Americans have long held that the 14th Amendment<\/a> to the Constitution grants automatic citizenship for babies born on US soil. Trump disagrees.<\/p>\n The case is also one more example of how citizenship and residency in many countries \u2013 including New Zealand \u2013 has become an increasingly vexatious issue in an age of massive migration.<\/p>\n Constitutional challenge<\/p>\n The 14th Amendment, passed after the American Civil War, states: <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n A decisive case<\/a> in 1898 largely established that babies born in the US are legally citizens. But the Trump administration argued the 14th Amendment only applied to former slaves. <\/p>\n That would mean babies born to individuals who are not \u201cdomiciled\u201d \u2013 thus not owing allegiance to the US \u2013 are not citizens under the amendment. <\/p>\n Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the reinterpretation was justified<\/a> given the threat of unchecked immigration and \u201cbirth tourism\u201d. <\/p>\n At this stage, a majority of the Supreme Court seems sceptical<\/a> about the Trump administration\u2019s argument. <\/p>\n But from a broader perspective, Trump v. Barbara is also an increasingly common example of how citizenship and migration disputes are challenging constitutional understandings and legal recognition of national, social and individual identity.<\/p>\n Belonging and connection<\/p>\n Citizenship is essentially about relationships and connections \u2013 to people and place. <\/p>\n Formal legal membership of a nation-state is primarily identified at birth, either by parentage (known in law as jus sanguinis or \u201cright of blood\u201d) or from the place where one is born (jus soli or \u201cright of the soil\u201d). <\/p>\n Either way, citizenship provides certain core protections for the holder, including the right to remain in a country without fear of removal.<\/p>\n The English common law followed the jus soli approach, meaning nearly every person born within countries such as New Zealand and the US were considered citizens.<\/p>\n Like the US, New Zealand followed the jus soli approach from 1948 to 2005, when it moved to a hybrid form of jus sanguinus. This aligned the country with Australia and the United Kingdom, which restrict automatic citizenship based on parental status. <\/p>\n Today, a person born in New Zealand to parents born elsewhere does not automatically become a citizen.<\/p>\n The change increased the likelihood of creating undocumented, native-born residents who are still not citizens. If a government alters definitions of immigration status, it can affect education and employment rights. <\/p>\n This has the potential to create a permanent underclass of non-citizen residents, as is the case in some European countries.<\/p>\n Indeed, questions of belonging and connection surround the pending Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill<\/a>. This makes targeted amendments to the Immigration Act 2009 and is now making its way through the New Zealand parliament. <\/p>\n As a mechanism to remove criminals or unwanted aliens, it seeks to expand the state\u2019s power to expel long-term residents up to 20 years after they gained residency. <\/p>\n A fragment of te Tiriti o Waitangi which guaranteed M\u0101ori the \u2018rights and privileges of British subjects\u2019. The Treaty and citizenship<\/p>\n The Waitangi Tribunal considered questions of citizenship in its 2025 report He Tangata, he Whenua<\/a>. While it didn\u2019t explicitly consider the question of birthright citizenship, the report did consider what community membership means in the context of M\u0101ori identity.<\/p>\n The tribunal examined the claim of John Ruddock, a M\u0101ori born in Australia who became a New Zealand citizen by descent, but whose Australian-born children were not eligible for automatic New Zealand citizenship under the Citizenship Act 1977.<\/p>\n The act limits citizenship by descent to one generation. When Ruddock moved back to New Zealand, he discovered his children had no legal right to remain. He argued their special relationship with the country as tangata whenua<\/a> (indigenous, people of the land) \u2013 recognised by the Treaty of Waitangi \u2013 was wrongly excluded in the law.<\/p>\n The report addresses how the act fails to recognise M\u0101ori as tangata whenua and fails to incorporate concepts such as whakapapa<\/a> (genealogy) and ahi k\u0101<\/a> (continuous occupation). <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/file-20260423-57-xdhd59.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n Archives New Zealand via Wikimedia Commons<\/a>, CC BY-NC<\/a><\/p>\n