Birth tourism–foreigners coming to the U.S. for the specific purpose of having a baby that will be an American citizen–has been going on for some time, but the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of birthright citizenship likely will give it a boost. That, at least, seems to be happening in Texas:
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to investigate a hospital in Mission, Texas, according to a news release on Tuesday.
The investigation stems from allegations that the hospital marketed childbirth services to foreign nationals a part of an effort to profit from so-called birth tourism.
“Marketed childbirth services to foreign nationals.” That is pretty brazen. It is alleged that the hospital, Mission Regional Medical Center, advertised “birth packages in South Texas” in foreign countries. You can read Governor Abbott’s letter at the link. He wrote:
“Birth tourism” is an illegal practice that exploits the extraordinary hospitality that the United States and Texas offer to millions of foreign travelers each year. Unfortunately, thousands of foreign travelers come to the United States under false pretenses to give birth and secure citizenship for their children. As Governor of Texas, I will do everything in my power to assist federal officials to stop this fraudulent practice.
There are two solutions to the problem of birth tourism. The first is to secure our borders so that illegals cannot take advantage of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Trump administration has done an excellent job of this, especially at the Southern border. But the next Democratic administration will flout the law, thus opening the floodgates again. The second is to make it illegal for pregnant women, who otherwise would be lawful visitors, to enter the country. It is unfortunate, but under current law that is the only way to stop, for example, rampant birth tourism by Chinese citizens.
The birthright citizenship case was legitimately close, although I thought that Ilan Wurman and his allies had the better of the argument. If nothing else, it is an instance of the maxim that if there are two plausible interpretations of a provision, courts should adopt the one that does not lead to absurd results.
