How would the Birthright Citizenship Act differ from the Born in the USA Act in legal effect?

1. What the Birthright Citizenship Act would change in statutory law

The Birthright Citizenship Act as introduced in multiple Congresses would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to redefine who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for purposes of citizenship at birth, so that a child born on U.S. soil would be a citizen at birth only if one parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or an alien lawfully serving in the U.S. armed forces; the bill text and summaries explicitly state that its provisions would not affect persons born before enactment ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

2. What the record shows — and does not show — about the “Born in the USA Act”

The supplied reporting and legislative sources include multiple versions of a Birthright Citizenship Act and executive actions addressing citizenship but contain no bill text, committee report, or official summary titled “Born in the USA Act”; therefore there is no source material here to describe its specific legal language, scope, or sponsors, meaning a direct comparison to a non‑documented “Born in the USA Act” cannot be grounded in the provided documents (no citation available for a bill by that exact name).

3. How the proposed statutory change would interact with the Fourteenth Amendment and precedent

Courts and many legal scholars have long read the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark to secure broad jus soli citizenship for virtually everyone born on U.S. soil, which creates a powerful constitutional baseline against which any statutory narrowing would be tested ^{[4] [5]}. Legal experts cited in the sources say the president cannot unilaterally rewrite citizenship rules and that altering birthright citizenship in practice likely requires a constitutional amendment rather than mere statute or executive order, a point emphasized by Harvard Law commentary and other legal analysis in the record ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Executive actions, judicial pushback, and practical enforceability

The record documents that executive attempts to limit birthright citizenship via orders have been met with immediate litigation and preliminary injunctions, and scholars argue such orders are “doubly unlawful,” indicating that an executive shortcut to the constitutional text has been unsuccessful in practice ^{[6] [7]}. By contrast, legislative proposals like the Birthright Citizenship Act would create statutory standards that courts would have to evaluate against the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark precedent, but the bills themselves acknowledge prospective effect only and do not purport to strip existing citizens of citizenship ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Real‑world legal effect: likely narrower statutory scope but high constitutional risk

If enacted, the Birthright Citizenship Act would narrow the statutory category of who automatically receives U.S. citizenship at birth, producing immediate administrative and social effects for births to undocumented or temporary‑status parents by denying routine birthright citizenship under the INA; however, the record shows substantial constitutional and judicial obstacles—scholars, advocacy groups, and precedent defend broad birthright citizenship and courts have blocked executive attempts to deny it—so the bill’s ultimate legal effect would probably be determined in litigation and could be found unconstitutional under prevailing readings of the Fourteenth Amendment ^{[1] [5] [8] [6] [7]}.