Originally Posted by
daniellam
I think passports should not even have a place of birth field to begin with as I see it to be irrelevant.
Take the US passport as an example: Does this mean that if a US citizen is not born in the US is considered to be second class citizen?
In most countries, the country of citizenship has nothing to do with where you are born but on your parents citizenship at the time of your birth.
Note: Japanese passports list "place of domicile" which is not necessarily your place of birth. Swiss passports list "place of origin".
At least the Swiss use place of origin rather than place of birth and systematically entering false information in the field.
Swedish passports list place of birth (and the field title is "place of birth" in three languages, SV/FR/EN); but in fact at least 20% of Swedish citizens born in Sweden have Swedish passports with an incorrect place of birth in them. The false information is recorded in the Swedish passports and (before that) the national (tax) register because Sweden uses a sort of parish-based locality system that uses the domicile locality of the child's mother as recorded in the national register as at the time of the child's birth. This and some asinine name rules are a continuing legacy of an anti-egalitarian system propped up by what was the (still-)state-backed national religion. [The proportion of ethnic majority Swedes with this issue in their passports is higher than the national average in Sweden, with foreign-born Swedish citizens not having this issue as regularly.]
This dynamic may involve some adjustments when State Department and DHS are dealing with US citizens and others born in Sweden.