Birth in Germany to foreign parents

We clarify whether your child born in Germany is already German despite both parents being foreign nationals. However, the place of birth alone is not enough. What matters is whether at least one parent has the legally required period of residence and the appropriate residence status at the time of birth. Precisely because these two questions are assessed together, looking at the parents' current residence permit cards is often insufficient.

Under § 4 paragraph 3 StAG, a child born in Germany to foreign parents acquires German citizenship if one parent has been lawfully and habitually resident in Germany for five years and holds an unlimited right of residence at the time of birth. The law also treats a particular residence permit for Swiss nationals and their family members as equivalent.

It is sufficient for either the mother or the father to meet both requirements. However, the requirements cannot be divided between them. If the mother has the required period of residence, while only the father holds a suitable unlimited right of residence, it is necessary to check whether either of them also meets the other requirement. The family's overall circumstances do not replace this assessment of the individual parent.

The parents do not generally have to be married for the child to acquire citizenship. However, legally valid parentage is decisive. If acquisition is based on the father, his paternity must be legally established or validly recognised. A subsequent clarification of paternity may also trigger a fresh examination by the registry office. The relevant family-law questions cannot be answered simply by reference to a shared household or a similar family name.

As a rule, the requirements must be met at birth. Obtaining a settlement permit later or subsequently completing the fifth year of residence does not retroactively make a child who has already been born German under this provision. The position is different if evidence obtained later merely confirms that the required right already existed on the date of birth. The date of the evidence must be distinguished from the date on which the right existed.

This is particularly apparent with electronic residence permits. The production of a card, its issue and the commencement of the underlying right need not fall on the same day. Where necessary, the authority's decision and the period of validity specified in it are important for the assessment. By contrast, submitting an application for a settlement permit in good time does not in itself mean that a settlement permit has been granted. Particular questions concerning a grant with retroactive effect require careful examination.

Siblings can also hold different citizenships. The period of residence, status or law may have changed between their births. A child born after the 2024 reform may therefore have acquired citizenship at birth while an older sibling did not. The older child may then need to be naturalised; they are not automatically included simply because the younger child acquired citizenship.

The 2024 reform reduced the required prior period of residence from eight to five years. The five-year rule therefore generally applies to a child born on or after 27 June 2024. For earlier births, the version of the law in force at the time must still be examined. A more favourable rule in force today does not retroactively become a basis for acquisition for all children born earlier unless the law specifically provides for this.

The general rule on acquisition under § 4 paragraph 3 StAG was introduced on 1 January 2000. Anyone born before that date cannot derive their citizenship solely from today's place-of-birth rule. Other grounds for acquisition available at the time and transitional provisions with limited application periods must be distinguished from this rule. The precise requirements under residence law have also changed over the years.

To assess acquisition by an earlier birth, we compare the exact birth date with residence documents from that period. A parent's current residence permit or a current registration certificate can supplement the historical assessment, but cannot replace it. The overview of acquisition by birth helps explain the fundamental distinctions.

“Habitual” describes the actual centre of a person's life. A parent must have been present in Germany on more than a merely temporary basis. A visit or a series of tourist stays is not sufficient. Registration is an important indicator, but does not automatically prove that the person's actual life was based in Germany throughout the entire period.

“Lawful”, by contrast, concerns the legal basis for residence. Residence permits, directly applicable rights under EU law or statutory provisions continuing the validity of a previous right may be relevant. This legal question must be distinguished from the actual permanence of the stay. A person may in fact have lived in Germany for years without all of those years having been lawful in the sense required here.

Periods of study must not be excluded from the calculation as a matter of course. Under the Residence Act (AufenthG), even a residence permit initially granted for a temporary purpose can support lawful habitual residence if, viewed retrospectively, it opened a route to a permanent residence position. The crucial distinction is between the temporary purpose of a permit and the way the person's residence actually developed.

This does not mean that every stay for study or vocational training is automatically recognised. The legal bases and the actual residence history remain important. Older stays under earlier immigration legislation may also need to be assessed differently from periods under the Residence Act in force since 2005. The detailed article on lawful habitual residence explains these distinctions.

For periods spent in asylum proceedings, § 55 paragraph 3 AsylG contains a special rule on counting residence. It is linked to recognition of entitlement to asylum or the granting of international protection. International protection includes refugee status and subsidiary protection; a national prohibition of deportation alone is not equivalent. Tolerated stay (Duldung), by contrast, is not a residence permit and does not generally make residence lawful. We therefore record asylum permission, tolerated stay and residence permits separately in a timeline rather than treating them as equivalent residence papers.

Under § 12b paragraph 1 StAG, stays abroad of up to six months generally do not interrupt habitual residence. For longer absences, returning within the deadline set by the immigration authority can preserve its continuity. For people entitled to residence under EU/EEA rules and the other groups expressly mentioned, the law instead refers to special rules on absence under freedom of movement law.

It is also necessary to check whether the right of residence itself expired during an absence. The continuation of habitual residence and the continued validity of a residence permit are separate questions. A card that is still in a person's possession cannot simply restore a right that has expired by operation of law. Travel periods, return deadlines and official decisions may therefore be important.

Gaps caused by applying late for a residence permit also require closer assessment. § 12b paragraph 3 StAG contains a special rule for this situation which must also be taken into account for acquisition at birth. However, it does not provide a general licence to disregard any period of unlawful residence. Furthermore, the crediting of earlier periods of residence under § 12b paragraph 2, which is provided for naturalisation, must not be applied indiscriminately to acquisition at birth.

For third-country nationals, the settlement permit and the EU long-term residence permit are the principal examples of suitable legal statuses. An ordinary temporary residence permit is generally not sufficient on its own as the status held at the relevant time. An EU Blue Card is also not an unlimited right merely because it facilitates access to a later settlement permit.

For EU citizens and other people entitled to freedom of movement, what matters is the right of residence that actually exists. A right of permanent residence under § 4a FreizügG/EU does not always have to have arisen already. The Federal Ministry of the Interior's application guidance, section 4, paragraphs 6 to 8, includes the freedom of movement rights listed there among unlimited rights of residence. The guidance explains administrative practice; the law and the individual's entitlement remain decisive. An EU passport alone proves neither an actual entitlement to freedom of movement nor five years of lawful habitual residence.

For Swiss nationals and their family members, § 4 paragraph 3 StAG expressly names the residence permit based on the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons. The rights of residence under Article 6 or 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC–Turkey Association Council mentioned in the application guidance can also be relevant. However, a permanent employment contract alone does not prove such a right of residence. The detailed article on residence rights of EU, EEA and Swiss nationals helps identify the relevant legal basis.

The birth is recorded by the registry office. To assess acquisition at birth, it requests information about the parents' residence status and obtains written information from the immigration authority under § 34 PStV. The provision also requires an enquiry where information is missing or there are doubts. The registry office then records the result of its assessment.

The information received and the assessment note are added to the supporting files for the birth entry. This can become important later if the family applies for a first German passport or wishes to understand an earlier negative assessment. In that situation, it is useful to ask specifically about the assessment carried out under § 4 paragraph 3 StAG at the time. Simply obtaining a new birth certificate will not necessarily provide the decisive information.

Acquisition by operation of law does not depend on the parents submitting a naturalisation application or paying a naturalisation fee. If the requirements are met, the child becomes German by birth. Fees for certificates or identity documents are a separate matter. Nor is acquisition generally a matter of parental choice: parents cannot prevent the statutory conditions from taking effect by choosing not to apply for a German passport.

Earlier passports containing residence endorsements, electronic residence permits, extension decisions, certificates of continued lawful residence (Fiktionsbescheinigungen) and information from the immigration file can be important for reconstructing the residence history. A history of registered addresses helps establish where the person actually lived. However, it does not replace evidence of the legal basis for each phase. For studies or vocational training, additional documents can explain the course of the stay and the transition to a further residence prospect.

Missing old cards do not automatically mean that a right did not exist. Conversely, a card that is still available does not prove that the right remained legally valid in every respect. The documents are assessed together with the authorities' files. Where names differ, we establish the connection to the same person through marriage certificates or name-change records.

An entry recording acquisition at birth is an important indication, but cannot simply substitute for requirements that were not met. Equally, the absence of an entry does not automatically mean that citizenship was not acquired if the statutory requirements were in fact met. Where documents and the register note conflict, the facts and law at the relevant time must therefore be examined.

The procedure under § 30 StAG may be available to obtain a binding clarification. An applicant must credibly demonstrate a legitimate interest. Such a determination of status must be distinguished from a correction under civil status law. The two procedures can concern different questions and fall within the responsibilities of different authorities. The detailed article Establishing and proving existing citizenship explains the distinction.

In addition to German citizenship, the child may acquire the citizenship of their parents. Whether this happens depends on the relevant foreign law. The former German requirement for certain people with multiple citizenships to choose between them was abolished by the 2024 reform. Children affected today are therefore under no general obligation to choose one citizenship on reaching adulthood solely because they acquired German citizenship at birth.

A later move by the family or an ordinary change in a parent's employment circumstances does not automatically deprive the child of citizenship validly acquired. By contrast, retroactive changes to the original basis for acquisition must be assessed under the special rules in § 17 StAG. If citizenship was not acquired at birth in the first place, naturalisation as a family may be the appropriate later route. The child's requirements must be considered independently for this purpose; a sibling's German status alone is not enough.