At a recent Senate subcommittee hearing, Republican lawmakers argued that automatic citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is not only a constitutional or immigration question but also one of fraud and national security. Sen. Eric Schmitt asked whether American citizenship is an inheritance of a nation or “a hollow legal definition without protections against fraud, abuse, and bad actors.”
The concern centers on “birth tourism,” where pregnant foreigners travel to the U.S. to give birth so their child will be a U.S. citizen. Prosecutors have uncovered businesses that charge tens of thousands of dollars to arrange travel, lodging and advice on how to avoid detection. Willfully misrepresenting travel purpose can be visa fraud, and officials have pursued cases against operators who coached clients to lie about length of stay or conceal pregnancies.
President Trump issued an executive order saying children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily would not be U.S. citizens; the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about that order. If upheld, it would upend over 125 years of understanding that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly everyone born here, except children of foreign diplomats or occupying forces.
Opponents of birthright citizenship point to the birth tourism industry as evidence the system can be exploited. The State Department does not track births tied to birth tourism; the CDC, which records births and asks for a home address, estimated about 9,500 births in 2024 listed a non-U.S. address. The Center for Immigration Studies (which favors restricting immigration) estimated temporary visitors gave birth to about 70,000 babies in 2023. Both figures are small compared with roughly 3.5 million births a year: tourist births appear to be less than 2% of U.S. births.
Those who call it a fraud problem say citizenship carries privileges—access to benefits, immigration pathways and social support—that can be abused. Andrew Arthur of the CIS said taxpaying citizens don’t want their generosity abused and worry some parents might view a child’s citizenship as a route to secure the parents’ status, even though legally parents must wait until a child turns 21 to seek most immigration benefits. A child’s citizenship does not shield parents from deportation before then, though parenthood can be a discretionary factor in relief decisions.
Others argue the problem is limited and manageable under current laws. Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute said occasional fraud doesn’t justify reinterpreting a 150-year-old constitutional amendment and pointed to administrative actions—like the Trump administration’s 2020 instruction to deny tourist visas to pregnant women believed to be seeking birth tourism—as ways to address abuses. A 2022 Senate report found that the 2020 policy made operating birth tourism companies more difficult.
Some lawmakers also raise national security concerns. They suggest a child born in the U.S. could be raised overseas and later return as an operative for a foreign government. Defense analyst Andrew Badger said foreign governments could exploit citizenship, though he acknowledged a lack of direct evidence that this is happening. David Bier of the Cato Institute reviewed terrorism and espionage cases and said none followed this pattern. He also noted many parents come for legitimate reasons—economic opportunity, fleeing authoritarian rule, or family considerations—rather than to facilitate espionage.
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) has been cited as a birth tourism hotspot after 581 tourist births in 2018, many to Chinese nationals. Local officials and federal partners tightened controls, and CNMI reports tourist-related births dropped to 47 by 2025. CNMI’s delegate, Kimberlyn King-Hinds, warns that outdated characterizations harm the islands’ tourism-dependent economy.
In short, critics who call birthright citizenship a fraud issue point to birth tourism schemes and potential visa fraud as evidence that automatic citizenship can be exploited. Supporters counter that the scale appears limited, existing laws can address abuses, and there’s little evidence of systematic national-security exploitation, all while warning that altering the 14th Amendment’s long-settled interpretation would be a drastic step to solve a relatively small problem.
