Key Takeaways
- •Sen. Schmitt (R-MO) announced the Supreme Court will hear arguments in *Trump v. Barbara* next month to determine if the President can eliminate birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.
- •Peter Schweizer (President, Government Accountability Institute) testified that Chinese elites exploit birth tourism and surrogacy to secure U.S. citizenship for up to 1.5 million children raised in China.
- •Sen. Lee (R-UT) and Charles J. Cooper (Chairman and Founding Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC) agreed that the *Wong Kim Ark* precedent applies only to lawful residents.
- •Republicans argued that citizenship requires consensual allegiance, while Democrats, including Sen. Padilla (D-CA), maintained that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all persons born on American soil.
- •The upcoming Supreme Court ruling in *Trump v. Barbara* will decide if the executive branch can unilaterally redefine citizenship, potentially impacting millions of American-born children.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Overview
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution convened on March 10, 2026, for a hearing titled "Hearings to examine protecting American citizenship." Chaired by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), the hearing focused on the legal and constitutional validity of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors. The proceedings took place against the backdrop of the upcoming Supreme Court of the United States case, Trump v. Barbara, which addresses President Trump’s executive order seeking to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship for these groups. The hearing examined the historical intent of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and the national security implications of current immigration policies.
Key Testimony
The legal debate centered on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. Charles J. Cooper, Chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC, testified that the original public meaning of the clause required "complete jurisdiction," implying total allegiance to the United States. He argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded those "subject to any foreign power." According to Cooper, children of tourists and illegal aliens remain subject to foreign powers and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship. Professor Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School supported this view, citing English common law precedents like Calvin’s Case to argue that citizenship traditionally required the "protection of the sovereign," which is not extended to those entering the country unlawfully.
In opposition, Professor Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law argued that the citizenship clause is unambiguous and applies to everyone born on U.S. soil, with the sole exception of children of foreign diplomats. She cited the 1898 Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark as the definitive precedent. Frost warned that the executive order would create a "permanent underclass" and impose significant bureaucratic burdens, as every American family would eventually have to prove their lineage to establish a child's citizenship. She noted that existing regulations, specifically 21 CFR 41.31, already empower U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to deny entry to individuals suspected of "birth tourism."
The hearing also addressed national security concerns raised by Peter Schweizer, President of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). Schweizer testified about an industrial-scale birth tourism industry in the People's Republic of China (China), estimating that between 750,000 and 1.5 million Chinese nationals hold U.S. citizenship while being raised in China. He alleged that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) encourages this practice to create a "Manchurian generation" capable of voting in U.S. elections and accessing government benefits. Schweizer also highlighted the rise of Chinese-owned surrogacy firms in California, citing cases where CCP-linked individuals fathered dozens of children through U.S. surrogates to secure citizenship for them.
Partisan dynamics were sharply divided. Republicans, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), emphasized the need to protect national sovereignty and prevent the "gaming" of the immigration system. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) discussed her "Ban Birth Tourism Act," which would explicitly prohibit entering the U.S. for the purpose of securing citizenship for a child. Democrats, led by Ranking Member Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), characterized the executive order as an unconstitutional "royal fiat." They focused on the human impact of enforcement, featuring testimony from Alejandro Barranco, a Marine veteran whose father was arrested by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Barranco argued that citizenship should be defined by contribution and service rather than ancestry.
Organizations & Entities
Several organizations were discussed in specific contexts. The Supreme Court of the United States was referenced as the venue for the upcoming Trump v. Barbara case and the source of the Wong Kim Ark precedent. The People's Republic of China (China) was identified as the primary source of birth tourism and surrogacy exploitation. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was criticized by Democrats for "reckless" mass deportations and the mistreatment of non-criminal residents. The United States Marine Corps was highlighted through the service of Alejandro Barranco and his brothers. The Social Security Administration (SSA), United States Department of State, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were mentioned regarding internal memos prepared to implement the executive order's documentation requirements. The Morena Party in Mexico was cited by Schweizer regarding statements made by Mexican officials about reclaiming U.S. territory through migration.
Overview
Notable exchanges included a confrontation between Sen. Durbin (D-IL) and Peter Schweizer over the lack of specific data regarding birth tourism prosecutions under the Trump administration. Sen. Lee (R-UT) and Professor Frost debated whether the holding in Wong Kim Ark was limited to "lawful permanent residents" or applied universally. The hearing concluded with no immediate legislative action, though members indicated that the outcome of the Trump v. Barbara case would dictate future congressional steps regarding the definition of American citizenship.
Transcript
Okay, we'll call this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to order. I want to thank everybody for being here. Today's topic is protecting American citizenship, birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and tourists. This is an especially pressing topic given the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Trump v. Barbara case next month regarding President Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporarily present aliens. For years, the American people have been told that the Constitution requires the United States to grant citizenship to almost anyone born here, without any regard for such key questions like whether or not the parents were in the country legally in the first place. That claim has shaped our immigration system and our politics for decades. It has also reshaped how many people think about what it means to be an American. But if you actually read the Constitution, examine the ratification debates and research the common law, that claim is far from obvious. This debate is not just about immigration policy, it's about the meaning of American citizenship. Citizenship is not just paperwork issued by the government. It's not a bureaucratic label. Citizenship is the essential bond between a nation and its people. In a republic like ours, that bond carries enormous weight. Because in the United States, sovereignty doesn't belong to a king or a ruling class. It belongs to the American people themselves. Citizenship defines the legal recognition of who the American people are. Citizenship defines the political community that governs the United States. It defines who exercises the sovereign authority of this republic. For most of our history, Americans understood citizenship in straightforward terms. It reflected allegiance to the United States. It meant loyalty to this country and attachment to its institutions. It meant belonging to the American nation. But over the past several decades, that understanding has steadily been pushed aside. Lawyers, activists, and policymakers in Washington have advanced the idea that citizenship has little to do with allegiance or membership in the national community. Under that interpretation, citizenship is devoid of connection to the American people. Instead, regardless of if your parents are tourists, foreign students, or illegally in the country, if you're born here, you are automatically a citizen in equal standing with the American people, even if you have no connection to the national community. This is a dramatic departure of how most nations understand citizenship and has produced predictable results. Foreign nationals travel to the United States late in pregnancy for the purpose of securing American citizenship for their children. An entire birth tourism industry has emerged around that goal. Illegal immigration is fueled by the belief that a child born here will receive automatic citizenship. And one of the most serious institutions of the American republic is increasingly treated like a loophole in the immigration system. Citizenship should never be a loophole. Citizenship should mean belonging. Every serious nation recognizes that citizenship reflects membership in a national community. It reflects allegiance. It reflects loyalty to the country and its laws. Nations also recognize something else. They have the sovereign right to define the boundaries of their own political community. A nation that cannot determine who belongs to its political community begins to lose control of its own sovereignty. A nation that can't define who belongs to it has lost control of its sovereignty. The Constitution addresses this issue directly. The 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Those words matter. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That phrase reflects allegiance. It reflects political authority. It reflects belonging to the United States. The citizenship clause was written in the aftermath of the Civil War to correct one of the greatest injustices in American history. It guaranteed citizenship to freed slaves and their children who owed full allegiance to this country but had been denied their rightful place in the republic. The citizenship clause was written to correct a grave injustice. It was not written to create an incentive to prop up our tourism industry or incentivize illegally crossing our borders. Yet today, that is effectively how it is treated. As part of today's hearing, we will also hear from Peter Schweizer, whose recent work raises another concern tied to birthright citizenship. In his new book, The Invisible Coup, which was a number one New York Times bestseller earlier this year, he investigated a rising Manchurian generation of Chinese nationals with CCP ties who have exploited the United States' automatic citizenship rules. China has sent individuals to give birth in America, securing U.S. citizenship for up to 1.5 million Chinese nationals who will spend their entire lives in China, but can vote in our elections, attend our schools, and receive our government benefits. President Trump's executive order has forced the country to confront this issue directly. It raises a basic question. Does the Constitution require the United States to grant citizenship automatically to the children of illegal aliens or temporary visitors? That question is now before the Supreme Court. But Congress has a responsibility to examine the constitutional text, the historical record, and the consequences of the policies we have today. That's why we're having this hearing and that's why this hearing matters. And the timing of this discussion could not be more appropriate. This year, the United States marks its 250th year. 250 years ago, the founders created a constitutional republic built on the idea of self-governing people. Citizenship was the legal expression of that idea. It defined the community that governs the country. It defined the American people. For two and a half centuries, the American republic has endured through war, crisis, and enormous change. But institutions like citizenship do not endure by accident. Nations do not endure by accident. They endure because each generation chooses to defend the institutions it inherited. Anniversaries like this one are not only moments to celebrate our history. They're also moments to ask serious questions about our future. Who are we as a people? What does it mean to be an American? And what institutions must we protect if the American experiment is going to endure for another century and beyond? Few institutions are more central to these questions than citizenship itself. Citizenship is the legal expression of the American people. It carries the responsibilities of freedom from one generation to the next. If citizenship becomes detached from allegiance and belonging, the institution itself begins to weaken. If citizenship loses its meaning, the foundations of the republic begin to weaken from within. So, the question before us today is a simple one. Is American citizenship the inheritance of a nation and its people? Or is American citizenship simply a hollow legal definition without protections against fraud, abuse, and bad actors? Protecting the meaning of American citizenship is not just a matter of immigration policy, it's a matter of preserving the American republic and the American people. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, but before we do that, I want to recognize the ranking member and my friend of the subcommittee, Senator Peter Welch, for his opening remarks.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
