Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, is circulating legislation that closely mirrors a 1993 immigration bill once pushed by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in an effort to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship and challenge the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the matter.
The proposal would modify the constitutional language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to "subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country," effectively eliminating automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, most temporary visa holders, and others present in the United States without full legal standing. The bill also calls for substantial cuts to legal immigration, caps refugee admissions at 50,000 annually, and accelerates deportation proceedings with limited judicial review.
Moreno said his strategy is twofold: address the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause and demonstrate that modern Democrats have departed from their party's earlier stance on immigration enforcement.
What the Left Is Saying
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who was mentored by Reid, celebrated the Supreme Court's decision upholding birthright citizenship last month. "No matter how much President Trump tries to steal citizenship from people that the Constitution has said have earned it and reverse the grand American tradition of welcoming newcomers to our nation, the Supreme Court confirmed today that those born in America are American," Schumer said.
Progressive advocates argue that the 14th Amendment was designed precisely to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants, and that narrowing its interpretation risks undermining foundational civil rights protections. Democratic lawmakers contend that the Moreno bill goes far beyond addressing border security and amounts to a wholesale restructuring of legal immigration policy that would harm families, businesses, and communities across the country.
Immigration rights organizations have called the proposal an attack on constitutional guarantees and warn it could create a permanent underclass of individuals without full citizenship rights.
What the Right Is Saying
Moreno argued that the legislation highlights how Democrats have shifted their positions over three decades. "What it's going to do is highlight two things," Moreno said earlier this month. "The Democrats of today are nothing like the Democrats of 1993 and, if they choose to reject a bill sponsored by their majority leader that they named an airport in Las Vegas after, then I think my Republican colleagues have no choice."
In a 1993 press release, Reid himself argued for stricter immigration controls, stating that "our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants, placing tremendous burdens" on federal programs and that "we are a country founded upon fairness and justice" but that the bill was needed to close doors to those who would "abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system."
Conservative supporters contend the current interpretation creates what they describe as "birth tourism" loopholes and incentivizes illegal crossings. They argue the Moreno legislation restores the original intent of citizenship laws and brings U.S. policy in line with most other developed nations.
What the Numbers Show
The 1993 Reid bill proposed many of the same provisions now included in the Moreno legislation: reduced legal immigration pathways, capped refugee admissions, and expedited removal procedures.
Current annual refugee admission caps have fluctuated significantly in recent years, dropping to historic lows before gradually increasing. The Supreme Court's June ruling affirmed that birthright citizenship applies broadly under the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause.
The Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the Moreno legislation. Historical immigration legislation cost estimates have varied widely depending on enforcement provisions and visa allocation changes.
The Bottom Line
Moreno is betting that Democrats will face political pressure to reject their former leader's positions, while Republicans hope the bill forces a vote that highlights internal Democratic divisions on immigration policy.
The Supreme Court's June ruling rejected the Trump administration's attempt to limit birthright citizenship through executive action, leaving Congress as the primary avenue for constitutional change. Any legislation altering birthright citizenship would require either a two-thirds Senate supermajority or a new constitutional amendment, making passage highly unlikely in the current political environment.
Legal experts note that modifying the 14th Amendment's interpretation through statute rather than amendment faces significant constitutional obstacles and would almost certainly face immediate court challenges.