Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, plans to circulate legislation restricting birthright citizenship, and the bill isn't some new invention. It mirrors a 1993 proposal introduced by the late Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who went on to become Senate Majority Leader and mentor to Chuck Schumer.
The move is part political dare, part policy push. Moreno wants to challenge the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding birthright citizenship while forcing today's Democrats to publicly reject a bill their own party icon once championed. As Fox News Digital first reported, Moreno obtained the original Reid bill text and rebuilt it for the current Congress.
The contrast between Reid's 1993 rhetoric and today's Democratic orthodoxy on immigration is hard to miss, and that's exactly the point.
Moreno's legislation targets the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause. The bill would redefine that phrase to mean "subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country," which would exclude children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, most temporary visa holders, and others present in the country on a short-term basis from receiving automatic citizenship.
The scope goes well beyond birthright citizenship. The bill would also cut legal immigration substantially, cap refugee admissions at 50,000 per year, and speed up deportations while limiting court review of removal proceedings.
Every one of those provisions appeared in Reid's original 1993 bill. Moreno didn't water it down or soften the edges. He kept it intact.
What makes the legislation so politically awkward for Democrats isn't just the policy overlap. It's what Reid said when he introduced it. In his 1993 press release, Reid used language that would get a modern Democrat hauled before the party's base for a public apology tour.
"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants, placing tremendous burdens" on government programs.
Reid went further, describing the fiscal pressure in terms no sitting Democrat would dare use today:
"Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits, often without paying any taxes."
He also defended the bill's restrictions on asylum, framing them as consistent with American values rather than hostile to them:
"We are a country founded upon fairness and justice. An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum. But this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system."
That was the Democratic Senate leader. Not some backbencher. Not a Republican operative. The man Democrats honored by naming the Las Vegas airport after him.
Compare Reid's 1993 position with where his protégé stands now. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling upholding birthright citizenship last month, Schumer celebrated the decision publicly:
"No matter how much President Trump tries to steal citizenship from people that the Constitution has said have earned it and reverse the grand American tradition of welcoming newcomers to our nation, the Supreme Court confirmed today that those born in America are American."
Schumer cast the ruling as a vindication. Moreno sees it as an invitation, not to defy the Court, but to respond through the legislative process. The bill would change the statutory framework the Court interpreted, rather than simply accept a ruling that Moreno and other Republicans believe got the 14th Amendment wrong.
The political geometry is sharp. Schumer learned at Reid's side. Reid wrote the bill. Now Schumer has to decide whether to reject his mentor's own handiwork.
Moreno laid out his strategy plainly during an appearance on "The Ingraham Angle" earlier this month. He described two goals: challenge the Court's interpretation through legislation, and expose how far the Democratic Party has drifted on immigration in three decades.
"What it's going to do is highlight two things. The Democrats of today are nothing like the Democrats of 1993 and, if they choose to reject a bill sponsored by their majority leader that they named an airport in Las Vegas after, then I think my Republican colleagues have no choice."
He didn't elaborate on what "no choice" means in practical terms, whether he envisions a floor vote, a messaging campaign, or broader legislative action. But the implication is clear: if Democrats refuse to engage with a bill their own icon authored, Republicans should feel free to push the immigration debate harder.
Moreno also offered a blunter assessment of his opponents' trajectory:
"We have to recognize that these Democrats want to systematically destroy this country."
That's a strong charge. But it lands differently when you can hold up Reid's 1993 bill in one hand and Schumer's 2025 celebration of open birthright citizenship in the other. The policy distance between those two positions is enormous, and it didn't happen by accident.
The heart of the legal debate is what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means in the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. The Supreme Court's recent ruling interpreted the phrase broadly, holding that essentially all children born on U.S. soil receive automatic citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Moreno's bill takes the opposite view. It would define "subject to the jurisdiction of" as referring to the jurisdiction of a foreign country, meaning that if a parent owes allegiance to another nation and is present in the U.S. illegally or temporarily, the child would not automatically receive citizenship.
Whether Congress can override the Court's interpretation through statute rather than constitutional amendment remains an open legal question. The bill has not yet been formally introduced or assigned a number. Fox News Digital reported obtaining the text, but the legislation has not yet begun circulating among Moreno's colleagues.
Several details remain unclear. The bill's specific provisions for cutting legal immigration, which visa categories, what numerical caps, have not been publicly detailed beyond the broad strokes. The "limited court review" language in the deportation provisions hasn't been spelled out. And the Supreme Court ruling's case name, docket number, and vote breakdown were not specified in available reporting.
It's also unknown which Republican colleagues Moreno expects to back the effort, or whether Senate leadership has signaled any interest in bringing the bill to the floor.
The bill may never pass. It may never get a vote. But that doesn't make it meaningless. Moreno has constructed a political trap using the Democratic Party's own materials. Reid's 1993 language, "illegal aliens," "overflowed borders," "abuse America's inherent generosity", reads like a modern Republican talking point. It wasn't. It was the Democratic mainstream position barely a generation ago.
Today's Democrats treat any restriction on birthright citizenship as an attack on the Constitution itself. Schumer's statement after the Court ruling framed the issue as settled, fundamental, and beyond debate. But Reid didn't think so in 1993. He thought the system was being exploited, the taxpayers were being squeezed, and the law needed to change.
Moreno is betting that voters can see the difference, and that Democrats would rather dodge the comparison than explain it.
When a party has to run from its own former leader's legislation, the shift isn't subtle. It's a confession.
