Anchors Away Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to restrict birthright citizenship to children of parents with stronger ties to the U.S. and to prevent "birth tourism" by making pregnant non-citizen, unmarried aliens inadmissible.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Anchors Away Act," significantly alters birthright citizenship by defining "subject to the jurisdiction" for the 14th Amendment to require at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen, national, lawful permanent resident, or an alien with lawful status serving in the Armed Forces. It also creates a new ground of inadmissibility for pregnant nonimmigrant aliens not married to U.S. citizens, with an exception for legitimate medical treatment related to childbirth.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill clarifies the original intent of the 14th Amendment, preventing "birth tourism" and ensuring that U.S. citizenship is not automatically granted to children of parents who have no legal allegiance or significant ties to the United States. They contend it addresses a loophole that encourages illegal immigration and strains public resources, while preserving legitimate birthright citizenship.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue the bill unconstitutionally reinterprets the 14th Amendment, which has been consistently understood to grant citizenship to nearly all persons born on U.S. soil regardless of parental immigration status. They contend it would create a class of stateless children, complicate immigration enforcement, and could lead to racial profiling and discrimination against pregnant individuals seeking to enter the U.S.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(a)
Clarification of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" for Birthright Citizenship
This provision amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify that a person born in the United States is considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. for birthright citizenship purposes only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident, or an alien with lawful status serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. This effectively limits automatic birthright citizenship to children of parents with established legal ties to the country.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change aligns with the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which they contend was primarily to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved persons and not to children of foreign nationals with no allegiance to the U.S. They believe it will deter "birth tourism" and illegal immigration, reducing the perceived strain on public services.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision is unconstitutional, directly challenging over a century of legal precedent and interpretation of the 14th Amendment. They argue it would create a permanent underclass of non-citizen residents, complicate legal status, and could lead to significant legal challenges and social instability.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to control national borders and citizenship definitions against established legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the potential for creating a class of individuals without clear national affiliation.
Section 3
New Ground of Inadmissibility for Unmarried Pregnant Nonimmigrant Aliens
This section adds a new category to the grounds of inadmissibility, making any nonimmigrant alien inadmissible if they are pregnant and not married to a U.S. citizen. It includes a specific carve-out stating that this rule does not apply to aliens seeking legitimate medical treatment related to childbirth.
Section 2(b)
Non-Retroactive Application of Citizenship Changes
This subsection explicitly states that the changes to birthright citizenship made by the Act will not affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date the Act is enacted. This ensures that individuals who are already U.S. citizens under current law will retain their status.
Both Section 2 (citizenship changes) and the overall Act include severability clauses, stating that if any provision or its application is found unconstitutional, the remainder of the section or Act, respectively, shall not be affected.
Section 2(c) and Section 5
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to protect the rest of the bill if one part is struck down. In this case, given the controversial nature of the citizenship changes, it's a strategic inclusion to ensure other parts (like the inadmissibility clause) could stand even if the birthright citizenship redefinition is challenged.
Case for: Supporters argue severability clauses are crucial for legislative resilience, ensuring that the core intent of a bill can survive even if specific provisions face legal challenges. This is particularly important for a bill with potentially contentious constitutional interpretations.
Case against: Critics might argue that the inclusion of multiple severability clauses underscores the sponsors' awareness of the bill's constitutional vulnerabilities, suggesting they anticipate significant legal challenges to its core tenets.
Estimated impact: Ensures that if parts of the bill are invalidated, other parts can still be enforced, potentially allowing the inadmissibility clause to stand even if the birthright citizenship redefinition fails.