“The order is currently on hold, but many questions remain unanswered,” she says, expressing frustration about the lack of clear procedures for her baby’s citizenship. “If the order doesn’t come into effect, what will the procedure be? Will it remain the same, or will there be changes? We’re in limbo right now.”
Originally from Mumbai, Gosrani, who works for an accounting firm, has been living in the US since 2014 on an H-4 dependent visa, while her husband, a hardware engineer, holds an H-1B visa. They applied for a green card in 2017 and are still awaiting a decision. With their two-year-old daughter already a US citizen, Gosrani and her husband are exploring Plan B—moving back to India—but are worried about the potential consequences about their children’s futures.
Like Gosrani, many other immigrant families face ambiguity under the current administration. A recent lawsuit filed by Washington State against the Trump administration’s order to end birthright citizenship has taken a significant turn. Three pregnant non-citizen women have joined the case, which has been consolidated with another lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
The Trump administration’s executive order aims to end birthright citizenship for babies born to non-US citizens or non-lawful permanent resident parents. On January 23, US District Court Judge John Coughenour granted a 14-day restraining order, blocking the executive action until February 19, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional”.
The case is part of a broader effort to block Trump’s order, with 18 other states filing a similar lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts. A hearing on a preliminary injunction is set for February 6, in Seattle, and attorneys expect the case to reach the US Supreme Court eventually.
Immigration lawyer Sudhir Shah says the recent decision to end birthright citizenship has been opposed by 22 out of 50 US states. He argues that the amendment to the US Constitution was made for specific reasons but has been taken advantage of by individuals, particularly from India and China. In both countries, there’s a practice known as “birth tourism”, where pregnant women travel to the US on B1/B2 visas and give birth to secure US citizenship for their child.
US presidents have been trying to address this issue for years. Shah believes that this provision is being misused, potentially allowing individuals to sponsor their relatives for US citizenship in the future. This raises concerns about national security and the vetting process for individuals entering the US.
A recent example illustrates this issue, adds Shah. “A client, a prominent diamond merchant, took his seven-month-pregnant wife to the US, where their child was born and granted citizenship. When they attempted to repeat this process, their visas were cancelled.”
This situation highlights the complexities of the issue. While some individuals may view the law as unfair, others may see it as necessary. Eventually, opinions on the matter depend on individual perspectives and priorities.
Nikita and her husband Rohan (names changed) agree with Shah. The duo has been living in Chicago since 2010. Originally from Gujarat, they both hold master’s degrees in computer science from reputable US universities. Nikita graduated from the California State University, East Bay, while Rohan earned his degree from IIT-Chicago.
The couple, both on H-1B visas, has two children, aged four and eight, who were born in the US and have birthright citizenship. Despite their settled life, they acknowledge the challenges and uncertainties surrounding their immigration status.
“We’ve seen the process become increasingly difficult since 2010,” Nikita says. “Many companies are hesitant to sponsor H-1B visas due to the associated costs. It’s tough to change jobs, and the competition for visas is fierce.”
Rohan adds, “We believe that the current situation has been worsened by Indian employers and individuals who have exploited the system. Companies like Infosys, Cognizant, Wipro and HCL have taken advantage of loopholes, enabling their employees to obtain EB-1 green cards quickly. We should acknowledge our role in creating this situation rather than blaming the US government.”
The couple agrees that the misuse of temporary visas and birthright citizenship has contributed to the current challenges. They believe that it’s still possible to navigate the system successfully with the right skills and planning.
They also have a backup plan in place. “If our immigration status were changed, we would consider returning to India,” Nikita says. “We have a support system in place back home, including family and friends. It would be easier for us to restart in our homeland rather than starting from scratch in a new country.”
Also Read- H-1B in 2025: Rethinking US immigration pathways
The Indian community in the US is particularly affected by the ongoing debate. With over 5.4 million Indians living in the US, accounting for approximately 1.47 percent of the country’s population, the proposed changes to birthright citizenship have major implications.
Indians make up a substantial portion of H-1B visa holders, with 72.3 percent of the 386,000 H-1B visas issued in 2023 going to Indian nationals. Under the new order, hundreds of Indian-origin children born in the US will no longer be granted automatic citizenship. This change will also impact over a million Indians waiting for a green card.
The H-1B visa programme has been a pathway for Indians to contribute to vital fields like STEM and medicine. Historically, Indians have been the primary beneficiaries of this programme, with around two-thirds of these visas allocated to computer-related occupations.
It’s essential to understand that holding an H-1B visa doesn’t guarantee citizenship. The US government isn’t obliged to grant citizenship, even if an individual’s company sponsors their stay, explains Shah. To put this into perspective, “consider the scenario of a foreign national coming to India for work and expecting citizenship. It highlights the importance of recognising that seeking citizenship is a personal ambition, which can sometimes lead to difficulties”.
While some argue that birthright citizenship is a vital right, others see it as a loophole that needs to be closed. The debate highlights the complexities of the issue and the need for a comprehensive solution. Ultimately, the fate of birthright citizenship remains uncertain. As the legal battle unfolds, families like Gosrani’s will continue to face uncertainty about their future.
Image: Shutterstock