Birthright citizenship: Travelling to give birth in US? Visa may be denied

US warns visas may be cancelled if used for childbirth to gain citizenship, as courts block Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens' kids

The US government has warned that visas will be cancelled if applicants are found travelling to the country with the primary intention of giving birth to secure citizenship for their child.

 

“Using your visa to travel for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States so that your child will have US citizenship is not permitted,” said the US Mission to Nigeria in a post on social media. “Consular officers will deny your visa application if they have reason to believe this is your intent.”

 

The warning comes as part of a broader tightening of visa rules under the current administration.

 

 

What is birth tourism?

 

Birth tourism refers to the practice of travelling to the US to give birth so that the child receives American citizenship. Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, anyone born on US soil is granted citizenship, regardless of the parents’ immigration status.

 

Former President Donald Trump has long objected to this, describing it as a misuse of citizenship laws. During his first term, the White House issued a fact sheet criticising the practice, saying, “The administration is taking action to end ‘birth tourism’ – a practice in which aliens travel to the United States with the purpose of giving birth to gain citizenship for their children.”

 

That statement also accused organised groups of helping women exploit a “loophole” to obtain citizenship for their babies.

 

Court challenges mount against Trump’s executive order

 

Despite the warning, several federal judges across the US have blocked attempts by the Trump administration to end birthright citizenship. Most recently, US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts said the executive order was unconstitutional.

 

“American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the legal challenge. “The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”

 

Judge Sorokin said a nationwide injunction would remain in place. He also rejected the government’s proposal to limit the scope of the ruling, saying a fragmented approach would be impractical because people often move between states.

 

In his judgment, he wrote, “They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes.”

 

The Supreme Court, in a separate ruling last month, said lower courts generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions. But it did not stop class-action rulings or those led by states from having broad effects.

 

What the plaintiffs are arguing

 

Those opposing the executive order say it goes against the Constitution.

 

In the Boston case, the plaintiffs said the 14th Amendment enshrines the principle of birthright citizenship and that the President does not have the authority to override it. They warned the order would strip citizenship from children based on their parentage and would also hurt states financially.

 

Several states rely on federal funds to provide services like foster care, special needs programmes, and healthcare for low-income children. If the executive order were allowed to stand, they argue, states would lose support for services that are tied to citizenship status.

 

The administration has countered this by claiming that the children of non-citizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore do not automatically qualify for citizenship.

 

“These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,” said Abigail Jackson, the White House spokeswoman.

 

The administration has yet to appeal the latest rulings, but the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.