The Trump administration has proposed a new policy to address immigration into the United States. The State Department is amending its B nonimmigrant visa regulation to deny applicants who are suspected of traveling to the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child. In other words, pregnant women could be banned from entering the U.S. unless they prove they will not give birth during their stay.  This policy has already gone into effect as of January 24, 2020 and is meant to enforce the Trump administration’s conservative grip on immigration.

The ethics of this so-called “birth tourism” have been widely discussed. Expectant mothers coming to the United States to grant their children birthright citizenship are legally allowed to do so—as long as they claim it to be the purpose of their visit. Many refer to the children as “anchor babies”, given their ability as U.S. birthright citizens to grant their parents eligibility to apply for a green card at the age of 21. Guardians and family members are able to qualify for this regardless of parents or guardians' legal  or illegal U.S. citizenship status This term sent the public into a frenzy—the backlash that ensued was widespread and continues today. Millions of people claimed that it was dehumanizing to imply immigrants only have babies to serve as “anchors”' in order to  ward off deportation. It is true that this birthright makes it much easier for parents or legal guardians to obtain U.S. citizenship for themselves in the future, yet many claim it offensive to argue that immigrants, unlike Americans, are having babies for all the wrong “immoral” reasons. Undocumented residents can be deported at any time if they are not protected by acts like Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) or the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) for undocumented students. The increase of illegal immigration struck fear within the Trump administration given the fact that there are now so many ways in which immigrants can eventually become residents, and later citizens, through the birthright immigration or acts such as DACA and the Dream Act. The administration argues that, if this path to legal residency continues, the economy and job market will soon become so crowded that nonimmigrant American residents or citizens will have less economic and job opportunities.

This issue is not new. Birthright citizenship has been in place for many decades, causing a number of people to benefit from its contents. Maternity hotels that cater to women hoping to give birth to their children in the U.S. have been around for a long time. An article on the ethics of these hotels and the women who enjoy their services wrote that the women who come to the U.S. pay as much as $20,000 to stay for several months. The citizenship that their children are granted allows them to return to the U.S. with access to free public schools and low-interest student loans—as opposed to the costly option of paying to attend these schools as international students. Initially the publicly funded schools were available only to white children, but today the privilege of education is granted to all citizens of the United States. Through decades of reform, the government has also created a system to fund documented students with low-interest loans if they choose to pursue higher education. In California, the Dream Act and Assembly Bill 540 now also help provide students with the same rates of tuition for undocumented students. Women who move or simply visit the U.S. to provide their children with the opportunity of better and more affordable education do so in order to allow their children more options for education in comparison to what they might be offered in their own country.  In light of the possibilities that these women consider for their children, the seemingly outrageous expenses paid at maternity hotels appear to be worth both the risk and the cost.

The United States government has certainly done its part in trying to control these maternity hotels in the past. In 2015, a federal sting operation was done to target and raid various complexes in Southern California that doubled as “maternity hotels”. In another raid, Homeland Security raided the Carlyle—a set of luxury apartments in Irvine, California—where mothers were paying up to an alleged $80,000 for these services. The services that the Carlyle provided were advice on how to obtain tourist visas while withholding important personal information, recommendations on cities for flight layovers and information for transports between doctor visits and other recreational stops. Furthermore, these womens’ handlers strike deals with certain hospitals to grant expectant mothers large discounts to deliver their babies. This translated into big financial losses for the hospitals. The government opened investigations into these maternity hotels because of the potential threat and abuse of taxpayer’s dollars that these businesses posed. The investigation that motivated the raids was not aimed at the women, rather it was reportedly targeted at the individuals that pocketed the tax-free money of these women. The hotels, apartments and even hospitals that accepted these deals were under examination—taxpayers had not signed up to pay for these services and a closer look at where their money was going had to be done. The women’s visits were completely legal—it is only the people who profit from hosting and aiding the traveling women in their efforts to have children in the U.S. that violate the law.    

In light of this information, it should be asked whether the Trump administration made the right choice in enacting such a policy. It certainly eliminates the underground market for maternity hotels and the abuse of tax-paying hospital facilities and relieves those who might feel financially damaged by this kind of business. Theoretically, that would include all taxpayers, if these businesses and hotels are found guilty of using their money to fund the births of these children. The hospitals that accept and serve these women under discounted deals are affected as well, both financially and also staff-wise, given that they must repurpose some of their nurses and doctors to help these women instead of those who come as regular patients. The birthright tourism that occurs in the U.S. is completely legal, but is it legal, or even moral, to turn it into a business? 

 Ultimately, the State Department has not provided reasons for how this type of “tourism” might be considered harmful to the country. So, we have to wonder why the government is pushing back so hard on a policy that does not seem to be posing a real threat to United States security. What is being protected by enacting this policy? President Trump has a history of enacting anti-immigration policies—he often claims that in his mind it is “America First”. In 2017, his administration imposed what some coined the “Muslim ban” to restrict the influx of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, and has also poured in millions of dollars to fund a border wall with Mexico to block off immigration from the U.S. southern border as well. Although he claims to impose bans like these in order to protect the U.S. national security, the new B nonimmigrant visa regulation policy is more likely angled to further stop the flow of immigration into the United States rather than “protect” U.S. citizens. The issue and morality of “anchor babies” is already surrounded by a lot of controversy—by cracking down on “birth tourism”, it seems this amendment will simply trigger more protests and backlash for the administration to deal with.