Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution that would redefine who is considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. If three-fourths of state legislatures ratify the proposed amendment within seven years, the change would become part of the Constitution. The amendment would say a person born in the United States is not automatically a U.S. citizen unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a lawful permanent resident. The resolution also says Congress may pass laws to implement the amendment.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by both chambers with the required supermajority and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years; it is not sent to the President for signature. This resolution, if passed by Congress, would move to the states for ratification.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to clarify that under the 14th Amendment, a person born in the United States is a citizen only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a lawful permanent resident.
It also gives Congress authority to implement the amendment by appropriate legislation.
The amendment would therefore exclude children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents from automatic birthright citizenship.
Sweeping, high-salience constitutional change with weak compromise features faces steep supermajority and state-ratification hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and direct constitutional-text change that clearly states its objective and the core rule. It provides a basic implementation path by delegating authority to Congress and sets a ratification timeframe.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights and statelessness risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights and statelessness risks
Likely to oppose the amendment as a rollback of birthright citizenship and a potential threat to civil rights and children's welfare.
They would emphasize risks of creating stateless children, unequal treatment, and increased marginalization of immigrant communities.
Opposition would focus on constitutional equality and humanitarian consequences.
Mixed view: sees legitimate policy questions about birthright citizenship but worries about humanitarian and practical consequences.
Would seek detailed implementing legislation and safeguards to prevent statelessness and major administrative disruption.
Prefers granular, evidence-based fixes over a sweeping constitutional change, but acknowledges political pressure for clarity.
Likely to support the amendment as restoring the 14th Amendment's original meaning and ending automatic citizenship for children of non-citizen, non-resident parents.
It is seen as a tool to deter unauthorized immigration and birth tourism and to give Congress clear authority to enforce citizenship rules.
Supporters expect legal and policy advantages in immigration control.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Sweeping, high-salience constitutional change with weak compromise features faces steep supermajority and state-ratification hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil-rights and statelessness risks
Sweeping, high-salience constitutional change with weak compromise features faces steep supermajority and state-ratification hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and direct constitutional-text change that clearly states its objective and the core rule. It provides a basic implementation path by delegating authorit…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.