Should you automatically have a right to citizenship of the country in which you are born, regardless of where your parents are from?

Most governments around the world would answer “no”. Jus soli, also known as birthright citizenship, is not terribly common these days. In the UK, for example, anyone born in the country after 1983 only becomes a citizen if a parent is a British citizen or is “settled” (ie has permanent residency) in the UK at the time of birth. Similar provisions operate across Europe. By contrast, the US and Canada grant automatic citizenship to anyone born on their soil.

But the North American embrace of birthright citizenship may not have much of a future. Last weekend, Canada’s Conservative party passed a resolution calling for the government to stop granting citizenship to people born in Canada if their parents are not citizens.

The US has also been having a debate about birthright citizenship. In July, Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, said in the Washington Post that “citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright”. “The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers US citizenship is an absurdity,” he argued.

To some degree, Anton is right. It is absurd that being born within the geographical limits of the US confers you incredible freedom of movement, whereas being born within the geographical limits of, say, Gaza, ensures that travel is a constant nightmare. It is an absurdity that 10 million people in the world are stateless while citizenship is something many of us take for granted. As the question of birthright citizenship becomes more of a hot topic in North America, it would behoove us all to check our citizenship privileges.