WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Randy Fine of Florida announced legislation Wednesday, July 22, that would make birth tourism a federal crime. The proposal would authorize prison terms of 10 to 25 years and require deportation orders for convicted parents.
Fine said the measure targets noncitizens who travel to the United States solely to give birth. It would also cover people who knowingly arrange such travel or misrepresent its purpose when entering the country. Fine announced the legislation after a major Supreme Court ruling.
The proposed law would not cancel the citizenship of a child born in the United States. Instead, it would impose criminal and immigration consequences on the parents and others involved.
Bill Targets Parents and Facilitators
The proposed penalties would apply to adults who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Fine said his goal is to discourage people from using temporary travel to obtain citizenship for a newborn.
Under the proposal, a federal judge would be required to issue a deportation order against a convicted parent. That person could face removal from the country after completing a prison sentence.
The child would remain a U.S. citizen and retain the right to live in the United States. However, deporting both parents could leave the family deciding whether the child remains with another guardian or leaves the country.
Fine has argued that birth tourism imposes high costs on American taxpayers. He did not provide a nationwide financial analysis supporting the specific cost estimates he cited.
No reliable national count shows how many visitors enter the United States primarily to give birth. During Supreme Court arguments in April, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said thousands may have participated but acknowledged that the precise number is unknown.
Supreme Court Protected Citizenship Right
The proposal followed the Supreme Court’s June ruling, which rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. The justices ruled 6-3 on June 30 that Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment.
Trump’s order would have denied citizenship to some U.S.-born children when neither parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. It applied to children of undocumented immigrants and some people temporarily living in the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion, joined by four other justices on the constitutional issue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome but relied on federal law rather than the Constitution.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The ruling upheld lower-court decisions that had prevented Trump’s order from taking effect.
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to people born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Courts recognize narrow exceptions, including children born to foreign diplomats.
The decision also relied on the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court held that a San Francisco-born man was a citizen even though his parents were Chinese nationals.
Trump said on July 8 that he would ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the case. Such requests are rarely granted after the court issues a decision in an argued case.
Visa Rules Already Restrict Birth Tourism
Federal policy already prohibits using visitor visas for trips primarily intended to secure citizenship through childbirth. The State Department visa policy took effect in January 2020.
Consular officers may deny a B visa when they believe birth tourism is the applicant’s main purpose. The policy does not automatically bar every pregnant traveler from entering the country.
People seeking legitimate medical treatment may still apply for visitor visas. Officials can request a medical diagnosis, confirmation from a U.S. provider and proof that the traveler can pay all expenses.
Existing federal statutes can also punish visa fraud, false statements and money laundering. Fine’s proposal would create a separate criminal offense focused on the stated purpose of the trip.
That distinction could become central during congressional review. Lawmakers would need to define how prosecutors must prove that childbirth was the sole purpose of entering the United States.
Visa applications, medical appointments, housing arrangements and communications with organizers could become evidence. Prosecutors would still have to prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Previous Cases Focused on Fraud
Federal prosecutors have charged operators who sold birth tourism packages and instructed clients to conceal their plans from immigration officials.
In September 2024, a federal jury convicted two Southern California residents connected to a business serving clients from China. Justice Department case records said the company provided housing, transportation, and immigration guidance.
Prosecutors said clients falsely described their travel as tourism and understated the length of their planned visits. The defendants were convicted of conspiracy and international money laundering, not a standalone birth tourism crime.
Those cases demonstrate that authorities can prosecute financial and immigration fraud connected to the practice. Fine’s proposal would go further by targeting the underlying travel and anyone who knowingly facilitated it.
A U.S.-born child also cannot immediately obtain permanent residence for a parent. USCIS family petition guidance requires the citizen child to be at least 21 years old.
Proposal Awaits Congressional Action
Public opinion remains divided over the broader citizenship debate. A June Reuters Ipsos survey found that 55% opposed ending birthright citizenship, while 41% supported ending it.
The poll did not ask respondents about Fine’s prison proposal. Congress would separately have to examine its sentencing range, deportation requirement and treatment of medical emergencies.
Fine’s announcement did not identify a bill number, committee assignment or hearing date. The proposal must move through the House committee process before lawmakers can consider amendments or schedule a floor vote.
