Ending Birth Tourism

This third document continues the speculative scenario set in August 2026. While the previous Executive Order (EO) focused on redefining who is eligible for citizenship, this order focuses on entry and visa enforcement to prevent "birth tourism" from happening in the first place.Here is a breakdown of the legal mechanisms described in this fictional order and how they relate to real-world immigration policy:The order cites Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1185(a).In Reality: This is a powerful and real statute. It grants the President broad authority to prescribe "reasonable rules, regulations, and orders" and "limitations and exceptions" regarding the entry and departure of aliens. This was one of the primary legal justifications used for the "Travel Ban" (Executive Order 13769) during the first Trump administration, which was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii.The order defines birth tourism as entering the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa (like a B-1/B-2 tourist visa) with the primary intent of giving birth.In Reality: In January 2020, the Trump Administration’s State Department issued a real rule (85 FR 3519) that established this exact policy. It instructed consular officers to deny "B" visas to applicants if the officer had reason to believe the applicant’s primary purpose was to obtain U.S. citizenship for a child.The Difference: This fictional 2026 order goes further by including Section 3(b), which targets "facilitators"—the businesses, "birth hotels," and agencies that coordinate these trips.This section introduces much stricter penalties than currently exist:Permanent Bar: The order suggests that attempting to enter for birth tourism could result in being "permanently barred." Currently, a permanent bar usually requires proof of "material misrepresentation" (fraud).Removal (Deportation): It directs the DHS to remove (deport) aliens who "previously engaged" in birth tourism. This would be a retroactive application of the policy, which would likely face immediate and intense legal challenges in federal court.It is important to distinguish between the intent of the traveler and the status of the child:Current Policy (Prevention): The U.S. government already tries to prevent birth tourism by denying visas to people they suspect are traveling solely to give birth.Current Law (Citizenship): Under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, if a person does enter the U.S. (legally or illegally) and gives birth, the child is a U.S. citizen.This Fictional Scenario: This document is part of a "pincer maneuver" policy. This EO (Document 3) tries to stop them at the border, while the previous EO (Document 2) tries to ensure that even if they get in and give birth, the child is denied citizenship based on the fictional Trump v. Barbara ruling.These documents represent a "roadmap" for a significant overhaul of U.S. citizenship law:Document 1 (Press Release): Announces the policy and the fictional Supreme Court victory.Document 2 (Citizenship EO): Limits birthright citizenship to specific "eligible" categories.Document 3 (Visa EO): Empowers the State Department and DHS to block and deport "birth tourists" and their facilitators.As of 2024, these documents are not active law and describe a legal framework that would currently be considered unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent (United States v. Wong Kim Ark).1. Legal Authority Cited (Section 2)2. Definition of "Birth Tourism" (Section 3)3. Punitive Measures (Section 4)4. Comparison to Current Law (2024)Summary of the Scenarios