Staff Reports
Senator Jim Banks this week took the fight over birthright citizenship out of the courtroom and straight to the Senate floor. His new Citizenship Act of 2026 would rewrite federal law to say children born to people who enter the country without permission—or who come for “birth tourism”—are not automatically U.S. citizens. It’s a clear bid to lock President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive-order policy into statute after the Supreme Court rebuffed the order in Trump v. Barbara.
What the Citizenship Act of 2026 actually does
The bill makes two blunt changes. First, it declares that anyone who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of birth tourism is a statutory “invader.” Second, it amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to exclude children of those “invaders” from automatic citizenship. In plain talk: show up unlawfully or come for a birth certificate, and your child born here would not be guaranteed U.S. citizenship under this law.
Why Banks says this is the legal path forward
The Supreme Court left a door open
Senator Banks frames the Citizenship Act as the exact option the Supreme Court left on the table. The Court’s majority in Trump v. Barbara struck down the executive order, but Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurrence, said Congress could change the statute that governs birthright citizenship. Banks is following that suggestion. If you like straight-line logic, this is it: the Court closed one door, told lawmakers there’s another, and Banks walked right through.
The politics and the math: uphill, but consequential
Passage won’t be easy. The Senate still has rules that let a determined minority slow or block bills, and some Republican senators have publicly warned that changing birthright citizenship by statute is tricky or even unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment. Democrats and civil-rights groups will sue and rally hard if this gets a vote. Still, forcing a public floor vote matters politically—moderates and senators from swing states will have to take a stand, and that alone makes this more than a press-release stunt.
Whether the Citizenship Act becomes law or merely a headline, it proves a point: Republicans are pushing to convert presidential action into permanent statute. Supporters argue it defends sovereignty and deters illegal immigration and birth tourism. Critics call it harsh and likely unlawful. Either way, senators will have to answer the question on the record. For voters who want secure borders and clear rules about citizenship, that’s a fight worth watching—and yes, worth winning.
