Epoch Survey Finds Strong Reader Support for Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month on the 14th Amendment and President Donald Trump’s order to restrict birthright citizenship. The nation waits to hear whether the status quo will be upheld or if the president will get to change how American-born children of foreign nationals become citizens. 

The president’s order, which was issued last year and would bar the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from automatically obtaining citizenship, has been blocked by multiple federal judges.

Our reader survey shows that many respondents agree with the president’s premise: The 14th Amendment wasn’t meant to be applied the way it has been in recent history. 

Readers responded to questions about birthright citizenship, showing an affinity for redefining the concept to put a stop to birth tourism and what an increasing number of people believe is an exploitation of the system.

Legal Ramifications

First and foremost, the president’s order and the Supreme Court’s decision will be compared to the current constitutional law and case precedent, most notably the 14th Amendment. 

Eighty-six percent of readers agree that the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant citizenship based only on birthplace, and conversely, 82 percent disagree that the 14th Amendment has been correctly interpreted to grant citizenship based on birthplace. 

One reader wrote on the topic, contending that no matter the original intent, it could be time for a change: “Present-day circumstances with illegal immigration chaos should be reason enough to update the original intent of the 14th Amendment.”

A whopping 96 percent of respondents agreed that birthright citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration, and the same percentage agreed that allowing illegal immigrant parents to remain in the United States increases demand for public services. 

In the same vein, 83 percent of readers agreed that U.S.-born children should not prevent the deportation of parents who are in the country illegally. 

Readers were somewhat divided on other issues regarding the parents of children born in the United States. 

Around 46 percent of readers either disagree or strongly disagree that verifying parents’ legal status at birth would require an expanded government bureaucracy. A third are either ambivalent or are unsure how they feel, and 20 percent agree with the idea. 

A respondent outlined their thoughts on who should be allowed to become an American, saying, “Citizenship should only be extended to people who desire to embrace the values presented in our Declaration of Independence.”

Birth Tourism 

Birth tourism has been a major cause of concern for those tuned into the issue. Frustration over the idea of someone visiting for the specific purpose of having a child in the United States who can obtain citizenship was something shared by our readers. 

The vast majority (96 percent) of readers believe that birthright citizenship encourages birth tourism, and nearly the same amount (94 percent) believe that birth tourism increases strain on U.S. hospitals and health care services.

“It is being used by countries like China to infiltrate our country and our elections for nefarious purposes,” said one reader responding to the survey. 

Eighty-three percent of respondents think that citizenship at birth should require at least one parent to have legal status in the United States. 

“Birth tourism is particularly a problem as they have no allegiance or intention of being here,” said another. “I look differently on an illegal person who has lived here for years and then has a child versus those that come just to give birth. I think there should be some association of intention and allegiance to citizenship.”

Yet another said that the “most important reason to change birthright citizenship is to end incentives for illegal immigration and birth tourism to reduce the number of people that come here only to live off our tax dollars.”

Importance of the Issue

There was little division among readers about the importance of the decision, which now sits with the Supreme Court. 

According to 86 percent of respondents, birthright citizenship is a defining American principle. 

But around 70 percent of those polled said they disagree that birthright citizenship contributes to the economy over time.

One reader, however, noted that their concern “stems from the current balance between public resource allocation and the financial burden placed on hardworking American families.”

“Many middle-income households are increasingly struggling to meet their own basic needs, including healthcare, housing, and daily living expenses. At the same time, there is a growing perception that individuals who are not citizens are able to access certain benefits—particularly emergency healthcare services—without having contributed to the system in the same way.”

Ninety-five percent of those who responded to the survey disagree that children born in the United States should receive U.S. citizenship regardless of their parents’ legal status. Roughly the same number of respondents (96 percent) also disagree that children born in the United States to temporary visitors should receive U.S. citizenship.

Another reader commented on the original intent of birthright citizenship, saying any discourse on the topic “must take into account the time in our nation’s history when it was meant to address the status of slaves.” 

“With modern means of travel and the clear abuses that today’s conditions are revealing, some clarification and restrictions must be included. We need to revise the 14th Amendment to reflect today’s environment.”

The Epoch Times conducted this reader survey on April 8–9, 2026, by email and social media, generating 6,708 responses.