A Catholic legal group criticized President Donald Trump’s executive orders to restrict birthright citizenship, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is reviewing and monitoring them.
The executive orders issued Aug. 6 direct the government to stop allowing foreign visitors to enter the United States on short‑term visas for the purpose of giving birth and impose a narrower limit on birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a broader attempt to end citizenship for children born to people in the country temporarily or unlawfully.
One executive order would end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are not U.S. citizens and engage in a commercial transaction or fraudulent activity to ensure the mother is inside U.S. territory to give birth. It also would end birthright citizenship for a child born of a parent considered an “alien enemy,” including members of terrorist organizations.
A second executive order titled “Ending Birth Tourism” authorizes federal departments to implement rules that prevent the entry of pregnant foreign women seeking to give birth in the United States and allow removal if they enter the country. The order refers to noncitizens entering the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth on American soil and efforts from a foreign national to coordinate such entries.
Under existing State Department guidance, consular officers can deny a B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa if they believe the applicant’s primary purpose is to give birth in the U.S. to obtain citizenship for the child.
Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), criticized the birthright citizenship executive order in a statement to EWTN News.
“The Supreme Court has already spoken: birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution,” Gallagher said.
“This latest attempt by the Trump administration to circumvent settled law only creates needless fear and uncertainty for immigrant families,” she added. “Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and welcome the stranger — not seek new ways to exclude them.”
The USCCB has not taken a clear position on the executive orders yet, but it is monitoring how they are enforced and potential judicial proceedings.
“The USCCB supports the application of constitutional principles and the rule of law in a manner consistent with the God-given dignity of every human person,” USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi told EWTN News.
“We’re reviewing the executive orders and will continue to monitor for administrative actions taken and possible judicial proceedings concerning their implementation,” she said.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects automatic birthright citizenship with few exceptions. The protection extends to children who are born to people who are in the country unlawfully.
Although the majority opinion did not directly address “birth tourism,” it did clearly say birthright citizenship applies to the children of parents who are “unlawfully or temporarily present” in the country.
The “birth tourism” concern appeared in the dissents authored by both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Alito, in his dissent, wrote that he believed the majority’s opinion protects birthright citizenship to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’” though saying he does not not agree with the ruling.
Thomas wrote in his dissent that people have taken advantage of birthright citizenship through “birth tourism” and said there are companies that “collect large fees from wealthy foreigners to facilitate their trips to give birth in the United States.”
However, in the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that words like “temporary” and “lawful” do not appear in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment: “For a simple reason: they did not matter.”
Ashley Feasley, a legal expert for the Immigration Law and Policy Initiative at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News she believes the executive orders are “an attempt to undermine” the Supreme Court.
“Although they will almost certainly face legal challenge, in the interim they will place a profound burden on some of the most vulnerable migrants, pregnant women, and on the officers who work diligently to defend our borders,” she said.
“Requiring Department of Homeland Security officials to interrogate women, many of whom have legal visas, about their pregnancies, even turning them away from ports of entry without clearly defined criteria for doing so, risks harming both woman and unborn child and diverts DHS officers’ attention from the vital missions of border security and trade facilitation,” Feasley said.
Legal challenges have not yet been filed.
