American Citizenship Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to redefine birthright citizenship, limiting it to children born in the U.S. whose parents are citizens or legal permanent residents, a move that would fundamentally alter U.S. immigration and citizenship law.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It specifies that a person born in the United States is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore not a citizen, if neither parent is a United States citizen or has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of birth. This would effectively end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and certain temporary visa holders.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill restores the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which they contend was never meant to grant automatic citizenship to children of those not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as foreign diplomats or those unlawfully present. They believe it would deter illegal immigration by removing a perceived incentive and uphold national sovereignty.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend this bill is unconstitutional, directly contradicting over a century of legal precedent and the plain text of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which states 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' They argue it would create a permanent underclass of stateless individuals, complicate administrative processes, and undermine American values of inclusion.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are vast and require significant background knowledge to fully grasp.
Section 2(a)
Redefinition of Birthright Citizenship
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to state that a person born in the United States is only a citizen if they are 'not subject to any foreign power.' It then clarifies that a person is 'subject to a foreign power' if neither of their parents is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth. This means children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented immigrants or on certain temporary visas would no longer automatically receive U.S. citizenship.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision aligns U.S. citizenship law with that of most other developed nations, preventing 'anchor babies' and reducing incentives for illegal immigration. They assert it clarifies the original intent of the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause, which they believe was never intended to apply to those whose parents owe allegiance to a foreign power or are unlawfully present.
Critics contend
Opponents argue this provision is a direct assault on the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent (e.g., United States v. Wong Kim Ark). They contend that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' refers to territorial jurisdiction and not political allegiance, and that altering this would create a class of individuals born in the U.S. but without citizenship, leading to significant social and administrative problems.
Tradeoffs
The bill attempts to balance national sovereignty and immigration control with the historical interpretation of constitutional citizenship rights and the potential for creating a large, marginalized population within U.S. borders.
This subsection specifies that the amendment made by the bill may not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person who was born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify applicability and avoid ex post facto issues, but it also serves to limit immediate legal challenges to existing citizens.
Case for: Ensures legal stability for existing citizens and avoids creating a class of suddenly denaturalized individuals, which would be administratively chaotic and politically untenable.
Case against: Some might argue that if the current interpretation of birthright citizenship is fundamentally flawed, it should be corrected universally, not just for future births. However, this is a very weak argument given the legal and social implications of retroactivity.
Estimated impact: Prevents immediate legal chaos and challenges to the citizenship of millions, focusing the debate on future births.