Bill Summary
The "Born in the USA Act" is legislation aimed at prohibiting the use of federal funds to implement Executive Order 14160, issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025. This executive order seeks to limit the recognition of citizenship for certain children born in the United States, which the bill argues is unconstitutional. The Act emphasizes the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship and references the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirms that all individuals born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The legislation asserts that citizenship rights cannot be altered by executive orders or congressional acts, thereby protecting the constitutional right to citizenship for all born in the U.S.
Possible Impacts
Here are three examples of how the "Born in the USA Act" could affect people:
1. **Protection of Citizenship Rights for Children**: The primary effect of this legislation is the protection of birthright citizenship for children born in the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status. By prohibiting the use of funds to enforce Executive Order 14160, which seeks to undermine this right, the Act ensures that children born in the U.S. cannot be denied citizenship. This would provide security and stability for these children, allowing them to access education, healthcare, and other essential services without fear of being labeled as non-citizens.
2. **Legal Clarity and Stability**: The Act reinforces the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, clarifying that birthright citizenship is a constitutionally protected right. This legal clarity would reduce confusion and anxiety among families regarding their children's citizenship status. It may help prevent potential legal battles and challenges that could arise from attempts to rescind established rights, thus fostering a more stable environment for families.
3. **Impact on Immigration Policy and Public Perception**: By explicitly prohibiting the enforcement of a controversial executive order, the Act may influence public perception and political conversation surrounding immigration and citizenship in the U.S. It could lead to increased advocacy for immigrant rights and a broader discussion about the values of inclusivity and diversity in American society. This may also impact how policymakers approach future immigration laws, promoting a more humane and rights-based approach to citizenship.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 646 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 646
To prohibit the use of funds to carry out Executive Order 14160.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 20, 2025
Ms. Rosen (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Booker, Mr.
Welch, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the following bill; which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To prohibit the use of funds to carry out Executive Order 14160.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Born in the USA Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued the
flagrantly and clearly unconstitutional Executive Order 14160
(90 Fed. Reg. 8449), entitled ``Protecting the Meaning and
Value of American Citizenship'', to prohibit the departments
and agencies of the United States Government from recognizing
the citizenship of certain children born in the United States.
(2) The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States unambiguously states: ``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.''.
(3) In 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
a decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
interpreting the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),
the Supreme Court of the United States concludes that--
(A) ``[t]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the
ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth
within the territory, in the allegiance and under the
protection of the country, including all children here
born of resident aliens''; and
(B) ``[i]t can hardly be denied that an alien is
completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the
country in which he resides. . .it is well known that,
by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so
long a time as he continues within the dominions of a
foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that
government''.
(5) Federal courts around the country have weighed in
against the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160 (90 Fed.
Reg. 8449).
(6) Birthright citizenship is a right guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States and further enshrined in
Federal law in title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); therefore, birthright citizenship
cannot be rescinded by executive order or by an Act of
Congress.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.
No funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available to carry
out Executive Order 14160 (90 Fed. Reg. 8449; relating to protecting
the meaning and value of American citizenship) (or any successor
executive order, regulation, or policy).
<all>