Indiana Sen. Jim Banks introduces bill aimed at defining birthright citizenship eligibility

Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks introduced legislation on Monday that would codify a narrower approach to birthright citizenship eligibility, according to The Hill. The proposal, titled the Citizenship Act of 2026, would revise the statutory definition of citizenship for people born in the United States by tying eligibility to whether a parent entered the country without authorization or, as the bill describes, for the purpose of “birth tourism.”

The Hill reported that the bill is intended to reflect the legal framework outlined in a “Day 1” order associated with President Donald Trump, which the outlet described as reshaping the definition of birthright citizenship. Under Banks’ approach as summarized by The Hill, individuals who fall under the bill’s described conditions would be treated differently than those considered to have lawful entry or other qualifying circumstances.

Banks’ bill would therefore shift the question of birthright citizenship from a constitutional baseline to a statutory test that lawmakers write into federal law. The practical effect, if enacted, would be to create a clear set of statutory criteria for citizenship-by-birth that federal agencies and courts would look to in disputes over whether a child qualifies under federal law.

The bill’s introduction also places the issue back into the legislative process after it has become a flashpoint in ongoing legal and political disputes over immigration enforcement and constitutional interpretation. Because immigration status and citizenship determinations can affect a wide range of government functions, a change in the definition would likely carry downstream implications for federal agencies involved in identity documents and eligibility determinations, as well as for courts adjudicating challenges.

Supporters of the measure, as characterized by The Hill, argue that codifying the “birth tourism” and unauthorized-entry standards would strengthen enforcement and reduce incentives they say are created by the current citizenship framework. Opponents have previously argued in related disputes that Congress cannot or should not alter birthright citizenship through legislation, but The Hill’s report did not provide additional detail in its summary beyond the bill’s basic criteria.

The Hill did not provide, in the information available for this write-up, the bill number, the specific legislative text beyond the summary criteria, or a confirmed White House or Federal Register publication of the “Day 1” executive action the bill is described as aligning with. The official confirmation of the executive action’s terms and the bill’s full statutory language would be necessary to describe the policy changes with precision.

If the proposal advances, it would move through committee consideration in the Senate before any vote, with the scope of any final change depending on negotiations, amendments, and whether the measure is enacted and implemented through federal agencies and applicable legal processes.