On January 20th, 2025, President Trump released an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” banning unconditional birthright citizenship. Individuals born of mothers unlawfully present or lawfully but temporarily present in the United States and whose fathers are not legal permanent residents or citizens will not be granted citizenship. In other words, if you don’t have a parent who is a citizen or permanent resident, you are not an “American,” despite being born on U.S. soil.
Rumors about birthright citizenship have been spreading fast, especially over the past several weeks as the Executive Order has been blocked by federal courts and taken to the Supreme Court. We’re here to break down some common misconceptions about birthright citizenship in the United States. Welcome to MythBusters: Birthright Citizenship Edition.
MYTH: The United States is the only country with birthright citizenship.
FACT: On his first day in office, President Trump posted on his app, Truth Social, that “The United States of America is the only country in the world that does [birthright citizenship], for what reason, nobody knows.” This is not the case. Over 30 countries offer unconditional birthright citizenship (though most of these countries are in the Americas). No European states offer unconditional birthright citizenship, but many extend it conditionally:
– If a child of foreign citizens renounces any other nationalities automatically gained through his or her parents (called jus sanguinis or, right of blood).
– If the child’s parents (foreign citizens) have lived in the child’s country of birth for a designated length of time.
While the United States may be one of the only countries in the Western world that extends unconditional birthright citizenship, it is not the only one and certainly not the only one to do so across the globe.
MYTH: Birthright citizenship is not a constitutional right.
FACT: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Based on the United States Constitution, therefore, children born in the United States are citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.
MYTH: Non-US citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
FACT: This statement, if true, supports the argument that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and accordingly, are not citizens. However, as noted above, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution clearly outlines that the United States has jurisdiction (legal power) over naturalized individuals and babies born on US soil.
MYTH: A birthright citizenship case has never been brought to the Supreme Court.
FACT: The Supreme Court has previously heard arguments regarding birthright citizenship. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship was challenged because both of his parents were Chinese, though he had been born in San Fransico. The Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark’s favor, stating that children born in the United States are U.S. citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity, race, or the citizenship of their parents.
MYTH: Non-citizens only want to have children in the United States to become citizens themselves.
FACT: There is a common misconception that babies born of non-citizens within the United States are a ploy by the parents to gain citizenship. These children are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies.” While, of course, there are parents who try to acquire citizenship through having a child in the United States, this is not true in most cases –and the generalization can be harmful. Regardless of whether someone is here unlawfully, as a tourist, visiting family, or has been legally working in the country for decades, the process of obtaining citizenship through a US-citizen child is long and complex; it is not automatically extended to the parent.
What’s happening now?
After the Executive Order was released, it was blocked by multiple federal court judges (via nationwide injunctions) contesting its constitutionality under the 14th Amendment.
On May 15th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Order in an almost 2-hour hearing. The question brought before the Supreme Court was not about whether the Order was constitutional, but over so called “universal injunctions.” Universal injunctions prevent the government from enforcing a law or policy nation-wide. Thus, the Trump Administration is not currently able to enforce the birthright citizenship ban because of them. The Supreme Court will decide whether federal courts have a right to universally block a presidential order so that it’s not only non-enforceable on the original party or parties suing, but on everyone in the country. The ruling in this case will determine whether the Trump administration has the authority to move forward in enforcing the birthright citizenship ban.
A ruling is expected in late June or early July.
The Bottom Line
Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. While Trump’s Executive Order argues that the intention of the 14th Amendment is not to provide citizenship to babies born of non-US citizens, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil.
As it stands, birthright citizenship is still protected under the 14th Amendment.
We will keep you updated.