Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., is set to introduce legislation Monday that would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and foreign nationals who enter the United States for so-called birth tourism, arguing that such individuals qualify as “invaders” under federal law.
The proposal comes after last month’s Supreme Court decision dealing a setback to President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship. Trump has since urged Senate Republicans to move more aggressively on his legislative priorities, including changes to birthright citizenship, saying they were “not fighting hard enough,” Banks recalled in an interview with Human Events on June 30.
Banks told Fox News Digital that he plans to introduce the Citizenship Act shortly after the Senate convenes Monday afternoon. He said the legislation was crafted in light of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in last month’s Trump v. Barbara decision.
Although Kavanaugh agreed with the Court’s judgment in part, he wrote that while Trump’s executive order conflicted with existing federal birthright citizenship law, Congress has the authority to amend that statute and establish additional exceptions.
The Citizenship Act would classify children of individuals deemed statutory “invaders” as ineligible for automatic U.S. citizenship at birth. It would also codify portions of President Trump’s 2025 executive order that characterized illegal immigration as an invasion.
According to the bill’s summary, “any person who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism is considered an invader…” It would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny birthright citizenship to the children of such “invaders.”
Banks bases that terminology on Trump’s executive order describing illegal immigration across the southern border as an “invasion.” He argues that the Supreme Court’s Barbara ruling left open the possibility for Congress to address the issue legislatively.
Rather than pursuing a constitutional amendment or attempting to overturn Supreme Court precedent, the legislation seeks to revise federal law by incorporating Trump’s declaration of an invasion while relying on exceptions recognized in existing birthright citizenship jurisprudence to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists.
In his opinion, Kavanaugh concluded that Trump’s executive order did not violate the 14th Amendment itself but conflicted with a federal statute governing birthright citizenship. He suggested that Congress could revise that statute, noting that the law was originally enacted in the spirit of the 14th Amendment, which many conservatives argue was intended primarily to protect formerly enslaved people and their descendants.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which he said “guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power.” Banks’ legislation, however, seeks to rely on exceptions discussed in that same decision to argue against extending birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists.
In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, Justice Horace Gray wrote that exceptions included the children of diplomats, “enemies within” and those engaged in hostile occupation of U.S. territory who are not “bound to render obedience to the sovereign [U.S. government] whose domains are being invaded.”
Banks contends that because the Court reaffirmed the Wong Kim Ark precedent while acknowledging those exceptions, Congress can use the same framework to redefine who qualifies for automatic citizenship.
“The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision was an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty, and we must do whatever it takes to save our country,” Banks told Fox News Digital.
“I’m leading the Citizenship Act to reverse the effects of this consequential ruling and ensure the millions of illegal aliens that invaded our country can’t continue to exploit our immigration system.”
Banks also points to the Court’s decision in U.S. v. CASA, another 2025 case involving the Trump administration. In a separate opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation” are not entitled to birthright citizenship, although she did not classify illegal immigrants as the type of “invaders” referenced in the earlier precedent.
The legislation further argues that the Constitution supports congressional authority in this area. Banks notes that Article IV obligates the federal government to “protect each [state] against invasion,” while Article I grants Congress the authority to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
The bill also cites James Madison’s writings from 1788, in which he argued that the Constitution vested the power over naturalization in Congress through a single national standard rather than leaving the issue to individual states.
Banks additionally argues that some Mexican nationals have viewed migration into the United States as a means of reclaiming territory ceded to the U.S. under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the Mexican-American War.
The legislation also cites Chinese birth tourism, alleging that the practice has been encouraged by the Chinese Communist Party. Banks argues these examples demonstrate that birthright citizenship has become intertwined with broader issues of national sovereignty, illegal immigration, and foreign influence.
{Matzav.com}
