HR-10211-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Anna Luna (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would give Executive Order 14418 "the full force and effect of law." That executive order directs federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully present or on certain temporary visas, reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The bill text itself contains no independent operative language beyond incorporating the executive order by reference.
Who benefits
Supporters of stricter immigration enforcement and executive branch officials implementing the policy, who would gain statutory backing that reduces exposure to arguments that the order lacks legal authority. Federal agencies (State Department, Social Security Administration, DHS) would gain clearer congressional authorization for denying passports, Social Security numbers, and other citizenship documents to affected children.
Who is hurt
Children born in the United States to unauthorized immigrant parents or parents on temporary visas, who would be denied citizenship documentation despite being born on U.S. soil. These children's parents, hospitals and localities that may face new documentation disputes, and immigrant communities broadly who could face increased uncertainty about their children's legal status.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was never meant to extend citizenship automatically to children of parents who owe allegiance to a foreign power and are unlawfully present, and that Congress codifying this interpretation would strengthen the policy's legal footing against court challenges. They contend that clarifying citizenship rules addresses what they describe as an incentive for unauthorized immigration tied to birth in the United States.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Citizenship Clause has been interpreted since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to grant citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil regardless of parents' immigration status, and that neither Congress nor the President can override a constitutional guarantee through statute or executive order. They contend the bill would create a two-tiered system of citizenship determination that conflicts with over a century of settled constitutional interpretation and could render some children stateless.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which the Supreme Court interpreted broadly in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to confer citizenship on children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents; it also raises separation-of-powers questions about whether Congress or the President can redefine a constitutional term through statute or executive order rather than amendment.
Checks and balances
The bill would shift interpretive authority to the executive branch by locking in its reading of the Citizenship Clause with congressional backing, though federal courts retain the power to review and potentially strike down the policy as inconsistent with the 14th Amendment.
Historical precedent
No directly analogous legislation has been enacted; this codifies a 2025 executive order that itself broke from the longstanding administrative and judicial interpretation of birthright citizenship established after Wong Kim Ark (1898).