Rep. Chip Roy said Congress has authority to address birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling, arguing that lawmakers can move without pursuing a constitutional amendment.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said Congress can respond to the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling without a constitutional amendment, outlining a legislative path for lawmakers who oppose the court’s decision.
Roy discussed the issue in an interview clip shared after the Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship, which critics argue could lead to further abuse and exploitation of U.S. citizenship law.
The Texas Republican said the issue can be addressed through congressional action rather than the more difficult process of amending the Constitution.
The discussion comes amid renewed Republican criticism of birthright citizenship following the Supreme Court’s decision. Opponents of the ruling argue that automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to foreign nationals has created incentives for abuse, including cases involving illegal immigration, temporary travel and commercial arrangements intended to secure U.S. citizenship.
Roy’s argument centers on the view that Congress has a role in defining and enforcing citizenship law and can act legislatively in response to the court’s interpretation.
Supporters of changing birthright citizenship policy have argued that a constitutional amendment would be politically difficult and time-consuming. Roy’s comments point instead to a congressional strategy that could move through ordinary legislation.
The full interview was also posted on YouTube, where Roy discussed his plan in greater detail.
The issue has become a central part of the broader immigration debate, with Republican lawmakers and activists arguing that current birthright citizenship rules are being exploited and should be narrowed.
Roy’s remarks add to the growing push among conservatives for Congress to take direct action after the Supreme Court ruling, rather than waiting for a constitutional amendment or another court challenge.
WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW:
Original article


Comments