Key facts
- The Trump administration has expressed strong opposition to birthright citizenship.
- Birthright citizenship was established by the 14th Amendment in 1868.
- The Supreme Court has previously affirmed birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S., even to parents who are in the country illegally.
- The Trump administration is pursuing an executive order to challenge this long-standing legal precedent.
- The claim that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship is false; many countries, particularly in the Americas, have similar laws.
The Trump administration has been vocal in its opposition to birthright citizenship, a practice that grants automatic citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil. President Donald Trump has labeled the policy a "disgrace," and top adviser Stephen Miller has called it a "constitutional abomination." Vice President JD Vance has also criticized it as "the dumbest immigration policy in the world."
Birthright citizenship was codified into law with the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, following the Civil War, to ensure citizenship for former slaves. Its application was later extended to children of immigrants through the Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark. Subsequent rulings have affirmed that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, with exceptions primarily for children of foreign diplomats.
Trump has frequently claimed that the U.S. is unique in its practice of birthright citizenship, a statement that is factually incorrect. While not the global norm, dozens of countries, particularly in the Americas, have unrestricted birthright citizenship. Many other nations employ a mix of principles, including parentage and place of birth, to determine citizenship.
The administration's challenge to birthright citizenship is being pursued through an executive order, which is expected to face Supreme Court judgment. This move seeks to overturn more than a century of constitutional and legal precedent. However, even some conservative justices on the Supreme Court have expressed skepticism regarding the administration's legal arguments during oral arguments.