Senator Jim Banks of Indiana is picking up where President Trump left off by reigniting the fight to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and foreign “birth tourists.”
His new bill, the Citizenship Act, takes direct inspiration from a recent Supreme Court ruling and a sharply argued opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
While the Court struck down Trump’s previous executive order, Kavanaugh’s partial dissent offered a roadmap for Congress to take legislative action.
Now Banks is answering that call with a bold plan to define the children of those who unlawfully enter the country as the offspring of “invaders.”
Banks told Fox News Digital he would introduce the legislation the moment the Senate opened on Monday.
The bill’s language aligns squarely with Trump’s own executive order, which had defined illegal border crossings as a literal “invasion.”
Citing the Constitution’s guarantee that the federal government protect every state from invasion, Banks’ proposal directly ties the issue to national sovereignty, much to the outrage of Democrats and left-leaning advocacy groups already labeling it as “extreme.”
The Indiana Republican’s effort comes after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara, where Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s liberal bloc to block Trump’s executive order.
Roberts relied heavily on an 1898 precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which granted citizenship to children born on U.S. soil.
However, Banks argues that the same case actually left the door open for exceptions, including children of those who fall under the legal definition of “invaders” or “alien enemies.”
Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion hinted at this very loophole.
WATCH:
Though he agreed that Trump’s executive action conflicted with current federal law, he made clear that Congress could amend the statute to provide more explicit limits.
Banks took that as a green light. “The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision was an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty,” Banks said.
“We must do whatever it takes to save our country.”
The Citizenship Act would not alter the Constitution nor contest the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Instead, it changes federal law to redefine which noncitizens are covered, explicitly removing children of those entering the United States illegally or for birth tourism.
The bill revokes the automatic citizenship that such children currently receive and reaffirms Congress’s constitutional role in establishing uniform rules of naturalization.
Banks emphasizes that his proposal simply codifies Trump’s constitutional authority to defend the nation’s borders.
“I’m leading the Citizenship Act to reverse the effects of this consequential ruling and ensure the millions of illegal aliens that invaded our country can’t continue to exploit our immigration system,” he declared.
The language deliberately echoes Trump’s “invasion” terminology, which has become a rallying cry among conservatives furious about the border crisis.
The legislation also highlights the growing influence of foreign actors in exploiting birthright citizenship.
It cites how Chinese Communist Party networks encourage “birth tourism” where expectant mothers travel to the United States solely to give birth, securing instant citizenship for their newborns.
In Banks’ view, that practice exemplifies how American generosity has been twisted into a loophole for foreign advantage.
The bill also nods to certain Mexican nationalist narratives that frame mass migration northward as a reclamation of territory lost in the 1840s.
WATCH:
Legal scholars on the right view the Citizenship Act as a strategic response that uses liberal judicial logic against itself.
By relying on the very case Roberts cited against Trump, Banks is daring the Court to reexamine the conditions of who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Justice Horace Gray’s 1898 ruling excluded diplomats, hostile occupiers, and others not obligated to the government’s authority.
Banks’ bill argues that illegal border crossers fall precisely into that excluded category since they defy the nation’s sovereignty.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurrence in a separate 2025 case, U.S. v. CASA, admitted that “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation” are not entitled to birthright citizenship.
What she carefully stopped short of doing, however, was labeling illegal immigrants as such “invaders.”
Banks’ measure goes that final step. If passed, it would mark a historic shift in how Congress interprets the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The senator also anchors his bill in the Founders’ intent.
James Madison wrote in 1788 that Congress, not the individual states, held the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Banks argues that his bill simply restores that original constitutional order.
He says it is both a legislative and moral duty to defend American citizenship from dilution by those who enter unlawfully.
Critics on the left have predictably reacted with hysteria, calling the effort xenophobic and unconstitutional.
Yet much of the conservative base sees it differently. To them, Banks’ proposal is long overdue.
They view it as a chance to restore integrity to a system they believe has been abused for decades by individuals crossing the border, not to contribute, but to collect benefits funded by American taxpayers.
As the Citizenship Act readies for introduction, Trump and his allies are putting pressure on Senate Republicans to act swiftly.
Trump himself has publicly scolded GOP lawmakers for failing to fight hard enough on the issue.
Banks, already seen as one of the most loyal Trump allies in the Senate, seems eager to prove that he is not just talking tough but taking legislative action.
If the bill gains traction, it could mark one of the biggest political fights of the year, testing where each senator stands on the meaning of American citizenship itself.
For conservatives, it is about restoring the essence of national identity.
For Democrats, it will likely become another talking point about “compassion” and “diversity,” words that many Americans now associate with chaos at the border.
