Born in the USA Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 20, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to nullify the practical effect of Executive Order 14160 by cutting off its funding, thereby defending birthright citizenship as established by the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits any federal funds from being used to implement Executive Order 14160, or any successor executive order, regulation, or policy that seeks to deny birthright citizenship. It asserts that Executive Order 14160 is unconstitutional, citing the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, and aims to prevent its practical enforcement by cutting off its funding.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that Executive Order 14160 is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent (United States v. Wong Kim Ark). They contend that birthright citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be unilaterally rescinded by an executive order or even an Act of Congress, and this bill is necessary to uphold the Constitution and protect the meaning and value of American citizenship.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this bill (and proponents of EO 14160) would argue that the executive order was a necessary step to address what they perceive as an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment, particularly concerning children born to undocumented immigrants. They might contend that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant automatic citizenship in all cases, and that the executive branch has the authority to interpret and enforce immigration laws more strictly.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its purpose.
Section 3
Prohibition on Funding Executive Order 14160
This section explicitly forbids any federal funds from being used to implement Executive Order 14160, or any similar future executive order, regulation, or policy. This effectively defunds and thereby prevents the enforcement of any executive action that seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a direct and necessary response to an unconstitutional executive order. By cutting off funding, it prevents the executive branch from implementing a policy that directly contradicts the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, thereby safeguarding a fundamental constitutional right.
Critics contend
Opponents (those who support Executive Order 14160) would argue that this provision unduly restricts executive authority to interpret and enforce immigration laws. They might contend that it prevents the government from addressing what they perceive as loopholes in citizenship law and undermines efforts to control immigration.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between executive power to issue orders and Congress's power of the purse, specifically in the context of constitutional interpretation regarding birthright citizenship. It also highlights the ongoing debate about the scope of the 14th Amendment.