Guam, CNMI nix bill seeking to end birthright citizenship in US territories

By Jayvee Vallejera

A U.S. lawmaker has proposed abolishing automatic birthright citizenship in U.S. territories, igniting a chorus of protests from Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

H.R. 9724, introduced by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA 9), would amend federal laws so that people born on or after Jan. 1, 2027, in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands would not be automatically recognized as U.S. citizens. 

Griffith’s bill comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Barbara upholding the constitutional principle of birthright citizenship.

CNMI Del. Kimberlyn King-Hinds said that H.R. 9724, or the End Birthright Citizenship for Territories Act, mistakenly punishes the CNMI and other U.S. territories instead of addressing the abuse of U.S. immigration laws.

“If people are coming to the CNMI only to exploit our immigration laws, then we should stop that. They are not coming here to be part of our community. The answer is to stop the abuse, not to punish the CNMI or the territories,” she said.

King-Hinds also pointed out that the Covenant, which governs the relationship between the United States and the CNMI, requires the consent of both parties for any changes to the terms of that relationship.

Under the proposed bill, U.S. citizenship would be granted only to a child of a U.S. citizen or a green card holder.

“We ask that our two parties stand together in publicly opposing the recently introduced federal legislation that would end birthright citizenship in Guam and the other United States territories,” Anthony P. Chargualaf Jr., chair of the Democratic Party of Guam, said in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Sen. Shawn Gumataotao.

Chargualaf said the two parties disagree on many things, but not on this issue: “No child born under the American flag in Guam should ever be treated as less American than a child born in any state.”

“We respectfully ask the Republican Party of Guam to join us in a bipartisan declaration that the citizenship of Americans born in Guam must never become a political experiment or a constitutional afterthought. Let us send a message to Congress that transcends party labels,” Chargualaf said.

This proposed legislation is about far more than immigration policy, he said. It asks Congress to create one rule of citizenship for Americans born in the 50 states and another for Americans born in U.S. territories.

“It relies upon the unequal constitutional status of the territories to justify treating our people differently,” he added.

Chargualaf pointed out that Guam and other U.S. territories have unquestionably served and accepted the same risks as every other American during times of war.

“Their citizenship was never conditional. Neither should that of their children or grandchildren be,” Chargualaf said.

At a time when Guam will celebrate Liberation Day to mark the end of Japanese occupation during World War II, Congress should be reaffirming the equal dignity of territorial Americans,” said the party, and “not proposing legislation that places an asterisk beside the citizenship of future generations born here,” Chargualaf said.

There has been no response from the Republican Party of Guam or from Gumataotao as of press time.

Advocacy group Right to Democracy, which champions self-determination and decolonization for U.S. territories, also sees disturbing gaps in the bill’s language.

Although the bill would not affect the citizenship of a child of a U.S. citizen or an alien who is legally admitted to the United States, the actual text of the amendments in the legislation includes no such exceptions, said Neil Weare, co-director of Right to Democracy.

“The proposed amendments to federal statute are sweeping and could mean that anyone born in a U.S. territory starting in 2027 would no longer be recognized as a U.S. citizen, indeed, may not be a citizen of anywhere,” said Weare.

“While Rep. Griffith says his legislative intent is to focus on addressing so-called ‘birth tourism,’ the actual text of the legislative amendments does not contain any limiting language and could deny citizenship to anyone born in a territory moving forward.”

Weare said this bill, which he described as both “dangerous” and “unconstitutional,” highlights the problem with the idea that Congress has the power to simply turn constitutional rights on and off at will in U.S. territories. 

The Democratic Party of Guam is also troubled by the growing sentiment at the national level that birthright citizenship is merely a “loophole.”

“For the people of Guam, citizenship is not a loophole. It is the legal recognition of generations of unquestioned loyalty, sacrifice, and service to our nation,” it added.

The party said the most disturbing aspect of the legislation is that it raises questions about how secure one’s citizenship is.

“If Congress may redefine who is born an American in Guam through ordinary legislation today, it inevitably raises a deeper question for every family on our island: How secure is a citizenship that depends upon the will of one Congress after another? Whether or not such authority ultimately exists as a constitutional matter, no American should ever have to ask that question,” it added.

The proposed legislation says “Congress has the power to legislate with respect to the United States territories, including citizenship status,” and that “Congress has the inherent authority to change statutes relating to citizenship of persons born in the territories.”

In a news release, Griffith claimed “the Barbara case leaves the door open for congressional action on citizenship in the American territories.

“Just like Congress possesses the power to grant the territories constitutional rights in statute, we have the power to take them away in statute,” he said.

Former Guam senator Mary Camacho Torres, who is seeking the Republican nomination for Congress, said Griffith’s bill is exactly why she joined the amicus brief on Trump v. Barbara earlier this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

“For Guam, the stakes are clear. Our citizenship was granted by Congress through statute. If they can redefine citizenship for one group, a future Congress can try to narrow or take away what it once granted to us,” she said.

Torres said birthright citizenship should be a bright-line constitutional rule, not something that changes with congressional majorities, administrations or political preferences.

“Critics dismissed this concern by saying no one was coming for Guam’s citizenship. This bill proves that the vulnerability we identified is real and already being tested,” she added.

Sen. William A. Parkinson said the bill sets a double standard, suggesting Guam "is American enough to host bases, American enough to send our children to war, and American enough to stand on the front line of national defense, but somehow not American enough for birth on our soil to carry the same dignity as birth in the states.”

“The idea that Congress may turn our rights on and off like a light switch is a chilling reminder of the peril of our political status and the imperative to vote to change that," he said. 

"Whether we seek statehood or independence, it is better than the powerlessness we have now to the whims of petty politicians trying to score political points with their base at our expense," Parkinson added.

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly issue