Exploring Birthright Citizenship: Global Perspectives Ahead of Key Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court is set to deliberate once more on a significant issue: whether President Donald Trump has the authority to revoke citizenship rights for children born in the United States to parents who are either undocumented or in the country on a temporary basis.

This legal battle arises from an executive order that Trump enacted at the onset of his second term, which aimed to terminate the policy known as birthright citizenship. This policy traditionally grants U.S. citizenship to virtually anyone born on American soil.

Although birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of U.S. law for over a hundred years, it remains a relatively uncommon practice in other parts of the world.

So, what exactly is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is anchored in the legal doctrine known as jus soli, which translates to the “right of the soil.”

In the U.S., the right was enshrined in the Constitution after the Civil War, in part to ensure that former slaves would be citizens.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the 14th Amendment states.

In the late 1800s, birthright citizenship was legally expanded to the children of immigrants.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, sued after traveling overseas and being denied reentry into the U.S. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the amendment gives citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.

Today there are only a handful of birthright exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.

How is birthright citizenship seen around the world?

Only about three dozen countries, nearly all of them in the Americas, guarantee citizenship to children born on their territory.

Most countries follow the principle of jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” with a child’s citizenship based on the citizenship of their parents, no matter where they are born.

None of the 27 member states of the European Union, for example, grant automatic, unconditional citizenship to children born on their territories to foreign citizens. The situation is similar across much of Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Some countries take a mixed approach

Some countries use a combination of principles, such as parenthood, residency and ethnicity, to decide a child’s citizenship.

Australia, for example, allowed birthright citizenship until 1986. But starting that August, children born there could only become citizens if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident.

Things shifted the other way in Germany, which changed its citizenship laws in 2024.

Until then, citizenship by birth required that at least one parent was German. Starting in 2024, though, children born in Germany to non-German parents are automatically granted German citizenship if one parent has been legally living in the country for more than five years with unlimited residency status.

Citizenship laws were liberalized because “studies have shown that the education prospects of children and teenagers with a migration background are better, the sooner they were granted German citizenship,” the government wrote at the time.

What is the Trump administration’s argument?

Supporters of birthright restrictions in the U.S. focus on a handful of words in the constitutional amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

That phrase, they argue, means the U.S. can deny citizenship to children born to women who are in the country illegally.

A series of judges have ruled against the administration and the order has been repeatedly put on hold by lower courts.

Wednesday’s case originated in New Hampshire, where a U.S. district judge ruled the order “likely violates” both the Constitution and federal law.

___

AP reporter Kirsten Grieshaber contributed to this story from Berlin.