Trump's House GOP allies push birthright citizenship bill after progressive fury at presidential order
EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans are moving to back up President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship as it faces an expected flurry of legal challenges.
House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Brian Babin, R-Texas, is planning to introduce a new bill on the issue this week, Fox News Digital was told, with more than 20 GOP lawmakers already signing on to co-sponsor the effort.
Babin told Fox News Digital that he saw an issue both with people coming over the U.S.-Mexico border illegally and having children here, and wealthier foreigners coming to the U.S. just to have children, colloquially known as "birth tourism."
"It's going to have a huge impact on our immigration system because it's going to close loopholes that exploit birthright citizenship, and discourage illegal immigration and end the misuse of this really, this completely misinterpreted privilege," Babin said. "I don't want anyone saying that I am opposed to immigration. My ancestors immigrated as well. I have a daughter-in-law… she is from Brazil, married my son, and she is a proud U.S. citizen. But she did it the legal way. And we cannot continue to have this abuse."
Minutes after being sworn in on Monday, Trump got to work signing dozens of executive orders, from measures repealing Biden administration policies on climate and gender to renaming the "Gulf of Mexico" as the "Gulf of America."
But ending the current birthright citizenship policy in the U.S. has been widely seen as one of the most controversial, if not legally tenuous, executive actions Trump has taken so far.
Multiple progressive groups pounced on the order just hours after it got the president’s signature, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said Trump’s move was "unconstitutional" and "a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values."
Babin said, "I welcome this lawsuit because we have to get this into the U.S. Supreme Court. It's probably going to take several years for this to wind its way through the court system. But we want the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on this and give us a final ruling, because it has been misinterpreted."
Like Trump’s order, his bill would limit birthright citizenship to babies born with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or a lawful non-citizen serving in the U.S. military. It would exclude children born to illegal immigrants or parents on temporary visas.
At the heart of the argument is whether the Constitution grants birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
The citizenship clause of the Constitution reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The long-standing interpretation of unrestricted birthright citizenship comes from the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which said "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States" was a lawful U.S. citizen.
But opponents of that interpretation have pointed to other Western countries like France and the United Kingdom, where citizenship hinges on at least one parent already being a permanent resident.
TRUMP TO DEPLOY MILITARY TO BORDER, END BIDEN PAROLE POLICIES IN FLURRY OF DAY ONE EXECUTIVE ORDERS
While signing the order on Monday night, Trump dismissed concerns of a legal challenge.
"It's ridiculous. We're the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know. And it's just absolutely ridiculous. But, you know, we'll say we think we have very good grounds. Certain people have wanted to do this for decades," Trump told reporters.
But having a bill clarifying boundaries for the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause would undoubtedly give Trump more solid legal standing.
Babin is not expected to introduce his legislation as a constitutional amendment, given his disagreement not with the text itself but rather the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the 1898 Supreme Court opinion.
Introducing it as an amendment could imply that the words in the Constitution themselves were thought to be flawed, Fox News Digital was told.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on whether Trump would sign such a bill.