Trump Signs Executive Orders to End Birth Tourism, Narrow Birthright Citizenship
The executive orders, Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship and Ending Birth Tourism, limit the scope, targeting future births in four categories.
President Donald Trump signed two executive orders regarding birth tourism and birthright citizenship since the Supreme Court upheld the latter.
Trump told the media:
We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright. It was close, but a very, very unfortunate decision. So we’re making adjustments because it’s very unfair. This was done for a different reason. This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves and what’s happening now, people are building businesses around it. Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace. They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.
.@POTUS: "We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright [citizenship]… so we're making adjustments."
President Trump is signing two Executive Orders to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship after Trump v. Barbara:
— The first… pic.twitter.com/NGSNNuzM0h
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 6, 2026
The executive orders, Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship and Ending Birth Tourism, limit the scope, targeting future births in four categories:
- Either parent of that person is an alien enemy, defined to include any member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
- Either parent is a foreign government employee working on behalf of a foreign government.
- Person is born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.
- The entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil or any effort by any foreign national to facilitate the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil.
No doubt someone or groups will sue the administration. I honestly do not know if SCOTUS would rule on it since the orders are narrow.
Yes, birth tourism exists. Even Axios cited the extraordinary numbers: “Estimates about the number of children who’ve been the result of birth tourism range from the low thousands to the tens of thousands.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well he’s sure trying but there’s SC will continue to destroy America
At times very trying…
Check the men for pregnancy too.
These are no more valid than the last EO that the court struck down. Trump is still trying to get around the fact that if someone is not subject to US jurisdiction, that means he can’t be prosecuted, can’t be sued, and can’t be taxed. Terrorists, of course, can be prosecuted! So can foreign government employees who have not specifically been given immunity. So their children born in the USA are citizens by right of the 14th amendment.
What’s the point here? Such a person is already not a US citizen! US citizenship comes either from being born in the USA (including incorporated territories), or by being born in an unincorporated territory where Congress has specifically granted citizenship to those born there. As far as I know the only unincorporated territory without such a statute is American Samoa, and children born there are indeed not US citizens.
But Congress can amend the statutes for the other territories, to exclude children without at least one parent who is a US citizen. Nothing in the constitution would prevent such an amendment.
Wrong Milhouse. The purpose of this EO is to restrict the entry of such persons into the US, not to deny any rights conferred by that disgrace of a decision from the S.Ct. What exactly, in that judicial perversion of the Constitution, requires the US to admit aliens into the country? Do we have to give a police escort into the country of the CCP mother about give birth to a new baby communist agent?
No it is not. Read the post. Read the linked executive orders. They are not about keeping such prospective mothers out of the country, they are about denying citizenship to the babies who have been born here. And that is invalid in the cases of items 1, 2, and 4, and redundant in the case of item 3.
Actually I read the order itself. We can discuss this further after you do the same.
If you read the order itself then your claim about it was not mistaken, it was a lie.
Either you lied about reading it, or you lied about what it says.
Maybe, instead of being an obnoxious clown, you might stop to consider that there were 2 EOs and that my comments were directed to the order Ending Birth Tourism. My mistake in trying to engage. We’re done here.
Milhouse is just pissed that Trump and Miller don’t run drafts of the president’s executive orders by him first so that he can correct them.
They should run them past someone. Or just read the damn constitution and relevant decisions themselves.
Nope. They should do the same thing that Democrats all over the country do: pass some law or regulation that is blatantly unconstitutional but will be enforced during the lag time it takes for somebody to have it formally declared unconstitutional.
And they should continue to do that as long as Democrats continue to do that.
The intent on number 4 would be rather hard to prove, even if that order passed constitutional muster. Or let’s suppose you have someone who is here on a research visa for four years and then becomes pregnant. Will we try to prosecute that person?
Just like any crime that requires intent, you can’t prove it in every case, but you can prove it in many cases, so you prosecute those.
Even in the case you suggest it might be possible to prove intent, but it would take more investigation than it’s worth, so generally such cases would be allowed to get away with it.
But my point is that regardless of how criminal the mother’s behavior, that can’t affect the child’s citizenship. The only criteria for the child’s citizenship are: 1) Was it born in the USA? 2) Were the parents immune from US law? If the answers are yes and no respectively, then the child is a citizen.
In the case of unincorporated territories, Congress should legislate that children born there are not citizens unless at least one parent is one.
It occurs to me that this may be a typo in the Executive Order. Perhaps Trump meant it to say “where citizenship is conferred by federal statute”, rather than where it is not, and he’s saying that since such citizenship is only conferred by statute he’s overriding it where both parents are aliens. He still can’t do that; only Congress can. But Congress can and should.
I suspect that you are right that the executive order will not stand but I believe that its purpose is to take the issue back to the Supreme Court, and it this is rejected, he’ll go back again on a slight deviation. The idea is to force the Justices to keep thinking avout the issue.
The idea is for the justices to grow a pair
The justices are faithful to the constitution. Trump is not.
The idea is to slip in a precedent that can be used to upend all other precedent going back centuries. It’s about judicial fiat and Living Constitutionalism.
How many less “citizens” would be have now if there were no anchor babies (and their children) and their relatives foisted on us through chain migration. The greatest abusers of this loophole have been the Mexicans and the Chinese as far as I can tell.
Meh, require all persons booking travel to the USA to go to the US Embassy beforehand and attest that they ain’t pregnant and won’t become pregnant 90 days out. Then do it again at 10 days out. Any person arriving to the Embassy may be selected for further examination amd screening by Embassy Physician to determine pregnancy status. If they lied they get a permanent bar to travel/entry to the USA. Same for arrival to US customs, bar them and turn them around. If they show up to get a birth certificate or SSA# for the child b/c they ‘slipped through’ immediately deport them, bar their return and hand the child over to CPS to be adopted. Remove the positive incentives and ramp up the negative incentives in a ruthless, unforgiving, automatic manner and people will modify their behavior.
Rest assured today’s executive orders will be challenged by various groups on the left. Trump is no doubt expecting the fight, but I think he wants the fight. I suspect Trump knows, in the bigger picture, the fight is about all ongoing fights against open borders and illegal immigration. I believe this is a fight worth having leading up to the midterm elections and Trump is taking direct aim of protecting the nation at John Roberts and his court.
They will certainly be challenged, and not only by the left. Anyone faithful to the constitution will challenge them.
Except for item 3, which seems pointless, unless it’s a typo as I suggested above. If it is a typo, then what he intended is a good idea, but he can’t do it by executive order; he can and should ask Congress to do it.
All you have to do is look at the annual Barrett Christmas card to know how she would vote on anchor babies.
What a huge disappointment she has been.
So you would rather have Ruth Bader Ginsberg? What nonsense.
We don’t appoint justices in the expectation that they will be idealogues, that is for the left to do, and you end up with Jackson.
It’s true that sometimes you appoint someone to the bench and they end up totally different than what you thought. Barrett is not one of those justices.
Barrett IS one of those justices. She is a disappointment and her record bears that out.
She duped everyone at her confirmation hearing.
Either parent is a foreign government employee working on behalf of a foreign government.
Well, there goes the Chinese birth tourism. (Everyone works for the state there.)
for the purpose of giving birth on American soil
I would say that coming here while pregnant constitutes “purpose.” I would ban anyone from coming here on a temporary visa if they were within that length of time from giving birth. (So, a tourist visa is 3 months, IIRC, and you could not enter the US on a tourist visa if you were 6 months or more pregnant. With an extra 1 month window to account for inaccurate doctors.)
Yes, birth tourism exists.
Birth illegal-alien-sneaking-across-the-border exists, too. I think “birth tourism” is intended to cover that, but it might not trigger that for some people.
Maybe add a statutory requirement/duty of anyone temporarily in the USA by any means who becomes pregnant to report that fact to Immigration within five days of determination. Add an additional requirement to disclose pregnancy upon entry to USA. Make both felonies with mandatory minimums of 5 years plus automatic removal and a permanent bar to reentry.
Sometimes people travel in good faith and things happen.
I have a friend who was about 5 months pregnant and she and her husband decided to have one last vacation by themselves before they would be bound down with children, so they flew off to South Africa for what was supposed to be two weeks. She went into early labor there and was taken to hospital and had the baby almost three months early. They had to stay in SA until the baby was out of NICU and cleared to travel. This was definitely not their intention when they made their bookings!
Preemies, hermaphrodites, people who trespass on a flagpole.
I don’t care.
Our problems do NOT stem from edge cases.
Honestly, he should have simply barred all women of childbearing age from the beginning of the country until Congress fixes the issue. He has the right to do that and I don’t even know if such an order would be judicially reviewable.
Should be from entering the country, not beginning
Deny entry to any pregnant woman,…SCOTUS cannot reverse that
IMPEACH JOHN ROBERTS!
The rogue judges are lining up and bickering over who goes first.
Simplest solution: you are endowed with the citizenship of your parents. If one is American, then so be it. If not, then you retain the citizenship of their homeland.
Simple. Easy. Common sense. I think legal immigrants would appreciate it too.
If you think that should be the law, ask your congressman to propose a constitutional amendment to repeal the first part of the 14th amendment.
But until you get that passed (which is basically impossible without broad bipartisan support) the constitution says what it says, and explicitly rejects your idea.
Bottom line is this: Our Founders never imagined numbers of immigrants we have today; they NEVER THOUGH A POLITICAL (FEDERAL) institution would allow the massive influx of invaders to illegally cross our borders.
This, their intention was to protect the children of slaves. Only an entity wanting to destroy the country that designed a system to let people EARN citizenship would even consider a massive drain on a legal society as is happening in today’s world.
First of all, the US founders never imagined any restrictions on immigration. As far as they were concerned anyone who wanted to come here was welcome. They didn’t give Congress any power over immigration.
Second, what they intended is irrelevant. A law is interpreted according to its text, not according to the purpose the legislators had in their minds. No one is privy to the legislators’ minds, especially since there are not just one or two of them but hundreds, and in the case of constitutional amendments thousands. A law means what its text meant at the time it was enacted, i.e. what an ordinary English-speaker at the time of its passage would have understood it to mean.
Slight disagreement here. When the proponent make it clear in Congressional debate what the Amendment is going to do, and in broad inclusive terms as well, it ought to be heavy proof as to what the text meant at the time it was enacted.
PS: What you’re saying is exactly the same as what we hear from those who want to kill the 2nd amendment. “Oh, the founders could not have predicted modern handguns, or modern sports rifles, or even rifles at all, so the 2A doesn’t protect them.”
Ironically, most of the debate over the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with it being an individual right, but rather concern that it might be construed as to compel conscientious objectors to bear arms.
Not just slaves. During the debates plenty of the 14th Amendment’s proponents, including it’s sponsor made it quite clear that they wanted to go back to the Common Law definition before the Dred Scott decisions racial exclusion statement. And yes, this meant children of parents who had allegiance to foreign powers.
The crux of the matter is that we’ve always had a jus soli based citizenship, and subjecthood before that, since… as far back as the question has been raised going back the better part of a millennium. Neither the Constitution nor the 14th Amendment changed that. But some people still assume that citizenship can only be transmitted through blood magic and only those of pure magically enhanced citizen blood could ever bear allegiance to America; they assume that it has to be that.
The problem with these EO pronouncements is that they are inventing dividing lines by executive fiat with neither statutory authority nor an actual historical basis. Let us look at each of them.
Right here a child born in America to an American citizen is somehow denied their bloodright because the status of another parent according to executive whims? This not only works corruption of blood but allows allegiance to foreign non-sovereign groups to override America’s jurisdiction within the U.S.! Foreign law or even mere membership is some organization does not and can not trump American law and jurisdiction within America.
This is another attempt to sneak in jus sanguinis via executive fiat, by creating a narrow precedent which no one expects to stay narrow. IOW, no one honestly believes that this is where the clear line lies.
This is an attempt to equate mere employment with diplomatic immunity as the nose, which is another attempt to surrender sovereignty and jurisdiction to foreign powers within the U.S. automatically when it comes to one single narrow subject (citizenship) but no other.
Outside of the fully incorporated United States (i.e. all 50 states, D.C., and Palmyra Atoll), citizenship is not conferred by the 14th Amendment, but by statute. Executive Orders can not overrule statute, either by negating it by executive fiat or by extending citizenship beyond statute.
Entry of such persons is regulated by statute and such leeway granted by statute. This has nothing to do with someone born here (and thus did not enter). Again, some people are hell bent on working corruption of blood by executive fiat.
Does this include ILLEGAL ALIENS, too? Ya know, the ones who illegally entering our country in order to drop a load on this side of the border? Perhaps it’s included in one of the four executive orders listed above, but I’m not sure. It’s too bad we have such a feckless bunch of useless scumbags in the republican party, who should be codifying these executive orders.
Leave a Comment