HR-9850-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Randy Fine (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1546) to make it a federal crime for a person to knowingly enter the United States for the purpose of giving birth to a child — when neither parent is a U.S. national or lawful permanent resident — while misrepresenting that purpose on a visa application or entry document. If the child is born in the United States as a result, the bill would impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, up to the existing maximum of 25 years. It would also authorize federal district courts to order deportation of convicted individuals at the time of sentencing.
Who benefits
U.S. immigration enforcement agencies, which would gain an additional criminal statute and a streamlined deportation mechanism at sentencing. Advocates for stricter immigration enforcement who argue the practice strains public resources. Hospitals and local governments in high-volume birth tourism areas that may face reduced costs. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who compete for limited visa slots, if fraudulent applications are deterred.
Who is hurt
Foreign nationals who travel to the U.S. to give birth — including those who do so legally on tourist visas, which do not prohibit giving birth — and who may face criminal exposure if their stated travel purpose is disputed. Children born under these circumstances, who could face statelessness or family separation if a parent is imprisoned and deported. Immigration attorneys and legal aid organizations that would face increased caseloads. Hospitals and medical providers who serve this population and could see reduced revenue. Countries whose nationals frequently use birth tourism, potentially affecting diplomatic relations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that birth tourism is a deliberate exploitation of the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship provision, allowing children to obtain U.S. citizenship — and eventually sponsor family members — through a planned misrepresentation on a visa application. They contend that existing visa fraud statutes already prohibit misrepresenting travel intent, and this bill simply clarifies and strengthens enforcement with penalties proportionate to the long-term immigration consequences, which can span decades and affect entire family chains.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that tourist visas do not legally prohibit giving birth in the United States, meaning many travelers are not actually misrepresenting their purpose under current law — making the bill's 10-year mandatory minimum potentially applicable to ambiguous or disputed intent. They contend that mandatory minimums of this severity are disproportionate under Eighth Amendment proportionality principles, and that the bill's judicial deportation order provision may conflict with the executive branch's exclusive authority over immigration removal proceedings, raising separation of powers concerns.
Constitutional context
The bill's mandatory minimum sentencing provision may face Eighth Amendment proportionality scrutiny, as courts have increasingly examined whether mandatory sentences are grossly disproportionate to the offense — an area of active litigation following Miller v. Alabama (2012). The provision granting federal district courts authority to order removal at sentencing also raises Article III and separation of powers questions, since immigration removal has traditionally been an executive branch function administered through the Department of Homeland Security.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOJ and DHS) gains a new criminal enforcement tool and streamlined deportation authority; the judicial branch is granted an unusual power to order removal at sentencing, which partially shifts deportation authority from the executive to the courts, though convictions remain subject to appellate review.
Historical precedent
The federal government has previously prosecuted birth tourism operators under existing visa fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1546), including a 2020 DOJ case against operators of birth tourism businesses in California, but no prior federal statute has established birth tourism itself as a distinct criminal offense with a mandatory minimum.