President Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship has divided House Republicans, highlighting internal differences on the thorny topic of immigration as the GOP makes gains with Hispanic voters. I am.
Many conservatives, alarmed that birthright citizenship is being abused by people living in the country illegally, support Trump's executive order, calling it a rallying cry for the Republican MAGA base. It has become.
Some moderates say the instability would erode a constitutional right that has existed for more than 150 years, and that Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally eliminate that right.
And a third group is hanging on the fence, acknowledging the history of the noble birthright while questioning whether Congress needs to adapt the law to modern times.
The battle comes months into an election cycle in which Trump and Republicans have made significant inroads with Hispanic voters and are building on that momentum in the coming years. To be sure, Democrats once enjoyed a huge advantage with Hispanics; Trump got 43% Among voters last November, that's an 8 percentage point jump over his unsuccessful run in 2020, according to an Associated Press poll.
Republicans who support Trump's efforts say the president is simply giving voters what he promised on the campaign trail, including Hispanic voters who want tougher immigration rules.
“He received orders from the American people to stop the bleeding at our southern border,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FLA.).
“I give a lot of credit to — whether people like the details or not, things about President Trump. [is] He was very clear about what he wanted to do. And this is one of these issues,” he adds, referring specifically to the end of birthright citizenship. “There's a reason he's had such strong support from Hispanics across the country, and that's because he's doing what he sets out to do.”
Other Republicans disagree. Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FLA.), who represents the southernmost tip of Florida, said the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 to provide citizenship rights to free slaves and their descendants, “It's pretty clear that no president, including Trump,” he said. , you have the power to roll it back.
“I believe that if you were born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States,” Gimenez said. “So I think the way to actually solve the problem you're trying to solve is to control the border.”
Gimenez pointed to an 1898 Supreme Court case United States vs. Wong Kim Ark It revealed which groups of people were excluded from the privileges of birthright citizenship. This is a list that includes children of diplomats, but who do not live in the country illegally.
“It's pretty established,” he said.
Gimenez said he is confident the courts, which have already blocked Trump's order in his near term, will ultimately rule it unconstitutional. Still, he also said some of his constituents are worried in the meantime.
“I hear people worrying about it,” he said.
Caught in the middle of these two camps is a group of House Republicans who remain undecided on Trump's Day 1 orders. These lawmakers say they are weighing constitutional concerns against criticism that the 14th Amendment, as currently applied, encourages “birth tourism.”
This week on “Meet the Press,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R.N.Y.) supports legislation to repeal former Vice President Kamala Harris's narrowly won 2024 battleground vice president. I was asked if
“Obviously, yes, the 14th Amendment does address the issue of birthright citizenship, but I think there is [a] “Questions about how children were abused, frankly, obviously in terms of people coming here illegally for the purpose of obtaining citizenship,” Lawler said.
“So, obviously, it's going to weigh on the courts probably pretty quickly given some of the legal challenges that have been filed against President Trump's executive orders,” Lawler said, adding that Trump's executive orders will probably be weighed down by the courts fairly quickly. He said he expected it to reach . In relatively short order. ”
It was signed on Monday, just hours after Trump was sworn in to his second term, presidential order It illegally seeks to deny automatic citizenship rights to the children of certain non-citizens, including nationals. The order was scheduled to take effect on February 19th.
federal judge thursday Intervened to temporarily block. Judge John Cornow, a Seattle-based judge appointed by President Reagan, did not mince words in his ruling.
“I've been on the bench for over 40 years,” he said. “I can't recall another case where the question posed was as clear as this one.”
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order, Legal experts predictthe president could pressure Congressional GOP leaders to hold a vote on a proposal that would essentially adopt Trump's order legislatively.
Some GOP lawmakers are already laying the groundwork for that situation.
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) introduced a bill this week that he claims would “restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose.” United States or immigrants actively serving in the armed services.
“[Trump’s] The historic executive order to end birthright citizenship takes an important step forward, allowing the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 to solidify and codify these reforms into permanent law. ” Babin said at a press conference.
House GOP leadership has not indicated it plans to bring Babin's bill to the floor, but the very prospect is not lost on lawmakers.
“It's going to be an ugly vote for us. If we had to vote for it, I know,” one moderate House Republican told The Hill, speaking on a sensitive topic. Anonymity requested for discussion.
GOP lawmakers who expressed openness to Trump's executive order pointed to the sensitive nature of the debate, arguing that birthright citizenship provides an “incentive” for pregnant individuals to enter the United States illegally.
“There are people who will benefit from this. It will change that path for them, and some people will probably decide to spend a lot of their own money. Some of these coyotes will Sho [have] We spent $10,000 to $15,000 to cross the border. They risk a lot to get here. And this is one part of why they do it, it gives their children a better chance of life,” the member said.
“But they're doing it the wrong way, so we're literally encouraging it with our current laws.”
Other Republicans, even those sympathetic to Trump's efforts, said it would take more than a simple bill to adopt the changes the White House is proposing. Rather, it would require an amendment to the Constitution – a very high bar that falls short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass Congress.
“I think the 14th Amendment was written to mean something different than what is used today,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). “But the Supreme Court has held in the past that if you were born here, you're a citizen.”
“And I think it would be difficult to overturn it without using a corrective process.”
Emily Brooks contributed reporting.
