How would the Born in America bill change current immigration or citizenship law?
Executive summary
The Born in America / Birthright Citizenship bills on the 2025–26 congressional calendar would narrow who counts as “subject to the jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment, limiting automatic U.S. citizenship at birth to children whose parents are U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or certain service members, instead of the broader jus soli rule that currently governs most births in the United States [1] [2] [3]. Opponents note the measure would overturn long-standing practice and invite immediate constitutional litigation, while competing legislation and executive actions seek instead to preserve or protect existing birthright rules [3] [4].
1. How U.S. law currently defines birthright citizenship
For more than a century the dominant legal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been that virtually everyone born on U.S. soil who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a citizen at birth — a doctrine rooted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and summarized in longstanding legal commentary and federal law [3] [5]. Congress and courts have recognized very narrow exceptions — for example, children of foreign diplomats and occupying forces — but otherwise the rule of jus soli has been treated as the default [3] [5].
2. What the Born in America / Birthright Citizenship bills would do in statutory terms
The House bill H.R.569 (and companion Senate proposals) would redefine who is “subject to the jurisdiction” by specifying that birthright citizenship only attaches where a child is born to a parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or a non‑U.S. national with lawful status serving on active duty — explicitly excluding children of parents present without lawful permanent status from automatic citizenship at birth [1] [2]. The bills also state they would not retroactively strip citizenship from anyone born before enactment [1].
3. Practical consequences projected by advocates and critics
Advocates frame the change as restoring an “original meaning” limited jus soli and tightening immigration incentives, while critics — including immigration advocacy groups — warn the bills would create a class of U.S.-born noncitizens, produce arbitrary disparities for infants born days apart, and risk statelessness and social exclusion for millions born on American soil [2] [6]. Administrative guidance and executive moves in 2025 have proposed similar exclusions for children of parents unlawfully present or temporarily present, signaling how policy and practice could change if statutory or executive authority shifts [7] [8] [9].
4. Constitutional and litigation dynamics likely to follow
Because the bills seek to alter the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, defenders of the current doctrine predict rapid constitutional challenges; conversely, proponents argue statutory clarification is within Congress’s power — a clash that would likely end up in federal courts and possibly the Supreme Court given precedent and the historical importance of the Citizenship Clause [3] [6]. Meanwhile, competing congressional measures like the Born in the USA Act explicitly assert birthright citizenship is constitutional and seek to block executive moves to limit it by prohibiting funds to implement restrictive orders, highlighting the polarized legislative battle [4].
5. Political context, motivations and competing agendas
The bills align with a political agenda focused on restricting immigration benefits and signaling tougher border policy; opponents characterize those motives as targeting immigrant communities and undermining equal treatment under law, with advocacy groups warning of long-term social and legal costs [2] [9]. At the same time, counter-legislation like S.646 and legal challenges to executive orders reflect a mobilized effort to defend the traditional rule and prevent administrative workarounds [4] [3].
6. Bottom line: legal change would be large but uncertain
Enacting the Born in America / Birthright Citizenship bills would represent a major statutory narrowing of who acquires citizenship at birth and would immediately reshape immigration status for newborns of non‑permanent residents, yet the ultimate effect remains uncertain because constitutional litigation, alternative bills seeking to preserve current rights, and executive actions all intersect and could block, delay, or modify implementation [1] [4] [3].