Cory Mills Proposes Bill to Address Gaps in Birthright Citizenship

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Proposed “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025” seeks to limit automatic U.S. citizenship to children with eligible parents such as citizens or lawful residents.
• Attempts to redefine birthright citizenship face constitutional challenges under the Fourteenth Amendment and historic precedent like Wong Kim Ark (1898).
• President Trump’s 2025 executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked by courts for likely violating the Citizenship Clause.

The debate over birthright citizenship in the United States 🇺🇸 is among the most divisive issues in modern immigration policy. Grounded firmly in the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment, birthright citizenship has long ensured that most individuals born on U.S. soil gain automatic citizenship. The Citizenship Clause, a core part of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirms that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Nonetheless, its application is being called into question by lawmakers and political leaders advocating for restrictive measures.

A Cornerstone of American Citizenship

Cory Mills Proposes Bill to Address Gaps in Birthright Citizenship

Adopted in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment reversed the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which denied African Americans the right to citizenship regardless of their free or enslaved status. At the heart of this amendment is the Citizenship Clause, which has been historically interpreted to include nearly every person born within the country’s borders. This inclusive principle helped shape the identity of the U.S. as a nation committed to equality and opportunity.

In the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court upheld the principle of jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil”), confirming U.S. citizenship for a child born to Chinese immigrants who were ineligible for citizenship under discriminatory laws of the era. The ruling has since been a bedrock of American jurisprudence, affirming birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ legal or immigration status.

Despite these precedents, some lawmakers and legal experts now argue for changes to the interpretation or scope of birthright citizenship. They claim that contemporary challenges, such as unauthorized immigration and so-called “birth tourism,” necessitate updated rules to align with current realities. However, these debates raise constitutional, ethical, and practical questions about how citizenship is defined and granted.

Legislative Efforts to Redefine Birthright Citizenship

In 2025, a wave of legislative proposals emerged that aim to limit the scope of birthright citizenship. One prominent initiative is the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025,” introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on January 29, 2025. Co-sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Katie Britt of Alabama, this bill seeks to modify the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict automatic citizenship at birth. Under the proposed law, children would receive U.S. citizenship only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident (green card holder), or active-duty military member.

A similar push arose in the House of Representatives through legislation introduced by Representative Brian Babin of Texas on January 23, 2025. The bill, designated H.R. 569, mirrors the Senate’s proposal but leaves less room for children of parents holding temporary visas, such as student or work visas, to qualify for birthright citizenship. Both bills currently rest in their respective judiciary committees and face significant deliberations before any potential vote.

Supporters of these measures argue that narrowing the eligibility for birthright citizenship would deter unauthorized immigration and counteract “birth tourism,” a practice where foreign nationals deliberately travel to the U.S. to give birth, ensuring their children gain U.S. citizenship. Senator Graham has reportedly cited instances of “birth tourism” as a major justification for the bill, claiming that immigration loopholes are undermining national security and the integrity of U.S. citizenship.

However, attempts to redefine birthright citizenship face considerable hurdles, including constitutional challenges and broad public opposition. Critics, including legal scholars and members of Congress, argue that such laws conflict with the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment and decades of judicial precedent, including the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

Constitutional Controversy and Opposition

The proposed legislative changes have ignited fierce debate, reflecting stark divisions not only in Congress but also among the U.S. population. Opponents of these measures view them as an unconstitutional attack on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Representative Ted Lieu of California and other critics have publicly stated that any attempt to alter birthright citizenship through legislation is legally flawed and would likely be struck down by the courts.

Critics further contend that narrowing citizenship could exacerbate issues of statelessness. Children born in the U.S. to parents who do not meet the proposed criteria could find themselves without citizenship in any country, creating complications for families and risking violations of international human rights agreements.

Legal experts warn that even if such legislative efforts passed, they would face immediate court challenges. Many argue that as long as the Citizenship Clause exists in its current form, any reinterpretation of birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment. Amending the Constitution necessitates supermajority approval in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states—an extraordinarily difficult feat.

Executive Action Heightening the Debate

The debate over birthright citizenship is not confined to legislative corridors. Recent executive actions further intensified discussions. In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order sought to eliminate automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants or parents on temporary visas. Although intended to bypass Congress by addressing the issue administratively, the order was met with immediate legal resistance.

Federal courts quickly intervened, blocking the order’s enforcement pending further review. Judges argued that the order likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and raised concerns about executive overreach. The Supreme Court has been petitioned to weigh in but has yet to accelerate its review as of March 2025.

If upheld, such an executive order could introduce sweeping changes to U.S. citizenship policies, though its legal durability remains under significant doubt. Courts deciding on cases like this would need to reconcile the proposed actions with more than a century of constitutional precedent, including the Wong Kim Ark decision.

Social and Policy Implications

Efforts to limit birthright citizenship—whether through legislation or executive action—carry profound social and legal implications. For one, reinterpreting this principle could drastically alter the lives of children born in the U.S. under unclear or restrictive criteria. The risks of statelessness, legal uncertainty, and diplomatic conflicts could be immediate and widespread.

From a broader perspective, redefining citizenship could reshape the U.S. immigration landscape. While proponents suggest it could discourage unauthorized crossings and address immigration abuse, opponents emphasize that it risks further stigmatizing immigrant communities. They argue that targeting birthright citizenship, a principle heralded for its inclusivity, chips away at America’s democratic values of equality and fairness.

Additionally, narrowing birthright citizenship could set a global precedent. The U.S., like countries such as Canada 🇨🇦, has long adhered to jus soli as the foundation of citizenship policies. Steps to limit or revoke this principle could influence similar moves in other nations, impacting international human rights dialogues.

The Road Ahead

As of now, legislative and executive efforts to narrow birthright citizenship are in various stages of progress but face significant legal and political challenges. Lawmakers advocating these changes will likely encounter protracted battles in courts, Congress, and public opinion forums. Judicial outcomes, such as those following challenges to President Trump’s executive order, will hold decisive influence over how these proposals unfold.

The debate around birthright citizenship, central to American identity, carries enormous symbolic weight. It challenges the nation to address not only legal questions but also ethical considerations about who qualifies as an American. According to analysis published on VisaVerge.com, the ongoing conflict encapsulates much larger tensions over immigration, national security, and constitutional interpretation. Policymakers, courts, and the public must grapple with balancing these competing interests as they navigate this complex and deeply polarizing issue.

For readers seeking more information or official updates on U.S. immigration laws and policies, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website provides reliable resources related to citizenship and immigration. Continue learning and preparing for any policy changes by visiting USCIS citizenship resources.

As debates progress, one thing remains clear: redefining birthright citizenship would mark a dramatic shift in American immigration policy and could have lasting consequences for generations to come.

Learn Today

Birthright Citizenship → Automatic grant of citizenship to individuals born within a country’s territory, regardless of parents’ nationality or legal status.
Fourteenth Amendment → U.S. constitutional amendment guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, ensuring equal protection under the law.
Jus Soli → Latin term meaning “right of the soil,” referring to citizenship granted based on birthplace rather than parentage or heritage.
Citizenship Clause → A provision in the Fourteenth Amendment affirming citizenship for those born or naturalized in the U.S. under its jurisdiction.
Statelessness → A condition where an individual is not recognized as a citizen by any country, restricting access to legal rights and protections.

This Article in a Nutshell

Birthright Citizenship: A Defining Debate

Birthright citizenship, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees U.S. citizenship for anyone born on American soil. Proposed restrictions challenge this principle, citing immigration concerns. Yet, critics argue such measures defy constitutional precedent, risking statelessness and inequality. Resolving this contentious debate will shape America’s identity and commitment to inclusion for generations.