INSIGHT · CITIZENSHIP · GEOPOLITICS
INSIGHT N° 55 · 12 August 2026 · BY ANJANAA VISHWANATH
Citizenship is shifting away from unconditional birthright entitlement toward conditional rules tied to parent status, residence, migration pressure, and geopolitical competition.
On June 30, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Barbara, upholding birthright citizenship. The Court was quick to strike down an executive order attempting to deny automatic citizenship to children born on US soil if their parents lacked permanent legal status. The Court's ruling reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship regardless of the parents' immigration status.
This is not an isolated event, but the latest chapter in a multi-decade global shift away from unconditional 'jus soli' (citizenship by soil) towards a more selective process that focuses on parent-status-based rules. This is not a trend of today, but one deeply rooted in history; it has accelerated in recent years due to intense migration and political pressures, and it carries major consequences for the future of citizenship, economic development, and geopolitics.
Before diving into what this means for the future, the question that should be highlighted is, how did other countries get here first? As discussed earlier, the US is an active pioneer of this trend in modern times, but it is not the first country to do so.
The Historical Process
One of the earliest key examples is the United Kingdom, with its British Nationality Act 1981. The Act was effective 1st January 1983, and ended unconditional birthright citizenship. A child born in the UK now acquires citizenship only if at least one parent is a British citizen. While introducing the act, the UK was immensely driven by post-war immigration from Commonwealth countries, which raised increasing concerns about integration, social cohesion and overall population numbers.
Australia quickly followed the United Kingdom's lead with the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1986. The Act required that at least one parent be an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of their child's birth; if not, the child must reside in Australia for the first ten years of life to gain citizenship. This initiative by the Australian government reflected a deliberate shift away from pure jus soli towards a more controlled, residence- and status-based approach.
India, too, moved from unrestricted jus soli to a system in 1987 that required at least one parent to be an Indian citizen, and later, in 2004, tightened the laws further, requiring that, with limited exceptions, both parents be Indian citizens. This tightening explicitly excluded children of illegal immigrants; the primary reason for this was sustained cross-border migration from Bangladesh and the desire to prevent automatic citizenship claims arising from irregular entry.
These examples are just a few of many that clearly show that the principle of unconditional jus soli has largely disappeared outside the Americas. Today, unconditional jus soli persists mainly as a legacy of 19th and early 20th-century settler societies that once needed rapid population growth. Years ago, across Europe, most of Asia and a few African countries, they adopted conditional jus soli (requiring parental status or long-term residence) or pure jus sanguinis (citizenship transmitted by descent). Today, only an estimated 33 countries worldwide continue to practice unconditional jus soli, thereby granting automatic citizenship solely based on place of birth. The United States is now essentially replaying the same conversation, only many decades later, yet under different constraints.
Current US Debate
The 2025 Executive Order's two targeted categories are children of unlawfully present mothers (when the father is neither a citizen nor a green-card holder) and children of temporary visa holders. This mirrors the categories that earlier reformers elsewhere sought to exclude. Supporters of this order argued the same narrative as used by Australian and Indian legislators, citing commonwealth migration and Bangladeshi cross-border flows. They highlight the illegal-entry births and the children of student tourists and H-1B workers. The foundational logic of this policy is the same; only the legal and political instruments differ.
The justifications may be familiar, but is the route to reform equally consistent with that across other countries?
The Supreme Court's constitutional blockage of the order, along with the subsequent shift to legislative proposals that are variants of birthright citizenship, mirrors foreign experience. It indicates that pure jus soli is rarely dismantled by an executive attempt alone. It demands primary involvement by the legislature or a popular constitutional amendment, as in Ireland's case. The question now is, what is happening in the rest of the Western Hemisphere?
While this debate is active in the US, the rest of the Western Hemisphere remains intact regarding birthright citizenship. Canada, Mexico, and most of Latin America continue to practice this unconditional model, which the rest of the world is largely pushing back against. This enormity of acceptance in the Western Hemisphere puts the American debate at a crossroads. It will soon be determined whether the United States will remain aligned with its continental neighbours or join the broader international pattern that was adopted a generation or more ago. That said, what drove this international pattern to rigidise and become more prominent in today's times?
Drivers of the Global Tightening
In 2024, the global international migrant stock reached roughly 304 million, nearly doubling the rate since the 1990s. These statistics are the sole reason for countries keeping migration control high on their political agendas. Birth tourism is yet another concept that poses a major concern for governments. The US suffers with a huge gap between perception and actual scale when it comes to birth tourism; a gap that has driven Washington to intensify its efforts and enforcement to curb this phenomenon. The State Department has confirmed that tourist visa applications made primarily to give birth in the US would be denied outright. It is important to note that these statistics aren't the only reason to take action.
Global phenomena such as rapid migration have led to the emergence of many anti-immigration platforms. Immense political backlash and identity-focused parties are taking centre stage in voicing their unhappiness with the increasing number of immigrants. These dynamics are quite evident in the Netherlands and Poland, where far-right parties and leaders openly vilify immigrants. But how have these anti-immigration sentiments translated into concrete citizenship policies? Governments are separating high-skill immigration from automatic membership by birth. For example, France tightened its jus soli rules again in 2025; it now requires both parents to demonstrate lawful residence for a set period before granting the child citizenship. The question that remains is, if governments are redefining who qualifies for citizenship today, what does that mean for citizenship tomorrow?
Consequences for Future Citizenship
Citizenship is shifting from a primarily territorial and birth-based entitlement toward a more conditional status. Governments are tightening 'earned citizenship' pathways, attempting to make the process more selective and reversible, especially for certain cases. They do so by expanding denaturalisation powers to address fraud, serious crime, and dual-loyalty concerns. As compelling as it sounds, what are the risks that emerge from this?
This process risks creating larger, multi-generational populations of non-citizen permanent or long-term residents who live, work, and pay taxes in a country without the political benefits of citizenship or the secure status that comes with it. Those most affected by this are individuals who fall between the restrictive citizenship laws of their countries of origin and those of host countries. To be more specific, children of temporary migrants, those seeking asylum, or people affected by conflicting nationality rules are the most affected. That said, individuals are not the only ones being affected by this debate over citizenship; this trend also has the potential to leave greater implications on development, but how?
Implications for Development
Those who are marked by ageing societies and need workers, deter long-term settlement of skilled migrant workers through their restrictive citizenship laws; additionally, there is potential to create second-class populations with weaker incentives to invest in the host countries. However, the issue is not only for the host or receiving countries.
If pathways remain temporary and increased remittances abroad persist, this creates an avenue for the loss of human-capital feedback, especially if permanent citizenship and return migration become harder. The system gets messier for children who are born into this legal confusion, probably facing barriers to proper education, opportunities and integration challenges. It also creates a huge gap in inequality. In today's increasingly intense talent competition, countries that have relatively open pathways for the highly skilled, even as they tighten birthright citizenship, may attract the mobile elite, while others may lose out. But the question now is, do the consequences of these reforms stop at national borders?
Stakes in Geopolitics
It is quite clear that citizenship plays an important role in various areas; in addition to this, citizenship can be seen as soft power and a highly regarded tool of statecraft. Expansive rules centred on citizenship can foster diasporic influence, as in India's Overseas Citizen of India Scheme. It helps cultivate long-term loyalty, political influence, and economic remittances. Whereas restrictive ones signal sovereignty and control, as seen in Japan's tight naturalisation standards. This raises another question: how are states translating citizenship into a tool of strategic competition?
As discussed earlier, citizenship and intense skilled competition are interconnected; in today's world, competition for skilled workers and young population has turned into a strategic resource contest, which has led to changes in the citizenship process. Selective citizenship and fast-track programs for permanent residency are now viewed as recruitment tools. Examples such as Singapore's and the UAE's golden visas and investor routes, as well as the EU's Blue Card scheme, are aimed at attracting talent. Even though such avenues are perceived as beneficial, they do not prevent friction from arising between countries.
Restrictions and differing avenues in the citizenship process can lead to friction when large groups of children of nationals of the country of origin lose their automatic birthright citizenship or easy access to powerful passports. For example, the proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship in the United States have raised concerns in Mexico and Central American states. Similarly, tighter jus soli rules in Europe are affecting communities from Turkey and North Africa. In such instances, countries of origin might respond with diplomatic protests, advocate for dual citizenship, or intensify their engagement with the diaspora to retain influence.
The question now is no longer whether citizenship is changing, but what will come of these changes for states, societies and future generations.
The US Constitution may have curtailed the American political momentum against jus soli, but the deeper meaning is a simple reflection of earlier moves and changes. Given the increasing popularity of this trend, it is safe to expect continued experimentation, higher barriers and finer distinctions between temporary residents and permanent belonging.
In such a context, deeply marked by high mobility, transnational vibes, and contested borders, it raises two broader questions: whether citizenship still serves as a marker of shared destiny or is a potentially fragile legal status and what kind of international order emerges when citizenship itself becomes a more contested resource.
— PR —