Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not

Olga Urbina and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster participate in a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington on May 15, 2025. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 18 May 2025
Follow

Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not

  • As enshrined in the US Constitution, citizenship is granted to anyone born in the US, regardless of the parents’ immigration status
  • Most countries with unconditional birthright citizenship are concentrated in the Americas. The rest are in Africa and Asia

As the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments Thursday on whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect, he falsely claimed on Truth Social that the United States is the only country that offers such a right.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20, the first day of his second term, that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the US illegally or temporarily. It has been put on nationwide holds by lower court orders.
The administration is now appealing, on an emergency basis, the authority of individual judges to issue these rulings, known as nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The constitutionality of the executive order itself is not yet before the court.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
Trump, discussing birthright citizenship in a Truth Social post: “The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows.”
The facts: This is not true. About 30 countries, including the US, offer unconditional birthright citizenship, according to the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution after the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be citizens.

“The statement is pretty obviously wrong,” said Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who is an expert on constitutional law and migration rights. “Many countries have birthright citizenship, though in some of them the rules are different from those in the US.”
Birthright citizenship is a principle known as jus soli or “right of the soil.” It bases citizenship on a person being born within a country’s territory. In contrast, the principle of jus sanguinis or “right of blood” determines citizenship based on the citizenship of one’s parents or other ancestors.
Citizenship is granted to anyone born in the US, regardless of the parents’ immigration status. Only children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government, and of enemies present in the US during hostile occupation do not qualify. Those born to parents of sovereign Native American tribes were also excluded until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Most countries with unconditional birthright citizenship, among them Canada and Mexico, are concentrated in the Americas. The rest are in Africa and Asia. Some countries offer citizenship to those born in their territory to noncitizen parents only under certain conditions, such as the legal status of their parents or the age of the person applying for citizenship based on place of birth.

These are: Antigua & Barbados, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, El Salvador, The Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The first sentence of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, often referred to as the Citizenship Clause, guarantees birthright citizenship. It states: “All 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.”
This clause effectively overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which the Supreme Court held that Black people, no matter whether or not they were enslaved, were not citizens. It was ratified, along with the rest of the 14th Amendment, in 1868 after it was passed by the Senate in 1866. The Civil War ended in 1865.
Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship conflicts with a Supreme Court decision from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause made citizens of all children born on US soil with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in the case currently before the court.
The justices are also considering appeals from the Trump administration on several other issues, many related to immigration.


Philippine President Marcos hit with impeachment complaint

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

Philippine President Marcos hit with impeachment complaint

  • Rage over so-called ghost infrastructure projects has been building for months in the archipelago country of 116 million
  • President accused of systematically bilking taxpayers out of billions of dollars for bogus flood control projects
MANILA: Members of Philippine civil society groups filed an impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. on Thursday, accusing him of systematically bilking taxpayers out of billions of dollars for bogus flood control projects.
Rage over so-called ghost infrastructure projects has been building for months in the archipelago country of 116 million, where entire towns were buried in floodwaters driven by powerful typhoons in the past year.
The filing, endorsed by the Makabayan bloc, a coalition of left-wing political parties, accuses Marcos of betraying the public trust by packing the national budget with projects aimed at redirecting funds to allies.
Under the Philippine Constitution, passage of articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives triggers a Senate trial, where a guilty verdict would mean removal from office and disqualification from future public posts.
A copy of the complaint was filed at the House’s Office of the Secretary General “in accordance with House rules,” petitioners said Thursday, though it was not marked as received as the top official was not present.
“The President institutionalized a mechanism to siphon over ?545.6 billion ($9.2 billion) in flood control funds, directing them into the hands of favored cronies and contractors and converting public coffers into a private war chest for the 2025 (mid-term) elections,” a summary of the filing seen by AFP says.
It also accuses the president of directly soliciting kickbacks, a charge that relies heavily on unproven allegations made by a former congressman who fled the country while under investigation.
Presidential spokeswoman Claire Castro, who told reporters on Thursday that Marcos was recovering after spending the night under medical observation for an undisclosed illness, declined to discuss the filing.
“Let’s wait (to see) its contents, we cannot address that as of now if we don’t have the details of their complaints,” she said.
Marcos has consistently noted that he was the one who put the issue of ghost projects center stage and taken credit for pushing investigations that have seen scores of construction firm owners, government officials and lawmakers implicated.
But complainant Liza Maza told reporters on Thursday she believed the moves were only intended to deflect blame.
“We think the investigation he initiated is just a cover-up,” she said. “Because the truth is, he is the head of this corruption.”
Hours later, a group with ties to former president Rodrigo Duterte showed up at the House of Representatives with their own corruption-based impeachment complaint against the president, only to depart without leaving a copy.
‘Slim chance’
Thursday’s complaint was not the first filed against Marcos this week.
Under the constitution, any citizen can file an impeachment complaint provided it is endorsed by one of the more than 300 members of Congress.
On Monday, a local lawyer brought a case citing Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest and transfer to the International Criminal Court, as well as unproven allegations of drug abuse.
Dennis Coronacion, chair of the political science department at Manila’s University of Santo Tomas, said at the time that the document relied largely on “rehashed or recycled allegations” and lacked “sufficient evidence.”
On Thursday, Coronacion said the new complaint was also unlikely to go far in a Congress packed with Marcos allies.
“(It) has a very slim chance of getting the approval of the House Committee on Justice and (even less) so, in the plenary, because the president still enjoys the support of the members of the House of Representatives,” Coronacion said.