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.