Proposed Act Seeks to End Automatic Birthright Citizenship for Children of Undocumented Parents

The new Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act of 2025 is aiming to fundamentally alter who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth. Right now, if you’re born on U.S. soil, you are generally considered a citizen—this is the principle of jus soli (citizenship by soil), backed by the 14th Amendment. This bill doesn’t eliminate that rule entirely, but it carves out three major exceptions, effectively stating that certain children born here would no longer be considered “subject to U.S. jurisdiction” for citizenship purposes (SEC. 4).

The Fine Print: Who Would Be Excluded?

This Act is zeroing in on the parents’ status at the time of the child’s birth. According to Section 4, a child born in the U.S. would not automatically receive citizenship if their parents fall into one of three categories: 1) They are currently unlawfully present in the United States; 2) They are present strictly for diplomatic purposes; or 3) They are engaged in some kind of hostile occupation or operation within the U.S. The stated goal here is to put into federal law the idea that citizenship requires allegiance, and those three groups of parents either owe no allegiance (diplomats) or are deemed to be actively disloyal or disobedient (unlawfully present or hostile actors) (SEC. 2).

Impact on Everyday Life: Creating a New Class of Non-Citizen

The biggest real-world change here is the impact on families where one or both parents are undocumented. Currently, if a parent is undocumented, their child born in the U.S. is a citizen—a “anchor baby,” as some critics call them. This bill would change that overnight. For a family where the parents are working jobs, paying taxes, and contributing to their community but lack legal status, their child would now be born without U.S. citizenship. This creates a new, vulnerable class of person: someone born in the U.S. who is not a U.S. citizen, cannot access the rights and protections that come with citizenship, and whose legal status is immediately tied to their parents’ precarious situation. They are essentially stateless within the country of their birth, making basic things like enrolling in college, getting a driver’s license, or securing stable employment incredibly complicated down the road.

The Constitutional Tightrope Walk

Congress is aware this is a heavy lift, which is why the bill includes a Sense of Congress section arguing that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was never meant to be absolute, citing historical exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers (SEC. 2). The bill attempts to use this historical interpretation to justify adding the “unlawfully present” category. This maneuver attempts to legislate around a constitutional guarantee, which legal scholars widely agree will face immediate and intense constitutional challenges. It’s like trying to change a major highway rule by passing a city ordinance; the higher authority usually wins out. Regardless of the legal outcome, the immediate effect is massive uncertainty for immigrant families and a huge administrative headache for agencies tasked with determining citizenship at birth.

The Vague Threat of 'Hostile Operations'

While the exceptions for diplomats and undocumented parents are fairly clear, the third category—parents engaged in “hostile occupation or operation”—is exceptionally vague. What exactly constitutes a “hostile operation”? Does that apply only to foreign spies and terrorists, or could it be interpreted to include political activists, protesters, or even journalists deemed critical of the U.S. government? The lack of clear definition here creates a massive loophole that could be used arbitrarily. This ambiguity is concerning because it grants broad authority to determine citizenship based on subjective criteria, potentially impacting anyone whose parents are deemed to be acting against the country's “interests,” regardless of whether they have been charged with a crime (SEC. 4).