Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

ASEAN NOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Trump Orders Limits On Birthright Citizenship

Featured Replies

President Trump signed two executive orders on Thursday aimed at tightening eligibility for automatic citizenship for children born in the United States, following a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutional basis for birthright citizenship.

Supreme Court Ruling Spurs new Moves

In late June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous “Day 1” order, which sought to end citizenship by birth for children born on US soil. The court said the plan conflicted with the 14th Amendment, which protects the citizenship rights of people born in the country.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said the Supreme Court decision was “unfortunate” and described it as close, adding that he would make “adjustments” because he believed the outcome was unfair.

Expanding Who Could Be Barred From Automatic Citizenship

One of the new orders broadens the category of people said to be ineligible for automatic citizenship. According to administration officials, the order would treat certain groups as not covered by the Citizenship Clause, including “alien enemies of the United States”, members of foreign terrorist organisations, and “large categories of people who lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments”.

Officials said the move is intended to work around the framework used by courts to identify exceptions to birthright citizenship. Courts have long recognised four exceptions tied to the Citizenship Clause: children born in the US to foreign sovereigns and diplomats, now referenced in the order; children born to foreign forces during a hostile occupation; children born on foreign public ships; and children of Native American tribes.

It was unclear, however, how the administration would determine who would fall within the description of people who “lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments” or how that would apply in practice.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said the order ensures that “large numbers” who would otherwise qualify for birthright citizenship would no longer be eligible for benefits.

Order Targets “Birth Tourism” Practice

The second executive order focuses on what the administration calls “birth tourism”. The practice involves travelling to another country with the primary purpose of giving birth there so that the child automatically becomes a citizen of that country.

US law already makes such conduct illegal when it involves visa or immigration fraud, and the practice has become a political focus for the right. Trump said birthright citizenship was originally intended for “the babies of slaves”. He argued that recent patterns were different, alleging that “wealthy people” have built businesses around the practice and that the US should not allow it.

He also claimed that “hundreds of thousands” take advantage of birth tourism, though data cited in the article suggests those estimates are inflated.

Trump said the original policy applied shortly after the Civil War ended, adding that it was not intended for families he described as arriving with multiple children.

Citing Immigration Law For Denying Visas

Miller said Trump has authority to pursue the new approach under Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He described it as a provision that governs the travel of non-citizens into and out of the country and said it is rarely used.

Miller argued that if someone tells a consular officer they are coming as a tourist but intends to give birth for the purpose of securing citizenship for the child, they are committing fraud against the government. He said, based on that reasoning, the relevant visa “can and should and will be now denied”.

Join the discussion? Create account. orange.png


image.png

7 August 2026


View full article

  • Replies 66
  • Views 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • More meat for his dwindling base in my view + it ain’t gonna pass but it does keep people talking about him.what an absolutely ugly specimen of a man.

  • Both!miller is the Jewish version of Himmler he’s just using the racist hate tool on a different minority.they are both vandals and a cancer on humanity in my view.we need to put them in the dustbin o

  • spidermike007
    spidermike007

    Miller is a pig, and so is Trump. Don considers himself above any and all laws. After all he has spent his life grifting, stealing, raping, molesting, and never been jailed. So he continues to defy th

Posted Images

  • Popular Post

More meat for his dwindling base in my view + it ain’t gonna pass but it does keep people talking about him.what an absolutely ugly specimen of a man.

46 minutes ago, Tug said:

...what an absolutely ugly specimen of a man.

Trump or Miller?

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, JAG said:

Trump or Miller?

Both!miller is the Jewish version of Himmler he’s just using the racist hate tool on a different minority.they are both vandals and a cancer on humanity in my view.we need to put them in the dustbin of hell.

  • Popular Post

Miller is a pig, and so is Trump. Don considers himself above any and all laws. After all he has spent his life grifting, stealing, raping, molesting, and never been jailed. So he continues to defy the courts, as the current king of America.

46J2Z7ZO2ZBGLNCL7VOYNP34AM.jpg

President Trump signed executive orders targeting the "birth tourism industry" and restricting birthright citizenship. Administration officials asserted that foreign nationals engage in fraud by entering the U.S. on tourist visas to give birth and secure citizenship for their children, prompting legal challenges from civil rights groups.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6015054-trump-executive-orders-birthright-citizenship-birth-tourism/

NB DJT is just mad that he missed out on that industry.

  • Popular Post

None of these supposed exceptions has any connection whatsoever to the reasoning in the Supreme Court's decision, and in fact are very obviously in conflict with it. Even if they were legitimate, it would be up to Congress to pass a law to that effect - an Executive Order wouldn't cut it. And by the way, Steven Miller, "mom committed visa fraud" does NOT translate into "child is not a US citizen by birth" - two completely separate issues.

  • Popular Post

Birthright citizenship was amended into the constitution at a time when traveling required weeks or months and cost a fortune. Birth tourism (and tourism in general) was non-existent back then. The modern interpretation where someone can just pop into the country at 9 months pregnant, give birth, and the child is automatically a citizen is ridiculous and was not the intention of the amendment. The funny thing is that most people who will comment here against limiting it are not Americans and in their own countries birthright citizenship does not exist...

  • Popular Post
18 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

And by the way, Steven Miller, "mom committed visa fraud" does NOT translate into "child is not a US citizen by birth" - two completely separate issues.

That's EXACTLY what it means in most countries around the world. No reason why the US is special and should allow it.

  • Popular Post
1 minute ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

That's EXACTLY what it means in most countries around the world. No reason why the US is special and should allow it.

I guess I must have been absent from school the day they taught that the US follows "the practice of most countries around the world" rather than "the US Constitution".

6 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

The modern interpretation where someone can just pop into the country at 9 months pregnant, give birth, and the child is automatically a citizen is ridiculous and was not the intention of the amendment.

Kind of like the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment where anyone can carry an assault rifle in the street, rather than a member of a state militia carrying a musket or sword?

  • Popular Post
4 hours ago, Tug said:

“it ain’t gonna pass”

It’s not a bill so there’s nothing to pass. It’s an EO that the administration will action, at least until the lawsuits begin. What a clown show we are in.

8 minutes ago, Front Row said:

It’s not a bill so there’s nothing to pass. It’s an EO that the administration will action, at least until the lawsuits begin. What a clown show we are in.

Well for Mr. Tug then say it ain't gonna pass muster.

  • Popular Post
39 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

Birthright citizenship was amended into the constitution at a time when traveling required weeks or months and cost a fortune. Birth tourism (and tourism in general) was non-existent back then.

That was the gist of an encounter between Chief Justice Roberts and Solicitor General Sauer during oral hearing:

Sauer as close to above namely: 9 billion people are now a plane ride away from entering US. Things have changed.

Roberts: The Constitution hasn't changed.

  • Popular Post
29 minutes ago, Front Row said:

It’s not a bill so there’s nothing to pass. It’s an EO that the administration will action, at least until the lawsuits begin. What a clown show we are in.

Agreed. Trump is the closest thing to a circus clown America's ever had as a president, and we've had a few that were pretty marginal.

The amazing thing is that he doesn't even have enough self-awareness to know what a sick joke he is, and unfortunately neither do many of his supporters.

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

So he continues to defy the courts, as the current king of America.

Why should "the courts" have more power than a President?

And what makes "the courts" infallible and all-knowing that they can do no wrong?

I don't agree with anything about MAGA and their sect leader, except the policy of removal of birthright citizenship.

Forty years ago this month, Australia amended the Citizenship Act legislation to eliminate this type of automatic citizenship right. (It's not a specific part of the Australian Constitution)

This had become a concern in the years leading up to the end of the British lease on the territory of Hong Kong, as many residents there were concerned about changes under a Chinese govt. "Birth tourism" was common as many families wanted an alternate escape plan if things went bad.

Different rules apply to NZers as Australia values and abide by agreements with their close friends and allies.

  • Popular Post

For a party that claims to be all about law and order and defending the constitution, they sure have a president who wipes his @ss with all of that. And they all clap and cheer and do nothing to stop it. Spineless wimps, the lot of them.

  • Popular Post
39 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Why should "the courts" have more power than a President?

And what makes "the courts" infallible and all-knowing that they can do no wrong?

It's a fairly simple principle called "separation of powers": the executive, the courts, and the legislature. In the US system, the president cannot unilaterally change the constitution. If the president has power over the courts, then we are essentially in a dictatorship. And I'm afraid we're pretty close to that already.

42 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Why should "the courts" have more power than a President?

And what makes "the courts" infallible and all-knowing that they can do no wrong?

I would ask Gouverneur Morris who is credited writing much of the final text of the US Constitution but he has been dead for over 200 years.

Edited by JerryM

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

It's a fairly simple principle called "separation of powers": the executive, the courts, and the legislature. In the US system, the president cannot unilaterally change the constitution. If the president has power over the courts, then we are essentially in a dictatorship. And I'm afraid we're pretty close to that already.

But people seem to think if ONE person makes decisions, it's bad.

Compared to a bunch of different people, that somehow protects you from bad decisions.

The ONE guy may be a genius and the whatever number of court guys may be idiots.

After he loses the midterms, Trump will cut a deal with the Democrats and pass a big illegal alien amnesty bill. Just watch it happen.

  • Popular Post

It is a slippery slope downhill for USA if a President and Congress can made changes to the Constitution without going through the proper process in Article 5. Trump is always undermining and testing the limits of the constitution to gain power.

Edited by Eric Loh
Add word

  • Popular Post
18 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

But people seem to think if ONE person makes decisions, it's bad.

Compared to a bunch of different people, that somehow protects you from bad decisions.

The ONE guy may be a genius and the whatever number of court guys may be idiots.

Well, if the "ONE guy" making decisions is Donald Trump -- I got news, he ain't no genius!

Maybe he should turn his focus on measures that are legal and benefit ordinary Americans.

  • Popular Post
3 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

Birthright citizenship was amended into the constitution at a time when traveling required weeks or months and cost a fortune. Birth tourism (and tourism in general) was non-existent back then. The modern interpretation where someone can just pop into the country at 9 months pregnant, give birth, and the child is automatically a citizen is ridiculous and was not the intention of the amendment. The funny thing is that most people who will comment here against limiting it are not Americans and in their own countries birthright citizenship does not exist...

The funny thing is you are wrong. 33 countries in the world have unconditional birthright citizenship while the rest have conditional birthright citizenship. Anyway, this is about Trump trying to circumvent the constitution for political gain. Go through the proper process enshrined in the constitution if he think has the moral high ground and that the majority of people agree with him.

  • Popular Post

Numbers are minuscule ....all political theatre.....red meat for the MAGA crowd to get excited about and .....knowing perfectly well it will be thrown out by the courts......another opportunity to cry about the judiciary....truly pathetic.

This will again fail in court like so many of his orders. Taxpayers will be on the receiving end of the mounting court loses

Trump’s Court Losses Leave Taxpayers Facing Millions in Legal Fees

  • Popular Post

I am not a fan of Trump but agree with this item. In Vancouver, Chinese baby houses have existed for ages where the Chinese women

go to give birth on a tourist visa. Automatic citizenship for the kid, then parents, brothers , sisters, grandparents, etc. Canada is fast asleep and being abused left and right.

There is no official tally of babies born to tourists on American soil. In its most recent estimate in 2020, the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports restricting immigration, put the number at around 20,000 to 26,000 babies a year.

That is less than 1 percent of the number of babies born in the United States in 2020, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/supreme-court-birth-tourism-birthright-citizenship.html

A study led by researchers at Penn State University reviewed historical natality records and concluded that "birth tourism" births consistently sit between 5,000 and 10,000 annually.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/birthright-citizenship-birth-tourism-fact-check/71800161

NB China citizens do not qualify for visa waiver program -- they must apply for a tourist visa at a US embassy or consulate.

The Visa waiver program (for 42 countries) is for 90 day maximum stay so to time a pregnancy and still allowed entry to US (i.e. not showing pregnancy) is pretty tight

Edited by JerryM

What is meant by "...children of Native American tribes"? According to existing laws, all Native Americans born in the United States are U.S. citizens, a status formally granted by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Even if "American tribes" refers to tribes throughout the Americas, which includes North, Central, and South America, the designation of "children of Native American tribes in the USA" would still be against existing laws.

If anyone has a better explanation of what this means, please let me know.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.