Trump Administration Releases New Plans to Enforce Birthright Citizenship Order

Good overview:

Current Birthright Citizenship Rules vs. Proposed Changes

While the executive order is not yet in effect, recent documents from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the State Department, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) outline the administration’s intended approach. The proposed strategy involves implementing stricter requirements for parents to obtain U.S. passports, Social Security numbers (SSNs), and federal benefits for their U.S.-born children.

How It Currently Works

  • A child’s U.S. birth certificate is considered sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, and parents can present it to the government to get a passport, SSN, and federal benefits for their child.
  • Parents don’t need to prove their own citizenship or immigration status when applying for these documents or benefits on their U.S.-born child’s behalf (except in cases involving foreign diplomats, who aren’t considered under U.S. jurisdiction).

How It Would Work Under the Proposed Plan

  • For any child born in the U.S. after the executive order’s effective date, their U.S. birth certificate alone is not considered sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, and parents will need to provide additional documentation to obtain a passport, SSN, or federal benefits for their child.
  • At least one parent would need to prove their own citizenship or eligible immigration status when applying for these documents or benefits on their U.S.-born child’s behalf.
  • Federal agencies would verify parental status during or after birth registration.
  • Federal documents recognizing U.S. citizenship are not issued to children whose parents lack qualifying status.

“Ending birthright citizenship by fiat in contravention of several existing court challenges is an effort destined for failure. In the meantime, it will only create chaos and confusion in many households already struggling to navigate our broken immigration system.” — Erik Finch | Director of Global Operations, Boundless Immigration | Former USCIS Officer

Implications for Individuals and Families

Restricted birthright citizenship would have profound consequences on individuals and families:

  • Family Planning and Uncertainty: Legal ambiguities would likely deter many immigrant and mixed-status families from having children in the U.S., leading some to delay or reconsider building their families there.
  • Risk of Statelessness: Children denied citizenship at birth — especially if their parents’ home countries cannot confer nationality — could become stateless, facing lifelong barriers to education, healthcare, travel, and legal protection.
  • Reduced Access to Services: Even the threat of this policy’s implementation is likely to discourage families from seeking healthcare or essential public services, worsening health and welfare outcomes.
  • Bureaucratic and Legal Challenges: Stricter documentation rules could cause errors, delays, or denials, increasing stress and potential legal limbo for families.

Implications for Employers

Employers that depend on global talent could face serious challenges:

  • Recruitment and Retention: Uncertainty around children’s citizenship may deter skilled foreign professionals from working in or staying in the U.S.
  • HR Complexity and Compliance: Varied state laws could complicate HR, payroll, and benefits administration, requiring greater investment in immigration support for employees and their families.
  • Risk of Discrimination: Increased scrutiny of family and citizenship status raises the risk of accidental anti-discrimination violations and workplace unfairness.
  • Employee Wellbeing and Productivity: Ongoing anxiety about family status can lower morale, productivity, and long-term workforce stability, ultimately impacting company competitiveness.

Broader Social and Economic Implications

Fewer foreign-born residents and their U.S.-citizen children would reduce population diversity, shrink the workforce, and limit innovation. Communities of color — especially Latino families — would be disproportionately affected, deepening existing inequalities and creating long-term disparities. Over time, this could lead to a rise in U.S.-born individuals without legal status or statehood, increasing poverty, exclusion, and instability.

In addition, the proposed policy could expand the undocumented immigrant population, strain the U.S. immigration system, and fuel long-term political tension. Denying birthright citizenship risks alienating immigrant communities, weakening social cohesion, and creating a stateless underclass with limited access to education, jobs, and stability.

Even as a proposal, the policy has already sparked confusion and anxiety, leading some families to avoid essential services and underscoring the urgent need for clear guidance and community support.

Multiple court rulings have blocked the executive order, and it’s unclear if or when the administration’s plans will take effect. However, the government’s ongoing preparations suggests the issue will remain a priority for the Trump administration.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and state attorneys general have called the order unconstitutional and vowed to continue fighting it in court. Immigration advocates have reassured families that, for now, children born in the U.S. remain U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ status, and no immediate action is required.

Source: Trump Administration Releases New Plans to Enforce Birthright Citizenship Order

Number of US expats to climb throughout 2025

From the citizenship-by-investment marketing firm Aston’s. Still relatively small number for a country with such a large population of millionaires and ultra wealthy:

Number of US expats set to reach 5,000 per year in 2025

The latest analysis from Astons, reveals that the number of US citizens choosing to leave the States is forecast to hit almost 5,000 by the end of this year, marking the highest annual total since 2020.

Astons’ analysis of US Federal Register data* reveals that in 2024 an estimated 4,819 US citizens chose to expatriate themselves and settle in another country.

This marked an annual increase of 47.8%.

Further data shows that following this annual increase, the number of US expats has continued to increase at an incredibly sharp rate, with the first quarter of 2025 recording a rise of 102.4% compared to the final quarter of 2024.

This means that in the first three months of this year alone, an estimated 1,285 US citizens become expatriates.

Based on these recent trends, Astons’ now estimates that by the end of 2025, the total number of US citizens expatriating themselves will reach 4,936 – based on the most conservative of forecasts.

This will be equivalent to an annual increase of 2.4%, and mark the highest number of US citizens leaving America in a single year since 2020, the height of the pandemic.

Senior Consultant for Residency and Citizenship Programs at Astons, Suzanna Uzakova, commented:

“We’re seeing a significant shift in the mindset of affluent Americans who are no longer just looking to invest their money wisely, they’re actively seeking new homes and lifestyles beyond U.S. borders. The rising cost of living, political uncertainty, and a desire for greater personal freedoms are pushing many to explore permanent residency abroad.

Europe is especially attractive thanks to its quality of life, healthcare, and cultural richness. Among all European destinations, Greece has emerged as a standout choice — not just for its beauty, but for its accessible Golden Visa programme, favourable tax incentives, and lifestyle that blends luxury with a much sought-after simplicity.

The investment required to access Greece’s Golden Visa programme starts from just €250,000 provided it goes into real estate – making it one of the most affordable residency-by-investment routes in Europe. For many Americans, Greece offers the perfect balance: EU access, property investment potential, and a relaxed pace of life that feels a world away from the rush back home.”

Data tables and sources
*US expat data sourced from the US IRS (US Federal Register)

Full data tables can be viewed online, here.

USA: Despite grand claims, a new report shows noncitizen voting hasn’t materialized

No surprise. Unfortunately, will not change many minds:

After President Trump and many other Republicans warned that vast numbers of non-U.S. citizens would influence last year’s election, states and law enforcement have devoted more resources than ever before to root out those ineligible voters.

More than six months into Trump’s second term, they haven’t found much.

New research out Wednesday tracking state government efforts across the country confirms what election experts have said all along: Noncitizen voting occasionally happens but in minuscule numbers, and not in any coordinated way.

“Noncitizens are not a large threat to our election system currently,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which conducted the research. “Even states that are looking everywhere to try to amplify the numbers of noncitizens … when they actually look, they find a surprisingly, shockingly small number.”

Source: Despite grand claims, a new report shows noncitizen voting hasn’t materialized

Canadian passport continues to plummet in power according to new global ranking. How does it compare to other countries?

What a silly, stupid and misleading headline, dropping one level hardly plummeting:

Over the last two decades, the Canadian passport has been one of the world’s strongest but a recent report suggests it is plummeting. 

Canada’s passport ties with Estonia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at 8th place out of 199 in the world with visa-free access to 184 countries, according to the latest data from Henley Passport Index . 

The recent ranking shows the Canadian passport is down from seventh place since the last index update in January, losing visa-free access to four nations while seeing a much larger drop from Canada’s 2014 peak when it ranked second. 

Although the Canadian passport has consistently ranked within the top 10 globally, in recent years, other countries are gaining visa-free access to destinations quicker than Canada, which is among five countries to have seen the largest plunge in rankings over the past decade. 

Here’s how Canada’s passport ranks compared to other countries including the U.S. 

Which countries have the most powerful passports?

Singapore’s passport has once again topped the list allowing citizens to enter 193 destinations out of a possible 227 without a prior visa. On the other end of the spectrum, Afghanistan remains at the bottom of the list, with its passport gaining visa-free access to just 25 countries— a massive mobility gap of 168 countries compared to Singapore. 

Other Asian countries are also topping the list, with Japan and South Korea tied for second place, giving holders visa-free access to 190 countries. 

Seven European nations take the third spot with visa-free access to 189 countries, including Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Spain. The fourth and fifth places are also largely dominated by other European countries, but New Zealand is the one outlier who shares fifth place with Europe’s Greece and Switzerland. 

Since six months ago, India has seen the largest jump in ranking, shooting up from 85th place to 77th with citizens granted access to 59 visa-free destinations, but only gaining entrance to two additional countries. In the latest data, Saudi Arabian citizens can now travel to 91 countries after adding four destinations, making this the largest gain in visa-free access from all passports since the start of the year. 

Source: Canadian passport continues to plummet in power according to new global ranking. How does it compare to other countries?

Thompson: Trump is wielding U.S. citizenship as a weapon

Well, we will see where this ends up at SCOTUS but yes, the weaponization intent and actions are clear:

…Whether this particular legal battle will become a preoccupation of the Trump administration, amid so many other executive orders and attempts at presidential overreach, remains to be seen. But should Mr. Trump decide that the attack on birthright citizenship is a battle he wants to wage (or a useful distraction to draw attention away from the Epstein files), the implications are astounding. 

Birthright citizenship is not the only or even the most popular way that countries denote who can and cannot hold rights, participate in the political sphere, and be an irrevocable member of the political community. But in the United States, it is a core constitutional right. It has both a symbolic weight and offers fundamental legal protections in a country perpetually at odds over who truly belongs. 

This most recent attack is undeniably ideological. In Mr. Trump’s worldview, birthright citizenship is tightly tied with his priorities to curb immigration, secure borders and redefine American identity. Citizenship is most often associated with the right to vote, but more importantly confers the right to remain. To leave and come back. You cannot be denied entry to your own country, my brother, who decades ago worked as a Canadian immigration officer, once told me. They have to let you come home.

The Trump administration claims that its efforts will preserve and protect the meaning and value of American citizenship. They are instead an attempt to wield citizenship as a weapon. This executive order threatens to limit access to citizenship for the masses and will inevitably increase the administrative burden of proving citizenship for those for whom it has previously been automatic. Mr. Trump has threatened to revoke citizenship from his political opponents (or those he just doesn’t like), enabled the Department of Justice to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans charged with certain crimes, and created a path for wealthy foreigners to buy it through the “gold card” program for the low, low price of US$5-million. 

The proposed end to birthright citizenship is the hallmark policy of an America that seeks to close and bolt its doors to the huddled masses. The deeper lesson, however, is that nothing is absolute or untouchable, even and perhaps especially the constitutional order. Everything can be undone.

Source: Trump is wielding U.S. citizenship as a weapon

Trump has a welcome message for new citizens. It’s different from past presidents

Of note (relatively restrained for him):

Over the past two decades, it’s become a tradition for each president to craft their own speech to welcome new citizens.

These video messages, played at naturalization ceremonies nationwide, are brief but experts in presidential rhetoric say they are important — not only are they meaningful to newly naturalized citizens, but they provide insight on how each president values immigration and their broader vision for the country.

President Trump, whose second term has been marked by his hardline approach to immigration, released a new naturalization ceremony video last month.

“Today you receive one of the most priceless gifts ever granted by human hands. You become a citizen of the United States of America,” Trump said.

Trump went on to welcome new citizens into the “national family,” adding that they now have a responsibility to “fiercely guard” and preserve American culture, including the freedom of speech, religion and the right to bear arms. 

“ That fits into his larger narrative, but that’s not usually what you see at an American naturalization ceremony.  It’s much more of a celebration and I’m not saying that Trump doesn’t celebrate those ideas, but it’s less celebratory than his predecessors,” said Jason Edwards, a communications professor at  Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts who has studied presidential welcomes to new citizens. 

Departure from past presidents’ remarks

Only a handful of presidents have delivered remarks at naturalization ceremonies, either through video or in person. That includes Gerald Ford, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. 

Edwards said most have centered their message on how immigrants enrich and renew the country whereas Trump’s remarks emphasized what the U.S. has to offer new citizens.

“No matter where you come from, you now share a home and a heritage with some of the most exceptional heroes, legends, and patriots to ever walk the face of the earth,” Trump said in his speech. 

“ There’s no heterogeneity, there’s no celebration of diversity, there’s no celebration of past immigrants,” Edwards said.

A spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, which released Trump’s video, said his message is “an essential one” and would be part of naturalization ceremonies moving forward.

That message: “U.S. citizenship is a privilege and reserved for those who respect our laws, culture, and history,” USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser said in a press release about the video. 

In both his first and second term, Trump avoided using the word “immigrant” altogether in his video message congratulating new citizens. That also strayed from his predecessors, who often called the U.S. a nation of immigrants and acknowledged the journey that newcomers took to become American citizens. 

Biden, for example, spoke about immigrants’ sacrifices and courage, adding that his own ancestors immigrated to the U.S. from Ireland.

“I don’t wanna say it’s an erasure, but it’s wanting to kind of erase that idea — you’re no longer an immigrant, you are a citizen,” Edwards said, referring to Trump’s remarks.

Instead, Trump shifted the focus to the idea of a “national family,” which often implies loyalty and obligation, according to Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha, a political science professor at the University of North Texas. 

Eshbaugh-Soha added the emphasis on family and the explicit reference to the right to bear arms are consistent with traditional conservative values — which is also unusual for ceremonial speeches like naturalization events. 

“That idea of American family is very much in line with this idea of America first,” he said. 

Generally, Trump’s rhetoric on immigration has intensified during his second term, especially during his most recent presidential campaign, according to Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric at Texas A&M University.

“ The metaphors that he used about immigration, whether it was an invasion, whether immigrants were poisoning the blood of the nation and things like that,” Mercieca said. “Those are very salient ways of talking about immigration and  very different from the ways that previous presidents have done.”

Source: Trump has a welcome message for new citizens. It’s different from past presidents

Nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order goes into effect

Of note:

President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place….

Source: Nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order goes into effect

Republicans renew a bid to remove noncitizens from the census tally behind voting maps

Yet again, for partisan advantage:

Republicans in Congress are reviving a controversial push to alter a key set of census numbers that are used to determine how presidents and members of the U.S. House of Representatives are elected.

Ratified after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says the “whole number of persons in each state” must be included in what are called apportionment counts, the population numbers based on census results that determine each state’s share of House seats and Electoral College votes for a decade.

But GOP lawmakers have now released three bills this year that would use the 2030 census to tally residents without U.S. citizenship, and then subtract some or all of them from the apportionment counts. Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee unveiled the latest bill Monday.

Any attempt to carry out the unprecedented exclusion of millions of noncitizens from the apportionment counts of the 2030 census is likely to undermine the head count’s accuracy and face legal challenges, as the first Trump administration did in its failed push for similar changes for the 2020 census.

How the three bills would reshape election maps for Congress and president

More than a year ago, the GOP-controlled House narrowly passed a bill to leave out noncitizens from apportionment counts, though a divided Congress ultimately stymied that push. The current Republican trifecta, however, has opened up the possibility of getting similar legislation over the finish line.

The latest measure in Congress is a funding bill that would ban the Census Bureau from including noncitizens without legal status in the 2030 apportionment counts. A House Appropriations subcommittee is set to vote Tuesday on whether to advance the bill.

The other two bills — one reintroduced in June by Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee and another in January by Rep. Chuck Edwards of North Carolina — call for a broader group to be left out: all noncitizens, including green-card and visa holders.

None of the bills take issue with the counting of noncitizens in the overall census numbers that are used to distribute trillions in federal funding to local communities for public services each year.

Source: Republicans renew a bid to remove noncitizens from the census tally behind voting maps

Courts unlikely to provide fifth extension to Ottawa to address Lost Canadians before November, says immigration lawyer

Extension unlikely to be needed as adequate time in fall session. Government should improve C-3 by adding a time limit of five-years to meet the 1,095 day physical presence requirement, not the current open ended provision (the Don Chapman specific airline pilot example in contrast to the vast majority of likely applicants):

Parliament needs to “just get on with it” and address the issue of “lost Canadians” through amendments to the Canada Citizenship Act, according to Jenny Kwan, NDP critic of citizenship and immigration.

She told The Hill Times that she wonders if a judge would have the patience to grant the federal government a fifth extension on a court order requiring action before the current November deadline.

“This is astounding. What the current situation is right now is that Canada’s Citizenship Act,
with respect to lost Canadians, is in violation of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms], and [Bill
C-3] will make it Charter-compliant,” said Kwan (VancouverEast, B.C.).

“I don’t know how much patience [the judge] will have to continue to see delays in the
passage of the bill to make it Charter-compliant.”

Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, N.S.) tabled Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), in the House on June 5. The House rose for the summer on June 20, pausing the bill’s progress until Sept. 15, when the next parliamentary sitting begins.

If passed, the bill would reverse a change to the Citizenship Act made by then-Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper in 2009 that introduced a “first-generation limit” when it came to citizenship status. Since that 2009 amendment, a Canadian citizen who was born outside of Canada cannot pass citizenship status on to their child if that child was also born or adopted outside the country.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared in December 2023, that the first-generation limit was unconstitutional on the grounds that it unjustifiably limited mobility and equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At that time, the Court gave the federal government a deadline of six months to fix the law through legislation. This deadline was later extended on four occasions, with the current deadline set as Nov. 20, 2025.

Kwan described Bill C-3 as “a significant piece of legislation that needs to be done,” in an interview with The Hill Times. The bill is nearly identical to the former Bill C-71, which was introduced in May 2024, but died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued on Jan. 6, 2025.

Kwan argued that a Conservative filibuster in the fall sitting that delayed progress in the House contributed to death of Bill C-71. “Basically, nothing got through, and [Bill C-71] also died on the order paper. So, in this round, it will depend on whether or not the Conservatives will continue to play political games ahead of lost Canadians,” said Kwan.

The Hill Times reached out to Conservative MPs including citizenship and immigration critic
Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, Alta.) and Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, Sask.), a member of the House citizenship committee, but did not receive a response by deadline.

Bill C-3 would amend the Citizenship Act to automatically grant Canadian citizenship to anyone who would be a citizen today were it not for the first-generation limit. The bill would also introduce a “substantial connection test” for Canadian citizens born outside of Canada who wish to pass on citizenship to their children born abroad. Going forward, the bill would allow access to citizenship beyond the first generation, so long as the parent has spent at least 1,095 cumulative—not necessarily consecutive—days in Canada prior to the birth of their child.

Redekopp told the House on June 19 that Conservatives have significant issues with Bill C-3, and criticized the substantial connection test of 1,095 non-consecutive days as “not substantial at all.”

“It is a very weak way to commit to being a Canadian citizen and then to confer that citizenship onto children. It is not a real test of commitment because the days do not have to be consecutive,” Redekopp told the House. “Also, people need to understand the current situation in our country. They need to live here to understand how things are and some of the issues we have right now in our country … People do not know that if they are living in another country.”

Kwan argued that objections to the non-consecutive 1,095-day minimum don’t make sense.

“Take, for example, a person who’s a pilot, right? You travel all the time. You could be a seond-generation born and you’re a pilot. You fly out of Canada regularly as a pilot, and then that means you’re leaving Canada all the time. So, does that mean to say that they can never get a Canadian citizenship? That doesn’t make any sense at all,” she said.

“You have to recognize the fact that we live in a global society now. Canada is a global country, and people move. You have to make sure that is addressed in such a way that fits the times of today.”…

Source: Courts unlikely to provide fifth extension to Ottawa to address Lost Canadians before November, says immigration lawyer

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban Faces New Peril: Class Actions

Of note:

When the Supreme Court ruled in President Trump’s favor two weeks ago in a case arising from his efforts to ban birthright citizenship, he called the decision “a monumental victory.”

But the victory may turn out to be short-lived.

To be sure, the 6-to-3 ruling severely limited a key tool federal trial judges had used in checking executive power — universal injunctions that applied not only to the plaintiffs but also to everyone else affected by the challenged program nationwide.

But the justices made clear that another important tool remained available — class actions, which let people facing a common problem band together in a single lawsuit to obtain nationwide relief.

The differences between the two procedures may at first blush seem technical. But universal injunctions have long been criticized across the ideological spectrum as a judicial power grab without a basis in law. Class actions, on the other hand, are an established mechanism whose requirements are set out in detail in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Joseph N. Laplante, a federal judge in New Hampshire, embraced class actions on Thursday, opening a new front in the battle to deny Mr. Trump’s effort to redefine who can become a citizen. The move was also a new sign that Mr. Trump’s win at the Supreme Court may turn out to be less lasting than it at first appeared.

The judge provisionally certified a class of all children born to parents who are in the United States temporarily or without authorization. Then he entered a preliminary injunction in their favor barring the enforcement of Mr. Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship. It applied nationwide.

That means Mr. Trump’s executive order, which has never come into effect and may never will, remains blocked. The ban would upend the conventional understanding of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868: “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.”

A White House spokesman called Judge Laplante’s ruling “an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.”

But the court’s decision specifically contemplated the alternative, and it gave challengers 30 days to pursue it and other options….

Source: Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban Faces New Peril: Class Actions