Mace’s Citizenship Amendment and the Limits of Government Power

Nancy Mace (R-SC) who has been called “one of the most performative and vapid members of Congress” is at it again. Mace, now running for the South Carolina governorship, has proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to require members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed appointees to be natural-born citizens. The proposal is unlikely to go anywhere — and from a constitutional standpoint that’s probably for the best.

Mace, whose relationship with the MAGA wing of the Republican Party has been turbulent — she criticized Donald Trump after January 6, drawing his public rebuke — appears to be using this proposal to shore up her conservative credentials ahead of a competitive primary. Mace knows that her amendment has no chance of passing either the House or the Senate, much less passage in three-fourths of the states. But she hates Ilhan Omar (D-MN). She pointed to her and members of the Squad who are naturalized citizens says that they are not loyal citizens. “If you hold power in the American government, you should be a natural-born American citizen. For too long we have allowed foreign-born members to hold seats in this government, while making clear their loyalty is not here. We see it every day.” 

In addition to Omar, she cited Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and Shri Thanedar (D-MI), questioning their loyalty to the United States.  Constitutionally, her proposal is on shaky ground. The Founders placed a natural-born citizenship requirement only on the presidency — and that clause has long been criticized as an anachronistic restriction rooted in the geopolitical anxieties of the 18th century, not in any principled theory of governance. Note that the vice president need not be natural born. However, in the death or incapacitation of the president, the vice president cannot to ascend to the presidency.

Congress, by contrast, has always been open to naturalized citizens. Expanding eligibility restrictions to the legislative branch would represent a significant departure from the constitutional design and would require ratification by three-fourths of the states — a near-impossible threshold for a measure with such narrow support. More troubling is the underlying assertion that citizenship by naturalization is somehow inferior to citizenship by birth. This is a distinction the law does not generally recognize. Naturalized citizens take an oath — often after years of waiting, petitions, and legal process — that is at least as meaningful as the accident of birthplace. Jayapal’s description of her naturalization ceremony as one of the most meaningful days of her life reflects an experience shared by millions of Americans who chose this country deliberately, rather than arriving here by chance. 

Jayapal (D-WA) was born in India responded said “This narrow-minded, xenophobic legislation has no place in Congress and I call on all my colleagues — including my Republican colleagues who are naturalized citizens — to condemn this.” She recalled the moment she became a U.S. citizen. “My naturalization ceremony was one of the most meaningful days of my life. 26 years later, I have never forgotten that day as I stood with hundreds of people from across the world who had waited, in many cases decades, to become American citizens. This was a profound moment, as I felt the pride of my American citizenship.” You may not like how Jayapal votes but her constituents do. Does this sound like someone who hates America?

Mace’s proposal also applies selectively in its political framing. There are 26 foreign-born members of Congress — 19 Democrats and 7 Republicans. Mace named only the Democrats. If loyalty is genuinely the concern, one would expect equal scrutiny of naturalized members regardless of party. The omission suggests the proposal is less about constitutional principle than political targeting.

A separate but related effort by Florida’s Randy Fine — the “Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act” — would bar dual citizens from serving in Congress, requiring them to renounce foreign citizenship first. This raises a different constitutional question: whether Congress has the authority to impose such a requirement through statute, or whether it would also require a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is silent on dual citizenship for legislators, and U.S. law does not require naturalized citizens to renounce prior nationalities. Fine’s bill would create a two-tiered citizenship structure — one with greater legal burdens on naturalized Americans than on the native-born.

When Omar was asked about Fine’s proposal she responded “Who’s that?” But Omar knows perfectly well who Fine is. Fine is perhaps the most vocal anti-Muslim member of Congress and has been called “vulgar,” “toxic,” “a disgrace to the United States Congress” and “an Islamophobic, disgusting bigot.” He has also been called “a swamp creature so vile that even DeSantis hates him.” When he was elected to the House, Fine posted on X that Omar and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) should “consider leaving before I get there” with the hashtag “#BombsAway.” 

The central problem with both proposals is that they expand the government’s gatekeeping power over political participation based on the circumstances of one’s birth — something no individual controls. The proper remedy for representatives whose views voters dislike is the ballot box, not constitutionally imposed eligibility tests. Voters in Minnesota, Washington, and Michigan have repeatedly returned Omar, Jayapal, and Thanedar to office. Whatever one thinks of their politics, that is the constitutional process working as intended.

Mace’s proposed amendment will almost certainly go nowhere. But it is worth noting that proposals to restrict who may hold office — rather than persuading voters through argument — are a form of political shortcut that goes against the principles of individual liberty and equal citizenship the Constitution is meant to protect. Legal disqualification is not the answer to speech with which one disagrees.