Some\n33,000 foreign nationals give birth to babies in America each year while\nallegedly vacationing in the U.S., gaining citizenship for those children, and\nultimately themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But,\nwait, there\u2019s more. Much more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBirth\ntourists\u201d are joined by a host of foreign students, guest workers\nand others on long-term temporary visas who deliver 39,000 additional newborns\nhere annually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThese births are in addition to the nearly 300,000<\/em> births each year to illegal immigrants,\u201d the Center for Immigration Studies<\/a> (CIS) reported in a new study. In each instance, the newborns are automatically granted citizenship by the U.S. While several other countries<\/a>, mainly in the Western Hemisphere, follow this policy, the legal foundation for the U.S. practice is shaky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n News stories<\/a> have focused on birth tourism, where pregnant foreign nationals strategically time their arrival to the U.S. shortly before their due dates so their offspring are born in the United States and are automatically awarded U.S. citizenship. Upon reaching age 21, the children can sponsor their parents for citizenship, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The CIS figures,\ngleaned from government data, raise larger concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the Immigration Reform Law Institute<\/a> (IRLI), neither the children of tourists nor those of illegal aliens or temporary residents are guaranteed citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. \u201cMuch of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong,\u201d IRLI declares.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Going back to an 1898 case<\/a>, United States v. Wong Kim Ark<\/a><\/em>, IRLI notes that the Supreme Court ruled a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, legally resided here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[The\ncourt\u2019s ruling] clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S.\nresidents from constitutional birthright citizenship. The court\u2019s decision has\nbeen incorrectly applied for 120 years,\u201d IRLI concludes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhether\none is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one\nwas born in the United States to a U.S.-resident parent who, at the time, both\nhad permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate\nallegiance to the United States,\u201d IRLI states. \u201cThis rule excludes the children\nof both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and\ntourists (who do not \u2018reside\u2019 here) from constitutional birthright\ncitizenship.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other critics of birthright citizenship point out that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to confer citizenship on freed slaves after the Civil War<\/a>. A footnote<\/a> in a 1982 decision is the closest the Supreme Court has come to asserting that privilege extends to so-called \u201canchor babies\u201d born to foreigners. But an unargued footnote constitutes neither law nor precedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n