Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy made headlines on Wednesday when he provided some key details on Birthright Citizenship.
During a segment on Fox & Friends, Doocy spoke about the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in late June against President Donald Trump’s executive order challenging the Constitution’s “birthright citizenship” provision.
Advertisement
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals born in the U.S. count as American citizens.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, including those whose parents are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, striking down President Trump’s executive order.
Advertisement
Doocy spoke about the significance of the case and what it looks like yearly.
“260,000 babies every year are given automatic U.S. citizenship who have parents that are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. When it goes to the birth tourism citizens, that is 20K-26K per year,” Doocy said.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump’s first day back in office, he issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
The order argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to convey citizenship on newly freed American slaves following its ratification after the Civil War.
Now, some Republicans in Congress are attempting to take action.
Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks released a plan for Republicans and the Trump administration to end birthright American citizenship for the United States-born children of illegal aliens and foreign tourists.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who partly joined the majority’s ruling in the case, argued that while Trump’s order does not violate the 14th Amendment, it did violate existing federal law, which could be changed through legislation.
“Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” Kavanaugh wrote.
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
Now, Banks is laying the groundwork for Congress to end birthright citizenship for anchor babies by codifying the fact that the U.S. is under invasion by illegal aliens in his Citizenship Act.
In contrast, Banks relies on Article I of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Banks’ bill would declare illegal aliens as foreign invaders, thus eliminating the current practice of granting birthright citizenship to children born in the United States.
“The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision was an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty, and we must do whatever it takes to save our country,” Banks said.
“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,” Banks added.
Annually, an estimated quarter of a million anchor babies are born to illegal aliens and foreign tourists in the U.S.
President Trump attended the oral arguments in the case, Trump v. Barbera in April, an unprecedented move for a sitting president.
Legal challenges to the executive order were filed in federal courts across the country.
The first ruling came from Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, who described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Several other federal judges subsequently issued rulings blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the policy.
The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to address the legality of nationwide, or universal, injunctions—court orders issued by federal district judges that prevent the government from enforcing a policy anywhere in the United States while litigation is pending.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
