President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Thursday trying to restrict birthright citizenship and so-called “birth tourism.”
“We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright,” Trump told reporters on Thursday at the White House. “So we’re making adjustments because it’s very unfair.”
Trump criticized people who are “building businesses” around birthright citizenship, arguing it was introduced after the Civil War to ensure the children of slaves were considered citizens.
“It’s a disgrace,” he said, claiming “hundreds of thousands” of people were taking advantage of birth tourism. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”
Thursday’s executive orders, however, also deny birthright citizenship for children of some foreign diplomats born in the United States and, potentially, in U.S. territories.
The orders will likely be challenged in court under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to almost every child born in America, particularly its provisions regarding children born in U.S. territories, since only Congress can act to end their citizenship.
The orders, which apply to future births, similarly deny birthright citizenship to children of people who are classified as alien enemies, including members of federally declared terrorist groups, in addition to children of mothers who expressly and deceptively enter the U.S. to give birth to their child.
One of the orders, too, specifically seeks to limit the use of surrogate mothers for this purpose as well.
VANCE STEERS CLEAR OF MAX MILLER CONTROVERSY — FOR NOW
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller contended that the administration was leveraging the Supreme Court’s June decision to “expand the definitions of people who are ineligible for birthright citizenship” under section 215A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” he said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”