The concept of Birthright means that a person, since his birth, is entitled to some rights; it is something a person believes that he should have since his birth due to issues arising in one’s family. An example of this is that the Americans see Article 10 of the ECHR freedom of expression as their birthright, whereas another example, which is different from the one discussed before, is that a person having a good position at their job is their birthright.
According to the legal basis of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the adoption of birthright citizenship in the USA can be traced to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. It was held that “All persons born or naturalised in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people. Another equally important provision was the statement that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applies to both the federal and state governments.
However, the Constitution assumed citizenship but didn’t provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans couldn’t be citizens of the U.S. and ‘had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.’
If we discuss the origins of Birthright and its impact, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed certain rights for African Americans in all states. Importantly, it rectified the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled that the U.S. Constitution did not extend citizenship to people of African descent. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, known as the Citizenship Clause, sought to ensure birthright citizenship for everyone born on U.S. territory, regardless of race, with some limited exceptions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.
The clause states: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” While the fight for equal rights has continued well after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the use of birthright citizenship through the Citizenship Clause was to ensure that all those born within the United States, regardless of race, were born equal.
The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright. It must be a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to constitutional values.
Countries like the Dominican Republic and Kuwait have faced human rights issues due to generations of stateless individuals
Moreover, we will now discuss the courts’ interpretation. The Fourteenth Amendment became the basis for landmark Supreme Court rulings over the years addressing birthright citizenship. The Citizenship Clause’s line about being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States created some uncertainty about who was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. However, the 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark established the explicit precedent that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, is a citizen at birth.
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States to Chinese parents. When attempting to return to the United States from a temporary visit to China in 1890, the U.S. government barred Wong Kim Ark from entering the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act. This Act had declared some racial groups permanently ineligible for citizenship. However, the Supreme Court held in a 6–2 decision that because Ark was born in the United States, he was indeed a U.S. citizen, and the Chinese Exclusion Act could not supersede the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the years since, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that undocumented immigrants and their children are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court stated that there is “no plausible distinction” between documented and undocumented immigrants in regard to jurisdiction, as both are “subject to the full range of obligations imposed by [the location’s] civil and criminal laws.” This case held that undocumented children have a constitutional right to an education.
However, we will now discuss Birthright Citizenship in the U.S. currently. The Constitution is clear: those born on American soil, even to undocumented parents, are citizens of the United States, as said by Gerald J. Sinclair, Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.
Almost immediately after Donald Trump was sworn in on January 20, the second-term president issued a series of executive orders, including one touching on birthright citizenship, a constitutional provision that guarantees that those born within the boundaries of the United States automatically attain American citizenship. But according to the president’s directive, the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections should not extend to the children of unauthorised immigrants or those in the country on a temporary visa.
If we talk about arguments for having birthright in the U.S., no matter from which foreign country people are living and having kids, the citizenship rights should be there. Without birthright citizenship, many children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or certain visa holders would be stateless (lacking citizenship anywhere). This could create an underclass of people with no legal rights, limited access to education, employment, and social services, similar to what is seen in some countries that don’t have birthright citizenship. For example, countries like the Dominican Republic and Kuwait have faced human rights issues due to generations of stateless individuals.
Birthright citizenship in the U.S. remains a cornerstone of national identity, ensuring equal rights for those born on American soil
Birthright citizenship ensures that children born in the U.S. grow up fully integrated as Americans rather than as foreigners. Countries that do not grant automatic citizenship sometimes struggle with social divisions, where native-born but non-citizen residents lack national identity and legal protection. It helps ensure that children of immigrants assimilate into U.S. society instead of feeling like outsiders.
Studies show that birthright citizens and their children contribute more in taxes over their lifetimes than they take in public benefits. Ending birthright citizenship would create millions of non-citizen residents, making it harder for them to work legally and contribute to the economy. A large number of stateless or undocumented people could lead to a weaker economy, as seen in some European countries with large, non-citizen populations.
If we talk about arguments for not having Birthright Citizenship, birthright citizenship incentivises illegal immigration, as undocumented parents might come to the U.S. to have children who automatically become citizens. According to some people, it creates a system where children can later sponsor their undocumented parents for legal status (though in reality, this process takes decades and is not guaranteed). For example, some claim that birth tourism, where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth, exploits this policy.
Secondly, providing education, healthcare, and other public services to children of undocumented immigrants places a financial burden on the healthcare, education, and welfare systems, and taxpayers should not be responsible for benefits given to children whose parents entered the country illegally.
In some cases, it can be argued that birthright citizenship creates national security vulnerabilities, as individuals with no real connection to the U.S. could still obtain citizenship and access benefits. There are some cases of birth tourism rings where foreign nationals come to the U.S. just to give birth, return home, and later use their child’s citizenship for benefits. For example, Chinese birth tourism schemes, where companies arrange for pregnant women to give birth in the U.S. to secure citizenship for their child.
Before concluding, we will discuss Birthright Citizenship in other countries like Canada and the European Union, comparing it with birthright citizenship in the U.S. to see what rules they have regarding this and how it is effective.
Starting with Canada, it is the only other developed country that, like the U.S., still grants unconditional birthright citizenship (jus soli). A child born in Canada is automatically a citizen, regardless of the parents’ immigration status. This has led to concerns about birth tourism, particularly among wealthy foreign nationals, but no major policy changes have been made. However, Canada has stricter immigration policies overall, limiting the impact of birthright citizenship on illegal immigration.
Discussing European countries, most European countries have abolished unconditional birthright citizenship, like Germany, which grants citizenship conditionally after eight years of residence, followed by France, where citizenship is available at 18 if born and raised there. If we talk about Germany’s impact on immigration society, it helps integrate legal immigrants while discouraging birth tourism, whereas in France, it encourages assimilation while controlling automatic citizenship. Moreover, in Germany and France, at least one parent should be a citizen.
But there are a few countries that don’t give birthright citizenship, such as Italy and Spain. It has been said that this discourages immigration primarily for citizenship purposes but can lead to integration challenges.
In conclusion, birthright citizenship in the U.S. remains a cornerstone of national identity, ensuring equal rights for those born on American soil. While debates persist over its implications, the principle reinforces inclusivity and legal clarity. Any changes to this policy would require careful consideration of constitutional, social, and economic consequences.