A new Penn State study projects that ending birthright citizenship could leave millions of U.S.-born children without legal status by 2050, with especially large impacts on Asian and Latino families. Researchers warn the shift could undermine both immigrant families and the nation’s future workforce.
Ending birthright citizenship in the United States would leave millions of U.S.-born children without legal status in the coming decades, with particularly sharp consequences for Asian and Latino families, according to a new Penn State study.
The research, published in the journal Demography, models what would happen if a proposed policy to restrict birthright citizenship — guaranteed since 1868 by the 14th Amendment — were to take effect. The team projects that by 2050, as many as 6.4 million children born on U.S. soil could lack a defined legal status.
The largest number of these children would be Latino, who would make up more than 90% of U.S.-born people without legal status under the most restrictive scenario the researchers examined. But the fastest growth would occur among Asians, driven largely by changes affecting families on temporary student and work visas.
Co-author Nicole Kreisberg, an assistant professor of public policy at Penn State, emphasized that a key part of the proposed policy is how it redefines who counts as an undocumented parent.
“The policy ending birthright citizenship slated to be argued before the Supreme Court in April would expand the definition of an undocumented parent to someone with any kind of non-immigrant visa, like a student visa or work visa, and that’s the part that would really change a lot of lives for Asian families,” Kreisberg said in a news release.
Under current law, nearly all children born in the United States are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The new proposal would break from that tradition by tying a child’s status to the parents’ status, including parents who are in the country legally on temporary visas.
Many Asian immigrants arrive on student or work visas and then spend years navigating the path to permanent residency. Co-author Jennifer Van Hook, the Roy C. Buck Professor of Sociology and Demography at Penn State, noted that this timing overlaps with major life milestones.
“We know from our prior research that about half of Asians who initially come as students end up staying permanently, and so they’re coming in the middle of the family-building parts of their lives,” Van Hook said in the news release.
Under the proposed change, children born to these families during that period would not receive citizenship at birth. Instead, they would be classified as lacking legal status, even though their parents followed immigration rules and entered the country through official channels.
Van Hook emphasized what that would mean for families and for the broader economy.
“These are often highly educated people contributing to our economy, and to disenfranchise their children would be a big loss for them,” she said.
To estimate the impact of such a policy shift, the researchers first calculated how many undocumented immigrants currently live in the United States. They did this by comparing data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey with legal residency records from the Department of Homeland Security, then adjusting for people likely missing from official counts using data from countries such as Mexico.
Next, they projected the size and makeup of both undocumented and temporary nonimmigrant populations through 2050. Their model incorporated current patterns in fertility, mortality and migration, and tested three different policy scenarios:
- A status quo scenario, in which all children born in the United States are citizens, regardless of their parents’ status.
- A first restrictive scenario, in which children born to two undocumented parents would not receive citizenship.
- A second, more expansive restrictive scenario, in which children born to two undocumented parents, two nonimmigrant parents, or one of each would not receive citizenship. The researchers noted this scenario reflects the language of the policy now headed to the Supreme Court.
In the first restrictive scenario, the team projected 5.3 million children would be born to undocumented parents over the next 25 years, with about 3 million still living in the United States by 2050 without legal status.
When they added children born to nonimmigrant parents in the second scenario, the total number of U.S.-born children without legal status rose to 6.4 million, with 3.4 million still in the country by midcentury.
Under that second scenario, Latinos would make up about 93% of the U.S.-born population without legal status in 2050. At the same time, the number of Asian children in that situation would increase fivefold, reflecting the large share of Asians who come on temporary visas for study or work.
Kreisberg noted the findings highlight a major shift in who would be affected by immigration policy.
“We found that the proposed change to birthright citizenship would create an undocumented population among families who have done everything the legal way, like obtain nonimmigrant visas for work or study,” she said.
Beyond the human and legal consequences for individual families, the researchers argue that restricting birthright citizenship could undercut the nation’s long-term economic prospects.
Van Hook pointed to evidence that, when given opportunities and equal treatment under the law, immigrants tend to excel in education, jobs, entrepreneurship and investment, benefiting the broader society. She also cited a 2024 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the recent surge in immigration would add $8.9 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over the next decade, largely through additional taxable wages.
“Thinking about the kinds of workers we need in the future given our information economy, we depend heavily on a highly educated workforce,” Van Hook added. “If we put barriers up for millions of these children, we are effectively sabotaging ourselves.”
One possible ripple effect, the researchers warned, is a brain drain. Highly skilled international students and workers might choose to build their careers and families in countries that continue to offer birthright citizenship or clearer paths to status for their children.
“Higher education pours a lot of resources into educating students, including our international students,” added Van Hook. “If we’re now essentially pushing them out of the country right after that investment, what are we doing? That’s a wasted investment.”
The study underscores that the debate over birthright citizenship is not only a constitutional or political question, but also a decision about the future shape of American society — who grows up with full membership in the only country they have ever known, and how the United States positions itself in a global competition for talent.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the proposed change, the Penn State team’s projections offer a data-driven glimpse of what could lie ahead for millions of children and their families if the 14th Amendment’s long-standing promise is narrowed.