US and Ukraine concluded ‘productive’ talks in Riyadh: Ukraine defense minister

As the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments Thursday on whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect, he falsely claimed on Truth Social that the United States is the only country that offers such a right.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20, the first day of his second term, that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the US illegally or temporarily. It has been put on nationwide holds by lower court orders.
The administration is now appealing, on an emergency basis, the authority of individual judges to issue these rulings, known as nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The constitutionality of the executive order itself is not yet before the court.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
Trump, discussing birthright citizenship in a Truth Social post: “The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows.”
The facts: This is not true. About 30 countries, including the US, offer unconditional birthright citizenship, according to the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution after the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be citizens.

“The statement is pretty obviously wrong,” said Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who is an expert on constitutional law and migration rights. “Many countries have birthright citizenship, though in some of them the rules are different from those in the US.”
Birthright citizenship is a principle known as jus soli or “right of the soil.” It bases citizenship on a person being born within a country’s territory. In contrast, the principle of jus sanguinis or “right of blood” determines citizenship based on the citizenship of one’s parents or other ancestors.
Citizenship is granted to anyone born in the US, regardless of the parents’ immigration status. Only children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government, and of enemies present in the US during hostile occupation do not qualify. Those born to parents of sovereign Native American tribes were also excluded until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Most countries with unconditional birthright citizenship, among them Canada and Mexico, are concentrated in the Americas. The rest are in Africa and Asia. Some countries offer citizenship to those born in their territory to noncitizen parents only under certain conditions, such as the legal status of their parents or the age of the person applying for citizenship based on place of birth.

These are: Antigua & Barbados, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, El Salvador, The Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The first sentence of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, often referred to as the Citizenship Clause, guarantees birthright citizenship. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This clause effectively overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which the Supreme Court held that Black people, no matter whether or not they were enslaved, were not citizens. It was ratified, along with the rest of the 14th Amendment, in 1868 after it was passed by the Senate in 1866. The Civil War ended in 1865.
Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship conflicts with a Supreme Court decision from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause made citizens of all children born on US soil with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in the case currently before the court.
The justices are also considering appeals from the Trump administration on several other issues, many related to immigration.

ROME: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday that the Vatican could be a venue for Russia-Ukraine peace talks, taking up the Holy See’s longstanding offer after Pope Leo XIV vowed to personally make “every effort” to help end the war.
Speaking to reporters in Rome before meeting with Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, the Vatican point man on Ukraine, Rubio said that he would be discussing potential ways the Vatican could help, “the status of the talks, the updates after yesterday (Friday) and the path forward.”
Asked if the Vatican could be a peace broker, Rubio replied: “I wouldn’t call it broker, but it’s certainly — I think it’s a place that both sides would be comfortable going.”
“So we’ll talk about all of that and obviously always grateful to the Vatican for their willingness to play this constructive and positive role,” said Rubio, who also met Saturday with the Vatican secretary of state and foreign minister.
The Vatican has a tradition of diplomatic neutrality and had long offered its services, and venues, to try to help facilitate talks, but found itself sidelined during the all-out war, which began on Feb. 24, 2022.
Pope Francis, who occasionally angered both Kyiv and Moscow with his off-the-cuff comments, had entrusted Zuppi with a mandate to try to find paths of peace. But the mandate seemed to narrow to help facilitate the return of Ukrainian children taken by Russia, and the Holy See also was able to mediate some prisoner exchanges.
During their meeting at the US Embassy in Rome, Rubio thanked Zuppi for the Vatican’s humanitarian role, citing in particular prisoner swaps and the return of Ukrainian children. Rubio “emphasized the importance of continued collaboration under the new leadership of Pope Leo XIV,” US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said.
Leo, who was elected history’s first American pope on May 8, took up Francis’ call for peace in Ukraine in his first Sunday noon blessing as pope. He appealed for all sides to do whatever possible to reach “an authentic, just and lasting peace.”
Leo, who as a bishop in Peru had called Russia’s war an “imperialist invasion,” vowed this week personally to “make every effort so that this peace may prevail.”
In a speech to eastern rite Catholics, including the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine, Leo begged warring sides to meet and negotiate.
“The Holy See is always ready to help bring enemies together, face to face, to talk to one another, so that peoples everywhere may once more find hope and recover the dignity they deserve, the dignity of peace,” he said.
The Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, repeated the Vatican’s offer to serve as a venue for direct talks, saying the failure of negotiations in Istanbul to reach a ceasefire this week was “tragic.”
“We had hoped it could start a process, slow but positive, toward a peaceful solution to the conflict,” Parolin said on the sidelines of a conference. “But instead we’re back to the beginning.”
Asked concretely what such an offer would entail, Parolin said that the Vatican could serve as a venue for a direct meeting between the two sides.
“One would aim to arrive at this, that at least they talk. We’ll see what happens. It’s an offer of a place,” he said.
“We have always said, repeated to the two sides that we are available to you, with all the discretion needed,” Parolin said.
The Vatican scored what was perhaps its greatest diplomatic achievement of the Francis pontificate when it facilitated the talks between the United States and Cuba in 2014 that resulted in the resumption of diplomatic relations.
The Holy See has also often hosted far less secret diplomatic initiatives, such as when it brought together the rival leaders of South Sudan in 2019. The encounter was made famous by the image of Francis bending down to kiss their feet to beg them to make peace.
Perhaps the Holy See’s most critical diplomatic initiative came during the peak of the Cuban missile crisis when, in the fall of 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev ordered a secret deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba that were soon detected by US spy planes.
As the Kennedy administration considered its response, with the threat of nuclear war looming, Pope John XXIII pleaded for peace in a public radio address, in a speech to Vatican ambassadors and also wrote privately to Kennedy and Khruschev, appealing to their love of their people to stand down.
Many historians have credited John XXIII’s appeals with helping both sides step back from the brink of nuclear war.