HJRES-190-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Nancy Mace (R-SC)
What it does
This joint resolution would propose a constitutional amendment redefining who qualifies as "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" under the 14th Amendment. Under the proposed amendment, a person born in the United States would only receive automatic citizenship if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a lawful permanent resident. Children born in the U.S. to parents who are temporary visa holders, unauthorized immigrants, or others without permanent legal status would not automatically receive citizenship. The amendment would require approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years to take effect.
Who benefits
Proponents of reduced unauthorized immigration who argue the change would remove a perceived incentive for unauthorized entry. Children of lawful permanent residents, whose citizenship status would be explicitly codified. Future Congresses, which would gain new authority to legislate on birthright citizenship under Section 2 of the proposed amendment. State governments that have sought stricter immigration enforcement.
Who is hurt
Children born in the U.S. to unauthorized immigrant parents, who would no longer automatically receive citizenship. Children born to temporary visa holders (tourists, students, H-1B workers, diplomats' families) who currently receive birthright citizenship. Families in mixed-status households who rely on a U.S.-born child's citizenship for stability. Immigration attorneys and advocates whose clients depend on current birthright citizenship rules. Potentially stateless children if their parents' home countries also deny them citizenship. U.S. businesses that employ temporary workers whose U.S.-born children currently receive citizenship.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was never intended to grant citizenship to children of those with no legal allegiance to the United States, citing the amendment's original legislative history and the Supreme Court's 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases dicta. They contend that the United States is one of only a small number of developed nations that grants unconditional birthright citizenship, and that amending the Constitution is the proper, democratically legitimate mechanism to resolve a question that executive orders and statutes cannot definitively settle — as demonstrated by ongoing litigation over President Trump's 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantee has been settled law since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the Supreme Court held that children born on U.S. soil to resident alien parents are citizens, and that rewriting this protection would strip a fundamental right from a broad class of people born on American soil. They contend the amendment would create a two-tiered system of birth-based status, generate significant administrative burdens in determining parental immigration status at birth, and risk rendering some children stateless — raising serious concerns under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and international norms the U.S. has long upheld.
Constitutional context
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court interpreted this clause to include children born to resident aliens. This resolution would amend — not merely interpret — that clause, making it a constitutional rather than statutory question. The 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause is also relevant to the status of individuals who might be rendered stateless or denied citizenship under the new framework.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain new explicit authority to legislate on birthright citizenship under Section 2 of the proposed amendment, shifting power from the judiciary (which currently interprets the 14th Amendment) to the legislative branch; the amendment process itself — requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states — serves as the primary structural check.
Historical precedent
Multiple bills and resolutions to limit birthright citizenship have been introduced in Congress since the 1990s without passage; no constitutional amendment on this subject has previously been ratified, though President Trump issued an executive order in January 2025 attempting to restrict birthright citizenship by executive action, which was blocked by federal courts.