What Countries Do not Grant Citizenship by Birth?

In the realm of international law, the acquisition of citizenship has been a central theme in the migratory policy of many nations. While some countries, such as Mexico and the United States, grant citizenship to all persons born in their territory (ius soli), others have adopted more restrictive approaches.

Recently, the proposal by politicians like Donald Trump to eliminate the right to birthright citizenship has generated a debate that highlights the diversity of practices at the global level.

With this in mind, we explore which are the countries that do not recognize birthright citizenship, the reasons behind these policies, and how they affect both residents and migrants.

What Does Birthright Citizenship Entail?1260

Birthright citizenship, known in legal terms as ius soli, is the principle by which a person automatically acquires the nationality of the country where they are born, regardless of the citizenship or migratory status of their parents. This principle is common in America and is considered an inclusive measure that guarantees fundamental rights from birth.

However, not all countries recognize this practice. In many nations, especially in Europe, Asia and Africa, the principle of ius sanguinis is applied, where citizenship is transmitted by descent. This means that the children of foreigners born in a country do not automatically acquire nationality, which can leave them in a situation of statelessness if they cannot claim the citizenship of their parents either.

The refusal to grant birthright citizenship generally responds to concerns about irregular immigration and the fear that this right could encourage the arrival of migrants in vulnerable situations, especially in countries with high levels of development.

Which Countries Do not Recognize Birthright Citizenship?2367

In Europe, countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain do not automatically grant citizenship to those born in their territory. Although some of these countries allow the nationalization of children born to foreign parents after meeting certain requirements, such as prolonged residence, these processes are usually long and bureaucratic.

In Asia, China and Japan also apply strict ius sanguinis policies. In Japan, for example, nationality is only granted to children of Japanese parents, which excludes children born to foreigners, even if they spend their entire lives in the country. Similarly, in the Middle East, countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have very restrictive systems that limit the acquisition of citizenship by birth.

In Africa, many nations apply a combined approach between ius sanguinis and residence to avoid problems such as the increase in the stateless population, a common phenomenon in regions affected by migratory conflicts.

Why Do some Countries Reject Ius Soli?3443

The main reason behind the refusal to grant citizenship by birth lies in migratory control. Governments of developed countries fear that the practice of ius soli could become an incentive for irregular immigration, known in some cases as “maternity tourism.” This term refers to women who travel to countries with this right to give birth and guarantee a more favorable legal status for their children.

On the other hand, systems based on ius sanguinis allow governments to maintain stricter control over who can access citizenship, preserving what they consider the cultural and social cohesion of the nation. This also reduces the burden of social and legal services associated with the integration of new populations.

Some countries consider that citizenship is a bond that should only extend to those with cultural, linguistic, or historical connections with the nation, which automatically excludes the children of foreigners born in the territory.

How Does It Affect People and Migratory Policies?4459

The absence of the right to birthright citizenship can have serious consequences, especially for the children of migrants in irregular situations. Many of these children face obstacles in accessing education, medical care, and other basic rights due to their lack of legal status. This not only hinders their integration into society but perpetuates cycles of exclusion and inequality.

In terms of migratory policy, the elimination of ius soli also raises questions about human rights and the international obligations of countries. Organizations such as the UN have urged states to avoid policies that may contribute to statelessness, especially among children born in contexts of migration or forced displacement.

Despite the challenges, some countries have implemented hybrid systems that combine ius soli and ius sanguinis, allowing naturalization under certain conditions. These policies seek to balance migratory control with respect for the rights of children born in their territory.

Could the United States Eliminate Ius Soli?5552

The proposal to eliminate birthright citizenship in the United States has generated controversy both nationally and internationally. Although it would be an unprecedented measure in the country, it reflects a global trend towards stricter migratory policies.

The debate highlights the complexity of balancing individual rights with national priorities in an increasingly interconnected world. While some countries continue to defend ius soli as a fundamental principle, others choose to restrict it in an attempt to protect their sovereignty.

In conclusion, birthright citizenship remains a divisive issue that reflects the political and social priorities of each nation. Understanding the reasons and consequences of these policies is essential to address the challenges of migration and human rights in the 21st century.