Birthright Citizenship - What Do You Really Know?
Segment # 437
Birthright Citizenship Around The World
Below is a list of countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship (jus soli), where anyone born on their soil automatically becomes a citizen, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. As of the latest available data, approximately 33 countries offer unrestricted jus soli. Some countries have conditional or restricted forms, but this list focuses on unrestricted jus soli unless otherwise noted. The list is organized by region for clarity.
Countries with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship (Jus Soli)
Americas (29 countries)
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominica
Dominican Republic (Note: Restricted since 2010 for children of undocumented immigrants; included here as historically unrestricted, but verify current status.)
Ecuador
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
United States
Venezuela
Africa (2 countries)
Lesotho
Tanzania (Note: Conditional in some cases, where citizenship may require confirmation at age 18.)
Asia (1 country)
Pakistan
Oceania (1 country)
Tuvalu
Notes
Fiji: Often listed as having jus soli, but recent sources suggest it may have restrictions or be conditional. Verify current status if needed.
Chad: Has conditional jus soli, where children born to foreign parents can claim citizenship at 18, so not included in the unrestricted list.
Exclusions: Countries like Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the UK previously had unrestricted jus soli but have since restricted it (e.g., requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident). France and Germany use modified or conditional jus soli tied to residency or parental status.
Sources: This list aligns with legal analyses and citizenship law databases up to 2025, including posts found on X and web resources like the Library of Congress and Global Citizenship Observatory. Minor discrepancies exist due to legal changes or unclear documentation (e.g., Dominican Republic, Fiji).
Verification: Citizenship laws can change rapidly. For precise legal status, check each country’s constitution or immigration laws, especially for edge cases like the Dominican Republic or Tanzania.
If you need details on a specific country, want a list of countries with conditional jus soli, or need help verifying a country’s status, let me know!
Jus Soli - “Right of the Soil”
Jus soli, Latin for "right of the soil," is the principle granting citizenship to anyone born on a country's territory, regardless of their parents' nationality or status. Its history spans centuries, rooted in legal traditions and shaped by political, social, and economic forces. Below is a concise overview of its origins and evolution:
Origins in Ancient and Feudal Law
Ancient Roots: The concept of tying identity to birthplace predates modern nation-states. In ancient Athens (5th–4th century BCE), citizenship was sometimes linked to being born in the city-state, though it was heavily restricted and often required citizen parents (jus sanguinis, or "right of blood"). Roman law, while primarily based on jus sanguinis, occasionally recognized birthplace as a factor in determining status, especially in provinces.
Feudal Europe: Jus soli emerged more clearly in medieval Europe, particularly in England. Under feudal law, anyone born on a lord’s land owed allegiance to that lord. This "subjecthood" tied individuals to the land and, by extension, the king. The principle was codified in English common law, notably through jurist Henry de Bracton (13th century), who emphasized birth within the king’s domain as a basis for allegiance.
Development in English Common Law
Calvin’s Case (1608): A landmark in jus soli history, this English court case established that anyone born on English soil, even to foreign parents, was a subject of the English Crown. This solidified jus soli in English law, with exceptions for children of diplomats or enemy aliens. The ruling influenced legal traditions in England’s colonies, including North America.
Colonial Expansion: As European powers colonized the Americas, Africa, and Asia, jus soli was sometimes applied to encourage settlement. In the Americas, colonial governments often granted subjecthood to those born in colonies to bolster population growth and loyalty to the crown.
Jus Soli in the Americas
Post-Independence Adoption: After gaining independence in the 18th and 19th centuries, many American countries adopted jus soli to distinguish themselves from European jus sanguinis traditions and to attract immigrants. The United States enshrined jus soli in the 14th Amendment (1868), largely to ensure citizenship for freed slaves after the Civil War. The Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) reaffirmed that children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents were citizens.
Latin America: Countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico adopted unrestricted jus soli in the 19th century to populate vast territories and integrate diverse populations, including Indigenous groups and immigrants. This made the Americas the global stronghold of jus soli, with around 30 of the 33 countries practicing it today located in this region.
Jus Soli in Europe and Beyond
Decline in Europe: While jus soli was strong in feudal Europe, the rise of nationalism in the 19th century shifted preference toward jus sanguinis, which tied citizenship to ethnicity or descent. France, for example, used jus soli in its 1804 Civil Code but later restricted it, requiring French ancestry or residency conditions. The UK maintained jus soli until 1983, when it introduced restrictions requiring at least one parent to be a legal resident or citizen.
Other Regions: Jus soli appeared sporadically elsewhere. In Africa, countries like Lesotho and Tanzania adopted it post-independence, often conditionally, to unify diverse populations. Pakistan and Fiji also maintain jus soli, influenced by British colonial legal traditions. However, many Asian and Middle Eastern countries favor jus sanguinis, reflecting cultural emphasis on lineage.
20th and 21st Century Trends
Restrictions on Jus Soli: Since the late 20th century, several countries have scaled back jus soli due to immigration concerns. Australia (2007), New Zealand (2006), and Ireland (2005) ended unrestricted jus soli, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident. These changes reflect fears of "birth tourism" or undocumented immigration.
Debates in the U.S.: Jus soli remains a contentious issue in the U.S., with some arguing it encourages illegal immigration, while others see it as a cornerstone of inclusive citizenship. Attempts to challenge it, like proposals to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, have not succeeded due to constitutional protections.
Global Rarity: Today, only about 33 countries offer unrestricted jus soli, with others using conditional forms or relying on jus sanguinis. The decline reflects modern migration patterns and national security concerns, though jus soli persists where historical or demographic needs favor it.
Why Jus Soli Persists in Some Regions
Americas: The prevalence in the Americas stems from historical needs to populate territories, integrate diverse groups, and reject European aristocratic traditions. It remains a tool for social cohesion in countries with high immigration.
Small Nations: Countries like Tuvalu or Fiji use jus soli to maintain population stability, as their small size and remote locations limit immigration pressures.
Conclusion
Jus soli’s history reflects a balance between openness and control. Originating in feudal allegiance, it became a tool for nation-building, especially in the Americas, but has waned in regions prioritizing ethnic or legal ties to citizenship. Its future hinges on global migration trends and debates over national identity. If you’d like a deeper dive into a specific country or period, let me know!
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. Where do other countries stand?
BBC World Service
Getty Images
The US gives automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country, but this principle is not the norm globally
President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship in the US has sparked a Supreme Court legal challenge along with anxiety among immigrant families.
For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has established the principle that anyone born in the country is a US citizen.
But as part of his crackdown on migration numbers, Trump is seeking to deny citizenship to children of migrants who are either in the country illegally or on temporary visas.
The move appears to have public backing. A January poll by Emerson College suggests many more Americans back Trump than oppose him on this.
But how does this compare to citizenship laws around the world?
Birthright citizenship worldwide
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), is not the norm globally.
The US is one of about 30 countries - mostly in the Americas - that grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders.
In contrast, many countries in Asia, Europe, and parts of Africa adhere to the jus sanguinis (right of blood) principle, where children inherit their nationality from their parents, regardless of their birthplace.
Other countries have a combination of both principles, also granting citizenship to children of permanent residents.
John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of California, San Diego, believes that, though birthright citizenship or jus soli is common throughout the Americas, "each nation-state had its own unique road to it".
"For example, some involved slaves and former slaves, some did not. History is complicated," he says. In the US, the 14th Amendment was adopted to address the legal status of freed slaves.
However, Mr Skrentny argues that what almost all had in common was "building a nation-state from a former colony".
"They had to be strategic about whom to include and whom to exclude, and how to make the nation-state governable," he explains. "For many, birthright citizenship, based on being born in the territory, made for their state-building goals.
"For some, it 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, and that time may have passed."
Shifting policies and growing restrictions
In recent years, several countries have revised their citizenship laws, tightening or revoking birthright citizenship due to concerns over immigration, national identity, and so-called "birth tourism" where people visit a country in order to give birth.
India, for example, once granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on its soil. But over time, concerns over illegal immigration, particularly from Bangladesh, led to restrictions.
Since December 2004, a child born in India is only a citizen if both parents are Indian, or if one parent is a citizen and the other is not considered an illegal migrant.
Many African nations, which historically followed jus soli under colonial-era legal systems, later abandoned it after gaining independence. Today, most require at least one parent to be a citizen or a permanent resident.
Citizenship is even more restrictive in most Asian countries, where it is primarily determined by descent, as seen in nations such as China, Malaysia, and Singapore.
Europe has also seen significant changes. Ireland was the last country in the region to allow unrestricted jus soli.
It abolished the policy after a June 2004 poll, when 79% of voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring at least one parent to be a citizen, permanent resident, or legal temporary resident.
The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies.
Reuters
Rights groups had feared a constitutional court ruling in the Dominican Republic would strip tens of thousands of citizenship, mostly of Haitian descent
One of the most severe changes occurred in the Dominican Republic, where, in 2010, a constitutional amendment redefined citizenship to exclude children of undocumented migrants.
A 2013 Supreme Court ruling made this retroactive to 1929, stripping tens of thousands - mostly of Haitian descent - of their Dominican nationality. Rights groups warned that this could leave many stateless, as they did not have Haitian papers either.
The move was widely condemned by international humanitarian organisations and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
As a result of the public outcry, the Dominican Republic passed a law in 2014 that established a system to grant citizenship to Dominican-born children of immigrants, particularly favouring those of Haitian descent.
Mr Skrentny sees the changes as part of a broader global trend. "We are now in an era of mass migration and easy transportation, even across oceans. Now, individuals also can be strategic about citizenship. That's why we are seeing this debate in the US now."
Legal challenges
Reuters
President Trump's executive order is already facing a Supreme Court legal challenge
Within hours of President Trump's order, various lawsuits were launched by Democratic-run states and cities, civil rights groups and individuals.
Three federal judges have ruled against Trump, issuing nationwide injunctions to block the orders from taking effect.
Most legal scholars agree that President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.
Trump has asked the Supreme Court to narrow the injunctions to only apply to the named defendants in the cases - a request the justices will weigh at a hearing on15 May.
It is unclear how the Supreme Court, where conservative justices form a supermajority, would interpret the 14th Amendment if it came to it.
Trump's justice department has argued it only applies to permanent residents. Diplomats, for example, are exempt.
But others counter that other US laws apply to undocumented migrants so the 14th Amendment should too.