The administration of US President Donald Trump has renewed its warning against so-called “birth tourism,” saying foreign nationals cannot obtain American visas for the purpose of travelling to the United States to give birth.
White House officials revisited the administration’s position on Saturday, August 8, after Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller said the practice had been prohibited under a new executive order.
In a statement shared by the White House on X, Miller said the order was intended to prevent people from using the US immigration system to obtain visas for what the administration considers fraudulent purposes.
Miller described the policy as one of the Trump administration’s most important actions, arguing that it would address what he called an abuse of the American immigration system.
“Birth tourism” generally refers to the practice of foreign nationals travelling to another country, including the United States, with the intention of giving birth there and seeking citizenship for their child.
The latest policy follows Trump’s broader efforts to change the rules surrounding birthright citizenship. The president previously signed an executive order seeking to restrict automatic citizenship for certain children born in the United States.
The administration’s latest action comes amid an ongoing legal and political dispute over the constitutional interpretation of birthright citizenship.
According to reports cited by US media, the Supreme Court had previously rejected Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship through an executive order issued at the beginning of his second term.
How the administration plans to identify birth tourism
Miller said immigration officials would rely on existing provisions of US immigration law when determining whether a visa applicant intends to use a tourist visa for birth tourism.
He argued that applicants who claim they are visiting the United States for tourism while allegedly intending to travel primarily to give birth could be considered to have misrepresented their purpose.
The administration has maintained that such conduct amounts to misuse of the visa system.
Trump has previously claimed that large numbers of foreign nationals take advantage of birth tourism. However, the precise scale of the practice remains disputed.
During Supreme Court proceedings in April, Solicitor General John Sauer reportedly acknowledged uncertainty over the exact number of people involved.
Reports cited by US media have offered varying estimates, including figures exceeding one million, although such estimates have not been independently established as an official count of birth-tourism cases.
Trump criticises previous birthright citizenship ruling
Trump also criticised an earlier Supreme Court decision concerning birthright citizenship, describing the outcome as unfortunate and saying his administration was making adjustments in response.
The president has repeatedly argued that birthright citizenship has been abused and that changes are necessary to protect the integrity of the US immigration system.
The issue remains politically and legally contentious because citizenship at birth in the United States has traditionally been linked to the constitutional principle of birth within the country’s territory, subject to established exceptions.
Countries around the world use different approaches to citizenship. Some primarily apply jus soli, which is citizenship based on place of birth, while others rely mainly on jus sanguinis, which determines citizenship through parentage. Some countries combine elements of both systems.
Miller makes separate claim about New York education
In a separate post on Saturday, Miller also linked immigration to reported reading difficulties among schoolchildren in New York.
His comments followed a report highlighting the number of pupils who failed to reach proficiency in a reading assessment.
Miller claimed that a significant proportion of children in New York were either foreign-born or children of migrants. He further suggested that immigration was an overlooked factor in discussions about the state’s education system.
However, he did not provide sources for the figures cited in his post.
His comments also did not establish a direct causal relationship between immigration and the reported reading performance of New York pupils.
The remarks have therefore added another dimension to the wider political debate over immigration, education and public policy in the United States.