The debate on birthright citizenship has taken a new turn after the Supreme Court rejected former President Trump’s attempts to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents who are not citizens or who are in the country temporarily.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) emphasized that the Senate’s proposals—despite the discussions around birthright citizenship—do not directly reference the 14th Amendment, since this right is actually established by federal law in the five U.S. territories.
“The ‘Barbara’ decision has opened the door for Congress to address citizenship in U.S. territories,” Griffith mentioned when introducing the Territorial Birthright Citizenship Repeal Act, referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Current laws in U.S. territories generally grant citizenship to children born there, with the exception of American Samoa, regardless of their parents’ nationality.
Griffith’s bill aims to tackle so-called “birth tourism” in territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI); notably, American Samoans do not automatically receive citizenship at birth.
Speaking further on this issue, Griffith stated that Congress has the authority to modify citizenship laws since the basis for them has already been established. “I’m leading efforts in Congress to clarify these laws, and to prevent foreign individuals from taking advantage of existing loopholes,” he explained.
In 2009, the federal government took over immigration control in CNMI, which has reportedly led to an influx of birth tourists. Critics argue that this has encouraged the practice further.
Representative Kimberly King Hines (R-CNMI) expressed her support for stricter border security, but also raised concerns that Griffith’s bill misdirects efforts by targeting the wrong populations. She pointed out that immigration authority in the CNMI was transferred to the federal level, suggesting that enforcement could be improved instead of changing citizen laws that affect residents.
Concerns about differing standards for citizenship among Americans based on where they were born led her to advocate for a careful examination of the relationship between CNMI and the mainland before any adjustments are made. “People from the Northern Mariana Islands have served loyally in the military for generations, and they deserve equal standards of citizenship,” she asserted.
The Supreme Court’s past rulings on territorial citizenship have already set a precedent, like in the case of Tuaua v. United States, which ruled that the Citizenship Clause didn’t extend to American Samoa. As the dialogue around Griffith’s proposal continues, it remains to be seen how lawmakers will navigate these complex issues surrounding citizenship.
A number of critics, including some political figures, have suggested that if CNMI residents desire full rights, they should pursue statehood, much like Alaska and Hawaii did. Griffith’s initiative could complicate the relationship between Congress and the judiciary concerning citizenship rules within the U.S. territories.
