Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on whether all children born in the United States can continue to automatically receive citizenship.
The decision, not expected for months, could reshape what had been a longtime, constitutionally enshrined practice that has been challenged by the Trump administration.
Public opinion on the issue is complicated. Americans are heavily in favor of granting citizenship to children born to parents who were also born in the U.S. — or to those who immigrated to the U.S. legally. But they are split on — or much less in support of — automatic citizenship for children born to parents who immigrated illegally.
Is birthright citizenship a common policy?
Only about three dozen countries around the world, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, offer automatic birthright citizenship.
The legal term for the practice is jus solí, Latin for “right of soil.” It has roots in colonialism, particularly in South America and Africa, when Western European countries needed more people for labor and to outnumber native populations in those places. Many African countries abandoned the practice after gaining independence.
Other countries in recent decades have also abolished the practice. Ireland did so in 2005 after roughly 80% of voters rejected it. The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, India and Pakistan all also have done away with it.
Many countries offer citizenship instead via jus sanguinis, or “right of blood.” In other words, through familial lineage. This month, though, Italy even further restricted who qualifies.
What does the Constitution say?
In the United States, birthright citizenship became part of the Constitution in 1868 as an effort to protect recently freed slaves.
It was enacted with the passage of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the amendment says:
“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.”
But President Trump has taken aim at birthright citizenship, passing an executive order on Day 1 of his second term to ban it.
Aimed at immigrants who cross the border illegally, the Trump administration argues that the Constitution’s clause is outdated and has been abused.
Where does the public stand?
Public opinion is nuanced on birthright citizenship and can depend on how pollsters ask the question.
When surveys ask about birthright citizenship in general, people largely say they are supportive. But that support begins to crumble when respondents are asked about the parents’ legal status — with significant divisions by party, race, age and how they get their information.
A Public Religion Research Institute survey from December found two-thirds are in favor of granting citizenship “regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.” A large-sample poll by Civic Health and Institutions Project, or CHIP50, a survey done in conjunction with multiple universities, found 59% in favor of keeping it.
But both showed higher support than other surveys, and both mentioned in their questions that the right is found in the U.S. Constitution.
Other surveys have found less support. For example:
- An NPR/Ipsos poll last year found a slim majority (53%) against ending the practice with 28% in favor. (It asked if people supported or opposed ending the practice.)
- The Pew Research Center showed that more than 9 in 10 support birthright citizenship for those born to parents who immigrated to the U.S. legally, but — by a 50%-49% margin — were divided on giving it to those born to parents who are in the country illegally. (Pew asked if certain groups should or should not be considered U.S. citizens.)
- A YouGov poll had 51% in favor with 39% opposed. But that dropped considerably for those not in the country legally. Just 31% said they were in favor of granting citizenship to babies of people who are “undocumented,” as the survey put it, and only 25% for tourists visiting the U.S. (YouGov also did not mention that birthright citizenship is in the Constitution in its questions.)
Divides by party, race and more
Many polls fairly consistently show majorities of Democrats, Latinos, Black Americans and those who are younger are in favor of birthright citizenship, while majorities of Republicans, especially white Republicans, are against.
For example, Pew found three-quarters of Democrats in support of granting citizenship to children of those who immigrated illegally, but only a quarter of Republicans supported it.
There is a split among Republicans, though. Only 18% of white Republicans are in favor, but 55% of Republican Hispanics are in favor.
By race regardless of political party, Pew found three-quarters of Latinos and 61% of Black Americans were in favor of birthright citizenship for those whose parents immigrated illegally, but only 48% of Asian Americans and 42% of whites were.
CHIP50, similarly, found 8 in 10 Democrats support birthright citizenship “regardless of their parents’ immigration status,” but only 39% of Republicans in favor. (It also found a much higher percentage of Asian Americans — 63% — in favor. YouGov found only 53% of Democrats in favor when the parents are “undocumented immigrants,” and an even lower 13% of Republicans supported that.)
Those under 50 were in favor of birthright citizenship if the parents “immigrated illegally” by a 58%-41% margin, according to Pew. But almost 6 in 10 of those 50 or older were against it.
There was also a divide depending on how long the respondent has been in the United States. Two-thirds of second-generation Americans in Pew’s polling were in favor. But 55% of those who are third generation or higher were against it.
PRRI found a big divide by how information is consumed, too. In that survey, 80% or more of those who most trust newspapers or mainstream TV news were in support of birthright citizenship, “regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.”
But only 41% of those who trust Fox News support birthright citizenship, and an even lower number (29%) of those who prefer outlets that are considered even further to the right did, too.
