Trump targets ‘birth tourism’; wants evidence of parental citizenship for children’s passports

The US State Department is proposing new rules to tighten regulations around ‘birth tourism’. Under the draft guidance, parents applying for passports for their US-born children would need to provide proof of their own citizenship or immigration status.

The proposal follows President Donald Trump’s August 6 executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, particularly targeting ‘birth tourism’ where women travel to the US to give birth so their children can gain automatic citizenship. The order expands exceptions to birthright citizenship and requires parents or legal guardians to submit documents such as a valid US passport, birth certificate, I-94 form, or permanent residency card.

MUST READ | 'US in almost total control of Hormuz Strait': Donald Trump after US military's 'wave of strikes' against Iranian bases

“The Department will require parental information and evidence of parental citizenship or immigration status” as part of the determination, the draft guidance said, as per a report in Reuters.

The order also denies citizenship in cases where a parent works for a foreign government in the US, is involved in fraud or commercial transactions to obtain citizenship, or is classified as an "alien enemy."

Currently, parents applying for passports for US-born children must establish parentage and provide photo identification but are not required to submit proof of citizenship. This move is part of the Trump administration’s broader immigration crackdown and follows an earlier executive order that was struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the 14th Amendment.

DON'T MISS | 'Kharg Island being blown to...': Strait of Hormuz tensions surge as Trump threatens Iran

Legal challenges to the latest order are underway. Lawyers representing affected children have asked federal judges to block the policy. During a recent hearing, US District Judge Deborah Boardman expressed doubts about the order and allowed revisions to the lawsuit for further consideration. The Justice Department has argued that the challenge is premature as public guidance on the order’s implementation has not yet been issued.