Voters Back Birthright Citizenship, But Will The U.S. Supreme Court Do The Same? I&I/TIPP Poll

The U.S. Supreme Court last week announced that it would review the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. How do Americans feel? They largely don’t want birthright citizenship policy changed, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.

The online national I&I/TIPP Poll, taken from Nov. 25 to Nov. 29 by 1,483 adults, asked Americans a general question: “Do you support or oppose birthright citizenship — the constitutional principle that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen?”

The answer: Americans overwhelmingly support the basic idea that those who are born here should automatically gain citizenship. Overall, 67% said they either supported the idea “strongly” (43%) or “somewhat” (24%), while just 23% opposed it either “strongly” (11%) or “somewhat” (12%). A total of 9% answered they weren’t sure.

While there were differences in how people responded based on party affiliation, the underlying fact remains: A majority of all three major political affiliations agree with birthright citizenship: Democrats (82% support, 10% oppose), Republicans (56% support, 37% oppose), and independents (66% support, 22% oppose).

On this, agreement is broad. Indeed, of the 36 demographic groups and subgroups I&I/TIPP regularly tallies, none was below 55%.

I&I/TIPP asked a follow-up question: “What do you think should happen to the current birthright citizenship policy?” Answer choices included: “Keep it as it is”; “Change it to exclude children of non-citizens”; and “Not sure.”

Once again, overall there was a nearly two-to-one margin in favor of “keep it as it is” (56%) over “change it to exclude children of non-citizens” (29%). Another 15% weren’t sure.

But, on this more specific question, a somewhat different pattern shows up when it comes to political affiliation and ideology, the two powerful motivating factors in American political life.

Democrats strongly favor keeping things as they are, with 70% choosing that answer compared with 19% saying they want to exclude children of non-citizens. Among independents, 54% say keep the birthright citizenship law as-is, and just over a quarter — 26% — say exclude non-citizens’ kids from automatic citizenship.

Only among Republicans does the “keep as is” answer fall below 50%, with 46% wanting no change, but a nearly as large 41% saying they would exclude children of non-citizens.

An even sharper contrast shows up when one looks at data by self-described political ideology: conservative, moderate, liberal.

Liberals are overwhelmingly in favor of the current status quo, with 74% saying keep the current system and just 16% saying exclude those whose parents aren’t citizens. Moderates are again in the middle with 57% “as is” to 26% “exclude.”

But those who call themselves conservatives break nearly equal in their answers on this issue: 45% (“as is”) to 44% (“exclude”), a statistical tie given the margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.

With no major backing from a clearly identifiable major political grouping, it’s safe to say that “as is” for the current system of birthright citizenship is the default position of most Americans, regardless of party or affiliation.

Even so, polls are not the law, and in early December the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear President Trump’s constitutional challenge to the current birthright citizenship system.

The Supreme Court won’t likely be swayed in one direction or another by popular opinion.

A strong legal case already has been made by the Trump administration and scholars that birthright citizenship for babies born to non-citizens was never the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to our nation’s Constitution.

The Constitution states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

At first glance, they might seem to make birthright citizenship a slam dunk. If you’re born here, you’re a citizen, right?

The problem, as it has been persuasively argued, by both liberal and conservative legal analysts, is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born of parents residing in the U.S. illegally. As the argument goes, parents here illegally aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., but to their home country.

As Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz recently asserted:

Citizenship shouldn’t depend on where you happen to be the instant of your birth.

A group of 24 states in October petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. Speaking for those states, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said:

The Fourteenth Amendment never intended to grant automatic citizenship to tourists or illegal aliens who enter our country for the sole purpose of having an ‘anchor baby.

Voters might believe that children born of illegal aliens deserve to be American citizens, but a strong argument can be made that the Constitution points in the other direction.

But there’s a lot at stake, since it will affect a large number of people, both illegal immigrants and citizens alike.

A Center for Immigration Studies report estimates that as many as 250,000 children were born to illegals in 2023 alone. Meanwhile, a 2023 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that “Each illegal alien or U.S.-born child of illegal aliens costs the U.S. $8,776 annually,” and $68,000 over a lifetime.

As the I&I/TIPP Poll indicates, Americans are inclined to grant birthright citizenship to those who are born here, regardless of their parents’ legal status. But the Constitution — and, importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court — might not agree.

I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past six presidential elections.

Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights. His four decades of journalism experience include serving as national issues editor, economics editor, and editorial page editor for Investor’s Business Daily.

1. Trump’s Best Hope To Likely Avoid Impeachment Runs Through Indiana—Jacob Adams, The Daily Signal

2. The F-47: Next Generation Air Dominance—Michelle Thomason & Wilson Beaver, The Daily Signal

3. Stanford’s Weakest Link To China’s Bomb Lab—Editorial Board, TIPP Insights

4. Bitcoin Turns Red—Editorial Board, TIPP Insights

5. Why Do US Congressional Leaders Keep Beating the Stock Market?—Shang-Jin Wei, Project Syndicate

6. The Mayor’s Obsession With International Law—Daniel Pomerantz, TIPP Insights

7. Trump Just Saved the U.S. Auto Industry—Rajkamal Rao, TIPP Insights

8. Finland As A Leader In European Security—Madolyn Moore & Wilson Beaver, The Daily Signal

9. Second Charlotte Train Stabbing Draws Sharp Comments From Trump—Virginia Allen, The Daily Signal

10. House Moves To Pass Defense Bill With Major Policy Changes—George Caldwell, The Daily Signal

11. There Are 2 Kinds Of Antisemitism. I’ve Seen Both.—Lee Habeeb, The Daily Signal

12. Minnesota AG Said, ‘Let’s Just Go Fight’ State Officials On Behalf Of Feeding Our Future Fraudsters, Audio Reveals—Tyler O'Neil, The Daily Signal

13. New Tool Allows Americans To Learn Identities Of Illegal Aliens Arrested In Their Communities—Virginia Allen, The Daily Signal

14. Top Trump Attorney Alina Habba Resigns—Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell, The Daily Signal

From TIPP Insights News Editor

15. Ukraine Refuses Territorial Concessions As Zelenskyy Prepares Counter-Proposal

16. Zelensky Meets Pope Amid Growing EU Frustration With U.S.–Russia Peace Push

17. Taiwan Toughens Penalties For Undersea Cable Sabotage Amid China Fears

18. Trump Greenlights Nvidia Chip Sales To China With 25% U.S. Cut

19. Australia Becomes First Country To Ban Social Media For Kids Under 16

20. China's Tencent Drops Out Of Paramount’s Warner Bros Bid To Avoid U.S. Scrutiny

21. Push for Transparency Grows As Lawsuit Targets Boat-Strike Justification

22. Ethics Officials Demand Probe Into DOJ Opinion Justifying Deadly Boat Strikes

23. CDC Abortion Report Delayed As HHS Turmoil Deepens

24. Japan Says China Ignored Hotline During Dangerous Radar Lock

25. Judge Approves Release Of Maxwell Records, With Safeguards For Victims

26. Vance’s 2028 Hedging Threatens GOP Campaign Finance Case At Supreme Court

27. October Jobs Data Shows Weakening Labor Market Despite Uptick In Openings

28. Justice Department Pushes Ahead With Renewed Comey Case

29. Justices Split Over GOP Push To Scrap Campaign Spending Limits

📊 Market Mood — Wednesday, December 10, 2025

🟩 Futures Slip Slightly as Fed Decision Looms
U.S. stock futures were marginally lower early Wednesday, with traders in wait-and-see mode ahead of the Federal Reserve’s final policy decision of the year. A 25 bp cut is almost fully priced in, yet markets remain cautious about hawkish messaging given missing data for October and November. Treasury yields edged up Tuesday, keeping risk appetite contained.

🟧 Fed Expected to Cut — But Split Committee Adds Uncertainty
The two-day Fed meeting concludes today, with an ~90% chance of a rate cut implied by markets. Analysts warn of a “hawkish cut,” with officials signalling a pause in January. Reports suggest policymakers may be unusually divided over easing, given sticky inflation and limited new data during the record-long shutdown. Updated dot plots through 2026 will reveal the extent of internal disagreement.

🟦 Trump to Begin Final Fed Chair Interviews
According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump will start the final round of interviews for the next Fed Chair this week. He is set to meet former Governor Kevin Warsh today, with Kevin Hassett still viewed as the frontrunner to replace Powell when his term expires next year. Markets are watching for clues on the future direction of monetary policy leadership.

🟪 Oracle and Adobe Results on Deck
Investors are eyeing earnings from Oracle and Adobe after today’s close. Oracle’s AI-driven transformation—fueled by its partnership with OpenAI—places it at the center of the cloud compute race. Adobe, down more than 21% YTD, will face scrutiny over growth and monetization across its creative software ecosystem.

🟫 Crude Edges Higher After Big Drawdown in U.S. Stockpiles
Oil prices rose modestly, with Brent at $62.18 and WTI at $58.52. A sharp 4.8M-barrel draw in U.S. crude inventories—far deeper than expectations—helped stabilize sentiment after two sessions of declines. Traders continue weighing Ukraine-Russia peace talks and the possibility that reduced sanctions could bring more Russian supply back online.

🗓️ Key Economic Events — Wednesday, December 10, 2025

🟦 10:30 AM ET — Crude Oil Inventories
Weekly EIA data on U.S. crude stockpiles. A deeper-than-expected draw would support oil prices; a surprise build could pressure them further.

🟩 2:00 PM ET — FOMC Economic Projections
Updated Fed forecasts for growth, inflation, unemployment, and the dot plot for 2025–2026. Markets will be watching for signs of division within the committee.

🟦 2:00 PM ET — FOMC Statement
The policy statement accompanying today’s decision. Tone—hawkish or dovish—will shape market reaction as much as the cut itself.

🟩 2:00 PM ET — Fed Interest Rate Decision
A 25 bps cut is widely expected (~90% probability). Any deviation, or hints of a pause in January, could trigger sharp moves across equities, bonds, and the dollar.

🟦 2:30 PM ET — FOMC Press Conference
Chair Powell takes questions. Markets will parse every word for guidance on the trajectory of rate cuts and the Fed’s view of the economic data gaps caused by the government shutdown.