House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Sunday said that what he described as "birthright tourism" has "devalued" the 14th Amendment, adding his voice to a debate over birthright citizenship that has intensified following recent Supreme Court action. The comments came after President Trump called on Congress to address the issue in light of a high court decision declining to rule on Trump's executive order attempting to limit birthright citizenship.
Johnson specifically praised Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent from the Supreme Court's decision not to consider Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. The court's majority opinion said it would not take up the case, effectively leaving existing birthright citizenship practices in place for now. Johnson argued that the constitutional provision has been misused through what he called "birthright tourism."
What the Right Is Saying
Johnson and other Republican supporters of restricting birthright citizenship argue that the practice has been exploited by individuals who come to the United States specifically to give birth and secure American citizenship for their children. They contend this places an unfair burden on American taxpayers and social services.
Conservative legal scholars note that there has been ongoing debate about whether the 14th Amendment was originally intended to apply to the children of undocumented immigrants. Some Republican lawmakers have argued that legislation could clarify or limit the scope of birthright citizenship without requiring a constitutional amendment. The White House has signaled continued interest in pursuing restrictions through congressional action.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates have largely defended birthright citizenship as a fundamental constitutional right that has been part of American law for more than a century. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the nation and the state in which they reside.
Progressive groups argue that efforts to restrict birthright citizenship represent an overreach by Congress and the executive branch into constitutional protections. They contend that changing birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment rather than legislation or executive action. Immigrant rights organizations have called Johnson's comments part of a broader effort to dismantle constitutional protections for vulnerable populations.
What the Numbers Show
Birthright citizenship applies to anyone born on U.S. soil, including territories, under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. An estimated 300,000 to 400,000 children are born annually to mothers in the United States illegally or with temporary visas, according to various estimates from immigration research organizations.
The Supreme Court's recent decision not to take up Trump's birthright citizenship executive order leaves the legal landscape unchanged for now. Legal experts remain divided on whether Congress has the authority to limit birthright citizenship through legislation alone, with constitutional scholars from both sides of the debate offering competing interpretations of the Amendment's original public meaning.
The Bottom Line
The debate over birthright citizenship is likely to continue in Congress as both chambers explore potential legislative responses. Trump has called for action following the Supreme Court's decision, and Johnson's comments signal House Republican support for addressing the issue. However, any legislation faces significant constitutional questions and almost certainly would face legal challenges. Observers should watch for specific legislative proposals that may emerge from upcoming congressional sessions, as well as any additional Supreme Court cases that could provide clearer guidance on the scope of birthright citizenship protections.