Angelika One of the interesting rights in the United States is that, as a general rule, anyone born on American soil (jus soli) automatically acquires U.S. citizenship. It does not matter what citizenship the parents hold or what their immigration status is. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forms the basis for this rule. There are, however, a few exceptions, including children of foreign diplomats and certain hostile foreign forces, whatever exactly that may mean.
This rule has long been a thorn in our president's side. One of his first official acts in January 2025 was therefore to issue an executive order restricting automatic citizenship for children of parents without legal immigration status, as well as for children of parents with certain temporary visas, such as students, tourists, or people with temporary work visas. The executive order was immediately challenged in court and ultimately ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Many legal experts considered the measure highly questionable on constitutional grounds, since the 14th Amendment has protected birthright citizenship for more than 150 years. And indeed, on June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration's order by a vote of 6 to 3. The Court thus ruled that children of immigrants without legal status and of parents with temporary visas are generally protected by birthright citizenship.
That, however, was far from the end of the matter. As early as August 6, 2026, our president signed two new executive orders. One attempts to interpret more broadly the existing exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and so-called "alien enemies." The other order is directed in particular against so-called birth tourism and against cases in which foreign nationals enter the United States on a visa specifically to give birth to a child there so that the child will acquire U.S. citizenship. These new rules are also likely to be challenged in court.
It is difficult to determine how many children are actually born in the United States as a result of birth tourism. There are no official statistics, so the figures vary considerably depending on how they are calculated. For 2024, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recorded a total of 9,576 births to women who reported a foreign residential address. This figure, however, is unlikely to consist exclusively of genuine cases of birth tourism. A much broader estimate by the Migration Policy Institute puts the number at 20,000 to 26,000 births per year. Even this higher figure represents less than one percent of the more than 3.5 million births in the United States each year.
What I actually wanted to talk about in this context, though, is the role San Francisco played long ago in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The story concerns Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco's Chinatown in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents. When Wong Kim Ark returned to San Francisco after an extended trip to China, he was denied entry on the grounds that he was supposedly not a U.S. citizen. Upon arrival, he was told that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution did not apply to him. He refused to accept this and took his case to the Supreme Court. In March 1898, the Court affirmed that children born in the United States to foreign parents generally acquire U.S. citizenship as well.
Amusingly, the subject also came up during this year's World Cup. Soccer player Folarin Balogun, who played for the U.S. team and received a red card that was later rescinded after a controversial phone call from Trump, was able to play for the U.S. team only because he acquired American citizenship by being born on American soil. His mother was seven months pregnant when she visited New York. Because of how far along she was in her pregnancy, the airline would not fly her back to London, so she ultimately gave birth to her son in New York. Quite the story!