Should the Supreme Court Endorse Birth Tourism?
Pregnant Chinese tourists scam their kids into birthright U.S. citizenship by holing up in Arcadia, CA until the stork arrives.
From the New York Times’ news section:
Supreme Court’s Birthright Decision Could Deal a Heavy Blow to Asians
A new study found that an end to universal birthright citizenship would disproportionately affect babies born to Asian parents.
By Miriam Jordan
Miriam Jordan is a national immigration correspondent.
April 1, 2026
If President Trump succeeds in eliminating universal birthright citizenship, there could be 6.4 million U.S.-born children without legal status by 2050, according to a new study.
Conversely, if President Trump doesn’t succeed at the Supreme Court, there could be 6.4 million children of parents who are citizens of foreign countries and who do not have the legal right to make a permanent home in the USA, yet who have finagled their kids into lifetime U.S. citizenship through such scams as Birth Tourism.
In addition to affecting undocumented immigrants in the country, the authors say, that change would have a disproportionate effect on Asians who are in the country lawfully.
Disparate impact!
And what’s worse than that?
You are not racist, are you, you racist white, you?
Then stop worrying about foreign frauds, lie back, and think of Emma Lazarus.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Wednesday over Mr. Trump’s executive order to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the country to undocumented immigrants and to those born to foreign nationals in the country lawfully on temporary visas. His plan, if upheld by the court, would reinterpret the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The largest number of people affected would be Hispanics, according to the study, which was conducted by Penn State scholars who research immigration. Latinos make up the largest undocumented group in the United States, and Hispanic babies would account for eight out of 10 people born in the country but not considered American citizens by 2050.
However, the biggest relative change in births of babies without citizenship would be among Asians, at 41 per 1,000 Asian immigrants. That compares with 17 births of children without citizenship per 1,000 undocumented Latinos, according to the authors of the study. …
Many of the children would be born to parents from countries such as India and China who are in the United States on student or work visas. Under Mr. Trump’s executive order, they would no longer be U.S. citizens.
About half the people in the country on temporary student and work visas eventually obtain legal permanent residency, which puts them on the path to American citizenship. If birthright citizenship is eliminated, their children would have no such path.
Most of them have been working and paying taxes in the United States for years and are in their prime childbearing years. And many have been waiting in a backlog for more than a decade to obtain permanent legal residency through their employer. Often, they have already had children born in the United States who have the full rights of citizenry. …
“The U.S. would be recruiting people for these visas and depriving their children of citizenship,” she said.
Well, to be precise, it’s not the U.S. that is recruiting people for these visas, allowing them to have birthright citizenship children and start up the chain migration process, it’s private for-profit employers who are recruiting them for their own self-interest, but the American citizenry winds up paying the tab.
It’s a nice racket for all concerned … except for American citizens.
But it would be racist to complain, so you’d better not.
The United States is among at least 30 countries that automatically grant citizenship to anyone born within its borders. The beneficiaries include the children of foreign nationals in the country on temporary visas, millions of undocumented residents as well as so-called birth tourists, who travel to the United States while pregnant with the objective of having American babies.
Birth tourism is a really interesting subject, so, naturally, the New York Times buries its lone mention of the topic toward the bottom of its article.
In contrast, I try to write vividly about fascinating subjects that are especially illuminating about how the world works, in contrast to what we are indoctrinated to believe by the ideologues we are supposed to submit to.
Hence, a decade and a half ago, I wrote the following article in VDARE: …
Paywall here.
