Key reasons to read this article
- Discover why a legal rule that has defined “Americanness” for over 150 years is suddenly under threat
- Learn how a single court ruling could instantly leave millions of people stateless within U.S. borders.
- Understand why the U.S. is an outlier in the way it grants citizenship compared to Europe, Asia and Africa.
- Explore warnings that ending birthright citizenship could destabilize U.S. labor markets and local communities.
As Maria gave birth to her baby boy in a Texas hospital, the nurse smiled and asked if she would like a copy of his birth certificate as proof of his United States citizenship. For generations, that moment has symbolized certainty but, with growing calls to scrap birthright citizenship, that certainty is now coming under unprecedented scrutiny.
Birthright citizenship in the United States is facing renewed political and legal challenges. President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, aiming to remove automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented people or temporary visa holders. This could impact millions, with the Supreme Court expected to decide on the matter by late June or early July 2026.
Birthright citizenship: What it is and why it is being challenged
Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed citizenship to anyone born “within the jurisdiction of the United States”. The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark solidified birthright citizenship, granting automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. For more than 150 years, this has meant automatic citizenship for anyone born in the U.S.
The Trump administration claims the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause is outdated and is being exploited. Officials argue the amendment was originally intended for freed slaves, not children of undocumented immigrants.
Birthright citizenship rollback: Could millions become stateless?
According to estimates by the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. is home to over 4 million children under 18 who have at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant. Annually, up to 250,000 children are born to unauthorized immigrants and more than 70,000 to temporary visa holders, the same source noted.
The Migration Policy Institute estimates that if the court rules in favor of ending the 14th Amendment, 2.7 million people would be added to the unauthorized population by 2045 and 5.4 million by 2075.
Civil rights advocates have described Trump’s order as “devastating” and “profoundly un-American”, warning that ending birthright citizenship could fundamentally reshape American society. Over 140 scholars claimed in a brief sent to the Supreme Court that “the order would dramatically expand the undocumented population of the U.S., destabilizing communities and labor markets”.
In a complaint filed against Trump’s executive order, the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon argue that people who will lose their eligibility for citizenship would no longer be able to work lawfully, would lose their right to vote and “will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States”.
Americans divided: Who deserves citizenship?
Public opinion on birthright citizenship is mixed. A large majority of Americans support citizenship for children born to U.S.-born parents or legal immigrants. Divisions sharpen when the question shifts to automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.
Several surveys suggest broad support for maintaining the current system. A Public Religion Research Institute survey found 66% of Americans support granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ status. Similarly, a Civic Health and Institutions Project (CHIP50) survey found 59% are in favor of retaining automatic birthright citizenship.
Other surveys paint a more divided picture. An NPR/Ipsos poll found that 53% of respondents opposed ending birthright citizenship, while 28% supported doing so. A survey by the Pew Research Center showed near-universal support, with over 90% in favor of granting birthright citizenship to children of legal immigrants, but an almost even split of 50% to 49% when it came to the children of undocumented immigrants.
A global shift: Birthright citizenship is no longer the norm
Globally, there are two ways of acquiring citizenship: jus sanguinis (right of blood), where citizenship comes from parents’ nationality, and jus soli (right of the soil), where citizenship is based on birth location.
Currently, about 39 countries grant citizenship automatically to anyone born within their borders, with the Americas being the primary home for the “jus soli” rule. Countries such as the United States, Canada, and Mexico, as well as much of South America, follow this policy. In these nations, being born on national soil is sufficient to become a citizen, with very few exceptions that include being the children of foreign diplomats or soldiers of invading armies.
Outside the Americas, this “automatic” rule is rare. Only a few countries, such as Fiji and Pakistan, use a similar approach.
In Europe and much of Asia, citizenship by birth is usually conditional, not automatic. To qualify for a passport in countries such as France, Germany, or the United Kingdom, it is not enough to simply to have been born in that country. Usually, at least one parent must be a legal resident, or the child must live in the country for a certain number of years. Australia and India have similar restrictions in place.
Many African nations initially adopted jus soli under colonial rule, but since then, most have abandoned this, often requiring parental citizenship or residency for children who are born on their soil.
John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of California, San Diego, highlighted the historical rationale of the jus soli rule. “For many, birthright citizenship encouraged immigration from Europe; for others, it ensured that indigenous populations and former slaves, and their children, would be included as full members, and not left stateless. It was a particular strategy for a particular time.”
The legal reality: Why this battle is hard to win
As it is embedded in the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment cannot be repealed by the President or Congress. For its part, the Supreme Court can only interpret its meaning, just as it did in 1898, when it held that most people born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Under Article V of the Constitution, the only formal way to change or repeal the 14th Amendment is through a new constitutional amendment. This requires approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification from three-quarters of American states.
In practice, this makes constitutional change extremely rare. Only 27 amendments have been ratified since 1789, according to the National Archives Foundation.
In the meantime, a Supreme Court ruling is expected by late June or early July 2026, with reports indicating skepticism among some judiciaries about whether the executive branch has the authority to reinterpret constitutional guarantees.
One way or another, at stake is not just immigration policy, but the definition of citizenship itself.
