Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 29, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to limit birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents have a specific legal connection to the United States, excluding children of undocumented immigrants.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to redefine who is considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for the purpose of birthright citizenship. It specifies that a person born in the U.S. is a citizen at birth only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident, or an alien in lawful status serving in the armed forces. It explicitly states this change does not retroactively affect those born before its enactment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill clarifies the original intent of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, asserting that "subject to the jurisdiction" was not intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of those who owe no allegiance to the U.S., such as undocumented immigrants. They contend it would reduce incentives for illegal immigration, enhance national sovereignty, and align U.S. law with the practices of most other developed nations.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue this bill unconstitutionally reinterprets the 14th Amendment, which they assert unequivocally grants citizenship to nearly all persons born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status. They contend it would create a class of stateless individuals, undermine the stability of families, and lead to significant administrative and social challenges by denying citizenship to a large population born and raised in the U.S.
The bill is very short and easy to read, but its implications are profound and highly contested, requiring significant background knowledge to fully grasp.
Section 2(a)(3), amending 8 U.S.C. 1401
Redefinition 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 one parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident, or an alien in lawful status serving in the armed forces. This effectively restricts automatic birthright citizenship to children of parents with established legal ties to the U.S.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision corrects a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, aligning U.S. citizenship law with the concept of national sovereignty and the practices of most other countries. They believe it would deter illegal immigration by removing the incentive of "anchor babies" and ensure that citizenship is based on a genuine allegiance to the U.S.
Critics contend
Opponents contend this provision is unconstitutional, directly contradicting the plain text and historical understanding of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. They argue it would create a permanent underclass of non-citizen residents, lead to complex legal challenges, and impose significant social and administrative burdens by denying citizenship to individuals born and raised in the U.S.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to assert national sovereignty and control over immigration with the constitutional interpretation of birthright citizenship and the potential social implications of creating a large population of non-citizen children born on U.S. soil.
The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the effective date and avoid retroactive application, which could lead to massive legal and social disruption.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures legal stability by not retroactively stripping citizenship from individuals who were already considered citizens under existing law, thereby avoiding massive legal and social disruption.
Case against: Critics generally oppose the core change itself, but most would agree that avoiding retroactivity is a practical necessity to prevent widespread legal chaos and challenges to existing citizenships.
Estimated impact: Prevents immediate legal chaos and challenges to existing citizenships, focusing the impact of the bill solely on future births.