by Allan Wall, Border Hawk, ©2026
(Sep. 9, 2026) — The automatic birthright citizenship policy of the United States, recently re-affirmed by the Supreme Court, is well-known throughout the world.
I resided in Mexico for a decade and a half, and I learned that many Mexicans desire U.S. citizenship for themselves and their children.
However, it’s usually not because they want to become Americans or because they desire freedom — it’s typically because they want access to economic benefits U.S. citizenship provides.
Automatic birthright citizenship has been in the news lately because the Trump administration tried (and is still trying) to change the policy.
On day one of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, which would have required that a baby could only become a U.S. citizen if one of his or her parents is also a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
On June 30, a Supreme Court majority, led by Justice John Roberts, struck down the order in a ruling on Trump v. Barbara, upholding the policy which allows a pregnant woman to be on American soil five minutes before giving birth to a U.S. citizen.
Mexican media reported on the ruling immediately, reminding us that U.S. citizenship and immigration policies are followed closely in Mexico.
Justice Thomas wrote a dissent from the ruling, demonstrating that in the 19th century, the real issue was “domicile” (permanent residency), and that babies born to temporary residents were not considered citizens, according to the policy. However, a change in interpretation came during the FDR era (1933-1945), according to Justice Thomas.
The Trump administration and other Republicans are still working on the issue.
One strategy would be to classify illegal aliens as “invaders,” as the children born to “invaders” are one of the few recognized exceptions to automatic birthright citizenship.
This controversy involves discussions over legal and historical questions about common law, the 14th Amendment, and legal precedents related to them.
But let’s put all that aside for a moment and just consider it from a technological point of view.
Is automatic birthright citizenship a good policy for the U.S. in the 21st century? Of course not.
It’s not the 18th century, when people traveled by horse-drawn coaches and sailing ships.
With modern technology, worldwide travel is easy, rapid, and relatively inexpensive. The entire globe is effectively at our doorstep.
Current standards allow foreigners to abuse U.S. citizenship policy.
Citizenship should be a complex of rights, duties, and national identity, but current laws allow for cynical ploys by foreigners to obtain benefits.
Is the United States the only country in the world that has this policy?
Actually, no. Mexico and most Western Hemisphere countries also do, including Canada. You may have noticed that Canada is being deluged with ‘migrants.’
Other Anglosphere countries (United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand) had automatic birthright citizenship policies but wisely changed them.
Meanwhile, most European countries never offered automatic birthright citizenship.
Read the rest here.
Leave a Reply