediate challenges from Democratic states and civil rights organizations, several federal judges—including District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland—have sided against the executive order. Legal scholars largely agree that Trump lacks the authority to eliminate birthright citizenship through executive action alone, with decisions likely to hinge on court interpretations of the 14th Amendment, particularly within a Supreme Court that heavily leans conservative.

As the debate over citizenship evolves, it reflects broader global concerns over immigration policies amid rising migration, changing demographics, and national identities.