Fact Check: "Birthright citizenship applies to children born to non-citizen parents in the US."
What We Know
Birthright citizenship in the United States is primarily governed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” (source-4). This clause has been interpreted to grant citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil, with some exceptions.
Historically, the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are citizens, provided their parents are subject to U.S. jurisdiction (source-5). However, there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, children born to foreign diplomats or occupying forces are not granted citizenship under the jurisdiction clause (source-5).
Recent policy discussions have raised questions about the applicability of birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. An executive order issued by President Trump in January 2025 asserts that the federal government would not recognize birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents under certain conditions (source-2). This order states that children born to parents who are unlawfully present in the U.S. or whose presence is lawful but temporary do not automatically receive citizenship (source-2).
Analysis
The claim that "birthright citizenship applies to children born to non-citizen parents in the US" is partially true. While the Fourteenth Amendment and subsequent legal interpretations generally support the idea that children born on U.S. soil are citizens, the recent executive order introduces significant caveats. This order specifies that children born to non-citizen parents who are unlawfully present or whose presence is temporary do not qualify for citizenship (source-2).
The reliability of the sources used in this analysis varies. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Library of Congress provide authoritative legal interpretations and historical context, making them credible sources (source-3, source-4). In contrast, the executive order reflects a political stance that may not have been fully tested in court, which raises questions about its long-term applicability and enforceability.
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim is Partially True. While the foundational legal principle supports birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S., recent executive actions complicate this understanding by introducing specific conditions under which citizenship may not be granted. Thus, the claim holds validity under certain circumstances but is not universally applicable.
