It might work better to condition these B-visas on the applicant waiving in writing any claim on the part of a newborn to US Citizenship by birthplace.
I believe these waiver would be upheld in the Courts. The Dept. of State has discretionary power to give visas, and this could include the applicant waiving any claim to automatic birth citizenship.
The Waiver would also include a statement affirming the specific national citizenship of any offspring born while in the US, and the eligibility to receive a one-time U.S. Exit Visa for the newborn.
7
With the cost of medical care here i the United States why would they bother coming here to give birth?
Another reason to remove the Republican president from office.
3
Not sure if I’m concerned about Chinese birth tourism so much given that Asian-Americans underindex for welfare and overindex in terms of average income. The horrors of having more wealthy Chinese Americans! As for other transient immigrants doing this, likely a rounding error of impact. Let’s focus on getting kids out of cages first.
3
Trump's really on a roll now. Looks like the work of Steven Miller.
4
Anything that spawns an industry that exploits women and is nothing more than an unscrupulous money gathering travesty and deserves to be ended. The same can be said about those who take huge cash payments to bring people illegally into this nation. There is a right way and a wrong way, we ought to choose what’s best.
6
The women who have the financial means to fly from China and stay at a birth hotel are not the starving, impoverished, and persecuted people seeking amnesty here. Don't confuse the two groups. Until the Constitution is amended, birthright citizenship is the law.
20
Why is this not already a law or part of the immigration policy? It’s crazy for the U.S. to allow foreigners to take advantage of tax payers in the United States. We have $23 billion in debt and taxes are already too high. Adding millions of dependent children to the population will over burden the schools and social services paid for by U.S. tax payers.
If the people with money want to adopt these children or their families, they can apply for that program, but don’t saddle the working man with more obligations when we are just able to feed our own families.
2
Onion or Not the Onion. President Trump proposes travel ban on pregnant women same week he attends Right to Life Rally.
1
Wait? Trump will sell our military, but not our US citizenship? Quick, someone tell him he’s missing a great business opportunity here!
1
Measures such as this one are long overdue. And the courts should also review the constitutional basis for granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants based on the mere fact that their parents have conspired to make sure they were born in the United States.
A small percentage of foreigners have make a game or a profit out of flouting our country's laws and the prize is a substantial one - American citizenship. Perhaps the whole body of law governing immigration should be re-examined from the bottom up and the laws rigorously enforced.
10
If you can afford to come to this country and spend $100K on all inclusive birthing experience, doesn’t that mean you have some financial capital? And doesn’t that mean as a citizen of the U.S. government, you will have to file taxes? If you have any kind of capital, the government will be happy to collect on your behalf. This might turn out to be more of a burden than a blessing for some families in the future.
3
There seems to be policy muddle amongst left of centre parties both in the US and here in the UK - and behind the muddle is tacit support for more or less open immigration. The NYT editorial line seems to be broadly the same, and hence this article comes out against any discouragement of birth tourism when the commenters here - and I believe the population at large - broadly approve of the proposed change.
If a Democrat candidate wants to win the presidency, it would be a huge help to them if they could demonstrate clearly that they are against open immigration.
3
I agree we need some regulations. But giving officers power to deny visa is a crude measure and likely ineffective for many reasons. I would support that if a foreigner deliberately plans to give birth in the US, the person should then be required to remain in the US for at least 5 years.
Many take advantages of lax immigration laws of the US. They happen to be often privileged foreigners who can pay an airplane ticket and the cost of delivery in the US. It is wrong and must be regulated.
3
If unconditional birthright citizenship, which most other advanced countries do not have, were rescinded, these orders would be unnecessary.
9
To say birth tourism does not happen, it does. I have a Turkish acquaintance who did just that to give her son a better passport.
However, as an American living abroad, giving your child US citizenship has its drawbacks. Most folks are very unaware of the unique tax reporting issues (as well as yearly declarations for all foreign bank accounts) for US citizens and the insane fines for even non willful violations. Many folks who have never lived in the US have been caught out by this.
I owe the US government no taxes because NZ has an agreement with the US about double taxation, but I still pay an accountant $700 a year just to sort out the paperwork. My British friends do not have to do this.
1
True, some Chinese are born in the United States, inherit all its benefits, and never know it until they are much older and desperately need what the US stands for.
One such person who grew up in Hong Kong confronted a drunk and abusive British sailor who disrupted a community social event for youth.
The sailor was aggressive and much larger.
He expected to easily humiliate the young man but found himself easily defeated. The young man's father told him something that he never knew -- that he was an American citizen. His father told him something else -- he needed to leave Hong Kong because he would never find justice in its British courts system.
That person was Bruce Lee who brought with him the gift of martial arts with a new way of thinking about mutual respect and coexistance.
We once invited the Chinese to come to the US to build a railroad through the Rocky Mountains. They came and did an amazing job. It is doubtful whether the transcontinental RR could have been made without them. How did we show our appreciation?
With the Immigration Act of 1924.
Twenty years later, they might have brought greater prosperity to the Western plains states and fought for us in WW2. But we weren't thinking that far ahead. Instead, we chose to accept the Trumps.
I am not a fan of Trump and I actually support immigration, even those who crossed the border illegally or overstated their visas so long as they have become productive members of society and given their allegiance to making this country a better place for all peoples; however, birth tourism doesn't accomplish this. Worse, a lot of people are using it to hedge their bet. For instance, a lot of Hong Kong protesters appear to be fearless and some downright irresponsible because they have their birthright elsewhere, in Canada, the U.S. and Australia etc.
It is important that Trump could have done the right thing for the wrong reason; so the readers should look at the scenario objectively and holistically instead of opposing anything Trump for opposition's sake.
Obviously, birth happens. When people born in this country, we should welcome them with open arms and provide them with all the privileges available to everyone. They can choose to become a productive individual here when they grow up. However, if they have no intention to contribute, they should renounce the citizenship and put their heart and soul to another place they choose. Hedging their bet doesn't help anyone, not even themselves; instead, they become abusers themselves.
2
Even if the issue of "birth tourism" represents a very small issue, this is different from those children who are born in the US from either legal or undocumented immigrants. In the later cases, these are individuals whose intent is to live in and contribute to the US economically and culturally, while in the case of parents who merely want their children to be born in the US for the advantage of gain US citizenship, their action is for their future gain. I believe that some limits to "birthright citizenship", say a requirement that the child initially live in the US for some period of time (several yrs) to be eligible for birthright citizenship would not be unreasonable. This is a change from current and historical practices, but times change as do worldwide social conditions, and we do need to consider reasonable and humane modifications in immigration policy to reflect these changes.
1
I support this as a Democrat.
I work at a California hospital and we see a steady stream of birth tourists from China. These babies have no business being US citizens. They move back to China at 2 weeks, and we’ll pay the bill for these Chinese children later in life when they come back to the USA to reap benefits of their illegitimate citizenship.
17
Yes, I know a pediatric dentist in Chinatown, NYC who complains her practice is inundated with children coming from China staying with relatives, getting dental work, etc then returning home to China. Govt pays for this.
7
@Walk Away So your pediatric dentist friend is complaining that patients are coming to her practice that wouldn't come otherwise and that their bills are being paid by the government? I highly doubt your friend is complaining about increased business. Also, what pediatric dentist would complain about an opportunity to help more children in need? Finally, this is not where excessive healthcare spending is occuring. Almost all excess goes to bureaucratic waste - very few people actually travel across the world to get dental work done because if you can afford those flights, you can afford dental work locally.
4
@T Actually, as US citizens, they will be taxed on worldwide income, so they will be paying for benefits they probably will never use.
3
I’m having difficulty understanding how this will be implemented. In many cases a visual inspection may be prove inadequate. Clothing and presentation based on trimester can be misleading. The article states a pregnancy test will not be administered (thank god).
If the ‘problem’ is location-conferred citizenship, address that issue. Inconveniencing (or worse, harassing or embarrassing) pregnant travelers strikes me as unacceptable. The only person I’m willing to share ‘the date of your last period’ with is my gynecologist.
I don’t like the TSA agent making me take off my shoes. No way I’m giving a urine sample.
3
This is how Trump and his idiocy have polluted political discussion. Let's follow this logic -> Canada and the US both have birthright citizenship policies and both have developed into perhaps the most prosperous nations on the planet in a very short time. Therefore, they should get rid of birthright citizenship? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, countries should be making it way easier for people to become citizens and open their borders to all that want to come.
3
Meanwhile, the impeachment cover up continues. . . Remember this in November. Voting is all that matters now.
3
Hmm. Trump is forbidding pregnant women to visit the US for medical treatment, yet he claims to be anti-abortion. How many babies will this policy kill?
3
Governments should be looking for ways to expand the opportunities of their citizens, which means pushing for easier emigration, not limiting immigration. Open borders on a global basis is the only future state that is fair and just for everyone. The only question is how long will it take to get there.
1
The birth to citizenship rule is designed to prevent a child being stateless. It may have been appropriate in the 18th century but not in the age of jet travel.
9
@James allan ... the same problem of a stateless child would occur now as in the past...so I'm not at all sure what point you are making.
3
@James allan
It was actually implemented after the US Civil War to give
citizenship to former slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
Trump himself sold expensive condos in Miami to wealthy Russians promoting a birth package so their babies could be born in the US. Trump probably included a loophole so he could continue his little business sales promotion at the expense of the US.
3
Right step in the direction. Con man knows how to play the sentiment of the people. It is a reality show. No one in right mind can support birth immigration scam. Alas, the clueless democrat leadership lost the connection with people. And now we have the most corrupt man in the world in the White House committing criminal acts daily. When will the dems wake up?
1
For people who are not familiar, this a real and serious problem. People do fly in for the sole purpose of birthing a child. Their reasons vary and some are probably heart warming but nonetheless, this should have been stopped a long time ago. Most of the developed world excluding USA and Canada do not even allow babies of legal immigrants to be citizens (at least one parent has to be a citizen).
Contrary to popular thinking, 14th amendment limits birthright citizenship to people who are subject to US jurisdiction. This certainly doesn't include diplomats but also could be interpreted as not including any immigrants, legal or otherwise. Trump should seriously consider passing the executive order and force the supreme court to take a stand.
18
@Frustrated Have you failed to notice how beneficial immigration has been to Canada and the USA versus countries with more restrictive policies? All countries should pursue an open border policy. Anyone who wants to live here is more than deserving of the right to do so.
1
@Evan Davidson Canada's immigration system is far more restrictive than the US which basically has open borders for the most part as our immigration laws are not enforced. Think about it. What if Canada let anyone in who wanted to come in, no questions asked. How much do you think your taxes would be then to pay for your "free" healthcare?
What's astounding about the extent that this president is willing to go to demonize and block immigrants of any and all kinds, is that his wife is an immigrant...
1
I would far rather a child of immigrants rise to become President -- if they worked their way up honestly. For they are more likely to appreciate the opportunity and use it productively.
Trump's perspective involves projection -- a stain of shame derived from immigrant ancestors who came from Europe to avoid the draft, made a fortune catering to gold miners, then tried to return home to the land of their birth where they and their ill-gotten wealth were not accepted. The issue was character. But, Lady Liberty accepted him here.
Character is a valuable asset, forged on the anvil of adversity. Immigrants seeking a better life find it here while pursuing education and acceptance in a mult-cultural country.
Trump is the antithesis of all that is great & noble.
We are not perfect, nor were we ever, but most of us have been able to improve the quality of our lives and the lives of others because we somehow find a way to reciprocate trust with others in cooperative effort.
People of good will, wherever they come from, are our greatest asset.
Capitalism is a tool that provides the greatest good to the greatest number -- when people are trustworthy and cooperative. It is not a tool for a fool or for anyone who is ignorant, dishonest, or untrustworthy, which seems to be our current problem.
Who would ever have thought a President, one of the leaders of our country would take actions such as this self centered care for no one else in this world. Shame on him and any so called religious people who purportedly say they Christians. As they say - what would God do? Not this. So as the senators who have also shamed this country with their actions in this administration sit in impeachment don’t forget their behavior, words actions and judge them in November with your votes.
1
This is the first thing from this “President” that I agree with. Let’s face it, with modern aviation costs so low, this loophole allows middle class and wealthy foreigners to game the system, have their child, take them back home and then have a “Disney Like” Ride Pass to citizenship. That’s not right.
This directive, if executed fairly, will stop wealthy and upper middle foreigners from gaming the system.
Policies should be updated as time passes. The 2nd amendment also needs updating.
13
Genius Plan: Check viability and sperm counts for all men entering the US on tourist visas. Ensure that we track the whereabouts of such males while on tourist activities, and have squad team of federal temperature takers interrupt coitus BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY to ensure that foreign injection does not occur on US soil such that these potential US Babies, when born, do not attempt to Anchor said foreign parent. What keeps us free from Tyranny, is the sacred principle that in this great country, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. Thank you, HJ, and thank you, DJ Trump, for your enlightened principles, such that this new more comprehensive pre-pre immigration plan, has been Born.
Interesting question: is pregnancy discrimination, generally thought to be illegal, legal when the pregnant women are non-US citizens ? Let's hear from some real lawyers.
I am ashamed that this is being taken as far as it is. What does someone actually get by being American? What's the freebie, exactly? As far as I can see, you get the chance to work darn hard, pay your bills, pay astronomical prices for health insurance, pay astronomical prices for education... have a higher risk of suffering gun violence... It's not like we're giving stuff away here for free.
1
I live in the Caribbean- at 30 weeks pregnant I had a medical emergency and had to be shipped offisland to a tertiary medical facility with pediatric neonatal facilities. So yes, my daughter was born in US, and holds US citizenship. We left as soon as we had permission for her to fly. My health insurance covered the flight, all hospital expenses, and we covered our living expenses etc while there. My daughter is alive thanks to the US hospital. She didn't even have a US passport until she was about 6 years of age, then I got berated by an Immigration Officer when transiting through the US- apparently all US citizens have to enter and leave the US on a US passport- so then we got her a US passport. She's now paying US taxes on her worldwide income. So there are some instances where we are not necessarily looking for status, just life.
7
@Provo1520 Thank you for sharing. I think your story is very representative of those that seek to have their children born in another country and everyone should have the right to have their children born wherever they would like to have them born.
This practice won’t stick as it will be contested. What experience do these embassy officials have to determine who is entering the US so their baby will be an American citizen and who is in need of medical help? The first time they turn away someone attempting to enter the country for a medical procedure and that fetus dies there will be an uproar. And there should be. This Administration proves time and time again that it is unwilling to do the hard work of legislating. They’d rather find workarounds that aren’t legal or aren’t solutions. Trump ran on immigration reform but yet he’s done nothing to solve the problem.
2
Helloooo. The legislative branch has been sitting on their immigration hands. Only so much a president can do.
It’s about time. I worked in the Middle East 25 years ago. It was common practice for anyone who could afford it to send their wives to the US at 7 or 8 months to have their babies in the US. There’s same people — from all different countries — hated the US and never lost an opportunity to bash the country and Americans, yet wanted citizenship. Nor for ideological reasons, for economic benefits...which includes bringing over grandparents to claim Medicare and elder care. Meanwhile my husband and I pay insane taxes, our kids get ZERO aid for college and our taxes go to laying for Medicare and college aid to people thk have never paid US taxes or contributed in any way. It’s wrong.
28
Another progressive Democrat weighing in to support this move. Trump will get a significant lift from this; should have been addressed long ago, as it’s now become a national security threat, and has been for a while. Ironically, I recall reading that rich Russians engage in this practice a lot, and they love to await their bundles of joy from the comfort of Trump hotels.
18
Many Industrialized nations do not allow citizenship unless one or both parents are citizens. Why not the United States.
18
So why does Trump’s hotel in Florida cater to these same (Russian!!) women ???
3
Because it’s legal. But now Trump is putting National interest over any financial gain, so give him credit for that!
Not controversial. It’s the right thing to do. We shouldn’t tolerate our generous (if not porous) immigration system being taken advantage of by allowing thousands of people to game the system. The fact that it took this long to try to do something about it is insane to me. It’s time for rational forward thinking immigration policies that exist for the benefit of the American people primarily. I’m not voting Trump but I’m also not voting for anyone who doesn’t clamp down on some of the absurdities that exist in our national disposition towards immigration.
257
@Matt
Without getting into the "rightness" or "wrongness" of this new anti-immigration Executive Branch rule in Trump's clothing, why give the discretion to foreign service employees? Are they going to get courses in how to be a human lie detector? If there are enough legislators who agree with your premise that something needs to be done, then change the immigration law. Trump could have done that in his first two years when he had control of both Chambers of Congress. He is only deciding to do something now because he wants to keep his base happy. He could not build his wall, let alone have Mexico pay for it, so let's do something else that looks like I am trying to keep my promises regarding immigration.
13
@Matt
This form of fraud should have been ended years ago.
As for immigration more broadly, most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants.
They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the 20 million illegal immigrants already in the US, much less the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
19
@Mon Ray: Although both fall under the broader issue of immigration, women coming here temporarily (and legally) just to give birth (hence the phrase, "birth tourism") so that child will automatically be an American citizen is a different issue than someone coming here illegally and permanently (assuming that person never gets caught and deported).
5
My wife sees this all the time in labor & delivery, mostly from the Middle East. I’m left of center but agree with this move.
236
@Woody Yes Woody. My APN sister in NJ told me many years ago that this was happening. Mostly from Russia, former Soviet block countries, the Middle East and Nigeria.
The children are sent back to the U.S. when they are school age and live with relatives or friends of the family who are legally here.
13
Okay, so trump is disgusting on so many levels. Another knee-jerk reaction.
But both Canada and the USA need to have discussions about the automatic birthright citizenship laws in place now.
When we were young countries, needed to expand our population, and travel was time-consuming, expensive, and difficult, birthright citizenship made sense.
Now, perhaps not. But certainly the children of naturalized citizens should be granted citizenship, for example, whether or not they were born in the USA. So a carefully crafted amendment needs to be considered.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely given the current state of politics in the USA.
24
@Independent Citizen I'm not following your logic. Canada and the US both have birthright citizenship policies and both have developed into perhaps the most prosperous nations on the planet in a very short time. Therefore, we should get rid of birthright citizenship? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, we should be making it way easier for people to become citizens here.
2
I doubt Trump is a reader of classic American literature ,but this so reminds me of F.Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 The Great Gatsby when wealthy,corrupt Tom Buchanan extols his house guests with the fact that he is reading Goddard's The Rise of the Colored Empires and he predicts the demise of the white race. Daisy B. counters with a comment about her "white girlhood" and later the cheating golfer Jordan Baker reminds her audience,"We are all white here." Could Fitzgerald have predicted the rise of one Donald J.Trump?
1
@Dianne Even as gifted a writer as Fitzgerald could have predicted an idiot like him. Maybe Vonnegut.
1
@Dianne I wonder if he was predicting the destruction of America by third world cultures? Was this what he was trying to say?
1
@Foodlover
The Goddard book (1920's) is about the collapse of a white supremacy world in which he advocated restricting Asian and Latin American migration/immigration. It served as a warning against miscegenation. I'm sure Stephen Miller has read Goddard and his 900 emails to his Breitbart News contacts echo similar thoughts.
I see NOTHING wrong with this... unless I am allowed to take my wife to Switzerland to give birth so I can live there...wait ohh.. I can't.
13
Another overt and disgusting slash and burn the Constitution (14th Amendment, anyone) act by the Trump Administration. In side news:
Dear Folks with Wombs (or Brains),
If you think this demonstrable disregard for the rule of law - oh - and Women does not affect you, vote for this idiot again. I am sick of being nicer. I am sick of defending Wombs. And Brains.
Get this ding-dong out of the White House. Call your Senators- they are in a position now, to expedite.
Love, Axe P. Oakland, CA. Mother of Dragons, Constitutional Defender, and Animal, when Provoked (by Injustice)
@Axe P. And to the folks who make comments like- Oh- well when our Nation was young and our ragged poor grandparents were being welcomed in- that was ok- but now- check me Switzerland, can I get a Whoop Whoop... NONSENSE. We are not Switzerland. That is the beauty of America and all it stands for. If things do not go well for this Republic, we gonna have to flee somewhere. Hopeful Canada remains sane.
The 14th amendment doesn't confer citizenship at birth to the children of illegals or green card holders. The 14th was intended to guarantee citizenship to the children of slaves.
The phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shows that the 14th wasn't intended to give citizenship at birth to the children of non citizens and the legislative history of the amendment makes that fact clear.
Do people realize that people waiting to be admitted legally have to wait much longer because of people jumping in front of them in line?
5
@Molly Rule doesn't meet you know- the BIG BIG Test. god knows I had to take the bar twice. I should know. And by twice, I mean in two states. sigh.
I assume the same rigor and standards will be applied to the wealthy Russian women who arrive in a Florida community (name eludes me) essentially known to exist solely for the purpose of spending a solid half of pregnancy here, and then giving birth so their children are both Russian and U.S.
2
I can't imagine why any woman would choose to give birth in the US. US hospitals have among the worst maternal mortality rates in the world, provide poor choices for birthing methods, and charge ridiculous costs. In addition, their maternity practices usually rely on a cascade of unnecessary medical interventions from the moment a woman shows up at the cashier's office to be admitted.
The only reason I could see is that the US has an abnormally high C-Section rate, and hospitals provide pre-scheduled, elective C-Sections. Perhaps these women are opting to avoid giving birth the usual way in their own cultures.
Personally, given the choice and the funds, I would have given birth to my sons in Canada.
1
From this article it seems that the group the law will prevent from entering the USA are pregnant, wealthy Chinese women. Their children could utilize their status as American citizens for education or long term futures, retaining their alliance to their home land. This law has nothing to do with immigration, but more to do with the US-China economic war, in which the US feels quite threatened by the rise of the Asian sphere as a global economic power. Immigration law applied as an economic weapon on the global stage. Nothing new about that.
3
Good. Birth tourism is theft from current and future Americans. I don't like Trump, but this action was long overdue, and Democrats oppose it at the expense of their fellow citizens, and at their own political peril--Americans don't want unfettered immigration. They don't like foreign aliens who take advantage of this country, and they don't approve of this mad push for open borders. If you don't believe me, check the polling data--large bipartisan majorities are trying to tell politicians what they find acceptable and what they don't. For some reason Democrats are refusing to get the message. Why?
15
@KC
First, do not presume to speak for all Americans--especially when using deliberately inflammatory phrases like "unfettered immigration" & "this mad push for open borders," as if they are factual when they most certainly are not! Our immigration system is plenty fettered, which is one of the reasons the process takes so long, & there are no mainstream politicians that I know of who advocate for open borders--zip, zero, nada--so where's that mad push you're so outraged about (besides in the oh-so-creative, but not-so-honest tiny minds of fox news pundits & their ilk)? Second, as for "[Americans who] don't like foreign aliens who take advantage of this country," let's be honest here: they (you) just don't like foreigners, period. Otherwise, they (you) would take issue with ANYONE , including U.S. citizens, who take advantage of this country (i.e., many of those fine, non-tax paying citizens of red states who are only too happy to be supported by taxpayers in blue states). Your comment is just dripping bigotry, & your reasoning, such that it is, is supported almost entirely by patently false statements. I would suggest you do some independent fact checking to become better informed, but hey, who need facts when they've got hannity & carlson, right?
3
The terrifying thing I see in the comment attacking women who have their babies in the US. is that not an single one of those letter writers know that 'Birth Right Citizenship" is a Constitutional right as part of the 14th Amendment. That means that the Government may not revoke or limit it . It also means that it is the right of the person born in the USA, and it cannot be renounced by anyone but the American Born child. Lastly, the news article has not cited any negative financial or other impact of the Birthright Citizenship system. It is well know that Trump made a lot of money providing living quarter for European "Birthright" pregnant women.
Good. This is what any sane country would do - and, in fact, sane countries have been doing this.
13
@Bjh "Sane countries." By these, do you mean the ones other than America and Canada. All the sane countries whose citizens you don't want in our country. If they are so sane, maybe we should keep letting them replace the total lunatics supporting the current status quo.
The intent of jus soli/citizenship by physical location of the delivery area was meant to protect the civil rights of families of color whose parents & ancestors know no other physical home, society, and economy they pay into & sustain other than the USA. Think of African American slaves & their descendants, Native American tribes, the Tejanos (Texans descended from Spanish & Mexican settlers), and even the children of Filipino US Navy recruits from the Cold War era who were born in US military bases overseas. Their parents all contribute directly to the US economy as taxpayers, voters, potential trial jurors, etc., so they view the USA as a full society that they put their blood, toil, & sweat in.
Even heavily vetted work visa holders, asylum refugees, EB 5 visa holders (foreigners investing $250K and up to put up US businesses that employ US workers), permanent residents, & genius-level international graduate students all contribute to the US economy & society significantly, being net positive contributors w/ a vested interest in making their US lives as productive as it can be.
Birth tourists & undocumented parents though beg, borrow, or steal to pay a broker/coyote, then game our welfare system for the kids’ school, food, housing, & health care.
Some anchor kids’ social security #s & credit rating sadly do fraudulently abused by their non-citizen relations. They may even find themselves being forced into arranged marriages w/ some well-off/criminal alien. Enough already!
4
So what happens if you become pregnant while living here, either on a student VISA, a green card, employed by a business, hospital, film industry, college as a visiting researcher/professor, newspaper or any other legitimate reason. Do you then get kicked out of our country until your baby is born? Or if the pregnant person is your spouse, is she kicked out until the baby is born?
Our country has devolved into madness, ruled by a mad king. his removal cannot come soon enough!
1
@sharon
This new authority is very specific to visitor/tourist visas. This will not affect Green Card holders, as they are "legal permanent residents." They intend to stay in the U.S., and eventually naturalize for citizenship.
If someone is on a student visa, F-1, there are no restrictions on pregnancy... but they must maintain a full course load at their school in order to maintain their student status. They may be granted a medical exemption to limit/drop their classes, but they would have to discuss that with their school. Because for students it not a matter of being pregnant or not, but maintaining the course load. If they do not maintain the course load, then they may fall out of status and violate their student visa. Additionally, since students must have their private insurance, they would have to discuss that with their insurer to include prenatal and postnatal care, and the baby's insurance. While no one is perfect, and things happen, but having being around many F-1's, getting pregnant and giving birth is not something that is actively sought.
The other instances you are referring to fall under J-1 (visiting professor/researcher) and O-1 (entertainment industry)... generally, these people already have children and bring them to the U.S. with them under J-2 and O-3 visas (dependents). Sure, it is possible that they may have other children during their stay in the U.S., but they just obtain the child's U.S. passport for travel and return to their home country.
3
Long long overdue!
10
Good news and about time.
8
Nothing but cruelty and fear mongering. Shame on the chorus of supposed liberals who support this.
1
“The integrity of American citizenship must be protected.”
This policy denigrates every American citizen by making us party to a racist, ignorant policy. So, way to go? Thanks?
1
"...believed to be traveling to give birth." The calendar my say 2020 but it is really "1984" and the thought police have just given the power to read minds to their border thugs. We're doomed, impeachment or a "sane" election in November... we're still doomed.
1
I suppose they’ll ask the women when the baby was conceived, too, so our government can predict the birth date would be within the time the pregnant mom could visit here.....and then take it from there.
Or would they just ask every foreign female applicant - oh, by the way, you’re not pregnant, are you?
How about this one, to any female foreign applicant “You’re not planning on getting pregnant, having the baby in the US, and making the baby a US citizen while you’re in the US, are you?
How can foreign Melania stand by and just smile and hold hands with her husband who demeans her heritage really, of sorts? I term her as a foreign female, no matter what.
1
Does that also apply to Russian women coming here to give birth who are wealthy? Or just non white people?
2
Stephanie Grisham says, “The integrity of American citizenship must be protected.” Which, of course, is why Melania Trump worked while here on a tourist visa and, much later, why her parents were granted chain citizenship.
This is a good policy. How do we more quickly deport pregnant illegal Central Americans before they can give birth to “American” children?
7
Whoa! Why specifically Central Americans? Since you just want to get rid of the pregnant ones, I guess the men are all okay by you? Your comment is completely thoughtless & says far more about you than it does about any "birth tourism" problems in this country.
2
Any update on trump properties used for "birth tourism"
of Russian women-just would like to know.
He just can’t let that birther thing go...
1
Good. About time.
4
This is ludicrous. There is no problem with anyone having their children born wherever they want them to be born. Arguments to the contrary rest on absurd notions that nationality is some sort of right to be earned, that current citizens are somehow more entitled to their nationality than others, and that nation states are not just a relatively new and soon to be forgotten idea. Everyone's family was and will be immigrants at some point and these made up impediments to relocation are the equivalent of us all shooting ourselves in the foot and capping our global opportunities.
36
@Evan Davidson The question isn't about where they are born. The issue is the citizenship of these newborns. If women want to have their children born in the US, as expensive as it is, great. If those women expect those children to automatically become US citizens, well that where we have a problem. They can stay in their own country.
15
@Evan Davidson You may not be aware that there are large numbers of Russians who come to Palm Beach Florida every year to give birth to babies and get US passports. This has been going on for quite some time. It is called the "birth tourism boom". Google it.
12
@Evan Davidson What you don't know about the GOP is a lot.
2
Pregnant women from enemy nations (e.g. China, Russia) should be given special scrutiny. Their anchor babies are potential traitor agents trained to infiltrate American society, media, universities, corporations, and government. This could be a nightmare for generations.
6
The stupidity of the Trump regime is awe - inspiring.
How will they get proof of intent?
Ask the pregnant woman?
Oh, and let's see how many women are stopped of women of either a color or race that Trump doesn't like.
3
Start w Sunny Isles FLA. They've run numerous articles on this.
2
Consider it an act of saving the planet. Doesn't the US have the worse carbon footprint in the world? The biggest impact of the climate? Trump is trying to save the planet.
1
We've already seen articles about airlines forcing foreign national women they suspect of being pregnant to take pregnancy tests in order to fly.
The AIRLINE.
Under pressure from gov't, obv.
I'm fine with exploration of this issue & reasonable, humane policy that is supported by public consensus flowing from said exploration of the issue.
But I do not like one bit the idea of invasive & humiliating personal searches such as on board pregnancy tests prescribed & judged to the satisfaction of airline employees.
There is a creepy crawly sense of sex-based discrimination & denial of privacy & dignity and scrutiny of women's bodies & their functions embedded in this action that does not sit well with me.
Were I on the receiving end of such treatment, I would feel quite violated & singled out for my sex. I don't wish it for other women.
This should really be given more considered treatment. And further, if it's recognized as generally futile to enforce in a meaningful way, then why do this to women?
This cannot be the best or only way.
5
I don't disagree with this policy.
12
Who would want their child to be born in the US if they have the choice to opt for another modern country like Canada or the UK?
6
You could move to the UK or Canada.
2
@Patrick - They are, already, coming to Canada in droves. I don't believe the UK has birthright citizenship for children born on its shores.
4
@Patrick
See my comment above, re: Russian women (elite, wealthy, connected one would assume). An entire community in Florida (naturally) is essentially set up for them to spend a great deal of their pregnancy there, give birth and voila, dual citizenship for offspring.
I believe either the NYTimes or Vox or Axios(?) did an in-depth story on this within last two years.
1
More insanity over a minuscule issue that will result in many people being distressed.
This is harassment, using a statistically irrelevant figure to justify discrimination.
4
Again, ~40,000 births per year is not minuscule unless you have a mass immigration agenda. And the 40,000 is not included in the ~300,000 birthright citizen births per year we have to illegals currently.
5
About time. No other country allows such an abuse of immigration laws as has been done so far in the US. It should have been done years ago.
26
@Gene ;
Canada allows even more abuse of the taxpayers largesse, and no one ever seems to get kicked out or deported.
Those arguing that this is ridiculous because birth tourism is a small problem should then admit that it would only adversely affect a small number of expecting mothers.
7
Perfectly sound and logical.
12
People with autoimmune diseases are predominantly women. Steroids change how the body processes fats, carbs, and protein, causes massive food cravings, and then funnels fat to the torso, especially the tummy area. Many patients on steroids are mistakenly thought to be pregnant. Just something that should be on the radar.
2
I don't think this is a 14th Amendment issue because the U.S. has the right to decide whether to let pregnant women into the U.S. *before* they have given birth. However, I also think this opposition to "birth tourism" is motiviated by Trump, Stephen Miller, Steve King, and many other white supremacists who want to exploit the immigration process to reduce nonwhite citizenship in the U.S.
Ironically, the truth will come out in how this policy in enacted in reality. The only fair way to apply it is across the board, yet already we can see that the rule has baked into it the potential for abuse: "The rule raises the burden of proof for pregnant women applying for tourist visas..." Well, to the extent that discretion is given to decide which visa applications are or are not "credible," we will likely start to see a disproportionate number of denied visas for women from nations with larger numbers of black and brown people.
I hope I am wrong, but the only true way to institute this policy fairly would be (absurd, I know) to make all pregnant women wait until they have given birth before being allowed into the U.S. I can't think of any other way that would not be twisted and gamed by people who are desperately resisting the demographic changes that are sweeping the world.
Birth tourism seems gross, and is an end run around our immigration system. But I'm confused how a policy limiting birth tourism would be implemented. Imagine all overweight foreign women being subjected to pregnancy tests - in addition to the fingerprinting and patdowns. That is even more disturbing. And lets say a woman does need to give birth in the US to save her or her baby's life. How does she prove it? A letter written in a different language by a physician somewhere - how does the immigration officer prove its veracity? And if a random scrawl claiming to be a Dr's signature is all that's needed, I can see the birth tourism industry continuing unabated with women just bringing fake letters from fake physicians.
1
It sure is remarkable that American citizenship can be obtained by an eastern European escort girl seeking a better life by simply marrying someone with wealth, privilege and connections, and then a decade later, her parents, who were loyal and committed Communists who for decades lived the good life as anti Americans, are also granted American citizenship.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
19
This seems legit to me.
Look, I’m pro-immigration, pro-rational immigration policy, anti-locking kids up in cages, etc. But why is it incumbent on us to allow people to travel here for the sole purpose of giving birth and taking advantage of one of our most cherished citizenship policies, birth right citizenship? This is a way better option than just doing away with it altogether.
18
@Biz Griz
Exactly. Imagine the outcry if steps were taken to abolish the 14th Amendment?
So you are pregnant and you must travel to the United States to attend the funeral of a parent and Donald Trump says 'no.' What other insidious ideas will Stephen Miller whisper into Trump's ear?
Vote Trump out in November and reclaim our democracy.
5
This is disgusting.
First, it is very misogynistic, targeting just women and insinuating that every pregnant woman who wants to travel plans to create an "anchor baby."
Second, how exactly are these consular officers going to determine if a woman is pregnant or not? Are they going to challenge every woman who looks fat? Are they going to mandate gynecological exams? Are they going to demand affidavits about each female applicant's latest period?
Third, how are so-called "anchor babies" a national security threat? Even if one accepts that such babies are undesirable, what makes them dangerous? Are they born with bazookas in their little hands?
Fourth, Am I the only one that notices the hypocrisy of this "pro-life" administration that wants to ban abortion and force every pregnant woman here or abroad to give birth. And at the same time wants to make pregnancy a basis for blanket visa denial, barring women from entering the United States and defaming them as visa fraudsters.
7
@Cassandra -- "birth tourism" does not produce "anchor babies."
Birth tourists give birth, collect their child's US passport and go back to their native countries raise their children. In the future, the children can more easily return to the US for school or work, skipping a typically complex and lengthy visa process they would otherwise have to go through had they been born in their true "home" country, and potentially sponsor relatives to come to the US.
Birth tourism is about giving yet another advantage -- US citizenship -- to the children of wealthy foreigners, children who will typically grow up among the elite in their parents' home land.
Still feel the same way about this? Is it right, or fair, that because a Chinese or Russian woman could afford to travel to the US to give birth that her child should not have to go through the same process as the children of less wealthy women in their own countries?
12
Only the wealthy can afford birth tourism. What's the problem?
2
It is annoying to read about rich Russians renting Trump condos in Miami or Chinese in California long enough to drop a baby and get citizenship. That is an abuse which is hard to deny. Still, it seems mean, playing on the locals irrational fear of being over run by aliens. Everything Trump does has a kernel of pettiness or bullying at its core.
2
Allegedly El Chapo's wife had her twins in Lancaster or Palmdale. She flew into the USA on a private jet had the babies and then headed back to Mexico. I cannot stand Trump but the idea of huge homes in Southern California filled with pregnant women seems like breaking the rules and it gives people weird thoughts.
11
Will consular agencies be asking male visa applicants if they plan to have unprotected sex when they come to the US? The potential crises of priapic tourism and associated “downstream costs” are being totally overlooked.
Another pluck of the chicken. Another step towards Gilead.
5
Waaay back in my first life, I accepted passport applications in a DC suburb teaming with immigrants. Many So Asian adults presented applications for fresh out of the oven newborns who needed their American passport pronto.
All were told to bring in baby. Lots of kick back but eventually baby came in too, some toddling! One guy returned trying to use the same baby photo he had used for the first baby-this time with a new name. It was fairly evident that baby and mom were not in the US. Many women were here only to give birth, relied on family members here to play whatever role was necessary. All applications had to be accepted but notes regarding the applicant accompanied the packet; within a couple weeks federal marshalls dropped by for more info.
Anchor babies were every immigrant family's shoe in. Still are.
16
I have been vehemently commenting in this post, as there is so much blatant misinformation in the article and in the comments section!
"But with the new rule, the White House seems to be signaling to officers abroad that those close to delivering a child would be added to a growing list of immigrants unwelcome in the United States, a list that includes the poor, most refugees and asylum-seeking migrants."
First off, this new authority is for the State Department. Refugee and/or asylee status is granted by USCIS (Homeland Security) or Immigration Court (Department of Justice) The quote above is irresponsible and hyperbolic! There are adjudication standards for refugees and asylees seeking entry and legal permanent residency, which are COMPLETELY separate from visitors who MUST return to their home country. Visitors are NOT immigrants... it is literally in the visa's name VISITOR visa.
If we are to fight fake news, we cannot obscure facts... I've been fact bombarding this thread because it is desperate need!
4
We should assume that an abortion before traveling to United States would be preferred and expected. You would think the so called Pro Life party would want women to have children in the safest place possible place regardless of the country or status. Not for nothing Barron Trump is an anchor baby.
6
Here is a simple and noble idea: get rid of this rule, just because you are born in the US should not make you a citizen.
11
Good. Democrats are asking us to bend over backwards for all things immigration, sometimes at the expense of American citizens, and that is simply not right.
12
Visiting the US with intention of gaining immigration benefits requires special visas. E.g. visiting the US on B1/2 visa will not allow one to apply for permanent residence based on marriage to a US citizen, within a certain period.
That's a general principle when it comes to non-immigrant visas. So this policy doesn't doesn't really add much, other than closing a loophole. It doesn't interfere with the birthright citizenship in any way. Any Administration could have imposed this.
5
Good! Any sane president would have done this decades ago.
This is example #543 of "Not caring about being 'Nice' allows you stop others from taking advantage of your 'niceness' and therefore of your country".
81
@Sam Anybody has the intrinsic right to have their children born wherever they want them to be born. It's one big planet and national borders are a short-term and soon to be forgotten phenomenon.
10
@Sam Any same Congress would have done it years ago. But there is a lot of money in this industry.
9
Yeah, one world nation where everybody from everywhere can move anywhere. Sounds like paradise. No thanks. At 330 million we don’t need a few hundred million more.
15
I once had a friend in a foreign country suggest that he and his wife travel to USA to visit me, while his wife was pregnant. This was rather short notice, and it was not possible for me to host them in my home (due to lack of space). Finding rental housing in my area was also difficult, so I told them "no." Also, I did not know how they could use our healthcare system (hospital). At that time, I was not aware of birth tourism. Later, one of their children was born in a Commonwealth country (not their home country). A few years ago, I figured out that they had an ulterior motive in suggesting a visit to my house years ago. They never disclosed that to me.
15
After reading some of the comments I don't think a lot of the readers get the issue at hand. Challenging birth tourism is not the same as discriminating against pregnant women. Neither does It does not mean one is not pro-life. Perhaps in Canada the birth tourism business is a bit different because the mothers-to-be are not coming into the country to receive treatment that they can not access at home. They pay thousands of dollars, which is facilitated by the birth tourism industry, for the privilege of giving birth to a child who now has a Canadian passport (+ all the entitlements that prevail)
CBC Jan 4
Women travelling to Canada to give birth to babies who will automatically become Canadian citizens are prompting concerns about the strain they may be putting on the health-care system, The Fifth Estate has found.
At one British Columbia hospital with a high concentration of such deliveries, complaints have arisen that the influx of these non-resident patients — also known as birth tourists — has led to compromised care for local mothers-to-be and struggles for nursing staff.
Some of these patients fail to pay hospital and doctors bills, leaving taxpayers and individual care providers on the hook.
"Most of them, they get the Canadian passport, and then they leave the country," said Dr. Mudaffer Al-Mudaffer, a B.C. pediatrician and neonatologist who sees babies of non-residents when they need critical care. "It affects the integrity of the fairness of the health system."
25
I guess this makes me an extremist for saying this, but I think anyone should have a right to be a US citizen and have equal merit to myself simply being born here. The process of applying to be a citizen should be as simple as making sure you don't pose an imminent threat to our country and intend to have a permanent residence.
Sure actions like this might be gaming the system, but the system is broken so who can blame anyone? We can't punish people on the basis of fairness if the system itself is not fair.
3
@ThinkTank
The system is not broken, it's doing its job by keeping at bay the 158 million people who would move here if they could. Our country cannot absorb that many.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx
9
@ThinkTank Please explain how “the system is broken” and “not fair”.
What is your endpoint? When are the hapless American citizens allowed to say “Enough!”? When our population hits 500 million? 1 billion? When the entire country looks like Kolkata?
5
I am an immigrant. I know & interact with a large number of immigrants here & aspiring immigrants abroad, as well.I can tell you that this clause ( unforeseen or overlooked loophole?) is known by good many here & abroad, and I personally know folks who have used it to their advantage, jumping all the lines, paperwork, screening and other formalities that I & most other immigrants had to go through & continue to adhere to. This is a logical & appropriate change that long needed to be made. And, please believe me, I am no fan of the current occupant in the WH.
28
I use to work for CMS (Medicare and Medicaid). I was the point person for NY and NJ for patient dumping i.e. the failure of a hospital to provide care for a patient. Easy for us, but more difficult by the US/Mexican. Mexican hospitals advised pregnant women to cross the border and give birth in the US. Better care plus citizenship for the child. They even had signs in the waiting rooms giving this advice! Good for Trump.
17
"Believed to be traveling to give birth" -- believed by whom and on what basis? That's a wide open invitation to racism and other kinds of prejudice. There should be objective scientific criteria such a negative pregnancy test. And eventually citizenship by birth should be eliminated, period.
2
@Think_different: If I understand it, your position is that no one born in the US, even if both parents are US citizenship should automatically become a US Citizen at birth. So, if you and your wife, both a AMerican citizens give birth to a child in the US, thena child would immediately not be a citizen and could be deported at any time? You would support that? I suppose that you have never read the US Constitution since the right to citizenship of anyone born in the USA is granted by the Constitution.
1
Let’s be open and straight forward with this new tactic by Trump. And it is a tactic: Consular officials in only certain countries will use this to keep those “undesirable” babies from being born here. I doubt that a pregnant woman from a European nation (white people only) will be scrutinized. However, if she is from S. America, Mexico, Africa, Middle East, or even the Caribbean, there will be much scrutiny and many denials.
After all, Trump’s rhetoric has always been directed at such people, so consulate staff know exactly why he has issued such a rule. Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room. He would even try to stop Puerto Ricans if someone hadn’t reminded him that they are US citizens.
7
@LT
Exactly so. It's just appalling.
How would one go about determining if the woman is pregnant? Come up with mandatory test on the stop? This would be at best ridiculous and one could cheat. You can't tell that a woman is pregnant visually all the time. A nightmare would be forced scanning or testing of some sort that would eventually by deployed for other uses, like monitoring human incubators (commonly known as women) and ensuring they behave appropriately.
Outside of shortening visitors visas to a short reasonable time, I dont see what could be a viable solution that doesn't tread on rights. If the government cracks down on the companies and individuals profiting off of birth tourism, the number of women doing this would likely drop.
2
As an Obstetrician, I delivered such a patient in 1997. She came to me from Hong Kong less than 6 months before Hong Kong was returned to the Chinese. She was referred to me by her sister who was my regular patient. Both the patient and her husband were PhD assistant professors at a major university in Hong Kong. They were bright well educated people who would make fine American citizens.
The patient brought complete medical records that demonstrated excellent prenatal care. Neither parent wanted to immigrate to America at that time. They were very happy in Hong Kong. But they both had considerable anxiety over the return of Hong Kong to China. They wanted the option of American citizenship for their child.
I have no regrets over offering this outstanding couple that opportunity and I often wonder if the child I delivered 23 years ago is out on the streets of Hong Kong today.
10
Whether they’re nice people or not isn’t the question. It’s whether they should allowed to come here just to have a child so the kid can get all the benefits of US citizenship including bringing everybody here- like your Pt and the 40,000born here every year now can.
14
@AL
As a West Point grad who served as a platoon leader in Vietnam before completing my service commitment and becoming a physician, I fully appreciate both the benefits and the responsibilities of citizenship.
I am a strong believer in personal freedom who has nothing but empathy for those Chinese in Hong Kong who feared the loss of their freedoms and civil liberties when Hong Kong was given back to the Chinese. I am very happy to welcome persons who cherish freedom to our country. I know it's not my call, but I'll do whatever I can legally to help them out.
3
Dana
Again this isn’t about helping people out either. We can and should help people in Hong Kong and everywhere that want to be free. That can’t include letting everyone come here. That’s not how “helping out” works. That’s about not having control of your immigration system.
7
Just as people can waive their Constitutional rights to remain silent under the 4th Amendment, mothers should be asked to waive the right to have their unborn children become citizens of the United States when they come across the American border. A simple form, signed on entry or temporary apprehension (if the crossing is illegal): "If I am in United States territory when I give birth, and am not a citizen or permanent resident, or here on a valid medical visa, I waive the right for my child to be an automatic citizen according to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution"
24
@Snowball would add, "or here on a valid and active asylum claim where I have complied with all directives and lawful orders of the United States government,"
3
@Snowball That is a terrible idea, why would the mother do that? What happens when the adult child argues that they were actually born in the US. Why are you so afraid of immigrants?
1
@Snowball; You obviously don't know that the US Constitution states that every person born in the US is a US Citizen. No parent can waive their child's right to US Citizenship. That is why it is called "Birthright Citizenship."
2
This is a good move by Trump for once, but rather than asking probing questions of all women of childbearing years, we should get rid of the 14th amendment-- it was enacted with noble intentions in the reconstruction era to protect freed slaves, and it has accomplished its purpose, and is now incompatible with a modern, jet-age society.
Next up, chain migration.
36
@Alexander: Where did your ancestors migrate from to America? How many of your ancestors used chain migration? Why is that good for your family but bad other people?
1
@Jeff
Your argument might have made sense in 1900 when the U.S. population was about 76 million and there were still parts of the country that were undeveloped and the industrial age was in its early phase. However, continued birth right citizenship and chain migration makes NO sense in 2020 with a sprawling U.S. population of over 325 million on the precipice of a global climate crisis.
4
So, if a woman is merely coming to this country to visit relatives from another country, she could be deemed a 'Birth Tourist?'
Newsflash, America is wonderful and full of opportunities. However, not all people desire a life here...regardless of country of origin. Many people prefer the simple life in their countries.
7
"Anchor Babies" are an extensively documented phenomenon, "Birth Tourism" is an extensively documented phenomenon.
Perpetrators of this scheme are gaming the US Immigration system (a system if not the most generous, is one of the most generous in the developed world, something proponents of open-borders loathe to admit ).
And it does a disservice to all the would be legal immigrants that patiently wait years to get their visas, green cards etc.. to legally migrate to the US.
If you want to see all the negative effects of "Birth Tourism" on the native populace, look to our northern neighbour, especially Vancouver ,Canada that is dealing with an influx of "Birth Tourists" originating from China.
Good on Trump administration for trying to put an end to this criminal enterprise.
48
@GANDER-FIR -- we don't have to look to Vancouver.
We can see it in Queens.
10
As a liberal, immigrant, woman and a mother, I welcome this with the exception of refugees and asylees or you have are a permanent resident.
13
Given half the chance, I suspect Donald Trump would be delighted to put up as many wealthy pregnant foreigners in his hotels as he has room for. At vastly inflated rates, of course.
Aside from that, American citizens are required to pay taxes even when residing elsewhere. 'Anchor' infants do grow up, and not all of them rush 'home' to the United States. How have Donald's people been doing with the collection process? Or are they too busy finding new ways to drain those of us who live here?
5
@KJ -- I suspect the children who are born here and return to their mothers' home country to be raised simply fall off the radar unless they return to the US as adults.
But it's nice for them to have the option of coming back here, should they choose to do so.
Honestly I don't have a problem with this. Yes, conservatives are delusional, and I doubt this kind of thing happens very often. But the United States has a right to enforce it's borders and have a citizen policy.
If this affects a small group of opportunists, honestly, so what?
13
@Hypoteneus “ I doubt this kind of thing happens very often.”
Mon dieu. Clearly you never spent time training at a county OB hospital, especially one near the border.
4
I'm very liberal and very anti-trump but agree with this
41
Definitely agree with this policy. Birthright citizenship was never meant to include people who come days before birth just to get citizenship. That’s exploitation, not patriotism, and I’m glad this regulation is attempting to curb it.
36
This "right" to grant automatic United States citizenship to an infant who happened to be born while the mother (and perhaps father) was in the United States is absurd. So, the day-old infant is an automatic United States citizen while the mother and father are not. Is that a future "foot-hold" strategy for the family going forward? Ridiculous and a loophole that needs to be closed.
35
@kkm: That right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
1
@Jeff : And needs to be amended so as not be exploited as it is currently written.
7
If you support birthright citizenship, you should applaud cracking down on this flagrant abuse. The US is being made a follow of by people who abuse our system. Kudos to Trump for taking this issue on.
22
Sadly, many commentators play gender card and refuse to understand why this measure is taken.
10
@Tesnik
Yeah, guess a lot of women are tired of being treated like incubators on legs.
The nerve!
Of course women’s most intimate physical processes should be under the oversight of the State at the pleasure of this President. And all the more so if they aren’t citizens.
What do they expect, equal treatment under the law?
1
@Tesnik
There is no "gender card." There is your discomfort over or unwillingness to engage with the full scope of potential effects of this issue in its entirety. YES, this policy is sex-based & directed at women.
To refuse to acknowledge this by pretending it's all a game wherein "cards" can be "played" is to engage in bad faith discussion of the issue from the outset, regardless of your position on it.
3
As seen from the comments, support for this move is widespread among "liberal-thinking" NYT readers. Imagine the joy in Trumpville. These are the sort of rule changes that will continue to solidify his voting base, while they happily watch HRC and Liz go after Bernie. Imagine if one of those 3 proposed this rule change.
9
Keeping the US safe from pregnant women and their babies just is another example of how Trump 's mind works. Spread fear for no reason.
6
Another common sense master stroke by our president. It's mind boggling how great he has been for this country.
8
Surely it would be better to change the birthing rule? Unless at least one parent is a US citizen, the child is not.
That way it also gets around those willing to bribe and buy US citizenship - unless there is an 'industry' and the State Department just wants to remove the riff-raff and undesirables.
Can't have them polluting the system.
Trump has to be able to allow the Russians's and the rest of his new authoritarian friends a way in.
7
@Shane Lynch: Birthright Citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. In all our history only one Amendment has been repealed, the prohibition of alcohol.
@Jeff
My bad - I see that after reading it, thanks for pointing that out. As a New Zealander, I've never read it properly.
What Trump proposes is a work around, and fair enough - rules like this will always catch innocent people though, which can't be helped.
Like most countries founding documents - including New Zealand's, it seems the Constitution has rules and regulations that were written for a different time - 1869 was just after the Civil War, and Emancipation.
The 14th would have been a way to give displaced and nationless people a place to call home.
It wasn't intended to be used by a society who can come and go as they please by air etc. It was designed with those looking for a new life and who would be unlikely to return to their home country once they were settled in America.
It is what it is , I guess. Here in NZ we have some trying to do the same thing. Fortunately our laws are easier to change.
1
This is the brainchild of Stephen Miller, white nationalist deluxe. What a kind, Christian thing to do to women. ONCE
4
Wow. I sure hope Evangelicals are enjoying these near daily massages from Trump.
4
Time to get rid of birthright citizenship.
23
@Albela Shaitan: Then it it time to get rid of our Constitution since the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. Think about it. If you are and American citizen and give birth in America, without the 14th Amendment, your child would not automatically be a US Citizen.
Yes!
8
Here is my issue with those arguing that this can't be valid because of the 14th Amendment. Many of us (rightfully) feel that the writers of the 2nd Amendment could never have foreseen what firearms would become - they couldn't possibly predict what modern firearms would be capable of. Why not the same with the 14th? They couldn't possibly have known in 1868 that it would be possible to cross the globe in a day. You can't validly be a Constitutional textualist sometimes and a pragmatist other times.
I would also urge everyone to listen to Marketplace's March 19' coverage of this issue. It is anything but cut and dry.
77
@Lauren The founders were far more farsighted than you give them credit for.
3
@Lauren: But the Constitution cannot be changed by administrative rule changes or by Congressional legislation. It can only be changed by a Amendment.
3
@Jeff The 14th amendment doesn't grant citizenship at birth to the children of citizens as is seen from the legislative history and from the words " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the amendment since the children of non citizens arent subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Read Ann Coulter's piece on the issue .
2
As much as I abhor Trump's racist "anchor baby" rhetoric, a change was needed. Under previous regulations, Consular Officers abroad were required to issue a visa even if they were 100% certain that the entire purpose of the trip was to have a baby in the USA. That may sound implausible, but under visa guidance refusals had to be based on whether the applicant him/herself planned to remain in America illegally. There was zero room to consider whether the intent of the visit was to obtain medical care or simply to have the baby in the USA.
For many years, the USA allowed women to come to the USA for medical care, including for delivery, but limited it to cases where there is a demonstrable need, such as women from countries with inadequate local health care. Over time, however, the definition of "required" medical care expanded to any care for any reason.
One sad result of that policy creep was the proliferation of "birth hotels" catering primarily to Chinese women who pay thousands of dollars to visa brokers to stay in often substandard conditions during the last months of their pregnancy.
Like many, I fear that the Trump Administration will use the new guidance to unfairly target women of color and poorer women, so I greet this change with a mix of relief at allowing Consular Officers to do their job and fear that those officers will be coerced into becoming tools in Trump's xenophobic and misogynistic policies.
89
@Ken Please provide proof of these birth hotels. How many do you have evidence of? 1? 100?
@Ken
THIS NEW AUTHORITY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO “POOR WOMEN!”
In order to be granted a Visitors Visa by the State Department, the applicant must demonstrate 1) intent to RETURN to their home country 2) have the financial means to be in the United States. Please see below, this is advice from an attorney:
"Reasons that you’ll return to your home country include proof of any ownership of real estate, relationships with close family members staying behind (such as birth or marriage certificates), and that a job will be waiting for you on your return (such as a letter from your employer). The idea is to show that your ties to home is so strong that you would never overstay your U.S. visa and have a genuine intent to leave."
"Proof of ability to cover your expenses while in the United States. You must convince the consulate that once you arrive in the U.S., you are not going to seek employment or go on public welfare. Depending on your situation, this might include:
• Form I-134, Affidavit of Support from a U.S. friend or relative - see more below.
• Letter from a friend or relative inviting you to visit, stating you are welcome to stay with him or her - see this sample letter.
• Bank statements showing your accessible cash.
• Personal financial statements.
• Evidence of your current sources of income (pay stubs and an employer letter)."
4
@RCH the NYT published an article on this.
7
Excuse me, but did Trump abolish the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th amendment while I was looking out the window?
The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Some people may want to jump in and say that the amendment does not apply to visiting foreigners, but here is the catch: the EPC does not say anything about what kind of persons (like citizens, documented aliens), it says"persons". So the court will be asking, what is the compelling argument Trump has to close doors to pregnant women, but no to "unpregnant" men?
This is a classic case of gender discrimination first, and secondly, a lame case to keep the white race pool from becoming more diluted. America was not and is not built by pale faces only, and it will not prevail, if people don't let go of skin color prejudice.
38
@Impatient2020 For you to tie this to gender discrimination and white supremacy is (and I say this as someone who has and will vote Democrat) yet another reason Trump is on the road to a 2020 victory. Read the comments here--this is an issue that conservatives and liberals (except you) are supporting. There is a solid, legal immigration path to the United States, and then there is abuse of our birthright policy and of the asylum policies. Sometimes you have to look at the trend--most of us want reform of a broken system, and to call us racist and misogynistic for that view is doing literally nothing to solve this issue.
16
@Impatient2020: "Equal Protection" covers people within the jurisdiction of US laws, not the whole world. Even as a Liberal, I know that there is no Constitutional right to be allowed to visit the US. We have many categories of people who are not automatically eligible for a visa. So, if a consular officer is convinced that a pregnant woman is intending to give birth while in the US, it is legal to deny that woman a visa.
21
@Impatient2020 "the EPC does not say anything about what kind of persons."
The constitution of the United States was written for citizens of the United States.
13
This is an issue that unites both left and right, except the abolish ICE crowd.
Birth tourism is taking advantage of the immigration system at its worst, and being actively promoted by unscrupulous "Doctors" in middle east and far east. Pursued by those who have money in the first place to pay for flights and hospital stays hence the "poor migrant" trying to make it argument really does not apply here. Pure opportunism and queue jumping at its best.
I see no problem with this approach being implemented in North America, both USA and Canada. Europe does not allow for birth driven citizenship hence it does not need it ( written to those at far left who give knee jerk EU does not have it, it must be racist and inhumane to do so line).
128
@Socrates Put me squarely in the abolish ICE crowd then. It's despicable that anyone thinks they have some innate nationalist right that is unobtainable for others.
3
@Evan Davidson
It is despicable that any entitled non citizen thinks they have the right to demand to come into another country and have the full rights of that country's citizens.
4
I understand if one has genuine grounds to enter, not just for birth tourism purposes. However, given that many of these birth tourists are wealthy or have means, and their babies grow up to be US citizens, US tax laws would tax all US citizens on their worldwide income. So can’t we just enforce the tax laws and get more revenue? If they have income, enforce it and make them pay like what we all do. What is wrong with this picture? On the other hand, We know US citizens who have given up citizenship so as not to be paying taxes on their income.
4
At a stretch, you might see how visa officers could be entitled to make that decision for tourism and family visits, but for medical reasons? Absolutely not.
2
It would be interesting to see if there are statistics regarding how prevalent this is. I have read that there are areas where wealthy Chinese, for example, come just to give birth and had their children eligible for citizenship as an "insurance policy". This may be true for other migrants as well. If someone is coming to the U.S. to receive specialized medical care for the mother or baby, and this requires them to give birth here, I would hope they could gain admittance. However, even though I consider myself a liberal, I don't think people should be allowed to come just to give birth. The mother then have the argument they should be allowed to become a resident because their child is a U.S. citizen. I think the immigration/migration issue is one of the most difficult facing us. We want to be compassionate to be sure. Families should not be broken apart, and toddlers taken from their families. On the other hand, people act as if they have a god given right to enter the U.S. because life is better here. We are a nation of laws (although the impeachment proceedings give one pause as to whether this is indeed true). We really do need to be able to have a rational discussion of immigration without one side claiming Democrats want completely open borders, and Democrats accusing every Republican concern is being racist.
40
@dairyfarmersdaughter
You make a good point about specialized medical care, but the burden of proof stating that the mother/unborn/born child needs specialist care is on the medical provider in the home country. It must be heavily documented that the specialty care is not available ANYWHERE in the country, not just their region.
The major responsibility of the mother and family is financial, because they must prove they can pay for all medical costs, related expenses, AND the return flight home. If they cannot financially support themselves, and it is deemed medically critical by the medical documentation, the home country financially sponsors that mother and family.
Note: They MUST return, no matter the situation, because a Visitor Visa is a non-immigrant visa, with the person/persons having intent to return home… there also time limits because the medical documentation must show how long the specialty care is needed for. There is no adjustment of status on a Visitor Visa. Not returning home is a violation that can result in future inadmissibility (not being able to return to the United States).
6
@dairyfarmersdaughter -- I've seen estimates that of the approx 400k children born in the US to people who are not citizens or permanent residents, about 30k are believed to be birth tourists.
1
The Trump Administration has finally done that something I agree with. Now let's see if it is really practiced or if rich people can get around it with bribes. Money talks louder than laws.
30
About time. And let's close other glaringly inappropriate avenues
to citizenship (and benefits to extended family) too.
35
It pains me to agree with anything Trump does. But I do agree with this. Further, why don’t we simply require at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen and close this loophole for good?
49
@Carl Pugh: What you call a "loophole" is the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. If it is a "Loophole" then the Bill of Rights is a loophole" too.
1
@Jeff Not sure our founding fathers ever intended the 14th amendment to be applied quite in the manner it is today. When foreigners come to the U.S. solely to give birth and gain citizenship for their children, and perhaps eventually for themselves, they are gaming the system. In that context it is a loophole.
1
Very rarely do I agree with the Trump administration, but placing obstacles on birth tourism is just. It burns me that there is a travel industry in China and other countries to enable birth tourism in the US. Birth tourism is not what our founding father envisioned related to citizenship. Ultimately, to end the problem of birth tourism an amendment to our constitution is needed to put an end to the gaming of our immigration system once for all, and only granting citizenship to children from mothers with US citizenship.
47
@Anthony Pace Why pick on Chinese? Russian's do it too. There's an active industry of rich Russians in Florida who do this.
@Anthony Pace: Please provide a reference to support your allegation that our founding fathers even had birth tourism in mind. One could say the same thing for the Bill of Rights, since the Founding Fathers didn't put those rights in the Constitution.
Too often we treat our Constitution as if it is infallible, and like you said, our founding fathers never anticipated birth tourism. Hence my larger point, in an effort to clean up loopholes in the constitution, we should amend our constitution to grant citizenship only to children birthed from mothers with US citizenship or permanent US residence. And then we wouldn't have to bother with the issue of birth tourism.
There is no higher calling than placating an extremist base. Whether facts support their preconceptions or not, helping to make THEM feel better is what out POYUS is all about. Oh, and self enrichment, which the base protects his ability to do.
2
@Bailey T. Dog This is not an extremist policy nor anywhere close to it. maybe you should read more of the comments to realize that people who hate the president agree with this one.
It looks like you are the extremist.
11
So, men traveling to America with every intention of having sex while here, with the likelihood of impregnating multiple women, are to be given a free pass to dump as many babies as possible.
Meanwhile, let’s give every woman of childbearing age, say 12-50, a gynecological exam when they apply for a Visa. Or maybe we could just train the TSA agents how to do this at the airport. After all, they’re already wearing gloves. Right?
If the US was actually serious about this issue, the government would focus on the travel agencies that facilitate this practice for their clients. But no, our government will instead create an environment where practically all women travelers are at risk of a routine denial of a visa.
Solving the problem isn’t really the goal here.
16
@Chickpea How about none of the above?
2
@Chickpea Exactly. It discriminates on its face. Against men, or women of childbearing age. My friend in Peru has a visa good for 10 years. She could enter, overstay her visa and have a kid whenever she wanted, or time her arrival to four months. Secondly, it isn't really a problem. How many people become citizens through this mechanism? If there were a significant number, it would be splashed everywhere. Fear of foreigners has a name. Fear of a specific racial groups, like Chinese has a harsher name. Trump wants to live in a country whose laws conform to the nightmares of xenophobic racists.
3
@Chickpea I was thinking this was the one policy of Trump's that I liked but you make a good point. This seems like it might put too much power in the hands of potentially petty people to mess with the plans of people who aren't looking to game the system. A better solution would be to tinker with (not eliminate) birthright citizenship and to crack down on things like "birthing centers."
1
Shouldn’t this policy also apply to all those in the USA on student and work visas?
10
Give them a visa with the caveat that if they have a baby while in the US on that visa (or overstayed, as most illegal immigration comes from), the baby is not granted US citizenship.
23
@YReader Doesn't am anyone read the Constitution of the United States? Birthright citizenship is part of the 14th Amendment. On cannot waive the US Constitution.
1
@Jeff - when I became a citizen 17 years ago I read it, and learned about it in a college class. I forgot that important detail.
Wow. This is going to reduce Trump enriching himself. Many, many Russian women have given birth in the US, and staying at Trump properties in S. Florida as they await the birth. I remember reading about this when he was campaigning in 2015.
So, yeah I'm really shocked that he would cut into his profits like this.
15
Next Up: a new line at Airports, for GYN Exams. Conducted by TSA agents. What could possibly go wrong ???
NOVEMBER.
9
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Someone mentioned above the ever present potential for foreign national men, traveling with the intent or option to engage in sexual activity & the possibility of said man impregnating LOTS of women.
Perhaps the men should prove surgical or other infertility to avoid such obviously devious practices.
(/s, obv, but the sex discrimination & level of personal privacy invasion involved in this is disturbing. I doubt American women traveling abroad would appreciate such harrassment.)
It just sounds bad to be a women in McConnell/Trump’s world.
The GOP is glad to announce this new policy will not effect males.
Now back to limiting reproductive rights of American women.
8
False equivalence doc. When men can get pregnant we can include them to. Where did you go to Med school? It also has nothing to do with family planning or birth control. You can be for free, confidential family planning services and still not want people to come here just to have a citizen kid.
6
This in and of itself is not a bad law. Usurping normal immigration laws by giving planned birth on US soil from a total foreigner is not unlike going over, under, around or through Trump's border wall. The intent is the same. The only difference being affluence and means of transportation.
20
@Attorney Lance Weil: Are you really an Attorney? I am. Constitutional Law was a required subject in the law school I went to. Birthright Citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. I'm shocked that any American Attorney would not know that.
1
@Jeff I am Jeff, Calif. State Bar #88304. They are citizens.
About time! The birth tourism industry is totally corrupt and unsustainable. And it is also a national security threat.
We should also look at eliminating birthright citizenship. It's a huge incentive for illegal immigration and doesn't serve Americans at all anymore.
28
@Dan we should also look to remove citizenship from mentally deficient Trump supporters to make america great again
I'm a democrat, so I hate to say this, but I agree with Trump on this one.
I live in Queens NY where this is major business. I've seen it with my own eyes. The Times has done quite a few articles on the facilities there.
In addition, myu wife took a flight to China recently. On the way to China, a full plane of screaming new-borns. On the return flight, every other family included a pregnant mother.
This is not fake news. It's happening and we have to discuss who it benefits.
I'm fine with more open immigration policies, but not this one.
56
@John How many asian adults on your flight back to America were taking advantage of their Birth Right Citizenship? How could you tell?
1
I detest Trump as a habitual criminal, and his supporters as accomplices, but on this issue the policy is correct. A simple way to deal with it would simply have the "mother" and "father" waive any claim to US nationality on behalf of the "person/fetus". Constitutional rights of wards can be waived.
20
Part 1:
I am sorry, but this article is written to target those not familiar with State Department and does a disservice with incomplete and misleading information.
Not sure if the author intentionally left out the actual name for the visas being referred to in this sentence, "The visas covered by the new rule are issued to those seeking to visit for pleasure, medical treatment or to see friends and family." It is called a "Visitor Visa," specifically B-2 (tourism), as B-1 is for business.
A Visitor Visa is NOT an immigrant visa, it is non-immigrant visa, because the applicant intends to return to their home country. Those who apply for immigrant visas and intend to stay in the United States, i.e. K-1 visas (fiancées of United States citizens), are not affected by this change in consular authority. So those concerned that it will affect women who are coming to permanently reside in the United States, that is not the case.
12
Part 2:
"The rule raises the burden of proof for pregnant women applying for tourist visas by outlining in writing that giving birth in the country “is an impermissible basis” for visiting the United States. Even if the women say they are entering the country for medical treatment — a legitimate factor for visa eligibility — an applicant would need to prove that she has enough money to pay for such treatment to the satisfaction of the officer. The woman will also need to prove that the medical care being sought was not available in her home country."
The author is convoluted and missing some information in this section. The first sentence does not have anything to do with the 2nd and 3rd. Pregnant or not, male or female, anyone seeking medical treatment in the United States must disclose their full medical background and intent, along with financial support. Some are self-sufficient, but many, if not most, tourists are financially supported by their home government. Many are terminal and are seeking medical specialists that are not available in their home country. Generally, standard labor and delivery is not necessarily a reason to seek medical treatment in the United States.
6
The below is from a 1/31/19 NYT article titled "3 Arrested in Crackdown on Multimillion-Dollar ‘Birth Tourism’ Businesses”:
The businesses coached their clients to deceive United States immigration officials and pay indigent rates at hospitals to deliver their babies, even though many of the clients were wealthy, investigators said.
While the agencies charged in the current investigation cater mainly to Chinese parents, Mr. Zito said investigators have also found evidence of Russians heading to the Northeast and Nigerians traveling to Texas for the sole purpose of having American children. The Middle East is also a growing generator of birth tourism, investigators said.
“Some of the wealthy clients of these businesses also showed blatant contempt for the U.S. by ignoring court orders directing them to stay in the country to assist with the investigation, and by skipping out on their unpaid hospital bills.”
There are no official figures for how many babies are delivered to tourists on American soil. The Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports restricting immigration, puts the number at about 36,000 annually in a 2015 report.
23
Will this only apply to poor minorities, or everyone. Will certain countries women be persecuted, as was recently done to long-time Iranians-Americans visiting places on vacation.
1
@Lisa -- "poor minorities" generally aren't in the US as birth tourists. It's generally wealthy women who come as birth tourists.
3
Most of our "tax dollars" go to the Pentagon for new and more lethal weaponry to supposedly defend our "national security."
This is just another policy devised by little mean men. Shame on anyone who supports it.
2
What is the citizenship status of a baby whose parents came to the United States to have in-vitro fertilization performed, and then had that fertilized egg implanted into the uterus of a U.S. citizen, who then gives birth in the U.S., while both parents are still in another country? This really happens, btw. Will the U.S. immigration staff overseas be questioning the parents about this when they come to the U.S. for the medical procedure?
2
@Brent
Nope. It's just good scare-mongering & a great excuse to harrass furrin' women.
Birth tourism is very real, whether it be from poor Latin Americans or wealthy Chinese.
An interim solution would be to have birthing centers set up in foreign embassies (and thus not US territory). At that point you would see a huge drop in birth tourists. Women would still be free to visit the US as they please.
10
@John -- poor Latin American women don't come to the US as birth tourists.
1
That´s mean no women pregnant will be authorized to enter in USA ?
3
@Luciana -- I think it means that US State Department consular officers charged with approving visas at US embassies in foreign countries would have the ability to dent visas to pregnant women if they believe the women are seeking tourist visas for the sole purpose of giving birth in the US.
2
At the next Democratic presidential debate let's have another show of hands, this time of all the candidates who oppose ending birth tourism as racist and misogynist.
3
Virtuous commentators who can feel good about themselves so long the new citizens do not move into their backyards.
5
In the US there is a government who is, at least, recognizing this is a problem and is taking action. Not so in Canada, where birth tourism is predominately from China.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/birth-tourism-strain-1.5413296
7
Land of the free, huh? I'm confused. I thought Conservatives were very very concerned about the unborn? Why is it they seem to have a problem immediately after birth?
2
So when he marches with the pro life community will the President says he’s pro life so long as the parents are American citizens. Otherwise, who cares!? Another episode of the Twilight Zone.
2
The cruelty of this buffoonish administration knows no bounds. Every time they seem to find a new way to hurt people and our country, there’s yet another way to be mean, heartless and despicable. Reducing school lunches for poor children, reducing or eliminating food stamps, just the “new normal “ for this sick president. I’m disgusted.
5
Good, that is fair and reasonable.
Look Dems, if you dont acknowledge the reasonableness of maintaining our borders you will lose the next election, just as you did the last one, to Don the Con one more time.
21
This is just another stunt to distract from impeachment- throw something out there to get everyone flustered about that thing instead of paying attention to the impeachment proceedings.
They can put something like this in place and it's nearly impossible to enforce anyway- unless you either a) block visas for women altogether or b) provide free birth control to women during the visa process to prevent the 'oncoming storm' of anchor babies. Option a is illegal and you know they won't go with option b...
3
How about offering visas to pregnant women who say they are coming to America to get an abortion that they could not get in their home country?
And if all that required pre-abortion counseling then changes their minds, conservatives can feel happy about it!
but what of all the Russian ladies who visit Florida for that reason? that was a big story not long ago...
6
Uh... isn't this just plain discrimination against pregnant women? So, if you get pregnant, you might lose your job, your day-to-day behavior will be policed by strangers and... you can't travel to the United States because you're probably just an illegal schemer? I am so very sick of the curtailing of women's rights in this country by presidential edict.
4
No one has a 'right' to a visa. A visa is 'granted ' to an applicant. I would compare these schemes to those who bring their mutts on a plane claiming they are service dogs. Trump is going after those phonies too.
10
Birth tourism is ridiculous. No other country would tolerate it. And the black market money made off of it is disgusting. Let’s not fall into the trap of saying everything Trump does is bad because he is bad. It’s not like this was his idea. He has no original ideas.
14
@Matt - Wrong, Canada tolerates it. Read the link below and see how birth tourism affects Canadians ability to access health care.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/birth-tourism-strain-1.5413296
1
Why should American taxpayers be financially responsible for providing food, housing, healthcare, and education to millions of children whose parents are in our country illegally...or on a visa?
The offspring of foreign nationals should have the citizenship of their parents...regardless of where they’re born!
16
Does that inckude the Russian women who come here for that purpose?
2
Why not just ban ALL Women, Donald ??? Except for Eastern European “ Models “, of course.
Loser.
5
@Phyliss Dalmatian And those blondes from Norway.
This from lying hypocrites who claim to oppose abortion because the value the life of the unborn child. Since this new policy specifically includes pregnant women desiring to enter for medical treatment, we can conclude that bigotry and misogyny is more important than the life of the unborn child to these Trumpist deplorables.
Germany will NEVER live down the shameful reality of their Nazi past. America is being similarly branded for Trumpism for all eternity.
These policies are immoral, evil, and shameful.
3
I can see it now. Inspector- Ma'am, how far along are you? Women- what? I'm not pregnant, only fat. Inspector - prove it. Women - excuse me, civili liberties lawyer, line one.
4
I see this as an end run around addressing what the Trump administration sees as the "problem". The only thing that will happen is that women will be discriminated against for traveling while pregnant-mostly poor ones.
Airlines and cruise ships already have restrictions on women traveling while in late stages of pregnancy.
Are the spouses of these women going to be granted the visa and just not the pregnant women?
What about those with visas that last for years?
What about women traveling to get specialized care for their fetal abnormalities or need care for children that will delivered in critical condition?
It's just a jab at women and their freedoms and won't curb any of what the Trumpers are drum beating against.
25
@RNjenn
If airlines have these restrictions, they certainly don't enforce them.
British Columbia is a well known birth tourist destination. In cities like Richmond, there are birth hotels specifically catering to pregnant women. Why would these exist if there is no such thing as birth tourism?
This is affecting the healthcare of Canadian citizens in the area to the point that even the left-leaning CBC news is reporting on how much of a problem it is.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/birth-tourism-strain-1.5413296
//Since 2013/14, the number of non-resident births has tripled at the hospital [in Richmond, BC]. The patients — many from China — pay privately for their care, often in cash, may not speak English and are unfamiliar with the Canadian health-care system. The nurses who spoke to "The Fifth Estate" say the influx has led to increased workloads and has compromised care. //
If that weren't bad enough, many leave after birth and don't pay their hospital bills. https://www.richmond-news.com/news/birth-and-dash-richmond-hospital-owed-1-2-million-for-skipped-neonatal-bill-1.23333820
// According to Vancouver Coastal Health, in the 2016-2017 fiscal year one in five moms (17.4 per cent) entering the maternity ward that are not Canadian residents.
However in the first half of 2017-2018 (to September 2017) foreign nationals accounted for 19.9 per cent of all births in Richmond.//
9
@RNjenn
It's mainly wealthy and often corrupt foreigners that take advantage of this. The poor can't afford the trip here.
6
"The woman will also need to prove that the medical care being sought was not available in her home country.”
According to a Buzzfeed article titled "Pregnant Travelers Would Have A Harder Time Getting US Tourist Visas Under A Trump Administration Plan”, the proposed rule and guidance for applying it are less strict. The woman woman would not have to prove that the medical care was not available anywhere in her home country - only that it was unavailable in the area of her country in which she lived.
I think what the NYT has written would be better - if a country provides the needed medical care, it should make it available to all of its citizens rather than expect the United States to take care of its citizens.
7
Great just another way to discriminate against women. Will immigration officers now be able to tell if a woman is in her second or third trimester? As an executive, I was conducting international business trips up until my third trimester. How humiliating it would have been if I had to tell my male colleagues I was denied a visa because I’m pregnant. As if pregnant working women don’t have enough to deal with already.
26
@Mary
People on work visas are an entirely different thing. The people "targeted" are women on tourist visas with the clear intent of giving birth.
If you're late in your pregnancy and traveling to the US from a third world country, chances are it's not because you're finally taking that dream vacation.
27
@Viv Most countries don't have "work visas". That's only true if you intend to be employed in those countries. You travel on a visitor visa. It's very common for international business. I'm currently meeting with an African woman executive on a visitor visa for a conference in San Francisco. The world is global now. Not everyone from the "third world" wants to move to the U.S. This racist assumption needs to be canceled immediately.
1
Lots of misconceptions in the comments. This is enforced during the visa application process, NOT entry to the country. No one applies for a visa while pregnant, unless you are bad a planning (might explain the pregnancy?). You apply for a visa and once you get it you plan to get pregnant. You get your care in your home country, then once the embryo is stable (miscarriages happen, you know...) you setup your flight and resources to the US.
This will do nothing to end birth tourism. Birth tourism isnt like a trip to Disney that you decide to do the week before... It's just a poor attempt by Trump to pander to his anti-immigration base who know nothing about traveling abroad and think a visa is a credit card to use abroad. Is that 1 month old going to steal your job next? The family can't just move to the US if their child is a citizen. They need to still apply and get accepted for residency!
And guess what. If that child never stays in the US, he still needs a to pay taxes! LOL
Also birth tourists pay hospitals in cash. Hospitals love it. They might claim resources are strained but they know the game. No insurance to deal with and higher payment. We aren't talking about a woman who just shows up when in labor. These are wealthy families. They are taken care of nearby, have checkups and everything is properly planned.
19
@Gatorbait : Rich Chinese and rich Russians are the main offenders.
8
@Gatorbait - I suggest you read the CBC link in my post above. Birth tourism is affecting the quality of healthcare to residents in British Colombia, Canada. As explained in the news story, things can go wrong with a pregnancy and the "birth tourist" mothers do not have the additional funds to pay for complications. It is the Canadian taxpayers and the hospitals that are left with the tab. Mother and junior will fly back with a Canadian passport in hand - this opens the door in future years for junior to access education and healthcare, social services. And of course to bring over family members. Such a good investment, these are not stupid people.
4
@Gatorbait Please provide references that support your statements.
Our Immigration visa laws need to have in it a system where a visitor must basically check back out when leaving so we have an accounting of those that overstay their visa. Mexico does.
20
It's rarely wise to make a decision in the absence of data. You won't be able to measure the success or failure of your actions, and you will have little idea of unintended consequences.
But I guess when the entire point is to provide red meat for your base on a non-problem, intelligent decision-making is a moot point.
12
@Betsy Todd
+1,000!!!
1
Find this move by the Trump administration highly hypocritical but I suppose that is to be expected at this point. Reporting from 2017 found that “Russians Flock to Trump Properties to Give Birth to U.S. Citizens“. just another example of how he makes public political moves to satisfy his base while benefiting personally from things behind closed doors.
7
"Birthright Citizenship" is the result of an Amendment to the US Constitution meant to insure Citizenship for post-Civil War slaves. It is a totally inappropriate lure for illegal crossings of foreign Citizens. We need to modify it immediately, perhaps for passage, link it to the claiification of the right to bear arms "at your home", for the vague 2nd Amendment. Party-Democrats wake up, We that Vote with you, don't support "open borders"! Our issue, is "corporations are not persons" and therefor need to be controlled for the good of All.
23
How can anyone tell if I am pregnant without violating my rights? This is misogyny pure and simple.
6
@GermanShepherd
If you’re a US citizen then you don’t have a problem.
9
@GermanShepherd
Does a foreigner have the right to enter the United States?
5
@GermanShepherd
Absolutely!
1
I detest Trump. However, I do agree with him, let's get qualified people in and those really needing asylum.
10
@DS : Trump doesn't want any asylum seekers. Where have you been?
1
Is it really worth getting a US citizenship?
2
@Jan
If you are from Pakistan, Russia, China, etc. and are wealthy the gift of American citizenship to your offspring is invaluable.
5
@Jan Obviously, Jan, it's quite a big deal to many to be granted a citizenship to the US. I would think that they would value a citizenship to a great nation like Germany as well.
2
@Jan great question, I believe this question should be debated.
The GOP’s commitment to being “pro-life” will always take a back seat to racism.
5
Just another attack on woman and immigrants! Here’s how this will work...the wealthy will still be able to get in
6
Naturally there will have to be an exemption for Trump properties.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens
9
What I find so hilarious is that they fear people want to stay. Who the heck wants to live in this current fascistic police state, riddled with ignorant people, violence everywhere, rampant racism and chronic underemployment. We trail the western civilizations on every social marker available.
Women’s rights. Pay parity. Human rights (yeah we’re the only western country that our children in cages and let them die on concrete floors as a response to immigration) and we have monthly mass murders which have become acceptable and shoulder shrugging affairs.
Please. I am a native born American and am desperate for foreign citizenship almost ANYWHERE in Europe. Yes, they have many of our problems. But the level of sheer ignorance is not as endemic and pathetic as it is here.
And then there’s the food supply—— please if my wife were pregnant and not already a US citizen I’d be looking anywhere but here. My offspring would have a better chance at healthcare, a good free education, a longer life expectancy, and a healthier chance at having a decent job and all around quality of life.
The US is experiencing the fastest erosion of civil order and infrastructure in the entire world. We imprison more of our citizens than almost ANY country on Earth and make it a for profit business filling cages and treating human prisoners like animals unlike any country in Europe.
If I didn’t have to return from my present month long holiday in Europe - trust me, I wouldn’t
10
@René Pedraza Del Prado well stated.
@René Pedraza Del Prado Don't be shy. Help spread the word! Don’t let these pregnant women from other countries fall for the devious tricks of the birth tourism industry. Don’t let them be deceived into thinking that they will be getting a good deal by gaining US citizenship for their offspring, albeit by dishonest means.
You tell them what it’s REALLY like living in the US, spare no detail. Sound the alarm. Think of yourself as a modern day Paul Revere.
I wonder if this will affect the wealthy Russian women who travel to Florida to have their babies in the U.S. Favorite places to stay? Trump properties. You can't make this stuff up.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens
15
Here we have the Trump haters bashing him for exercising his power to stop this abuse. But you expected his hotel to screen out pregnant women?
2
This is becoming a major issue in Canada as well with travel agencies actively promoting birth tourism in China. Meanwhile maternity resources in hospitals are being used to enable birth tourism which squeezes capacity for local residents as the resources are not planned with organized birth tourism in mind. I will never in my life vote for a Republican for any role whatsoever, but I do think this step makes sense.
140
I've known enough women who flew to the USA to have their babies to understand the impulse of the US government officials who want to put an end to people "gaming the system."
On the other hand, in recent years I've wondered why anyone would be so eager to become a citizen of a country which offers no healthcare, which still has a draft, which taxes its lower earners more than its ultra rich. For me, personally, I love my country, but why do others find our currently flawed nation such a magnet?
32
Because, unlike you, they don’t see it as flawed.
16
That want to come here mostly out of sheer ignorance.
1
@Claudia
Because they want to be able to send their children here to school. I have seen this.
15
Well, the argument that seems left out is that in almost every scenario, a child born in the US is good for the US. No matter if it is a child of immigrants, citizens, or non-citizens.
One more worker, taxpayer, entrepreneur, one more renter, one more homeowner, one more landlord.
I just don't see the downside.
15
I fully agree. All the people I know who came to the US for the kids citizenship are week to do, educated and not a burden to the system. This is just another red meat issue as most will have a long standing visa.
Not much will change, but Trump can show how tough he is without actually doing anything.
2
Wow. Where do you live? Never heard of: pollution, resource use, loss of open space, the clean water crises, disappearing wilderness and wild life, automation and the loss of jobs, climate change, the housing crises, filling land fills, welfare abuse and on and on? And people say the right don’t get the facts.
13
@S If the family of the child can support themselves without any taxpayer subsidies, yes.
1
The kind of minds that are behind this action are probably already hard at work on a new policy: All pregnant women who are not U.S. citizens will not be allowed a visa after their fetus is at a stage where it can survive outside the womb.
What will the high rise condo buildings owners have to say about losing income from the leases and sales to their ultra-rich foreign tenets? 666 is struggling. Maybe this particular policy won't apply above a certain income level.
10
@richard wiesner They'll just pay off the consulate folks.
@richard wiesner nothing applies above a certain income level. Case in point the President. Normal everyday laws don't seem to apply to him. Crimes such as fraud, bribery, conspiracy and theft don't matter if he is the one committing them.
1
I thought the Trump administration was a pro-life administration. They should give visas to pregnant women and encourage them to give birth and they should blocked visas for women which are planning to get an abortion.
5
Ah, yes. Choose life.
@Wilbray Thiffault or rather deny visas to both.
@Wilbray Thiffault
This policy can cut that way too -- denying abortions to women who cannot access them in their home countries. But with a fig leaf of "birth tourism bad" to cover it.
It’s hard to believe how low this guy can go. Trump and the Republicans will go down in history as immigrant and women haters.
12
Wow! A whole industry in Orange County will be shut down! Good! About time. The birthright citizenship is being abused by rich and poor alike.
110
I consider myself a progressive, but I have no problem with that regulation except in the cases of asylum applicants.
358
@Jeff Beckerman I take it you will never be a woman nor will you ever be pregnant so you cannot possibly know how this will impact innocent women. This is a terrible, unconscionable, and outrageously fascist idea based on deep seated racism. Do you envision via officials stopping wealthy looking, white women from European countries or do you envision visa officials stopping poor looking, dark skinned women from Latin countries? Hmm? Where does the power begin and end? What will these low level officials do to determine if a woman is pregnant or not, or how far along into her term she is? The TSA already gets to pat our breasts and thighs if they suspect us of 'anything.' Will they be conducting gynecological exams in this instance? This is a despicable abuse of power and only a right wing authoritarian with no conscience or empathy would ever think this is a good idea.
82
@Jeff Beckerman I think the better way forward is to remove citizenship by birth. That would allow pregnant women with no intention of giving birth to freely visit. I do not understand why jus soli is still a thing...
70
Just quickly would like to mention that no European woman would be dumb enough to choose to give birth in the US, where maternity and infant death rates, as well as long term complications from medical malpractice are much higher than at home due to abominable medical infrastructure. Not to mention more expensive as well.
43
I have less of a problem with this (if properly implemented) than the growing list of countries that we aren't allowing people to travel from to the US. In both cases, some discretion has to be allowed so common sense prevails. There is a middle ground between unfettered access/sanctuary cities and outright bans on coming here
14
Pregnancy tests will be the next requirement for women within childbearing years.
8
@Rita Tamerius5’s Handmaid's tale taking over America.
7
I think this new rule will be largely unenforceable against those women determined to give birth in the US. They can claim they’re visiting for pleasure. Even if there’s a requirement for a consular visit, women can just get their visas early in pregnancy when it doesn’t show. Will they be undressing them or doing mandatory ultrasounds?
This new rule will hurt pregnant women who legitimately want to get top notch medical here. Some may have no desire to give birth here, but others may require it in order to get the best possible outcome for themselves and their offspring. Women with serious underlying health issues like some congenital heart diseases comes to mind.
As with many of Trump’s anti immigration moves, this is more about show than much of substance or real protection of the homeland.
8
Considering out maternity death rates are not looking too good compared with other countries, that's not a good reason to come to the US to give birth.
1
@Margo
Maternal death rates in the US are heavily dependent on socioeconomic status. If you have the money or adequate insurance, you can get care as good as anywhere in the world. We do still have a problem that people of color, regardless of means, seem to have their complaints taken less seriously, but that's probably more a matter of implicit bias.
Fantastic idea... I’m not a Trump supporter, but it’s solutions like this - and the positive response they even garner from NYT readers, judging by the comments thus far - why the Democrats have very little chance in 2020. Unless they somehow get their act together fast, Trump isn’t just going to eke by with a win in the electoral college this time.
52
Perhaps soon will follow US and interstate laws against travel across abortion-zone borders, to seek safe procedures where available. This will apply of course only to women of gestational age, pregnancy test required to secure travel visa, denied to those women deemed questionable, no harm intended to general populace. Thank you, Margaret Atwood.
16
@vishmael Either Alabama or Mississippi (I can't remember which) already included a prohibition in their most recent abortion ban legislation that made it illegal for a woman to travel to another state for the procedure. Unsurprisingly, the ban was ruled unconstitutional.
1
@MPM
Only a few Federalist Society Supreme Court appointments remain to correct that outrage against the patriarchy.
That constitutional amendment gives citizenship to ALL babies born on American soil. The only reason there are any "exceptions" is consulates are considered to be the territory of the nations they represent. In no other wise is there any "exception." That's how it should be, and I don't care what other countries do. If you want to live under different and stricter citizenship rules, emigrate to one with laws you like. Good luck being accepted in any other country. Maybe then you'll understand.
10
I can't stand Trump or the GOP, but I support this policy. Chinese women especially engage in birth tourism and it's a thriving business. They take their American babies home then later send them to the US to study. After college the children take their expertise back to China.
112
@Topher S But are you willing to trample on the rights of every single women traveling to keep those few out? Why not go thought the process of changing the law granting citizenship if that's what is needed?
2
Good. Why should people use a visa to the US as a way to get instant citizenship? Why should anyone abuse our immigration system? What is really disturbing is that these efforts on Trump's part, including birth tourism, pressing Mexico to work with us on illegal immigration, seems so odious to some. It is long overdue, this effort to enforce the immigration laws. For too long nothing was done to enforce even the most basic thing, the southern border. Now that we have a president who is, his opposition wants open borders.
47
We need to apply this to people here using work visas, as well.
2
Trump’s first and second wives used visa to accomplish this same status having four children between them. The circumstances were different, but each woman worked here illegally. I understand the need to tackle abuses of the immigration system, but since Trump’s own family benefitted from these abuses, he again just looks like the hypocrite that he is. Will he also try to stem the Russian birth tourism industry that is thriving in south Florida?
1
@Sabrina Spencer Wrong. Marla was a US citizen and Melania had herchild after marrying mr. Trump.
While recognizing real issues are at stake, I don't understand, quite, how this could pass constitutional muster.
4
@DameAlys Tell me where in the Constitution anyone has a right to a visa.
Hard to see any problem with this. Kudos to common sense.
38
Time for a constitutional amendment to modify birthright citizenship to be valid only for citizens and legal entrants.
50
@SinNombre Just to clarify, "birth tourists" enter the US legally, on tourist visas.
1
@Inca A tourist visa is not an intent to become a citizen.
Being born in the USA should not guarantee citizenship, unless both parents are citizens.
29
@Simon
American men will not like that idea.
1
We are making this far too complicated. Let’s just ban non-citizen women from visiting the USA altogether. We’re already trying to deny them the ability to obtain visas to work while they are here with their lawfully employed husbands. Who knows what illicit childbearing they will do with all of their spare time. Better just to keep them all out. And for women already here, citizens or not, let’s just issue a federal rule that denies birthright citizenship to their offspring until they can prove that they will never rely on public resources and will swear to always vote Republican. Why worry about the Constitution and those pesky amendments.
13
I thought this was satire.
1
it does puzzle me that Trump, and a lot of Americans, only seem to see problems in immigration? I recognise a whole lot of more important issues that should get fixed...
6
@Dirk D
Distractions so we won't be able to effectively counter the pillaging that continues apace.
1
but ... but ... this is a hazardous pregnancy that needs medical care! It has all been arranged via the Trump Hotel. They will see to all of my needs.
6
This is infuriating. What's next, giving women wanting visas a pregnancy test?
14
Unfortunately needed.
24
@Max
Actually NO it isn't.
1
This is a bunch of baloney. Just another attempt at curtail people from certain countries from having babies in the US. Wealthy Russians and folks from certain parts of Asia have been doing this for decades without such restrictions.
15
And are they all paying federal income tax?
1
As a birthright citizen, I have to say I’m ambivalent about this. I read the article about the “business” of birthright citizenship and I was disgusted. On the other hand; pregnant women, like anyone else, deserve the right to be able to seek shelter for themselves and their babies, if they are in danger in their country of origin. Let’s remember our humanity folks!
48
@MaggieH “On the other hand; pregnant women, like anyone else, deserve the right to be able to seek shelter for themselves and their babies, if they are in danger in their country of origin.”
That’s not what this is about. These are not asylum seekers. These are women 8+ months pregnant coming here on tourist visas.
88
@Undisclosed -- coming here on tourist visas for the explicit purpose of giving birth, obtaining a US passport for their children, and returning to their home countries to raise them.
It's just giving more advantages to people who are already advantaged.
6
@MaggieH Humanity begins at home. For many Americans, it is already difficult to make ends meet. Adding additional financial pressures to the system just exacerbated the problem. If the millionaires and billionaires want to give their money to charity which helps those same families who are coming to A
Erica for the sole purpose of having an anchor baby, that would be a far better solution than putting the burden on the working man of America .
1
Many of the comments seem to miss the fact that there is no evidence that anchor babies are a real phenomenon outside of a few anecdotes.
Here’s why:
1) US citizens can’t sponsor their parents for citizenship until they’re 21 and then the process takes over a year.
2) Traveling to the US and then paying for medical care is prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of the world.
So this rule is unlikely to prevent many people from gaming the immigration system. Instead it will likely punish other people, like those seeking access to better hospitals than in their home country or people who merely wish to travel while pregnant.
As the article hints at, this rule will be difficult to enforce for many reasons. So it’s mostly chest-thumping by the Trump administration to show how much they hate immigrants. We should all condemn that.
85
You obviously haven’t looked very hard. In 2012 the number was ~40,000 babies born just to birth tourism. The run of the mill anchor babies number ~300,000/year- every year, on average. It is a gigantic real issue.
85
Obama tried a crackdown in 2015 (approx date) citing at least 33k per year.
The medical bills are often paid by Medicaid or not paid. That's not good for us.
And these babies, being US citizens, are likely not paying US taxes on their worldwide income.
76
@Jacob
They don’t have to pay for their medical care. They can’t be denied care in this country. And we don’t need to be handing out citizenship to people whose home countries don’t have good medical care. Sorry. Not our problem. And if you’re 8+ months pregnant you shouldn’t be traveling anyway.
47
And how do you enforce this? Give every woman a pregnancy test in the airport, like the woman in Hong Kong last week? Seems like a very bad and poorly planned idea.
8
The task is a simple one for consular affairs officers. They can readily ascertain the women's specific intention by race, religion, or nationality.
2
I've always felt that it was ridiculous. If you're born on US soil you automatically qualify as a citizen. This has inevitably led to people gaming the system for a "toe hold" into the United States, and the rules and/or laws should be changed. However, the conservatives like to frame this as primarily a problem of "poor" (i.e Mexican, Central American, etc.) women. It's my understanding that some of the prime offenders are rich Russian and Chinese women taking advantage of "birth tourism" so that their children can qualify for elite colleges and universities when the time arises. Are these women going to face the same policies? Given our current president's predilection for billionaires and oligarchs from both nations, I have my doubts. They will still be able to buy their children's citizenships.
40
It is two different issues. Birth tourism is usually a fairly rich foreigner who comes here to have a kid, then goes home to potentially use the dual citizen kid to get a back donor pass to the US for the whole family. They number ~40,000 or so per year. The usual anchor baby is born to an illegal or visa over stay who more often than not isn’t going to leave the US. These kids can sponsor the family just like the birth tourism kids. These number ~300,000/year. The numbers are far larger than the left will admit or wants to talk about.
24
Birth right citizenshio was intended to make the US more appealing to immigrants. But now that we are a country of anti-immigrants...
2
@John Cosmas
This would almost exclusively apply to the wealthy people you refer to. Most of the poor people don't actually get visas they just illegally enter the US.
7
Considering how many people I know who have been denied visas due to pregnancy, I'm shocked that this wasn't already a rule.
6
Just when I think they’re reached a level beyond which they dare not go, they go and will double down on it. Get the pregnancy tests ready.
7
With no data or relevant sources to pull from, the Administration again shows it’s true intentions in making America Great Again for Whites Only.
Study after study shows that immigration has been the bedrock of generations of American creativity and economic success that started in the 1900s.
Allowing this draconian assessment of pregnant women of other races as nothing more than baby “mules” is an affront to our decency. Allow smart immigration rules that promote our nation to grow for all classes, races, and people - and expand the American family to new heights.
7
Birth tourism is very common in the Chinese communities of Los Angeles and New York. There is a black market paying up to $50,000 for each woman for this process. Then, the parents obtain residency and then sends the child back to China . I hear a number of 50,000 a year. You need to seek out the source fro the Chinese Mainland in which the government lacks enforcement there.
37
The parents don't just "obtain residency", that's impossible. They go back to China. It's an insurance policy by the rich in case China collapses.
8
@Vincent Wing that's ridiculous. The child can't even petition to bring the parents here legally until after their 21st birthday. They either overstay their visas or everyone goes home. Misinformation is dangerous.
1
it continues to amaze the way, in a total vacuum of data in support of this assumption, nativists continue to treat things like residency in the US or even citizenship (regardless of residency) as "costs" borne by our system. As though it is a given that there is a net negative revenue impact from the average new resident or citizen, whether they arrived with or without inspection, with or without a visa, and whether or not they intend to stay, and whether or not they intend to apply for additional family members to join this nation on their account.
But never is proof offered. The reality is that these people, if they use their citizenship to come live here, or if it is used to bring their families to live here on a family unification basis, are far less likely to be unemployed than the average native - born American. with regard to residents who aren't citizens they CAN'T receive federal benefits (states and cities can do what they like). The "illegals" generate far more revenue, both directly as tax paying employees and indirectly as consumers and as employees of other employers and drivers of other economic activity (what, you think America as an agricultural exporter can thrive without migrant workers?), than they cost, and they'd cost even less if we'd stop funneling so much money into moronic immigration enforcement activities.
and immigrant citizens are even more likely to contribute to this country's economy. why do nativists want social security to go broke?
11
Way off base.
This is about pregnant women getting visitors visas.
Not about illegal immigrant grants who sneak in without a visa.
12
@Alex
You seem to live in Brooklyn. I would think the costs (housing and employment competition) would be obvious?
6
@Margo I am well aware. And addressed both in my comment. The nativist reflex is to treat either as a "cost" to our system; the reality is otherwise in each case. Immigrant ctizens are even more likely to punch above their economic weight than resident aliens, and even less likely to be unemployed (indeed, less likely to be unemployed than native born Americans).
So the fact that public benefits may theoretically become available to these birthright citizens is immaterial; it is statistically more than offset by their contributions to the public fisc.
ok Master Hypocrite and the Father of Lies: so what about the thousands of Russian women giving birth at Trump owned properties here in Florida??? They have their babies here in America, then they go back to Russia with their "Americantsy".
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121
13
@Former Republican
That is exactly what this policy addresses.
4
It takes a scammer to catch a scammer. In this way, Trump's hostility to immigrant rights has slapped (rightfully) the abuses committed by some immigrants. But like a mad dog who protected you from a robber, his next bite will likely come out of your behind.
6
Great. One more institutionalization of increased policing and surveillance of women's bodies. One more example of a standard that men will never be submitted to. What are they going to do, make women pee into cups at their visa interviews? The alternative is just as bad: making assumptions about women's health status based on the shape of their bodies.
7
A perfect decision for US Administration if implemented and monitored properly . I just don’t understand why the US has for long years permitted the abuse of such a short track to automated citizenship for non-U.S. citizen babies. Just for the sake of securing citizenship for their prospective babies , many stupid celebrities or well - off parents from many parts of the world including my country Turkey travelled to the US to stay for a while prior to their deliveries. Then cane American passport . Dolce Vita !
To me citizenship should be granted to those with excellent level of education and/ or decent job experience or proven records of mastery of certain arts and crafts. Not the least , prospective citizens should have no criminal court.
I congratulate the US Administration for their proposal.
I hope this will set an decent example of how citizenship should be strictly tied to strict rules for countries with lax visa and citizenship regime. Because Turkey has been filled with millions of Syrian, Afghani and Iranian citizens. To complicate matters, it is covered in Turkish press that 150.000 Syrians have been offered Turkish citizenship which is destined to have adverse repercussions for a country at the edge of Europe.
29
Long over due. Most of these women are from China, Russia and places like Nigeria. Birth tourism is another example of how our out of date immigration/asylum/citizenship laws are being abused and in need of a complete overhaul that reflects the world of the 21st century not some misty eyed past. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated that in 2012 ~40,000 babies were born to tourists here just to have an American citizen kid. At 18 this dual citizen kid who will in general have no connection to the US other than an address at birth, will be able to sponsor his whole family to immigrate to the US. An outrageous abuse of our laws and overly generous society and a back door get in free pass for undeserving people.
65
And many of the wealthy Russians giving birth in the U.S., particularly in Florida, own condos in Trump properties. Like everything else done by this administration it is smoke, mirror or both. But that's okay, right?
10
So, are they going to do pelvic exams in the airport? Anyone who is doing that, coming here to have the child be a citizen won't tell anyone they are pregnant. The right clothing can hide it. Next, the fact that a person is born here won't qualify for making a person a citizen.
If we think the schemes our impeached so-called president came up with in his first 3 years were wrong and inhumane, wait until the Republican cowards acquit him. And God help all of us if he's re-elected with no reins on him.
8
No, this is only when applying for visa atthe consulate...not for entry. Which is why this is silly and another example if in inept administration. But I guess conservative news will call this a win but it has no impact.
You simply apply for a visa before getting pregnant and then travel after. Visa's are good for a long time, as also noted in the article.
4
@Gatorbait
Just because you have a visa doesn't mean that you are automatically granted entry. The entry point in the US is the final determinant of that.
By the same reasoning, you can apply for visa, commit a crime in your country and expect that you'll be allowed in the US as if you're not a wanted criminal? It doesn't work that way.
All visas and passports have the disclaimer that they can be cancelled at will of the US government. See Edward Snowden and his cancelled US passport.
1
So is Trump going to kick out all the Russians staying in his Florida properties while waiting to give birth?
34
Hopefully he’ll have to. Florida is a prime destination for this abuse of our laws.
12
What evidence is there that women are purposely coming to the US to have babies here?
3
There are hospitals that have all inclusive programs where a woman can stay for the last month or two of her pregnancy just so she can have a citizenship kid. This is reality, not some right wing fantasy.
34
Birth tourism is a real industry...I'm sure a quick Google will get you many results and can explain better than I can in this comment section.
27
@Deborah
They have busted people for operating such schemes in the past. It is certainly real.
23
This is an absurd retrograde policy.
At a personal level, I will be livid if my (British) pregnant wife is refused permission and put back on a transatlantic flight when she comes to join me (a dual US/U.K.) in March at the end of a business trip to NY so we can see my family. The idea that we would leave the NHS’ excellent maternity service behind and take the lottery of vastly overpriced American health care is ludicrous. The great irony is that our child will (probably) be an American citizen anyway.
The sooner we can vote out this vindictive, corrupt government the better.
166
The rule doesn’t apply if the child would have U.S. citizenship even if born abroad.
28
@John You are so bloody lucky to have the NHS. I couldn't agree with you more about the overpriced lottery system in much of the U.S. As well as this current government. Your child, at least, has the option of a second country (England) if the U.S. never recovers from the damage being done to it at present.
9
@John
CORRECTION: This action will NOT put anyone on a plane and send them back. Read the article.
This denial of entry occurs at the consulate (visa) level before a plane is boarded, NOT at the Customs Entry arrival level.
30
This won’t be extreme enough for Trump’s people. Get the pregnancy tests ready.
6
Unless they're from Norway!
20
Long overdue! Our immigration laws and birthright citizenship have been brazenly exploited by foreign nationals for far too long.
It’s time to end birthright citizenship altogether. The law was never intended to provide US citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens and visa holders.
50
Mussolini reportedly made the trains run on time. In this instance too a bad leader may have done something good. I have read horror stories about exploitive cruel Chinese "birth houses" here in California.
23
A visa from China is good for 10 years. You simply need to apply for one then get pregnant anytime before 10 years is up. This change only applies for the visa application, not entry into the US. This will do nothing to solve the issue, just like building a wall (or really, not building the wall as Trump has failed to do so) will do nothing to stem illegal immigration.
Let's get a president who can actually solve issues, not just pander to his base.
8
I hate Trump with every fiber of my being. But until we change our laws giving any baby born within the United States citizenship, I’m good with this.
72
This may not be such a bad idea. We should focus on helping refugees from places (for example) like Central America instead of those who are figuratively (perhaps literally) "buying citizenship" by flying in and giving birth. (Long term our immigration laws are ine need of overhaul, short term - this may allow us to concentrate of those most at risk)
31
This is blatant gender discrimination! I’ve seen this administration try to pull a lot of different things since 2016, but THIS is next level in my opinion.
10
To those who support ending "chain migration", when do we deport Melania and her parents? And come to think of it, how about deporting Trump? After all, his family arrived here through chain migration as well.
137
Sorry, your bias is showing and is ridiculous. Russians, who last time I looked are often white and European are among the biggest abusers of birth tourism and will hopefully be restricted. Regular anchor babies born to illegals number over 300,000/year- most to Hispanics. Are you ok reducing the outsized role of Hispanics in this phenomenon or is it ok because they aren’t white??
19
@dba
Visa denial does not apply if one is blonde and European. Only brown, black or Muslim pregnant women are disallowed.
Isn't that obvious?
14
If you don't recognize this for what it is then you, are indeed, part of this country's problem and the reason it will never get better. Enforced Nationalism, bigotry, and racism will never solve anything or make this country a better place.
20
@Mike This is the first step towards sane immigration laws. Giving US citizenship to a baby who was born on US soil but whose parents never lived here and who probably will never contribute to the country is stupid.
1
@KM Your statement doesn't justify nationalism, bigotry and racism. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
2
I’ve always been told to never ask if someone is pregnant ... because you don’t want to get that wrong and make someone upset.
And if they ask and the answer is no then what? Will they prevent them from entering the country if they refuse to take a pregnancy test?
It’s just absurd.
29
No, this is only for the visa application, not entering the country. I guess the consulate can say "come back in 6 months" if they suspect she is pregnant.
No one applies for a visa while pregnant... They do it before getting pregnant. A visa is good for travel for many years. China, for example (where many birth tourists come from) is 10 years.
This change does nothing except pander to his base as another "win". They don't travel globally and think a visa is just a credit card.
11
@Gatorbait
Got it. Thanks for the clarification!
@Bronx Jon
Except this isn't just some random encounter they ask all sorts of potentially awkward questions in such interviews and likely will simply ask every female.
1
How will they if someone is pregnant or not. This is flawed. Do all women have to submit during visa interview letter from their gynae that she is not pregnant. Another loophole is creation.
11
Of course this new power to block pregnant women from entering the U.S. to give birth doesn't count if they come from Norway.
48
@N. Smith Why would any Norwegian want to be an American citizen? I would think that the trend would be the complete opposite. But then, this is trump at his best. Didn't he spell it "Normay"?
Also, it's up to the discretion of the consular officers. I see. Can't think of a more prejudicial move. It depends on how that officer is feeling that day...it becomes a matter of Russian Roulette, so to speak.
8
@N. Smith
Actually, that's not what it says, but just keep pretending every attempt to have a sane immigration policy is racist and you will no doubt wonder why Trump gets re-elected in November.
14
@Carol-Ann
You're missing the point I you think this is about why any Norwegian would want to be an American citizen.
Look a little deeper -- and then think of what Trump said about Haiti and some countries in Africa.
You can also Google it.
It wasn't very nice.
3
Trump ought to know about foreign women coming to the USA. Chain migration too, like his current in-laws. This democrat would have no problem with repealing the 14th amendment. If we could retroactively deport the Trumps, even better. Allow visitors but make citizenship no longer automatic. By the way, I'd much rather allow people coming from Mexico across our southern border than non-contiguous places like Russia, Slovenia, etc.
22
The 14th amendment was never meant to be a get free citizenship pass by having a kid here. It was meant to protect slaves and their kids. It has been abused for decades. Just like scotus ruled on the second amendment (wrongly I think) they could rule on the 14th without having to repeal it. We and Canada are the only western style democracies that still allow birthright citizenship. Places like: France, Germany Australia, NZ etc have all gotten rid of it for the obvious reason. It is an irresistible enticement to birth tourism and illegal immigration.
11
As if it is the State Department's business if the visa applicant is pregnant or not.
11
so this comes down to thinking? most pregnant women don't travel in the last trimester. who are the experts on the border doing the thinking?
9
It's about time. And before you explode, I am an immigrant. I followed the rules - both the letter and the spirit - to come to and become a citizen of this great country. There is nothing racist about stopping a potential abuse of our immigration system.
93
@Yellow Bird I fail to see where people continue to use the adjective great when describing the US. Great country ??? Based on what?
Lack of affordable healthcare?
Income inequality?
Systemic racism?
Religious bigotry?
Number of mass shootings?
The number of personal bankruptcies due to medical costs?
23% of people who cannot pay their credit cards use it for food and necessities
Half of ‘Merican families cannot come up with $400 in an emergency
9
I notice that Sweden does not have birthright citizenship? I wonder why that is, if it’s such a great idea? Maybe you like to take in the ~350,000 birth tourism and anchor babies born here every year? Then you can provide all those benefits to them.
22
@networthy I am an immigrant and will retire back in my home country. This country is not the greatest country in the world. Not by a long chalk.
4
Does this apply to investors who get citizenship based on eb visas?
15
Nah, only tourist and medical visa. Jared Kushner still needs a way to get investment money (fact: his company is being investigated for abusing eb-5 visas)
6
So how are they going to tell if a woman is pregnant ?
18
Any woman who is 5 to 6 months pregnant Should be denied a visa until she gives birth to her child in her home country. No problem. It’s about time !
50
@Pvbeachbum So exactly HOW are you going to tell if the woman is pregnant of just fat? Hmmmmm.... HandMaid's Tale fodder.
6
Why 5-6 months? Why not 7-8? Why not 1-2? How can you tell?
4
@Pvbeachbum Except for those with medical issues. My cousin came on a visa last year pregnant with twins. An ultrasound revealed severe medical issues with one of the babies. Doctors in her home country (she came from the Caribbean) couldn't do anything for her. While receiving prenatal care here, she went into labor prematurely, and one of the babies died hours after birth. If it weren't for the post-natal care she received here, both babies probably would have passed. She has since returned home to her life and the care of her baby. Her medical bills are paid. She had no intention or desire to continue living here, but she is grateful for the care she received. Not every pregnant visa applicant wants to live here.
6
New wording for the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free - just as long as they are not pregnant"
20
Thanks for using my name, who ever you are. (I agree with your comment.)
The real Doremus Jessup.
That cheesy poem was written in the 1800s. It is not law and never was. Our population was~60 million then. It is now 330 million plus. Like everything else, updates to reflect reality are a constant of life. We are not empty any more and don’t need people to be exploited like the 18th century anymore either. We are ridiculously over populated by any environmental standard. Or don’t you believe in climate change?
5
@Doremus Jessup
The people this article is about are not part of "tired, your poor, your huddled masses". They are well heeled people who have enough money to game the system.
1
GOOD! Lifelong Democrat here, 100% on board. This is fraud.
247
@Undisclosed
With you 100% as well. Always been a Democrat, always will, but this birth tourism is way out of hand. Rich Chinese women are shuttled by limo to these suburban "birth hotels" , given luxury shopping junkets to Hollywood, Beverly Hills, etc. to shop for their Gucci/Coach handbags, then give birth to their little emperors/empresses, and fly back to China.
When the little emperor/empress reaches 18, they apply to Harvard or Yale, get in as US citizens, then have Queen mother/Dad come over here. So the parents skip out on paying any US taxes but the little emperor/empress gets all the benefits paid for by us, the US taxpayer.
So happy to see this end now.
43
@Mark what you're describing pays much more into the US economy than their being citizens costs the US. So if your issue is you have too many new wealthy citizens that's quite the problem to have (especially when you tax people based on citizenship and not residence like 99% of the other countries in the world).
2
Someone needs to break the news to Trump. He has a booming business in Russian birth tourism in Florida.
77
It is not clear whether it is a significant phenomenon? Writer bias, much?
The NY Times wrote a piece about a ring busted by the feds last year...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html
It is real. And I applaud this move.
67
Republican agenda:
Control birth control
Control abortion
Control babies in the womb -- how, where when, why
Control women. Control women. Control women.
When the babies come out: deny citizenship, eliminate head start funding, eliminate snap, impoverish public schools, unfund affordable housing. And on. And on. And on.
Tell all those women and children who don't have boots to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Tell those refugees from Latin America who's countries the U.S. played a huge role in destabalizing: hey, this has nothing to do with us. Wash the blood off your hands. Go back to cutting taxes for the rich.
62
With tongue in cheek I’d like to mention that the wall we’re building on the border isn’t actually on the border. It’s back a way on US soil. So wouldn’t it be possible for any woman who wished, to deliver her baby on the south side of the wall but on American soil? I welcome one more American citizen to the millions who have joined our nation.
30
Mr. Kanno-Youngs,
It is in fact clear that birth tourism is a "significant phenomenon", as you call it. This very paper documented it as a "multi-billion dollar industry" just last year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html
Also, this is not a conservative issue. This liberal environmentalist supports immigration policy change, as do an overwhelming number of Times readers. My question for you is, as a reporter, why are you not using previous Times reporting for source materials, and why push this narrative of it being a "conservative" "Trump" issue when it has already been debunked? I can't stand Trump, but his administration is making the right moves on this single issue.
155
Why don't we just change our citizenship laws so that one parent has to be American or be living in the U.S. for the baby to get citizenship?
41
@Kim
Because it's not a law, it's the constitution. Fourteenth Amendment.
13
@Undisclosed We can amend the Constitution.
11
@Kim
Thanks for the update.
3
As is, or should be, well known, Donald J. Trump's paternal grandfather immigrated to the U.S., from Germany, illegally. Too bad he wasn't somehow apprehended and sent back . . .
53
Let's see if they do this to the wealthy Chinese women who make up nearly the entirety of birth tourism.
280
The rich are always afforded extra latitude...everything in this country is for sale...a transactional relationship...want in...pay!
22
@mls and Russians, some of whom have had connections to Trump's hotels.
35
@mls Jared Kushner's family has already made sure wealthy Chinese were able to come here and buy real estate so no problem if they are pregnant.
18
In a word, “Disgusting”. How dare the US Government try to guess at the intentions of visitors? And if they do plan to give birth here it is to protect hire child, with a US Passport, from what is happening in Turkey. Is that what is happening here?
15
@Brad Burns
There has never been a time when the U.S. government has *not* attempted to determine the intentions of visitors.
18
Relax, Brad, they aren't going after Texans.
3
@Eye by the Sea Having a baby is not a criminal act
2
It sounds like a great idea.
75
This is excellent news. protecting the security and integrity of our immigration laws must include denying entry into the U.S. by pregnant women who are obviously looking for a free ride on the gravy train of social welfare benefits for their unborn children (and themselves), which are paid for by our tax dollars. It's time to play hardball with people who are out to game the system.
112
@paul
An awful lot of the people out to game the system are not poor. What better way to install sleeper agents than to have them born in the USA?
14
Good. Anchor baby chain migration is not good for this country. We need merit based immigration.
101
Oh yeah just like how all of our European ancestors came over, through merit based immigration. This is the same tired trope of xenophobia Italians, Jews, Polish, and Irish experienced in the early 1900s.
18
@Luke S
Our European ancestors came at a time when the nation required much unskilled labor to man its factories and till its fields. This is no longer the case.
26
@Eye by the Sea Exactly. And that was actually merit based immigration anyway. Merit based immigration is based on the needs of the receiving nation. We don’t need illiterate people who can’t speak our language and can’t take care of themselves dumped on our shores.
8
The biggest threat to national security is living in the White House.
158
I hate to imagine what the Trump admiistration has in mind for determining which visitors are pregnant...
92
@Laurie
Or the indignity that the woman who "looks pregnant," but is not, would undergo in proving it.
5
@Erica
So instead of them suffering any indignities or whatever, have any and all women sign a paper saying if they give birth while in the US they’ll wave all rights to citizenship.
Done !
14
Giving up US citizenship is neither easy nor cheap. I don't think anyone can "waive" that, especially for another person, no matter the age.
3