Restoring American Citizenship Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 29, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to redefine birthright citizenship, primarily affecting children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, by asserting that such individuals are not automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
What it actually does
This bill significantly alters the definition of birthright citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. It specifies that a person born in the United States is considered "subject to a foreign power" and thus not automatically a U.S. citizen if neither parent is a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. Furthermore, it deems a person born "outside, not in, the United States" if both parents are merely applicants for admission under immigration law.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill clarifies the original intent of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, asserting that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was never meant to include individuals whose parents owe allegiance to a foreign power or are not legally present. They contend this change would reduce incentives for illegal immigration, enhance national sovereignty, and align U.S. law with other developed nations that base citizenship on parentage or legal status.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend the bill is unconstitutional, directly contradicting over a century of legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* (1898) and the widely accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment. They argue it would create a class of stateless individuals or permanent second-class residents, undermine fundamental American values, and lead to immense administrative and social chaos.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but its implications are vast and require significant legal and constitutional background to fully understand.
Section 2(a)
Redefinition of Birthright Citizenship
This provision amends Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to redefine who qualifies for birthright citizenship. It states that a person born in the United States is not automatically a U.S. citizen if neither of their parents is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. Additionally, it specifies that a person is considered "born outside" the U.S. if both parents are merely applicants for admission, effectively denying them birthright citizenship.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision closes a perceived loophole in immigration law, asserting that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and the phenomenon of "anchor babies." They believe it restores the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which they contend was primarily to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people, not to children of foreign nationals or those without legal status.
Critics contend
Opponents argue this provision is a direct assault on the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent, particularly *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*. They contend it would create a permanent underclass of individuals born and raised in the U.S. but without citizenship, leading to social instability, increased administrative complexity, and a violation of human rights principles.
Tradeoffs
The bill attempts to balance national sovereignty and immigration control with the historical interpretation of constitutional rights and the potential for creating a large population without full legal status in the country of their birth, raising fundamental questions about national identity and social cohesion.
This subsection explicitly states that the amendment made by the Act 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 the effective date and prevent retroactive application, which is crucial for legal stability and avoiding immediate challenges to existing citizenships. It prevents the bill from stripping citizenship from millions of people already considered citizens.
Case for: This clause ensures that the bill, if enacted, does not retroactively strip citizenship from individuals who are already citizens under current law, thereby avoiding immediate legal chaos, massive denaturalization, and constitutional challenges related to ex post facto laws or deprivation of existing rights.
Case against: While preventing immediate retroactive impact, critics might argue it creates two classes of individuals born in the U.S. based on birth date, potentially leading to future inequities and administrative complexities for families with children born both before and after the enactment date, though this is a minor point compared to the main provision.
Estimated impact: Prevents the immediate denaturalization of millions of existing U.S. citizens, thereby avoiding immense social and legal upheaval.
This subsection contains a severability clause, stating that if any provision of the Act or its application is held unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and their applications shall not be affected.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to express congressional intent that if one part of a law is invalidated by courts, other parts should remain in effect, preserving as much of the legislative purpose as possible.
Case for: Aims to preserve as much of the bill as possible if a court strikes down a specific provision, reflecting legislative intent to enact the core policy and any ancillary provisions that might be deemed constitutional.
Case against: Critics might argue that if the central provision (redefining birthright citizenship) is found unconstitutional, the remaining provisions would be meaningless or insufficient to achieve the bill's stated purpose, making the severability clause less impactful in practice for a bill with a single, dominant policy goal.
Estimated impact: Primarily a legal impact, guiding judicial interpretation of the bill's validity in the event of a constitutional challenge, potentially preserving minor amendments if the core is struck down.