President Donald Trump’s recent executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship in the United States has ignited significant legal challenges and raised concerns among immigrant communities. The order seeks to alter a long-standing principle established by the 14th Amendment, which has granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil for nearly 160 years. Under Trump’s proposal, children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would be denied citizenship, a move that has garnered public support according to a recent Emerson College poll.
Birthright citizenship, known as jus soli, is a practice primarily observed in the Americas, with the U.S. being one of about 30 countries that offer this right. In contrast, many nations across Europe, Asia, and Africa follow the jus sanguinis principle, where citizenship is inherited from parents rather than determined by birthplace. This divergence in citizenship laws reflects varying national policies and historical contexts regarding immigration and national identity.
In recent years, several countries have tightened their citizenship laws amid rising concerns over immigration and issues such as "birth tourism," where individuals travel to a country specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their child. For instance, India has restricted automatic citizenship since 2004, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or a legal resident. Similarly, many African nations have shifted away from jus soli since gaining independence, now requiring at least one parent to hold citizenship or permanent residency.
The Dominican Republic has seen one of the most drastic changes, having amended its constitution in 2010 to exclude children of undocumented migrants from citizenship. A subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 2013 retroactively stripped citizenship from tens of thousands, primarily affecting individuals of Haitian descent. This decision drew widespread condemnation from human rights organizations and led to a 2014 law aimed at restoring citizenship to Dominican-born children of immigrants.
As the discussion around birthright citizenship intensifies in the U.S., legal experts express skepticism about the feasibility of Trump’s executive order. Within hours of its announcement, lawsuits were filed by Democratic-led states, civil rights groups, and individual plaintiffs. Two federal judges have already ruled against the order, highlighting constitutional protections that may prevent Trump from unilaterally altering citizenship laws.
The ongoing legal battles underscore the contentious nature of immigration policy in the U.S., particularly as the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, prepares to weigh in on the matter. Trump’s administration argues that the 14th Amendment applies only to permanent residents, while critics contend that it should extend to all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
As the situation unfolds, the implications of Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship remain uncertain, with many advocating for a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that balances national security concerns with the rights of individuals born in the U.S.