More Musings on Anti-Birth-Tourism Efforts

I keep thinking about the new State Department rule establishing that “travel to the United States with the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States is an impermissible basis for the issuance of a B nonimmigrant visa.” As explained further on, the rule does this by creating “a rebuttable presumption that a B nonimmigrant visa applicant who a consular officer has reason to believe will give birth during her stay in the United States is traveling for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child.”

Here’s a critical piece of the puzzle. In many cases, B1/B2 visas have a 10 year lifespan. Check out the image with this post that I snagged off the interwebs. It was issued in 2010 and good through 2020. I know that time period has been common for B1/B2 visas issued out of Tijuana and likely is common in many places around the globe.

So, wouldn’t a smart woman, intent on birth tourism, seek a B1/B2 visa before getting pregnant, then actually utilize then visa when pregnant to have their child stateside?

How is the agency going to prevent such conduct? Will they issue B1/B2 visas with shorter lifespans (less than 9 months) for any woman of potentially fertile age? Will men continue to be eligible for 10 year visas while women will not?

Another way things might shift is if CBP starts denying entry to any visibly pregnant woman, regardless of the validity of their issued visa so long as they believe that the current travel is for impermissible birth tourism. But, then again, while expensive, wouldn’t the work-around be to come while not super pregnant? Say, 4 months and hiding well? 

As Kevin pointed out, there’s a real question about how common birth tourism is. We’ll have to wait and see how the issues surrounding this new rule play out in practice.

-KitJ