China has emerged as a focal point in the debate over US birthright citizenship, as the nation’s Supreme Court appeared sceptical of oral arguments on Wednesday in a landmark case driven by President Donald Trump’s push to restrict the practice.
Birthright citizenship “has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism”, said Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Trump’s top litigator, in his opening remarks before the highest court in the country.
“Uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”
Marking a historic first for a sitting president, Trump was in attendance at the Supreme Court to hear the oral arguments of the case Trump vs Barbara.
Driven by motorcade from the White House, the president sat in the first row of the public gallery in a red tie and dark suit.
“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘birthright’ citizenship!” Trump falsely claimed on social media in his first public comments after the hearing.
Restricting birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of Trump’s second-term agenda, underscored by his unprecedented decision to attend the Supreme Court session in person.
An executive order he signed in early 2025 to end citizenship for children of non-citizens or undocumented parents has been repeatedly blocked in federal courts.
Thirty-two other countries have birthright citizenship laws “substantially similar” to those of the US, according to a Pew Research Centre analysis.
Most of these countries are in the western hemisphere, with the US’ neighbours, Canada and Mexico, being two of them.
China has increasingly become a focus in the fight against birthright citizenship. In the lead-up to the Supreme Court arguments, birth tourism became a growing argument utilised by those on the Trump administration’s side. The practice involves travelling to the US to give birth and secure the child’s citizenship.
“Birthright citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!” Trump wrote on social media on Monday.
Sauer aimed directly at China when questioned on Wednesday, calling the facts about the practice “striking”. He conceded “no one knows for sure” about birth tourism numbers.
“Media reported as early as 2015 that, based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China, whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation,” he said.
When asked about the number of children who gained citizenship through birth tourism, Sauer pointed to a letter by 35 House Republicans, led by Chip Roy and Tom Tiffany, sent to the Trump administration urging action against birth tourism in March.
“There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS,” he said. “The media reports indicate estimates could be over 1 million or 1.5 million from the People’s Republic of China alone.”
However, statistics indicate the practice is far smaller than claimed.
According to the National Centre for Health Statistics, there were 27,476 births to Chinese-born mothers in 2023, out of 852,470 births to foreign-born mothers and 3.7 million births overall, of which only 113 were to non-US residents from China.
In 2018, these numbers were slightly higher, with 3.9 million births overall, of which 267 were to non-US residents from China.
Statistics also showed that there were only 581 births in the US territory of the Northern Mariana Islands in 2023, a reported birth tourism hotspot.
Just two of these were by foreign-resident mothers. In contrast, there were 1,262 births in 2018, with 565 to US or territory residents and 697 to foreign residents.
No statistics are available on where these mothers were from, and the figures do not represent those who may have misrepresented their place of residence.
US birthright citizenship origins involve China
The legal history of birthright citizenship in the United States is key to understanding Wednesday’s arguments. As it stands in the US today, the principle stems from a landmark case involving China.
In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a US citizen under the 14th Amendment, thereby establishing that nearly all persons born on US soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ nationality.
Wong had been denied re-entry to the US after a trip to China, with officials arguing he was not a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act because of his parents’ immigration status.
The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has long been understood to grant citizenship to nearly all children born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Just after the Civil War, the law was passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868 to safeguard the rights of former slaves and other minorities.
“For centuries, Chinese Americans have helped build this country,” said Ro Khanna, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Communist Party, in a statement on Wednesday.
“From workers on the transcontinental railroad to particle physicist Chien-Shiung Wu, to architect I.M. Pei, thousands of Chinese Americans have contributed immeasurably to our nation’s innovation, culture and success.”
Cecillia Wang, the lawyer arguing on behalf of those challenging the executive order, is a birthright citizen herself.
Her parents moved to the US from Taiwan for graduate school in the 1960s. She was born in 1971, while both of her parents were still on student visas, and was granted US citizenship by birth.
“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they will tell you, ‘Everyone born here is a citizen, alike,’” the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer said.
“That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”
Justices unconvinced by Trump administration’s arguments
Trump-appointed justices remained sceptical of the administration’s arguments on Wednesday, as the US president sat in the front row, before leaving shortly after Sauer presented.
“I get the point, thinking about European countries don’t have this [birthright citizenship] – or most other countries, many other countries in the world don’t have this,” Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said to Sauer.
“I guess I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter, necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point as a policy.”
Another key point at the Supreme Court on Wednesday was the question of domicile. The administration has argued that citizenship should only be granted to those whose “primary allegiance” is to the US.
“Lawful domicile” established this allegiance, which Trump administration lawyers defined as “lawful, permanent residence within a nation, with intent to remain.”
“How would it work? How would you adjudicate these cases? You’re not going to know at the time of birth for some people whether they have the intent to stay or not, including US citizens by the way,” Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Sauer.
There could be 6.4 million children born in the US without defined legal status by 2050, if birthright citizenship is restricted, with Asians and Latinos the most impacted, according to a new study by Penn State researchers.
“Many Asian immigrants arrive in the US on temporary student or work visas, and then it takes them another decade to get a green card,” wrote Jennifer Van Hook, professor of sociology and demography at Penn State and co-author of the study.
The new policy would leave the children of these immigrants designated as “unauthorised,” or “without citizenship,” Van Hook added.
“These are often highly educated people contributing to our economy, and to disenfranchise their children would be a big loss for them,” she said.
Christine Chen, Executive Director of APIAVote, said for Asian-American and Pacific Islander communities, the history of birthright citizenship is deeply personal.
“Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents were barred from citizenship, yet still helped build this country,” she said.
“Ending birthright citizenship would turn back the clock to a darker era of inequality, and it is a mistake we cannot afford to make.”
The decision on Trump vs Barbara is likely to land in the summer, around late June or early July. -- SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
