Texas Republican Congressman Brandon Gill introduced legislation this week seeking to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants by legally classifying those who enter the country unlawfully as “invaders,” a designation intended to trigger a historical exception the Supreme Court recognized more than a century ago. The bill arrives roughly a month after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order attempting to achieve the same result, forcing Republicans to pursue the goal through legislation instead. The effort has quickly become a flashpoint in the broader debate over immigration enforcement and constitutional interpretation ahead of the November midterms.
Story Highlights
- Rep. Brandon Gill’s “Citizenship Act” would classify illegal immigrants and birth tourists as “invaders” to exclude their children from birthright citizenship
- The bill follows the Supreme Court’s ruling in Barbara v. Trump, which struck down Trump’s executive order on the same issue
- Sen. Jim Banks has introduced companion legislation citing a legal theory outlined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion
- Gill separately chairs a House task force that has subpoenaed birth tourism companies over potential criminal conspiracy
What Happened
Republican Representative Brandon Gill of Texas introduced legislation this week titled the “Citizenship Act,” which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to classify individuals who enter the United States illegally, or specifically for purposes of birth tourism, as “invaders.” Under the bill, children born in the United States to parents designated as invaders would no longer be entitled to automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Gill introduced the measure alongside Senator Jim Banks of Indiana, who has pursued companion legislation in the upper chamber.
The legislative push follows the Supreme Court’s ruling last month in Barbara v. Trump, in which the justices ruled 6-3 to affirm lower-court rulings blocking Trump’s 2025 executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are unlawfully present or on temporary visas. In response to the ruling, Trump posted on Truth Social that Republicans could “easily make it up in Congress through legislation,” setting the stage for Gill and Banks to introduce their bills.
The legislation relies on an exception the Supreme Court defined in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that “children of aliens within territory in hostile occupation” are not entitled to citizenship because they owe no allegiance to a country “whose domains are invaded.” While illegal immigrants are not members of a uniformed foreign army, Gill’s bill argues there is legal precedent for designating them as invaders given the scale of unlawful border crossings. The bill also draws on Justice Brett Kavanaugh‘s concurring opinion in the Barbara v. Trump case, in which Kavanaugh, while voting with the majority to strike down Trump’s executive order, suggested Congress could still amend federal law to create additional statutory exceptions to birthright citizenship, an approach not adopted by the Court’s five-justice majority.
Gill, who separately chairs the House Oversight Committee’s Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses, has also subpoenaed several birth tourism companies as part of an investigation into firms that advertise services helping foreign nationals travel to the United States specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their children. Gill has argued that such practices amount to a criminal conspiracy under current law, which already prohibits entering the country for the purpose of giving birth. “We are the ones who often end up picking up the tab for a lot of these services,” Gill told Fox News Digital, arguing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee was intended for freed slaves and their children following the Civil War, not for children of undocumented immigrants.
Why It Matters
The legislation represents the most direct legislative attempt yet to reshape birthright citizenship policy following the Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump’s executive order, testing whether Congress can achieve through statute what the administration could not accomplish unilaterally. If passed, the bill would mark one of the most significant changes to U.S. citizenship law in generations, directly affecting how the 14th Amendment is applied to children born in the United States.
For millions of immigrant families, including those with pending asylum claims or temporary legal status, the legislation introduces substantial uncertainty about the citizenship status of children born on U.S. soil, a status that has been considered settled law for over a century under the Wong Kim Ark precedent.
For constitutional scholars and lawmakers, the bill raises fundamental questions about whether Congress has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship through ordinary legislation, given that the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Barbara v. Trump held that the 14th Amendment itself, not merely federal statute, guarantees citizenship to children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Any bill that passes would likely face immediate legal challenges testing that constitutional question directly.
The bill’s political timing, arriving months before the November midterms, also signals that immigration and birthright citizenship will remain central campaign issues, with Republicans betting that voters continue to prioritize stronger enforcement measures even as legal and humanitarian concerns persist.
Economic and Global Context
The birth tourism industry targeted by Gill’s House task force represents a global business, with companies in multiple countries marketing packages that include travel, lodging, and medical services specifically to help foreign nationals give birth in the United States and secure citizenship for their children. Reports have highlighted marketing efforts, including Spanish-language billboards near the Texas border, advertising such packages to expectant mothers in Mexico.
The broader immigration enforcement debate carries direct fiscal implications, as Gill and other Republicans argue that American taxpayers bear the costs of public services extended to families who gain a foothold in the country through birthright citizenship. Proponents of stricter immigration enforcement frame the issue as one of resource allocation amid strained state and local budgets in border regions.
Internationally, changes to U.S. birthright citizenship policy would represent a significant departure from America’s traditional jus soli approach, aligning it more closely with countries that restrict citizenship based on parental status rather than place of birth. Such a shift would likely draw scrutiny from international human rights organizations and could affect diplomatic relationships with countries whose nationals are most affected by birth tourism enforcement.
The legislation also arrives amid a broader Republican legislative agenda that includes the SAVE Act and other immigration enforcement measures, several of which have struggled to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, raising doubts about whether the Citizenship Act can realistically advance through Congress this session.
Implications
In the near term, expect the bill to face an uphill legislative battle, given Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s reluctance to bring similarly contentious immigration measures to a floor vote absent bipartisan support, a dynamic that has already stalled other Trump-backed immigration legislation this year.
For immigrant advocacy groups and civil rights organizations, the bill will likely prompt immediate preparation for legal challenges should it advance, building on the same constitutional arguments that prevailed against Trump’s executive order in the Supreme Court.
For Gill’s ongoing investigation into birth tourism companies, subpoenaed firms will need to respond to the House task force’s inquiries, potentially generating additional scrutiny of an industry that has operated with limited federal oversight despite technically illegal practices already on the books.
For voters, the bill ensures birthright citizenship remains a live and contentious issue through the midterms, forcing candidates in competitive districts to stake out clear positions on a question that touches both constitutional interpretation and immigration enforcement.
Sources