President Trump has signed an executive order aimed at curbing the practice of “birth tourism,” a move that has sparked debate among immigration experts and policymakers. While critics often conflate this with birthright citizenship, the two are distinct legal and social issues.
Birthright citizenship, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed this principle. Birth tourism, however, involves foreign nationals, typically from wealthier backgrounds, who enter the U.S. legally but with the undisclosed intent of giving birth here, thereby securing citizenship for their children, often returning to their home countries afterward.
The executive order, which Trump signed after a court setback on his earlier attempts to end birthright citizenship, specifically targets the commercial networks that facilitate this practice. These operators, including companies and legal advisors, profit by promising citizenship and other benefits, but often fail to deliver.
Exposing the Abuse
Supporters argue that the order is long overdue. Merrill Matthews, a Texas state chair of Our Republican Legacy, writes in an opinion piece that the order deserves “three cheers.” First, it exposes birth tourism as an abuse of the system. The order notes that operators use deceptive advertisements to entice foreign nationals to travel to the U.S. for childbirth. This is not a new phenomenon; as early as 2009, health care newsletters highlighted Arizona facilities marketing “birth packages” to wealthy Mexican mothers, offering services like vaginal births for $2,300 and C-sections for $4,600.
Second, the order aims to combat corruption. According to the order, operators often promise citizenship and access to public benefits but fail to deliver. Reports from Georgetown Law and The Guardian have documented Chinese women paying $30,000 to $100,000 for such packages, and the practice extends to women from Russia, Nigeria, Turkey, and Brazil. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that up to 70,000 births in 2023 were to women on temporary visas.
Critics who downplay the issue as minor overlook the systemic corruption involved. Notably, progressives, who often decry the wealthy flouting laws, have shown little concern about this form of privilege.
A Step Toward Reform?
The third cheer is that addressing birth tourism could pave the way for comprehensive immigration reform. After the 2024 election, where voters expressed frustration with the previous administration's open-border policies, Trump has touted a significant decrease in illegal border crossings, with monthly apprehensions down 86%. If he can also curb birth tourism, it might encourage Republican politicians to engage in broader discussions about legal immigration pathways for both high- and low-skilled workers. As Matthews argues, that would be a real victory.
However, any move to alter birthright citizenship is likely to face legal challenges. The Supreme Court's recent affirmation of the Fourteenth Amendment principle suggests that executive orders alone may not be sufficient to change the law. Still, the focus on birth tourism, which is a clear abuse of the system, may be a more politically palatable starting point for reform.
