Prologue
Interesting article and even more interesting comments on the 14th Amendment "birthright citizenship" issue.The Trump v. Barbara case to be heard April 1, 2026 will probe which individuals born in the USA are not U.S. citizens at birth.www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/u…
— John Richardson (@expatriationlaw.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T09:07:48.861Z
On Wednesday April 1, 2026 the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the “Trump v. Barbara” case. This issue is whether birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship regardless of the legal status of the parents. An excellent analysis of what to expect is here.
You can listen to the live argument on the Supreme Court site. It all takes place on Wednesday April 1, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.
This case will be of particular interest to the “Accidental Americans” community who do not believe that they should be treated as though they are U.S. citizens. President Trump may agree with them. Specifically, you can expect the Trump lawyers to argue – as per his January 20, 2025 Executive Order that:
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
In Summary, it appears that the Trump administration will argue that “birthright citizenship” is not available to children born on U.S. soil to a mother who is neither a U.S. citizen nor permanent resident AND when the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor permanent resident.
My prediction (which is worth nothing)
The “Birth Tourism” industry will continue ONLY to the extent that the biological father of the child is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Yes, there are some circumstances where U.S. citizenship or Green Card status is a benefit! Male Americans abroad can become “registered sperm donors”. (Perhaps a side business to offset the costs of U.S. tax compliance abroad.)
If you are interested in a more detailed discussion (on the law and not the business opportunity for male U.S. citizens) see my lengthier post …
This will be interesting. Also I would find interesting whether Trump/ICE really has the right to deport Green Card holders when the IRS has a right to consider them as “US persons” and tax them no matter where they live in the world.
@Petros
You raise the interesting question of the relationship between immigration/rights/benefits and tax residency.
Three observations:
1. From 2004 to 2008 U.S. domestic allowed for the USA to continue to tax former citizens as though they were still citizens (until the Form 8854 was filed).
2. The right to tax “former citizens” is enshrined in the “saving clause” of many U.S. tax treaties.
3. In the case of Green Card holders: assuming deportation = ending the right of permanent residence (the Green Card) then the USA could subject them to the 877A Exit Tax based on the deportation.
Here is a podcast that I did in the summer with Virginia La Torre Jeker discussing this:
https://prep.podbean.com/e/the-legal-labyrinth-us-citizenship-and-taxation-unraveled/
Re: #2 – Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe most if not all of those “saving clauses” allow the US, on former US citizens (typically up to 10 years after expatriation), to tax US-sourced income normally exempt from US taxation by treaty for residents of the country in question, not taxation on worldwide income as is done to US citizens and green card holders.
@Kelly
The “saving clause” takes different forms in different tax treaties (largely mirroring the evolution of U.S. expatriation law).
You might find the most recent U.S. tax treaty – the 2022 treaty with Croatia – to be interesting.
Basically, it allows the United States to tax both current U.S. citizens and former U.S. citizens who are residents of Croatia according to the U.S. rules found in the Internal Revenue Code.
Here is a blog post I wrote in 2022 describing this:
https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2022/12/18/croatia-agrees-to-allow-the-us-to-impose-tax-forms-and-penalties-on-its-us-citizen-residents/
See also:
https://x.com/ExpatriationLaw/status/1604591124022235138/photo/1
Bottom line: It’s far worse than what you describe.
It looks like that “proposed” US-Croatia tax treaty did not get ratified (on the IRS page showing a list of countries with a tax treaty Croatia is not listed):
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/united-states-income-tax-treaties-a-to-z
I haven’t checked every single treaty, but by looking at those which were effective/revised after that 2016 “model treaty” was made, so far from my cursory research (if I overlooked one you can mention such) it looks like no actual treaty in effect (unless that Croatia one is indeed effective but hasn’t been listed) has that insidious language allowing perpetual full US taxation of former US citizens.