Sen. Bernie Moreno announced Tuesday he'll introduce legislation limiting birthright citizenship, invoking a 1993 bill from the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as precedent for Democratic support on immigration reform.
The Trump ally's move comes one day after the Supreme Court struck down the former president's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. Trump responded by calling on Congress to act immediately, posting that lawmakers "should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship."
Congressional Response
Speaker Mike Johnson signaled openness to legislative action, saying "we're looking at that" when asked about potential bills. He criticized the Supreme Court's decision, stating "I think the court made the wrong decision." However, Johnson acknowledged the steep constitutional hurdles ahead.
"That may require a constitutional amendment," Johnson warned, adding "as you know, that is a large undertaking." The constitutional amendment process demands two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures. It's a deliberately high bar the Founders established to prevent hasty changes to fundamental law.
Bipartisan Precedent
Moreno's strategy centers on citing Harry Reid's 1993 legislation as evidence that Democrats have previously supported reforming birthright citizenship policies. The reference to Reid, who later became one of the Senate's most powerful Democratic leaders, aims to neutralize partisan criticism and pressure current Democrats to explain any shift in position over the past 33 years.
Several similar measures have already been introduced this Congress in both chambers, reflecting sustained Republican interest in addressing what many conservatives view as an outdated interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that wasn't intended to apply to children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors.
The Constitutional Question
The debate centers on whether the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, should automatically extend to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of parents' immigration status. Critics argue this interpretation creates incentives for illegal immigration and imposes substantial fiscal costs on taxpayers through education, healthcare, and social services.
Johnson's acknowledgment that constitutional amendment may be necessary reflects the legal reality that birthright citizenship is deeply embedded in American jurisprudence. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down Trump's executive order reinforces that any change must come through the proper legislative and constitutional channels, not presidential decree.
The push for reform reflects broader Republican concerns about border security and immigration policy. Several other similar measures introduced this Congress demonstrate that birthright citizenship reform isn't just a Trump priority but a wider conservative policy goal.
Why This Matters:
Birthright citizenship creates significant fiscal obligations for American taxpayers and potentially incentivizes illegal immigration. The policy question isn't whether children deserve compassion, but whether automatic citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil serves the national interest when parents entered illegally or temporarily. Moreno's invocation of Harry Reid's 1993 bill demonstrates this wasn't always a purely partisan issue. The constitutional amendment process, while demanding, exists precisely for moments when Americans believe fundamental policy needs reassessment. Whether Congress can muster the supermajority support needed remains uncertain, but the debate forces a necessary conversation about sovereignty, citizenship's meaning, and whether policies designed for different historical circumstances still serve the country well today.