Trump wants to end his reproductive right citizenship. Where are the other countries?

President Donald Trump's executive order ends birthright citizenship in the United States, raising several legal challenges and anxiety in immigrant families.

For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has established the principle that anyone in the country is a U.S. citizen.

But as part of his crackdown on immigrant numbers, Trump is seeking to deny citizenship of immigrant children who are illegal or temporary visas.

This move seems to have public support. one Emerson College’s poll recommendations More Americans support him than opposed him.

But how does this compare to citizenship laws around the world?

Neither the citizenship of the right to birth or Jus Soli (soil rights) are norms worldwide.

The United States is one of about 30 countries (mostly the Americas) and it grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within its borders.

By contrast, many countries in Asia, Europe and parts of Africa adhere to the jus sanguinis (right to blood) principle, and children inherit their nationality from their parents regardless of their birthplace.

Other countries have a combination of these two principles and also grant permanent residents citizenship.

John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of California, San Diego, believes that while every nation-state has its own unique path, despite birthright citizenship or Jus Soli ) is common throughout the Americas.

“For example, some involve slaves and former slaves, some do not. History is complicated.” In the United States, the 14th Amendment was adopted to address the legal status of free slaves.

However, Mr. Skrentny believes that almost all things in common are “establishing a nation-state from a former colony”.

“They must maintain strategic significance to those who include and who are excluded and how to make the nation-state delegateable,” he explained. “For many, citizenship based on the right to birth in the territory is for them Achieved by the national construction goals.

“For some, it encourages immigration from Europe; for others, it ensures that indigenous populations and former slaves and their children will be included as formal members rather than homeless. This is at a specific time A specific strategy, and time may have passed.”

In recent years, people have made amendments to citizenship laws, tightening or revoking the right to birth citizenship, and people visiting a country to give birth to a country.

For example, India once granted automatic citizens to anyone born on their soil. But as time goes by, concerns about illegal immigration, especially Bangladesh, have led to restrictions.

Since December 2004, one child born in India has only the parents are Indian, or one parent is a citizen, while the other parent is not considered illegal immigrant.

Many African countries followed Jus Soli under the legal system of colonial times in history and later abandoned it after gaining independence. Today, most people require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident.

In most Asian countries, citizenship is more restrictive, mainly determined by bloodlines, as seen in countries such as China, Malaysia and Singapore.

There have also been major changes in Europe. Ireland is the last country in the region to allow unlimited Jus Soli.

It abolished the policy after a June 2004 poll, when 79% of voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring at least one parent to be a citizen, permanent resident or temporary resident of the law.

The government said changes are needed because foreign women travel to Ireland to give birth in order to obtain an EU passport for babies.

One of the worst changes occurred in the Dominican Republic, and in 2010 a constitutional amendment redefined citizenship to exclude children who immigrate without a document.

A 2013 Supreme Court ruling traces this back to 1929, depriving thousands of Dominican nationalities (mainly Haitian descent). Rights groups warn that this could make many stateless because they also have no Haitian documents.

The move was widely condemned by international humanitarian organizations and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Due to strong public outcry, the Dominican Republic passed a law in 2014 that established a system to grant citizenship to immigrant children born in Dominican, especially children of Haitian descent.

Mr. Skrentny believes these changes are part of a broader global trend. “We are now in an era of mass immigration and easy transportation, even across the sea. Now, individuals can be strategic about citizenship. That's why we're seeing this debate in the United States now.”

Within hours of President Trump's order, Democratic-run nations and cities, civil rights groups and individuals initiated various lawsuits.

Two federal judges supported the plaintiffs on Wednesday on the Maryland District Judge Deborah Boardman.

She supports five pregnant women who argue that denying their child’s citizenship violates the U.S. Constitution.

Most legal scholars agree that President Trump cannot end his birthright citizenship through executive orders.

Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional expert and professor at the University of Virginia Law School, said it will be decided by the court. “It's not something he can decide for himself.”

The order is now on hold as the case is implemented through the court.

It is unclear how the Supreme Court (conservative judges form huge justices) interpret the 14th Amendment.

The Trump Justice Department believes that this applies only to permanent residents. For example, diplomats are tax-free.

But others object to other U.S. laws that apply to undocumented immigration, so the 14th Amendment should also be.