Which bills related to birthright citizenship advanced furthest in the 119th Congress and what were their provisions?

1. The leading restriction bills: H.R.569 and S.304 — what they would do

The signature restriction proposals in both chambers were introduced as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (H.R.569 in the House and S.304 in the Senate); both redefine “subject to the jurisdiction” for 14th Amendment purposes so that U.S. birth would confer citizenship only if a parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or a non‑U.S. national in lawful immigration status who is performing active service in the Armed Forces ^{[1] [2]}. The bills’ texts and summaries explicitly say they would not strip citizenship from anyone born before enactment and recast the statutory definition in 8 U.S.C. terms rather than purport to rewrite the Constitution itself ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How far those restriction bills advanced (procedural posture)

Public records show H.R.569 and S.304 were formally introduced and summarized in congressional repositories and third‑party trackers, but available snippets report only standard referral and summary entries; there is no sourced evidence in the provided material of committee passage, floor consideration, or enactment for either bill ^{[8] [9] [1] [2]}. In short, these restriction bills were advanced to the legislative record and committees but, per the documents supplied, did not progress to enactment or clear floor votes.

3. The protective counter‑measures: Born in the USA Act and related texts

A set of bills framed as defenses of the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment—most prominently the Born in the USA Act (H.R.3368 in the House, S.646 in the Senate)—explicitly state that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law and assert that it “cannot be rescinded by Executive order or by an Act of Congress,” citing Wong Kim Ark and 8 U.S.C. 1401 as legal foundations ^{[3] [4]}. Those measures were introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee, and their texts emphasize reaffirmation of jus soli rather than altering who qualifies ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Other variants and political messaging: Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act and Exclusive Citizenship Act

Bills styled as the Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act (S.2274 in the Senate and H.R.4741 in the House) and the Exclusive Citizenship Act (S.3283) approached the question from a different angle, using “sense of Congress” language and historical doctrine to argue that children of diplomats, enemy troops, spies, terrorists, or “illegal aliens” should be excluded from automatic birthright claims—an explicitly limiting posture that relies on selective readings of allegiance and obedience doctrines ^{[5] [6] [7]}. The record provided shows these bills were introduced and their statements of purpose published, but the available snippets do not document deeper legislative advancement beyond introduction and committee referral ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

5. Bottom line: closest to success and the practical reality

Measured by procedural momentum visible in the supplied documents, no bill materially surpassed introduction and standard referral stages; H.R.569/S.304 and the Born in the USA and Constitutional Clarification bills all appear in congressional records and on trackers (with summaries and texts), but the provided sources do not show committee passage, floor action, or enactment for any of them ^{[1] [2] [8] [3] [9] [4]}. Therefore, the clearest conclusion from the reporting at hand is that the proposals that advanced furthest in the 119th Congress were those that reached formal introduction and committee referral (notably H.R.569/S.304 and H.R.3368/S.646), and their substantive difference boils down to whether they sought to narrow jus soli by redefining “subject to the jurisdiction” or to codify and protect the traditional constitutional interpretation ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.