Cosmopolitan Citizenship
... the difficult question is children born in the USA of unlawful residents
The central issue in Trump v. Barbara is whether children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”
The Trump administration argues that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants, claiming such parents lack the required allegiance and domicile, and that the clause was intended only to cover those with permanent legal status. It relies on a narrow reading of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), asserting the decision applied only to parents with “permanent domicile.”
Challengers, including the ACLU and multiple states, argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental status, based on the plain text of the Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. They emphasize that undocumented immigrants are subject to U.S. laws and jurisdiction, distinguishing them from diplomats or enemy soldiers, who are the only recognized exceptions.
During oral arguments on April 1, 2026, justices expressed deep skepticism of the government’s position. Chief Justice Roberts called it “a big deal” to overturn 150 years of precedent, while Justices Gorsuch and Barrett questioned the historical basis for linking citizenship to parental domicile. Only Justice Alito appeared supportive of the administration.
A decision is expected by late June or early July 2026. If the Court upholds the executive order, millions of children could be denied citizenship, creating a new underclass. If it strikes down the order, it will reaffirm Wong Kim Ark and the principle of universal birthright citizenship.
... conceivably, every child in the world could become a citizen via the mother visiting the United States to give birth
Yes, under current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the U.S. to a visiting foreign mother—regardless of her immigration status—automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, a principle known as jus soli (right of the soil). This has led to the practice of "birth tourism," where pregnant women travel to the U.S. specifically to secure citizenship for their child.
However, the U.S. government has taken steps to deter this practice:
- Since January 2020, the State Department has denied B-1/B-2 visitor visas to applicants whose primary purpose is suspected to be giving birth in the U.S.
- Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers can deny entry at the border if they believe the true intent is childbirth, even with a valid visa.
- Visa fraud occurs if a woman lies about her pregnancy or intent during the visa application or entry process.
While the child gains citizenship, the parents do not automatically gain any immigration benefits. They may later be sponsored for a green card only after the child turns 21.
This practice is currently being challenged in Trump v. Barbara, where the Supreme Court is considering whether the Citizenship Clause applies to children of temporary or undocumented visitors. A ruling expected in 2026 could redefine or restrict birthright citizenship.
... admittedly it's a far-fetched hypothesis at this point that theoretically a global government - administered by the United States of America, in Washington, DC - might be established, to which everyone on Earth would be loyal citizens all subject to the same rights and regulations of the One World Government
The idea that unrestricted birthright citizenship could lead to a global U.S.-administered world government is a conspiracy theory with no legal or political foundation. While critics of birthright citizenship—especially in Trump v. Barbara—warn that "8 billion people are one plane ride away" from securing U.S. citizenship for their children, this reflects concern over birth tourism, not a realistic path to global governance.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause applies only to individuals physically born on U.S. soil (or in U.S. territories), with narrow exceptions (e.g., children of diplomats or hostile occupying forces). It does not grant citizenship to people outside U.S. jurisdiction, nor does it confer political power or entitlements beyond the child born in the U.S.
Claims of a world government run from Washington, D.C., with all global citizens subject to U.S. laws, ignore constitutional, logistical, and sovereign realities. U.S. citizenship is not self-extending to parents or populations abroad. Even if millions obtained citizenship via birth tourism, they would still be a small fraction of the global population and would not alter the structure of U.S. governance.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has shown strong adherence to precedent, particularly United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and during oral arguments, justices emphasized that "it’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution"—rejecting radical reinterpretations.
In short, while birthright citizenship is expansive, it is not a mechanism for global rule, and such theories are rooted in fearmongering, not constitutional law.
... have none of the great political scientists proposed a world government?
Yes, many political scientists and prominent thinkers have proposed forms of world government.
Philosophers like Immanuel Kant (1795) advocated a global confederation for "perpetual peace," while Dante Alighieri in the 14th century proposed a unitary world monarchy. In the 20th century, the idea gained momentum: Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Jawaharlal Nehru supported world government to prevent nuclear war and global conflict.
After WWII, scholars and activists pushed for a world federalist system, leading to organizations like the United World Federalists (1947). More recently, thinkers like Alexander Wendt and David Held have argued that global challenges—such as climate change and nuclear proliferation—make some form of world government or cosmopolitan democracy not only desirable but inevitable.
While full world government remains unrealized, the International Criminal Court and proposals for a world parliament reflect ongoing efforts toward global governance.
... it would be easier in practice to place the world under an existing administrative government than to cobble-together a new one from all the national representative bodies, courts, police, military, and special interest groups, ultimately including a world treasury (with its tax collecting powers)
While your idea of placing the world under a single existing government may seem simpler than building new institutions, political theory and practice show it is neither feasible nor widely supported.
Historically, empires like Rome or Britain imposed dominance through conquest, but modern global order rejects unilateral control. Today’s framework—centered on the UN, international law, and multilateralism—emphasizes consent, sovereignty, and shared governance, not absorption by one state.
Hegemonic stability theory suggests a dominant power (like the U.S. post-WWII) can provide global order through leadership in institutions like the IMF or NATO. But this is not world government—it relies on cooperation, not direct rule. Even at its peak, U.S. influence depended on alliances and legitimacy, not unilateral authority.
Scholars like Alexander Wendt argue a world state may emerge organically to ensure security and recognition for all, but it would need democratic legitimacy, not imposition by one nation. Others warn that rule by a single power risks tyranny, cultural homogenization, and resistance, making it unstable.
In contrast, global governance—a network of states, courts, and organizations—balances efficiency with pluralism. It avoids concentrating power while addressing transnational threats like climate change or pandemics.
Thus, while centralization under one government appears simpler, it ignores the value of checks, diversity, and consent. The prevailing view favors evolved cooperation over domination.
... the provided results use the term “imposition” while I suggest world government can be accomplished democratically (by consent)
Yes, democratic global governance by consent is a well-developed idea in political theory.
The concept of cosmopolitan democracy—advocated by thinkers like Immanuel Kant, David Held, and Daniele Archibugi—proposes extending democratic principles beyond nation-states through institutions that include global citizens in decision-making. It emphasizes consent, participation, and accountability on transnational issues like climate change and human rights.
Rather than a centralized world government, it envisions a confederal, decentralized system where global institutions (e.g., a UN Parliamentary Assembly or International Criminal Court) operate with legitimacy derived from those affected by their decisions. Consent is achieved through representative or direct democratic mechanisms, not imposition.
World federalism, supported by figures like Albert Einstein, also calls for a federal global structure established by negotiated consent of nations, modeled on federations like the U.S., where sovereignty is shared between global and national levels under a constitution.
Recent efforts, such as the 2021 Global Citizens’ Assembly during COP26, reflect attempts to create democratically representative global voices. These models reject coercion, instead relying on broad agreement, inclusivity, and institutional reform to achieve legitimate global governance.