- Targeted stakeholdersMay reduce perceived incentive for unauthorized immigration by limiting automatic citizenship for children born here.
- Targeted stakeholdersClarifies constitutional language and explicitly grants Congress authority to regulate birthright citizenship.
- Federal agenciesCould decrease future eligibility for some federal benefits tied to citizenship at birth.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect United States citizenship.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This joint resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment narrowing the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship.
It would limit “subject to the jurisdiction” so a person born in the U.S. is a citizen only if at least one parent is (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident residing in the U.S., or (3) an alien with lawful status performing active military service.
Congress would have enforcement authority to implement the amendment.
Constitutional amendments on contentious social issues rarely secure the necessary supermajorities and state ratifications.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is a straightforward constitutional amendment proposal that clearly states a narrowed rule for birthright citizenship and grants Congress implementing power. It is concise and focused on the substantive legal change.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights and statelessness risks.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- StatesCould deny U.S. citizenship to children born here to noncitizen parents, increasing statelessness risk.
- Targeted stakeholdersWould increase administrative burden to verify parental immigration status on birth records and applications.
- Targeted stakeholdersLikely to prompt extensive litigation over constitutional meaning and status determinations.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights and statelessness risks.
Likely strongly opposed.
Sees the amendment as a rollback of long-standing birthright citizenship protections with disproportionate harms to immigrant communities and children.
Raises civil-rights, racial-discrimination, and statelessness concerns grounded in the Constitution and human-rights norms.
Mixed reaction.
Understands goals to address perceived incentives for unlawful entry, but worries a constitutional amendment is heavy-handed.
Prefers limited statutory fixes and careful implementation to avoid unintended harms.
Generally supportive.
Views the amendment as restoring sovereign control over citizenship rules and closing perceived loopholes like birth tourism.
Sees it as a strong, permanent policy change resistant to future regulatory reversal.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments on contentious social issues rarely secure the necessary supermajorities and state ratifications.
- Ambiguity of phrase 'residence is in the United States'
- Administrative verification and identity-document burdens unknown
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights and statelessness risks.
Constitutional amendments on contentious social issues rarely secure the necessary supermajorities and state ratifications.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is a straightforward constitutional amendment proposal that clearly states a narrowed rule for birthright citizenship and grants Congress implementing pow…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.