Cristian Paez
Introduction
In an increasingly interconnected world, the concept of citizenship is evolving in ways that challenge traditional legal frameworks. Two Latin principles—jus soli (right of soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood)—have long governed who qualifies as a citizen. However, their relevance and application are coming under heightened scrutiny. As nations confront global migration, shifting demographics, and new forms of social and political identity, the tension between these principles intensifies. The future of citizenship may lie in reimagining these foundational concepts, exploring hybrid models, and pursuing more inclusive frameworks suited to a globalized 21st century.
Historical Roots and Global Variations
The development of the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis emerged from distinct historical trajectories. Jus soli traces its legal origins to English common law and later gained prominence in the Americas. Early nation-states in the Western Hemisphere, facing population scarcity and eager to attract immigrants, offered birthright citizenship to encourage settlers to remain and establish communities. For instance, in the United States, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1868, ensured citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, particularly to secure the rights of formerly enslaved people and their descendants. In practice, this meant that the children of Irish laborers in New York, Chinese railroad workers in California, and Polish miners in Pennsylvania would all be recognized as Americans at birth. Similarly, Canada’s jus soli and dual-citizenship tradition, which has been in effect since 1978, has allowed the children of recent Haitian refugees settling in Montreal or Nigerian professionals working in Toronto to grow up fully integrated into Canadian civic life. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico followed as well, using the principle to knit together then-present Indigenous communities, descendants of African slaves, and successive waves of European, Middle Eastern, and East Asian immigrants into a common national identity.
By contrast, jus sanguinis originates from Roman law, which became the basis for the development of legal systems in continental Europe and later influenced parts of East Asia and the Middle East. This principle, emphasizing lineage, shaped citizenship in countries where cultural and ethnic continuity were seen as vital. Following the codification of lineage-based citizenship in the Napoleonic Code of 1804, nations like Germany maintained jus sanguinis to preserve ties with diaspora populations, such as the Aussiedler in Eastern Europe, while reinforcing internal cohesion. Same goes for Italy, where descendants of Italian emigrants in countries like Argentina or the United States can claim citizenship through ancestral lines. In Japan, nationality laws have prioritized ethnic homogeneity. For example a child born in Tokyo to Korean parents who had lived there for generations could still be denied citizenship unless they pursued a difficult naturalization process. Similarly, China’s citizenship policies have historically linked status to ancestry, impacting children born abroad to Chinese parents who might return decades later and still be recognized as citizens by blood.
Colonial legacies have also shaped how countries approached citizenship. European empires often imposed jus sanguinis frameworks in their territories, that privileged settlers of European descent in regions such as French Algeria or British Rhodesia. After decolonization, some nations adapted their inherited laws. India, for instance, incorporated jus soli elements to promote unity among its ethnically diverse population, encompassing Hindus, Punjabis, Tamils and Bengalis under one national banner. In contrast, certain Gulf states in the Middle East have restricted the paths to citizenship for long-term South Asian or East African migrant workers. Instead, they have opted for the kafala or “sponsorship” system, despite their decades-long presence and economic contributions.
Contemporary Debates
At the heart of current citizenship debates lies the effort to build cohesive societies amid increased mobility. Proponents of jus soli argue that granting citizenship based on birthplace prevents statelessness and fosters belonging. For instance, a child born in Los Angeles to Salvadoran asylum seekers or in Bogotá to Venezuelan refugees could integrate more easily if recognized as a citizen from birth. Critics, however, counter that such openness encourages “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals travel to countries like the United States or Canada to ensure their children secure citizenship and its associated benefits. In Chile, for instance, reports of foreign mothers arriving shortly before delivery have sparked similar concerns, prompting the state to maintain its limited jus soli provisions.
In the United States, in particular, jus soli has long been a hallmark of inclusivity and equality, guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. Yet in recent years, debate has intensified. Some question whether the system is being exploited or if it continues to fulfill its original purpose of guaranteeing that anyone born on U.S. soil can join the national community. President-elect Donald Trump’s proposals to curtail or end birthright citizenship have fueled further controversy. Advocates of retaining the current framework warn that altering it risks creating a permanent underclass of stateless children, undermining foundational principles and potentially deepening discrimination. Legal experts, civil rights organizations, and the broader public continue to scrutinize the future of jus soli in America.
On the other hand, defenders of jus sanguinis emphasize cultural continuity. A Lebanese expatriate in France might pass Lebanese nationality to children never having seen Beirut, maintaining a ethnic link across generations. Yet this approach limits those without ancestral ties. Italy exemplifies this tension: children born to foreign parents in Italy must wait until they turn eighteen or endure a lengthy and complex process to gain citizenship even if they speak fluent Italian and hold steady employment. In Japan, Korean communities who settled before World War II still struggle with legal and social hurdles that keep perpetually forever “foreign.”
Some nationalist movements often exploit such complexities. In France, figures like Marine Le Pen of the National Rally argue that nationality should be “either inherited or merited.” In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government stresses jus sanguinis to reinforce ties with ethnic Hungarians in neighboring states, while painting newcomers as cultural threats. Similarly, Italy’s Matteo Salvini of Lega opposes reforms that might broaden jus soli. Even in relatively open countries like Australia, where birthright citizenship is conditional on a parent’s status, right-wing voices urge re-evaluation. These trends emerge as governments grapple with shifting demographics, economic pressures, and political headwinds, striving to balance cultural identity with fair, inclusive frameworks.
This tension is rooted in historical models that remain influential. In the Americas, shaped by continuous migration, jus soli naturally emerged. A Jamaican-born child in Toronto or a Ghanaian-born child in New York might grow up identifying as Canadian or American, anchoring unity in shared institutions rather than ancestry. In contrast, regions emphasizing ethnic unity, such as Europe and Asia, favored jus sanguinis. Japan and South Korea long adhered to lineage-based nationality, hindering equal status for children of migrants or differing ethnic backgrounds. European states like Germany looked to ancestry to maintain bonds with German-speaking enclaves in Eastern Europe, while Hungary’s reach extended to ethnic kin across borders. Italy’s outreach to descendants of emigrants scattered worldwide underscored the desire to preserve cultural ties.
Today, global mobility and multiculturalism complicate traditional narratives of citizenship. In Europe’s cities, children of Turkish, Kurdish, Syrian, Maghrebi, or South Asian descent attend local schools, speak local tongues, and see themselves as full members of their communities. Similarly, in Tokyo or Osaka, long-established Koreans, along with Chinese and Southeast Asian newcomers, challenge Japan’s insistence on bloodlines. Administratively, jus sanguinis still aids diaspora engagement: Italy’s extensive Argentine community benefits from ancestral claims, while jus soli grants immediate inclusion to children born in dynamic hubs like São Paulo or Toronto. Yet each model faces pressures: jus soli systems confront undocumented migration and alleged “birth tourism,” as previously mentioned, while rigid lineage rules marginalize long-term residents who may never earn full citizenship. Meanwhile, jus sanguinis contexts can leave generations as outsiders, as seen with Korean communities in Japan, while Gulf states frequently deny rights to children of South Asian laborers, forming a permanently disenfranchised underclass.
Looking ahead, climate change threatens to displace entire communities, from Pacific Islanders driven out by rising seas to Central American farmers escaping drought. Traditional frameworks will struggle to accommodate these fluid identities, distant ancestral ties, and complex life paths. Neither birthplace alone nor lineage alone can address such evolving challenges. Thus, societies must reimagine citizenship to respect historical legacies while adapting to the demands of a world marked by relentless change and unpredictable migration flows.
Solution
This proposal would apply to nationality laws that abide by jus sanguinis.
Instead of granting or denying citizenship outright at birth, a more flexible approach would establish a provisional status for children of non-citizen parents. This interim status would shield them from statelessness while granting immediate access to crucial social benefits, including healthcare, public schooling, and language support programs. As these children grow older, their integration into society could be assessed through transparent, well-defined criteria that become more relevant as they mature. For instance, by early adolescence, they might be expected to demonstrate basic language proficiency and familiarity with local customs or regulations. Further along, as they approach adulthood, completing a comprehensive civics course, maintaining stable residency, and possibly engaging in community service or vocational training could be required for full naturalization.
This step-by-step model offers multiple advantages. First, it prevents legal limbo at birth, ensuring no child falls through the cracks of the legal system. Second, it allows young people to become culturally and socially integrated in their host society before the state makes irrevocable citizenship determinations. Third, policymakers can periodically review and adjust these benchmarks in response to economic needs, shifting labor markets, or evolving educational standards. For example, if a nation identifies a shortage of bilingual educators or healthcare workers, it could encourage applicants to meet those skill gaps, linking citizenship advancement with broader societal interests. Additionally, the use of transparent criteria can increase public confidence in the fairness of the process, reducing suspicions that automatic birthright status is being abused while still ensuring that those genuinely invested in the country’s well-being can earn their place as citizens. In this way, the incremental model not only adapts more fluidly to changing circumstances but also fosters a stronger, more mutually beneficial relationship between individuals and their adopted homeland.
Germany’s legislative moves in 2023, which simplify access to nationality for children raised in its culture, mark a significant shift away from historically rigid lineage-based rules. Luxembourg, after reforming its nationality law in 2017, reduced residency requirements and introduced language proficiency benchmarks for aspiring citizens, enabling integration over time rather than making birth or ancestry the sole determinant of belonging. In France, debates center on upholding a sense of national cohesion by requiring immigrants to meet certain linguistic or civic standards, without closing the door to those who contribute economically, socially, and culturally. By offering multiple, incremental pathways to citizenship, these hybrid models transform nationality into a status earned through meaningful engagement rather than conferred solely by birth or ancestry. This approach can alleviate political tensions by acknowledging both cultural values and the contributions of newcomers, while the use of transparent, merit-based criteria ensures that integration unfolds naturally over time. In doing so, societies become more adaptable in managing demographic changes, fostering trust, fairness, and an inclusive sense of belonging that resonates across generations.
The Role of International Law and Cooperation
International legal instruments offer guidance, even if imperfect. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness sets a baseline that children should not be born into legal limbo. Some countries have responded on this principle: Thailand, for instance, has made strides in granting nationality to stateless hill tribe communities who previously lacked documentation. Regional measures also help. In the European Union, long-term residency directives give non-citizens rights that approximate those of citizens, reducing the starkness of exclusion.
Still, progress is uneven. Rohingya communities in Myanmar, stripped of citizenship despite centuries of presence, highlight how domestic politics can override international norms. Diplomatic efforts may help encourage reform, but sovereignty concerns often hamper global agreements. As more people traverse borders, whether Central American migrants moving through Mexico to reach the U.S. or West Africans seeking opportunities in Spain, international cooperation will be key to preventing sprawling stateless populations and ensuring fair treatment.
Conclusion
The future of citizenship sits at a crossroads formed by historical legacies, cultural self-understandings, and the fluidity of modern migration. Neither jus soli or jus sanguinis alone can meet the complex challenges of the present. As Nigeria-born children settle in London, Somali families integrate in Oslo, and Bolivian entrepreneurs invest in Santiago, citizenship must evolve.
Hybrid frameworks that blend birthright principles with inclusive naturalization and international cooperation offer promising ways forward. By acknowledging the breadth of human experience, people born far from ancestral homelands, refugees forging new identities, diasporic ties spanning continents, nations can craft citizenship laws that strengthen social cohesion and uphold human dignity. Ultimately, citizenship should affirm shared values, extending beyond mere birthplace or parentage to reflect how we live together in an interconnected world. In embracing more adaptive and inclusive models, societies can transform citizenship into a unifying force befitting the complexities of the 21st century and beyond.
Comments