Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Trump’s day one decisions have been met with huge outcry, particularly his executive order ending United States’ birthright citizenship. I am not a US constitutional expert to discuss the legality of this order, which has already been challenged in court and has been met with a temporary stay; rather, I was interested in the logical propositions and oppositions for this order.
Citizenship is mainly affirmed through jus soli – right of the soil, and jus sanguinis – right of the blood. Countries offering citizenship through jus soli impart citizenship to those born on their land, vessels, aircrafts, military bases abroad, etc., as is the case with the United States. For those imparting it by blood (descent), the precondition is usually having at least one parent as a citizen of that country, as is the case with India. Jus sanguinis is considered as a modern citizenship.
Countries with unrestricted jus soli are now far fewer – and the mighty United States is one of them. This means that anyone born in the territory, regardless of their parents’ immigration status is a US citizen, which also includes babies of illegal migrants Many countries have progressively ended this unrestricted jus soli, with Canada and the US now being the only two large nations to continue this practice. All Western European nations, with Ireland being the last to do so, have ended this practice to curb birth tourism and anchor babies. It is safe to say that no sane country in this world should offer citizenship to babies of illegal migrants or those on nothing more than a tourist visa. Notably, it was the Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who proposed to end jus soli for babies of illegal migrants way back in 1993 but was unsuccessful to do so. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Isha Ambani had also travelled to the US to give birth to her twins for them to get a US passport.
Indians have had a huge outcry after Trump’s order, and are rushing to perform caesarean deliveries as early as in their 7th month of pregnancy, just enough to meet the February 19th deadline, after which this law kicks in. However, as mentioned, jus soli slowly abolished all over the world. The United Kingdom restricted it in 1983, and the new British nationality law requires at least one parent of the child to be a British citizen or a permanent resident, very similar to what Trump’s executive order says. The United States has complete rights to change their citizenship laws, and foreign nations should not have too much say in them.
Most Indians, however, have a different concern. Their frustration lies less with the citizenship law itself and more with the lengthy process of obtaining a permanent residency in the United States. Due to country-specific quotas, it is almost impossible for an ordinary H1B worker in the United States to get an employment-based green card in their lifetime. However, US citizens and permanent residents can sponsor their family members for a family-based green card once they turn 21. With this expectation, Indian H1B workers produce US citizen kids with the anticipation of getting sponsored well within the end of their lifetime. If Trump snatches this unrestricted jus soli, Indians will have no scope of getting a green card ever in their lives and must leave the US once they retire, as they would be ineligible for any kind of employment visa post their retirement; much like what happens in the gulf countries. It is reasonably safe to say that some Indians have their own selfish needs by producing US citizen kids. Many of them might contemplate of moving to Canada to give birth, but for how long? Conservative parliamentarians of Canada have also called upon an end to this practice, and we never know what shall unfold after Canada’s elections this year.
There has also been a lot of fear mongering and misinformation on X with some handles terming kids of lawful US visa holders as “illegals” and calling for their deportation. As most countries do offer some or the other form of jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent), these kids are still eligible for their parents’ citizenship with a dependent visa, and they will not be rendered stateless.
It remains to be seen if the Trump govt is successful in repealing the unrestricted jus soli, since it is deeply entrenched in the US constitution. Amending the US constitution is a herculean task, and it has been amended only 27 times since it was put into effect in 1789. To conclude, if not Trump alone, but America does have the right to decide who shall be their citizens, and who won’t.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint