Birth Tourism Elimination Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to deter and penalize "birth tourism" by making it a specific ground for immigration inadmissibility and removal, while also increasing criminal penalties for facilitators and imposing a presumption of intent on pregnant visa applicants.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly define birth tourism as a basis for inadmissibility to the United States, denial of B-2 tourist visas, and expedited removal. It codifies existing Department of State rules regarding visa eligibility, prohibits the use of Visa Waiver Programs for birth tourism, and significantly enhances criminal penalties for individuals and entities that facilitate or profit from such activities. The bill also establishes a presumption that pregnant visa applicants are traveling for birth tourism, which they must rebut.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is essential to preserve the integrity of the United States immigration system and prevent the abuse of temporary visitor programs. They contend that birth tourism undermines the value of American citizenship, often leads to uncompensated medical expenses borne by U.S. taxpayers, and is facilitated by organized networks that exploit legal loopholes. Codifying and strengthening existing policies will ensure the rule of law.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that certain provisions, particularly the presumption against pregnant visa applicants, could lead to discriminatory profiling and increased scrutiny of legitimate travelers, including those seeking essential medical care or those with U.S. citizen family ties. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for arbitrary denials of admission and due process implications for individuals subjected to expedited removal based on a subjective determination of intent.
The bill is concise and its provisions are generally clear, allowing for a thorough understanding within a reasonable timeframe for an informed reader.
Section 3(a), amending INA 212(a)(10)
Establishes Inadmissibility for Birth Tourism
This provision makes any alien inadmissible to the United States if their primary purpose for seeking admission as a nonimmigrant under a B visa is to give birth in the U.S. to obtain citizenship for the child. It includes specific exceptions, clarifying that it does not apply to aliens seeking legitimate medical treatment where obtaining citizenship for the child is not the primary purpose, nor to aliens carrying the biological offspring of a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or a person granted permanent resident status as a refugee or asylee. This aims to target intentional abuse while protecting legitimate cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision closes a significant loophole in immigration law, preventing individuals from exploiting birthright citizenship by traveling to the U.S. solely for that purpose. They contend it upholds the integrity of the immigration system.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is to target abuse, the determination of 'primary purpose' can be subjective and could lead to increased scrutiny and potential discrimination against pregnant individuals, even those with legitimate reasons for travel.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of preventing perceived abuses of the immigration system with the need to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate travelers and the complexities of determining an individual's primary intent.
Section 3(b), amending INA 212(d)
Authority to Deny Admission Based on Reasonable Belief of Birth Tourism
This section grants explicit authority to consular officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers to deny admission to any alien if such officer has a "reasonable belief" that the primary purpose of the alien's travel is to obtain United States citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. This provides a clear legal basis for frontline officers to act on suspicions of birth tourism.
Section 4, amending INA 212(q)
Defines 'Pleasure' for B-2 Visas and Establishes Presumption for Pregnant Applicants
This provision explicitly states that the term 'pleasure' for B-2 nonimmigrant visas does not include obtaining a visa for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the U.S. Crucially, it establishes a presumption that any applicant for a B-2 visa who a consular officer has reason to believe would give birth during their stay is traveling for birth tourism. The applicant may rebut this presumption by establishing a legitimate primary purpose. It also clarifies strict requirements for aliens seeking medical treatment visas.
Section 7, amending INA 235(b)(1)
Includes Birth Tourism as a Ground for Expedited Removal
This provision amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include inadmissibility for birth tourism as a ground for expedited removal. This means that aliens found inadmissible for birth tourism can be removed from the United States without a full immigration hearing. It also specifies that such aliens may be removed to the country from which they traveled, unless they voluntarily withdraw their application for admission. A crucial carve-out states this does not apply if the birth in the U.S. is incidental to the alien's lawful admission.
Section 8, amending 18 U.S.C. 1425
Increases Criminal Penalties for Birth Tourism Facilitators
This provision amends federal criminal law to specifically criminalize knowingly facilitating, sponsoring, organizing, advertising, profiting from, or aiding and abetting birth tourism. This includes actions taken independently or on behalf of an entity, including a foreign entity of concern. It significantly increases the maximum penalty for such offenses to 15 years imprisonment, aiming to deter and punish those who operate commercial birth tourism schemes.
This clause provides crucial exceptions to the inadmissibility rule for birth tourism, specifically for aliens seeking legitimate medical treatment (where citizenship is not the primary purpose) and for aliens carrying the biological offspring of a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, refugee, or asylee.
Section 3(a)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include clarifying exceptions within a general rule, ensuring the policy targets specific behavior without unintended broad impacts.
Case for: Supporters argue these exceptions are vital to ensure the bill does not inadvertently penalize individuals with legitimate reasons for travel or those with existing ties to the U.S. through family.
Case against: Critics might argue that the 'primary purpose' clause for medical treatment still leaves room for subjective interpretation, potentially creating hurdles for legitimate patients.
Estimated impact: These exceptions significantly narrow the scope of the inadmissibility ground, protecting a substantial number of legitimate travelers who might otherwise be affected.
This clause establishes a legal presumption that any applicant for a B-2 nonimmigrant visa whom a consular officer has reason to believe would give birth during her stay in the United States is presumed to be traveling for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for such child.
Section 4(2)(C)(i)
Why it matters:This is a technically phrased procedural mechanism designed to shift the burden of proof, which is a common legislative technique but can be easily overlooked by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue this presumption is a necessary and effective tool for consular officers to screen out birth tourism applicants, as intent is difficult to prove directly. It places the burden on the applicant to demonstrate a legitimate purpose.
Case against: Opponents contend this presumption is highly problematic, potentially leading to discriminatory profiling of pregnant individuals and placing an unfair burden on them to prove a negative or subjective intent, even for legitimate travel.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly increase the difficulty for pregnant foreign nationals to obtain B-2 visas, potentially affecting thousands of applicants annually.
This clause specifies that the expedited removal provisions for birth tourism do not apply to any alien woman who gives birth in the United States if such birth is incidental to her lawful admission to the United States.
Section 7(H)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique to include a limiting or clarifying clause at the end of a section, ensuring the primary intent is clear while addressing specific edge cases.
Case for: Supporters argue this carve-out is essential to prevent the expedited removal of individuals who are lawfully present in the U.S. and whose pregnancy or birth was not the primary, unlawful purpose of their entry.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this clarifying exception, as it aligns with principles of fairness and due process for lawful visitors.
Estimated impact: This exception protects a potentially small but significant number of individuals who might otherwise be inadvertently caught by the expedited removal provisions, ensuring the focus remains on intentional birth tourism.