Trump wants to end the citizenship of birth rights. Where are other countries?

The executive order of President Donald Trump to end the citizenship of birth law in the United States has caused several legal challenges and some anxiety among immigrant families.

For almost 160 years, the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States has established the principle that any person born in the country is an American citizen.

But as part of his repression in the number of migrants, Trump is trying to deny citizens to the children of migrants who are in the country illegally or in temporal visas.

The movement seems to have public support. TO Emerson College’s survey suggests Many more Americans support Trump to oppose him in this.

But how does this compare with citizenship laws worldwide?

The citizenship of birth law, or Jus Soli (land law), is not the norm worldwide.

The United States is one of the 30 countries, mainly in the Americas, which grant automatic citizenship to any person born within their borders.

In contrast, many countries in Asia, Europe and parts of Africa adhere to the principle of Jus Sanguinis (Blood Law), where children inherit their nationality of their parents, regardless of their birthplace.

Other countries have a combination of both principles, which also gives citizens to children from permanent residents.

John Skrentny, a professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego, believes that, although the citizenship of birth or Jus Soli is common in all the Americas, “each state-nation had its own unique path.”

“For example, some involved slaves and former slaves, others no. History is complicated,” he says. In the United States, the 14th amendment was adopted to address the legal status of liberated slaves.

However, Mr. Skrentny argues that what almost everything had in common was to “build a nation-state of an old colony.”

“They had to be strategic about who to include who exclude, and how to make the state-nation governable,” he explains. “For many, the citizenship of birth law, based on having been born in the territory, was made for their state construction objectives.

“For some, he encouraged the immigration of Europe; for others, he said that indigenous populations and former slaves, and their children, would be included as full members, and would not be allowed to state. It was a particular strategy for a particular time , and that time may have passed. “

In recent years, several countries have reviewed their citizenship laws, hardening or revoking the citizenship of birth rights due to concerns about immigration, national identity and the so -called “birth tourism” where people visit a country for give birth.

India, for example, once granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on their ground. But over time, concerns about illegal immigration, particularly Bangladesh, led to restrictions.

Since December 2004, a child born in India is just a citizen if both parents are Indians or if one of the parents is a citizen and the other is not considered an illegal migrant.

Many African nations, which historically followed Jus Soli under the legal systems of the colonial era, then abandoned him after gaining independence. Today, most require that at least one father be a permanent citizen or resident.

Citizenship is even more restrictive in most Asian countries, where it is mainly determined by the decline, 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 Jus Soli without restrictions.

He abolished politics after a June 2004 survey, when 79% of voters approved a constitutional amendment that requires at least one father to be a citizen, permanent resident or legal temporal resident.

The government said a change was necessary because foreign women were traveling to Ireland to give birth to obtain an EU passport for their babies.

One of the most severe changes occurred in the Dominican Republic, where, in 2010, a constitutional amendment redefined citizens to exclude children from undocumented migrants.

A ruling from the 2013 Supreme Court made this retroactive to 1929, stripping tens of thousands, mainly of Haitian ancestry, of its Dominican nationality. The rights groups warned that this could leave many without a state, since they did not have Haitian documents either.

The measure was widely condemned by international humanitarian organizations and the Inter -American Court of Human Rights.

As a result of the public protest, the Dominican Republic approved a law in 2014 that established a system to grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in Dominicans, particularly favoring those of Haitian ancestry.

Skrentny sees changes as part of a broader global trend. “Now we are in an era of mass migration and easy transport, even in the oceans. Now, people can also be strategic about citizenship. That is why we are seeing this debate in the United States now.”

A few hours after the order of President Trump, several demands for states and cities, civil rights groups and democratic individuals began.

Two federal judges have put themselves on the side of the plaintiffs, more recently the Judge of District Deborah Boardman in Maryland on Wednesday.

He put on the side of five pregnant women who argued that denying the citizenship of their children violated the constitution of the United States.

Most legal scholars agree that President Trump cannot end the birth citizenship with an executive order.

Ultimately, this will be decided by the courts, said Saikrishna Prakash, constitutional expert and professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Virginia. “This is not something I can decide on your own.”

The order is now waiting since the case crosses the courts.

It is not clear how the Supreme Court, where conservative judges form a supermay, would interpret the fourteenth amendment if it is.

The Trump Department of Justice has argued that it only applies to permanent residents. Diplomats, for example, are exempt.

But others counteract that other US laws are applied to undocumented migrants, so amendment 14 should do so too.