Dr. Brian Babin (00:00):
… has made it clear that restoring fairness to our immigration system and defending the true intent of the 14th Amendment are central to his vision of making America great again. His historic executive order to end birthright citizenship marks a critical step forward. And now with the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, we can solidify these reforms into lasting law and codify them.
(00:29)
This bill is quite simple. Let me share with you the criteria for automatic citizenship. Citizenship will be granted only to children born in the United States with at least one parent who is, one, a US citizen or national, number two, a lawful permanent resident, and number three, a lawful resident who is serving in the military. This is about ensuring the citizenship a cornerstone of our national identity. It is protected, respected, and aligned with the principles upon which this country was built.
(01:13)
This is the time, ladies and gentlemen, to pass this legislation, which has been plaguing our country for well over a 100 years. This opportunity will not come again, at least not for a long, long time. So please strongly urge your members of Congress to co-sponsor and vote for this important bill.
(01:38)
I look forward to sharing more about this legislation and engaging in a meaningful conversation about its importance. And so with that, I'd like to pass the microphone over to another member of Congress who has been a advocate for enforcing our immigration laws, my fellow co-chairman of the House, Border Security Caucus Representative Andy Biggs.
Andy Biggs (02:05):
Thank you.
Dr. Brian Babin (02:05):
Yes, sir.
Andy Biggs (02:05):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all of you being here and my colleagues for being behind me. I'm grateful to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. It's an important piece of legislation, and it's going to codify the executive order that President Trump just put in. But I'll tell you this, if the framers of the 14th Amendment would've known how abused the notion of birthright citizenship would be, which was not even a notion in the 1860s, they would have been absolutely stunned. The people who support birthright citizenship turn off into the Wong Kim Ark case, but they forget what that case really stands about, what it stands for is permanent legal resident. So when you have the permanent legal resident, the court said, then in that case, you might be a US citizen if you were born in this country. That is what the Wong Kim Ark case stands for.
(03:09)
People who are abusing this now, they're here temporarily and they're here illegally. They should not be granted the special gift of citizenship in the United States of America when you've abused our laws. If you want more information on it, it's not hard. Go read the Congressional record of the debate of the 14th Amendment. There you'll find that information, the notion of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That language has been abused and bastardized.
(03:40)
The courts that do not support birthright citizenship, it needs to come to an end. Many of us have advocated for that for some time, and I'm grateful for this piece of legislation. The last point of view I'll give to you is the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act that was passed by Congress. Why is that important? Because until that time, only specific tribes were given individual birthright citizenship. But the reason that they did that is because they did not believe that Indian Nations were subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They changed that in 1924. They did it legislatively. We need to clarify and codify that there is no birthright citizenship for those who enter this country illegally. And I'll just close out by saying there are some scholars that believe that even allowing birthright citizenship to a permanent legal residents exceeds the original intention of the 14th Amendment. But our bill's going to clarify that. And I'm grateful to my co-chairman, Mr. Babin for his effort and all those behind me. With that, I will throw this to the gentleman who is dressed so nattily today, from South Carolina, Mr. Ralph Norman.
Ralph Norman (05:01):
Thank you, Andy. I want to thank Congressman Babin for sponsoring this legislation and all of my colleagues behind me who are supporting this. As Andy said, the founders did not have a notion to think that this would be an issue at any time. Nor did they have a notion that they would have a president who would let anybody and everybody from over 175 countries in this country illegally, to cross the border. We're a nation of laws, we're a sovereign nation, but you have to have sovereign borders. And who would've thought that would've been violated?
(05:37)
The citizenship clause was never intended to guarantee citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. And let me give you some statistics. The CIS, the Center for Immigration Studies, estimate that one out of 10 births in the United States are to an illegal mother. CIS also estimates that nearly 400,000 expectant mothers cross the border illegally in hopes of giving birth in the United States. After being granted automatic citizenship, these children can initiate chain migration with their family members. This is an exportation of the 14th Amendment, never intended by the founders.
(06:20)
This is the executive order that President Trump signed right after he was inaugurated this past week. And I think that when you look at what this country was built on, what this country has become when the Biden administration took office, is an abomination to our freedom, it's an abomination to the other citizens, the ones who came here legally. They didn't come here illegally. They came here legally, which is what the Constitution was intended.
(06:57)
So with that, I would turn the mic over to Representative Morgan Luttrell. Morgan?
Morgan Luttrell (07:04):
I'll yield. You guys have said everything I was going to say.
Ralph Norman (07:06):
Okay, then Brandon Gill.
Andy Biggs (07:08):
You got Diana?
Ralph Norman (07:08):
Who?
Andy Biggs (07:10):
Diana.
Ralph Norman (07:11):
Oh, Diana.
Diana Harshbarger (07:13):
No, I don't -
Ralph Norman (07:13):
Okay.
Diana Harshbarger (07:14):
Well, let me say one thing.
Ralph Norman (07:16):
Diana Harshbarger.
Diana Harshbarger (07:17):
Yeah.
Ralph Norman (07:18):
Pharmacist from Tennessee.
Diana Harshbarger (07:20):
As the only biological female who could birth up here, just so you fellas know, this is a big-time industry with birthright citizenship. People will come from many, many countries to give birth, and they pay a lot of money to get here. So this bill would negate that and so therefore, would stop that stream. People come for nefarious reasons, but like I say, there's other people making money off of this. So just be aware of that. So now we will turn it over to Mr. Gill from Texas.
Brandon Gill (07:57):
Great. Thank you. And thank you, Chairman
Speaker 1 (08:00):
… Chairman Babin for bringing this up. Over the past four years, Joe Biden and the Democrats have unleashed chaos on our country. Importing over 10 million illegal aliens, including people from all over the globe associated with terrorist organizations, absolutely ripping our cultural and social fabric in two. We've essentially ceded sovereign American territory. We're importing the Third World, and in the process we're becoming the Third World. That's why we can see apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado being taken over by criminal migrant gangs. We can see a lady just a couple weeks ago, American citizen who was lit on fire by an illegal alien on a subway in New York. Our country is being taken away from us right now. In this past election cycle, Americans rejected the chaos that the left is unleashed on our nation.
(09:07)
You have to ask yourself, why are the Democrats doing this? Why have they been doing this for so long? It's so obviously unpopular to import millions and millions and millions of people into the country. And I think we have to ask what else are they selling? The left has nothing to sell, but inflation censorship and infanticide and transgenderism. So they're losing elections and in order to get over that, they need to import a new electorate. And I think that that's the motivating factor behind four years of open borders.
(09:43)
Mass migration impacts congressional apportionment, taking congressional seats away from traditionally red states, benefiting traditional blue states. And we know that the left has been pushing for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens for a very long time. I think it's time that we stop allowing the left to systematically rig our elections in their favor by importing a new electorate. Chairman, Babin, again, thank you very much. I think this is a great start, but we've got a lot of work to do here. So with that said, I will turn it over to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Strong. There we go. I couldn't see the name. I couldn't see it.
Mr. Strong (10:27):
Thank you. That's right. First of all, thank you Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in this issue. And Congressman Biggs, you hit it out of the park. That's exactly what's going on in America. January 20th, marked the dawn of a new day in America. Thanks to our mandate from the American people, we will no longer tolerate the abuse of our immigration system. President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship puts America first. Now Congress must take action and pass this bill to close the loopholes that have gotten us here. Plainly said, birthright citizenship, incentives illegal immigration, that's what it does. It incentivizes illegal immigration. Birthright citizenship strains our healthcare education and social services system. Hospitals and schools are overwhelmed. Taxpayers are forced to pay for the services of families who find a way around the legal immigration system. Our welfare system already takes up roughly 20% of our budget and that number only continues to grow.
(11:36)
Birthright citizenship also undermines the principles of fairness. No one has the right to skip the line and cross our border and go around the legal barriers in place. The days of illegal immigrants demanding the same rights and benefits of American citizens are over. Citizenship should be earned through a shared commitment to the values and laws our country, not automatically granted by the mere circumstance of birth within a border. Ending birthright citizenship will prioritize the rights of American citizens and lawful residents. This reform is not about denying opportunity, it's about ensuring fairness, order, and a system that works for everyone. We can no longer allow our immigration system to be exploited. We must put an end to birthright citizenship. Those that desire to be a United States citizen must do it legally. You must assimilate. Pledge your allegiance to America, follow our laws and speak our language. Our time is no. And next, I'll recognize John Rose from Tennessee. John.
John Rose (12:56):
So much of what I have to say has already been said, but I will say this, we should not confuse the legislation that we're talking about today and this issue with being anti-immigrant. This nation every year welcomes more legal immigrants than any country on the face of the earth. And we love to have these people who want to come here and embrace what America is. People yearning to be free and willing to subject themselves to the laws of this country. We want them to come here and there is a process for that. So this is not about that. This is about two things principally. From a practical perspective, this is about having laws in place that protect the sovereignty of this country and preserve citizenship for people who have come here in an intentional way embracing all that is America. So from a very practical perspective, it should not just be the luck of being in the country when you're born that makes you a United States citizen.
(13:58)
That was never the intent. And we can look back at the words that those who put the 14th Amendment in place and when it was adopted in 1868, what were they intended to accomplish and what are the full context and meaning of the words that they put into the 14th Amendment. So from a practical perspective, birthright citizenship doesn't make any sense. And there's a reason why almost every other country around the world has rejected this notion because it is frankly unworkable. The second reason is the legal reason. Trained as a lawyer, you have to read the language of laws and in this case, the 14th Amendment. And while it says that if you're born in this country, that's part of it, but you have to have subjected yourself to the jurisdiction. And those words had critical meaning at the time, and they still should have that meaning today.
(14:51)
You must subject yourself to the jurisdiction of this country, and that is not done by mere presence in the country. These two reasons make it clear that birthright citizenship is a mistaken notion from a misunderstanding about the words that are reflected in the 14th Amendment. We need to solve this problem because in so doing, we can ensure that citizenship has the full meaning that was intended by the framers of the Constitution and even by those who adopted the 14th Amendment. This is good law, it's correct law, and it will make American citizenship be the great blessing that it should be. Not only for those who obtain it legally, but for those of us who are already here in citizens and want to welcome people from around the world to make this a better nation. Thank you for having me, letting me be part of this, and it's my great honor to introduce Tom Tiffany from Wisconsin 7th District. Tom.
Tom Tiffany (15:52):
Thanks, John.
(15:52)
Thanks so much, John. First of all, thank you Representative Babin for introducing this legislation, but also thank you President
Tom Tiffany (16:00):
… President Trump, for setting the table for us to be able to deal with issues like this that have long sat dormant, that have had the rule of law here in America that are perhaps not following the original intent of the Constitution that we have here in the United States of America. I'm standing here today to share with you an example of birthright citizenship and its absurdity.
(16:26)
In the Mariana Islands, there is a loophole that you can get into Saipan and have a baby there and have it declared a citizen. Back in 2009, visas were wavered for the communist Chinese and for Russians to be able to come in to the CNMI and be able to recreate there and things like that, no visa required. Well, guess what happened? You saw many communist Chinese that came and had birth there. In fact, it got so bad a decade ago, that there were far more births by Chinese women happening on Saipan than there was of the local residents. This was all set in place back in 2009. So, as a result of that, they're saying that they have citizenship.
(17:21)
So, think about the country that is our greatest adversary, as they are in the 21st century here, communist China, and we are allowing them to be able to come in to our territory and simply be able to declare citizenship for children of the communist Chinese being born on that island. That is the absurdity of birthright tourism. And just think about the great threat to our foreign policy that happens as a result of this. So, it's time to close this up. This is just one small example of how our immigration system has been used in so many different ways to be weaponized against the American people.
(18:14)
And a couple people have said about how this devalues citizenship in America. You know who knows the value of citizenship in America? The cartels. They charge $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, we have heard as much as $50,000 for a person to be able to come into America. We should not be giving these away like candy like is happening in the Mariana Islands currently. It is time to address birthright citizenship as it was under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. And I want to turn it over to my friend Mike Collins from the great state of Georgia.
Mike Collins (18:51):
Thank you, Congressman Tiffany. Thank you, Dr. Babin.
Dr. Brian Babin (18:53):
Yes, sir.
Mike Collins (18:54):
Congressman Biggs for introducing this and bringing this up. I want to kind of hit off of what Congressman Norman said earlier. Let me think about this. One out of 10, 400,000 on average, are having children, birthright citizenship. Now, Dr. Rose, I'm not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that these folks ain't over here on vacation, y'all, and just happen to go in labor. They're coming across that border down there illegally, and they're using us like the international piggy bank.
(19:26)
Well, two things are about to happen. Number one, that border is going to be closed. Illegal immigration. Don't come across it unless you come across it legally. Number two, if you want to come into this country from now, this is America first. Come over here, help assimilate and advance the American culture. Otherwise, stay at home. It's a new day in our country. The American people are demanding that we are a nation of laws, and you come across the border legally or you go back home. With that, I thank you, and I'm going to turn it over to Representative Weber out of Texas.
Randy Weber (20:05):
Thanks, Mike, and thank you all for bringing this bill up. People say to me from time to time, "Randy, you don't like them, and you just are against immigration." And I look at them, dead center, and I said, "No, I'm not. I wouldn't be here without it." My grandfather and my great-grandfather came over from Germany on the boat in 1903, we have the manifest; my grandmother… Into Texas, they went through New York, came to Texas. My grandmother's family came over in 1845 and settled in Central Texas. If that hadn't happened, I wouldn't even be here. But folks, they did it legally. So, I want to thank you all again for bringing this up, Dr. Babin, this Birthright Citizenship Act.
(20:51)
Let me tell you something. The radical left is going to lose their frigging minds over this. I can't wait for it. They're spinning the same tired narrative, calling President Trump and Republicans heartless and cruel and inhumane for daring to address the issue of birthright citizenship. And now, 22 states are suing to block Republicans from overturning this deeply flawed policy. Let me tell you, the policy is so deeply flawed. If you've read the 14th Amendment, if you remember the timeframe that it took place in… I'll give y'all a math quiz. 14th Amendment, can any of y'all tell me which amendment preceded the 14th Amendment? Any math majors out there? Of course, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. The intent of our founders and our members of Congress back then was to make sure that African-Americans got a place in America.
(21:47)
Now, I've talked to judges, some of them in Congress that said, "Well, no, birthright citizenship is part of the 14th Amendment." I said, "Look, just because some court has interpreted that, doesn't make it right, doesn't make it law." The courts and the judges get it wrong. Supreme Court gets it wrong all the time. They actually ruled that African-Americans could be counted as three-fifths of a citizenship for census records, right? They also rule that Negroes could use separate but equal bathrooms. I think it was Brown v. Board of Education. And then they ruled in Roe V. Wade in 1973, it's okay to kill unborn children. The courts don't always get it right.
(22:31)
Here's the truth. The 14th Amendment was never intended to serve as a blank check for illegal immigration. It was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of people who broke our laws to get in this in the first place. Well, this isn't just about immigration, people. This is about defending our sovereignty, of respecting the rule of law, and ultimately, standing up for the American taxpayer who funds all this stuff. It's high time for common sense, for us to make a comeback. We need to put American citizens first, prioritizing their safety, their opportunities, and their futures.
(23:13)
That's why I'm proud to stand here with Dr. Babin, President Trump, Andy Biggs, and my Republican colleagues in this fight. We are working to pass the Birthright Citizenship Act and enforce President Trump's executive order to end this madness once for all. So very much depends on it. America's sovereignty matters. American taxpayers matter. American families matter. It's time to fix this broken system, and put America first. I yield back.
Dr. Brian Babin (23:49):
Thank you. Thank you so very much. We'll take questions. Any questions here? Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I know you all have been arguing, mainly Congressman Biggs, that it's a misinterpretation
Speaker 3 (24:00):
… the 14th Amendment. Of course, some are arguing though that this is a change to the US Constitution. So can you just detail what's changed over the years in order to warrant this action?
Dr. Brian Babin (24:10):
Are you talking about how it's morphed into what it's become today, right?
Speaker 3 (24:15):
Right.
Dr. Brian Babin (24:16):
Well, I'll tell you, and I'm not a lawyer, Andy is, but I will say this, a person in the United States illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, because that's what the 14th Amendment says. They got no Social Security number. They got no voter registration, no jury duty. A lot of them are living in sanctuary cities. And by that very definition, they're exempt from the jurisdiction thereof of the United States government. And so the whole thing is a sham. It has been misused. It has been misinterpreted. And quite frankly, it is a joke how this thing has evolved over the last 150 years.
(25:03)
Now, if you could give us, maybe Andy, if you want to give maybe a more legalese. I'm a dentist. Okay. I get to the root of problems. He can talk about that. I guess as an attorney.
Andy Biggs (25:15):
I'll just talk briefly rather than give a whole summation. But I will tell you this, I do believe the US Supreme Court when this gets there, because this will be litigated, I believe, and when it gets there, the US Supreme Court is going to take a rationale somewhat similar to what I iterated earlier today. And that is, for instance, in the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, why did you have to do that? It's because the lawmakers at the time believed that you didn't have sovereignty, that was an independent sovereign nation that the Indian nations were. So there was no loyalty, which meant there was no jurisdiction thereof. So the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof actually had a meaning. More than just saying that you're subject to be prosecuted or get voting rights, et cetera, it meant that you had developed a loyalty to the country. And so that was very, very different.
(26:11)
And so when we talk about misinterpretation, the case that I was citing of the late 1800s of the Wong Kim Ark case, don't forget, what they really said is you got to be permanent, you got to be legal in order to get birthright citizenship. The Roosevelt administration under FDR, they're the ones that actually kind of bastardized that and kind of expanded that. And so that's why I believe ultimately, and I'm predicting and forecasting that when this gets to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court's going to rule that this particular piece of legislation is constitutional.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
Just a quick follow up. Will you guys work to try to get this as part of the reconciliation bill, the board policies in that bill? Or is that [inaudible 00:27:01]-
Andy Biggs (27:00):
I would love for it to be there. But there's some technical rules with regard to… Oh, go ahead. I'll let John, go ahead.
Dr. Brian Babin (27:07):
Go ahead, John.
Andy Biggs (27:08):
Yeah, John.
John Rose (27:08):
Well, I think Representative Biggs has made the point, this is not a change of the Constitution. We're not talking about changing constitutional law, and I think he's made that point. So this is common sense on the first hand. But if you think about it from the legal interpretation of the language of the 14th Amendment, and again, I think he's made this point, it's not just about being born in the United States. It's about being subject to the jurisdiction. Lawyers study jurisdiction. It's a multifaceted question. Jurisdiction includes subject matter jurisdiction, it includes physical jurisdiction to be sure. But it doesn't just include physical jurisdiction. In other words, you don't just have to have control of the person, and some people might look at this simplistically. And then there is legal jurisdiction. So when the framers of the 14th Amendment were doing this, I think by putting that language in there they understood that jurisdiction in the subject to the jurisdiction in the broadest sense. We're not asking for the Constitution to be changed, we're just asking for it to be applied and interpreted as it was intended and as it was written.
Dr. Brian Babin (28:24):
And as far as reconciliation goes, and I think several of these ladies and gentlemen up here have already addressed the fact that how much money, how much tax money could be saved if we did away with this. So I think it could be easily placed in reconciliation, although I'm not… Anybody else have anything to say about that, about reconciliation?
Ralph Norman (28:52):
Oh, go ahead.
Andy Biggs (28:53):
No, no, no.
Ralph Norman (28:56):
I think in time, I doubt it would been in this package this year. We've got enough issues to debate and enough cuts that we're going to have to make because I think, yeah, this has got a dollar value. Assigning a dollar value would be tough.
(29:14)
The other thing, we don't know how many people are in here now. I mean, when you come in illegally, I've heard 15 million, I've heard President Trump say 21 million. So we don't have an idea of the number. So assigning a dollar figure to the cost, which you have to do in reconciliation would be tough to do. So we going to have enough struggles just to have the cuts to make this country solve it.
Dr. Brian Babin (29:38):
Mr. Weber.
Randy Weber (29:39):
Yeah, I was looking through, I downloaded the 14th Amendment, there's been a lot of Supreme Court cases. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld, this approach in the Heart of Atlanta Motel versus United States, Justice Joseph Bradley made a really interesting comment about it. He said, "Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the 14th Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies them equal protection of the laws." He goes on, "The radical Republicans who advanced the 13th Amendment," which was abolishing slavery, " Hoped to ensure broad civil and human rights for the newly freed people. But its scope was disputed before it even went into effect. The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted these principles enshrined in the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote."
(30:57)
Who was the focus? The newly freed people, not everybody trying to get in here by hook, crook, or cranny.
Dr. Brian Babin (31:04):
All right. Thank you. And I think this will wrap it up. I appreciate all of you folks coming today and we'll see how this works out.
Ralph Norman (31:15):
Thank you, Brian.
Dr. Brian Babin (31:15):
Yeah. Yeah, you bet you.
Ralph Norman (31:16):
All right.
Brittany Gibson (31:16):
Brittany Gibson, Axios.
Dr. Brian Babin (31:16):
I'm sorry.
Brittany Gibson (31:23):
Sorry. Brittany Gibson from Axios. I just wanted to ask if you had been in conversations with the White House Legislative Affairs team at all on this legislation and how this could connect to the executive order we saw President Trump on Monday?
Dr. Brian Babin (31:33):
Well, our staff has talked to some of those folks. I haven't talked to President Trump about this, but I can tell you we appreciate and wanted the challenges to this bill. We wanted the ACLU and these 22 states. Why? So that we can get it into the Supreme Court of the United States. This thing could take a up to three years before it winds up in the highest court.