Citizenship Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 13, 2026
Bottom line
The Citizenship Act of 2026 seeks to fundamentally alter birthright citizenship by denying it to children born in the U.S. whose mothers are deemed 'invaders' due to unauthorized presence or birth tourism, a move that would face significant constitutional challenges.
What it actually does
This bill declares that individuals who enter the United States without authorization or for the purpose of birth tourism are considered 'invaders'. It then amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly exclude children born in the United States to such 'invaders' from birthright citizenship, thereby reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to uphold the constitutional duty to protect states from invasion, assert Congress's power over naturalization, and address a national security crisis caused by mass unauthorized migration and birth tourism. They contend that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause was never intended to grant citizenship to children of 'invaders' and that this bill clarifies existing constitutional principles.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill is unconstitutional, directly contradicting the plain text and established legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. They argue it would create a marginalized class of stateless children born in the U.S., lead to immense administrative and humanitarian challenges, and is a discriminatory measure based on a politically motivated redefinition of 'invasion'.
The bill text is short and concise, but its legal and societal implications are profound, requiring a reader to have significant background knowledge in constitutional law and immigration policy to fully grasp its impact.
Section 3(a)
Designation of Unauthorized Persons and Birth Tourists as Invaders
This provision declares that any person not lawfully admitted to the United States, or otherwise unlawfully present, is designated an 'invader'. It also includes any person seeking admission for the purpose of giving birth in the U.S. (birth tourism) as an 'invader'. This designation is for the specific purpose of amending birthright citizenship.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this declaration is a necessary exercise of congressional authority to protect national sovereignty and address what they perceive as an ongoing invasion, thereby providing a legal basis for altering birthright citizenship.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this declaration is a political maneuver without legal precedent, designed to circumvent established constitutional law and justify discriminatory policies against immigrants. They argue it misuses the term 'invasion' as understood in constitutional contexts.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between national sovereignty and security concerns, as articulated by proponents, and the established legal framework for immigration and citizenship, as defended by opponents.
Section 3(b)
Designation of Commercial Surrogacy Participants from Covered Nations as Invaders
This section specifically designates any national of a 'covered nation' (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2)) who enters into a commercial surrogacy contract for the purpose of having a child birthed in the United States as an 'invader'. This targets specific foreign adversaries and their citizens.
Section 4
Exclusion of Children of Invaders from Birthright Citizenship
This section amends Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to state that a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction shall NOT include children born to an 'invader' (as defined in Section 3). This applies if the mother was unlawfully present or engaged in birth tourism, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. It also applies to children born via commercial surrogacy to 'invaders' from covered nations.
Section 5
Prohibition on Judicial Review of Invasion Determination
This section explicitly states that no court is authorized to review a determination by the President or Congress regarding the existence of an 'invasion'. This attempts to shield the 'invader' designation from judicial scrutiny.
Section 7
Effective Date
This section specifies that the Act shall apply to all children born after the date of its enactment to a person who, at the time of such birth, was designated as an 'invader' pursuant to Section 3.
This subsection clarifies that the definitions of 'not lawfully admitted' and 'unlawfully present' for the purpose of designating someone as an 'invader' apply regardless of when such persons entered the United States. This means the 'invader' status is not limited to recent entries.
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for clarifying scope and applicability, but its impact is significant as it extends the 'invader' designation to individuals who may have been in the U.S. for many years.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures the bill's intent to address all unauthorized presence, regardless of entry date, is fully realized, preventing loopholes based on duration of stay.
Case against: Opponents might argue that applying such a designation retroactively to long-term residents, even if technically 'unlawfully present', creates additional instability and targets individuals who have established lives in the U.S. for many years.
Estimated impact: This clarification significantly broadens the scope of individuals whose children would be denied birthright citizenship, impacting potentially millions of long-term unauthorized residents.
This rule of construction explicitly states that nothing in the Act may be construed to authorize the use of military force under the War Powers Resolution.
Section 6(b)
Why it matters:This is a crucial clarification to prevent misinterpretation of the 'invasion' declaration, ensuring it is not seen as a trigger for military action. It's a standard legislative safeguard when using strong language like 'invasion'.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clarifies the limited scope of the 'invasion' declaration, ensuring it is understood as a legal and policy designation for citizenship purposes, not a call for military engagement.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against a provision that limits the interpretation of military force, as it generally aims to prevent unintended escalations.
Estimated impact: Prevents the 'invasion' declaration from being legally interpreted as an authorization for military action, thereby limiting potential executive overreach in this specific context.
This is a severability clause, stating that if any provision of the Act is found invalid or unenforceable, it should be construed to have maximum legal effect, and if utterly invalid, it is severable without affecting the rest of the Act.
Section 8
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to protect the remainder of a bill if one part is struck down by courts, especially for highly controversial legislation like this, which is almost certain to face legal challenges.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that the core intent of the bill can be preserved even if specific provisions are challenged and overturned, maximizing the chances of some parts of the law remaining in effect.
Case against: Opponents might argue that a severability clause in such a constitutionally questionable bill could lead to a fragmented and potentially incoherent law if key provisions are struck down, making the overall legislative intent difficult to discern or implement.
Estimated impact: This clause is critical for the bill's legal resilience, allowing other provisions to stand if one is invalidated, which is highly probable given the constitutional questions raised.