Born in the USA Act
- Bill Number
- S. 646
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-20: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-19T12:03:16Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "Born in the USA Act" (S. 646) aims to prevent the implementation of Executive Order 14160, which the bill describes as an unconstitutional attempt to limit birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States. The legislation seeks to uphold the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship by birth on U.S. soil, as interpreted by Supreme Court precedent.
Key Provisions
- Findings Section: Outlines congressional assertions that Executive Order 14160 (issued January 20, 2025) violates the Constitution by denying citizenship to some U.S.-born children. It cites:
- The 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause: "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 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents who are legal residents.
- Federal court rulings against the order's constitutionality.
- Existing law in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), which codifies birthright citizenship and cannot be altered by executive action or congressional statute.
- Prohibition on Funding (Section 3): Bars any appropriation or allocation of federal funds to execute Executive Order 14160 or any similar future executive order, regulation, or policy aimed at restricting birthright citizenship.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This bill does not amend existing statutes or the Constitution but introduces a funding restriction to nullify the executive order's effects without directly repealing it.
- It reinforces the status quo by preventing executive overreach into constitutional rights, maintaining the long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and federal immigration law.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal departments (e.g., Department of Homeland Security, State Department) would be unable to spend money on policies denying citizenship recognition, potentially halting related administrative actions like passport denials or deportation proceedings for affected individuals.
- On Citizens and Residents: Protects U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents (including undocumented immigrants) from losing automatic citizenship, ensuring access to rights like education, healthcare, and legal protections.
- On International Relations: Could signal U.S. commitment to constitutional principles, potentially affecting diplomatic ties with countries whose nationals give birth in the U.S., though it may heighten domestic political tensions over immigration enforcement.
- Broader societal effects include reduced uncertainty for immigrant families and prevention of family separations due to citizenship disputes.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S.-Born Children and Families: Primarily those born to non-citizen parents, who would retain citizenship protections.
- Immigrant Communities: Non-citizen residents and undocumented individuals, whose children's rights are safeguarded.
- Federal Government Entities: Executive branch agencies responsible for immigration and citizenship (e.g., USCIS, ICE), facing operational constraints.
- Congress and Judiciary: Lawmakers asserting legislative oversight over executive actions; courts may see fewer challenges if the order is defunded.
- Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on civil rights, immigration reform, and constitutional law, either supporting or opposing the bill based on their views.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional: Reinforces the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship (jus soli, or "right of the soil") as unchangeable by executive fiat, echoing Wong Kim Ark's ruling that excludes only children of foreign diplomats or invading forces. It underscores limits on presidential power via the separation of powers doctrine.
- Legal: As an appropriations measure, it uses Congress's "power of the purse" (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution) to block implementation without needing a full repeal, potentially leading to lawsuits if agencies attempt workarounds.
- Political: Highlights partisan divides on immigration, with Democratic sponsors challenging a Republican president's order. It could influence future debates on citizenship reform, emphasizing that such changes require a constitutional amendment, not unilateral action.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (19)
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL], Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD], Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV], Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT], Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ], Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ], Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI], Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE], Sen. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE], Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-20: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-02-20: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Born in the USA Act — issued 2025-02-20 — PDF (3 pages)