Never surrender
Although there have been previous attempts to curtail birth tourism via Cabinet-level directives, this appears to be the first of its kind as far as addressing the issue via a direct order from the White House is concerned.
Text size
Although there have been previous attempts to curtail birth tourism via Cabinet-level directives, this appears to be the first of its kind as far as addressing the issue via a direct order from the White House is concerned.
Spiky hairdo. New wave-style leather-denim combo. ‘80s MTV video. Surely, older members of the Gen X crowd wouldn’t forget the legendary clip of Canadian rock star Corey Hart belting out, in his signature raspy falsetto, the iconic lyrics of a Billboard chartbuster: “With a little perseverance you can get things done, without the blind adherence that has conquered some…”
In so many words, to Never Surrender.
Providentially, and several alphabetic generations later, it seems that the President of the United States (PoTUS) has found the enduring wisdom of Mr. Hart’s “never-say-die” lullaby.
And yet it’s true. No one, not even his MAGA detractors, can take away the PoTUS’s right to fight and to never surrender, even if he is lost and on his own.
Indeed, just a little more time is all he’s asking for.
Thus, it is no wonder that the PoTUS, in a move characterized by typical Trumpian bullheadedness, has suddenly issued a pair of Executive Orders (EO) to avenge his bruising defeat in his ongoing legal battle against the American version of birthright citizenship.
To get his points across, one of the EO’s expressly commands both the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to issue whatever rules necessary to prevent the entry of foreign nationals under any kind of nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil.
Although there have been previous attempts to curtail birth tourism via Cabinet-level directives, this appears to be the first of its kind as far as addressing the issue via a direct order from the White House is concerned.
Interestingly, the EO, in delegating the necessary rule-making authority to the relevant department heads, employs the phrase “to prevent the entry into the United States of, or the granting of any visa or other travel authorization to, any alien entering or attempting to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism.”
Since the “granting of any visa” is prohibited, does it mean that a pregnant F-2 or H-4 dependent of an F-1 student or H-1B worker can be refused a visa or be denied entry if there is intent to give birth on American soil?
As for the other EO, it disqualifies the children of alien enemies and foreign diplomats, as well as offspring of workers employed in foreign embassies of which they are citizens. Also excluded are children of international organization employees with immunity privileges. Despite being born in the US, these children will not be recognized as American citizens unless one of the parents is a US citizen.
Incidentally, a potential gray area is the use of the all-encompassing phrase “persons employed by a foreign government in an official capacity.” While ostensibly the targets are children of foreign agents, the phrase may improvidently ensnare untargeted individuals.
For example, the wife of a foreign government official attending a six-month professional course on public governance at Harvard University gives birth in the US. Is the child an American citizen?
Indeed, a couple of gray areas in both EO’s muddle the overall picture in such a way that looking into them is like staring through a pair of dark Sunglasses at Night. Unfortunately, even just a little uncertainty can bring you down.
Especially if nobody wants to show you how.
