[Big read] When the American dream of birthright citizenship fades for Chinese parents

Liu Haolin and Xu Yun, a couple from Shanghai, China, initially thought their child would become a member of the “meibao” (美宝, lit. US babies) club, but their hopes were dashed by a sudden policy shift in the US.

Xu (30, UI/UX designer) told Lianhe Zaobao that the couple has two daughters. The eldest, aged three, was born in Thailand, while their youngest, a seven-month-old, was born in Chile. Currently, the family of four resides in Ecuador, South America.

“When I was pregnant with our first child, we discussed going to the US for the birth, but the pandemic put a stop to that. When Shanghai reopened, we decided to live in Thailand and had our eldest daughter there, but she still holds a Chinese passport.”

When Xu became pregnant with their second child, the couple naturally reconsidered having their child in the US. Unexpectedly, when US President Donald Trump took office, he signed a series of executive orders enforcing strict anti-immigration policies, adding uncertainty to birthright citizenship. In the end, their youngest daughter did not join the meibao club.

Meibao refers to children born in the US to foreign parents, who automatically receive US citizenship at birth.

Every year, many couples from around the world travel to the US to give birth, mainly hoping their children can have access to better educational resources or to pave the way for immigration in the future. Critics of birthright citizenship often derisively refer to meibao as “anchor babies”, implying that these children’s citizenship provides a foundation for their families to gain legal residency in the US. Regardless, as long as pregnant women declare their intention to give birth in the US during their visa application, it is not illegal to do so.

The first clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution passed in 1868, states that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” For over 150 years, the 14th Amendment has protected birthright citizenship, allowing children born in the US to acquire citizenship.

During his 2015 presidential campaign, Trump expressed opposition to birthright citizenship. In his first term, he limited visas for giving birth in the US to curb birth tourism. In January this year, during his second term, he signed an executive order attempting to change the interpretation of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, denying automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants or those with temporary visas.

Xu said: “We’ve been tracking this policy, although we don’t know how it will ultimately unfold. For pregnant women who wish to enter the US now, they might face significant risks such as visa rejections or being denied entry.”

Since the start of the year, many pregnant women who planned to give birth in the US have expressed their concerns on social media, their anxiety apparent in their posts. I contacted several maternity centres operating in the US, and most claimed that it was business as usual in “blue states” such as New York and California — but they admitted they could not guarantee that there would be no complications when pregnant women apply for visas.

Given the uncertainty of US policy, Xu and her husband began exploring other countries that guarantee birthright citizenship. After extensive research and consideration, the couple decided to abandon plans to give birth in the US, and instead went to Chile in South America. Late last year, the family travelled from Thailand to Chile to await the birth, and in February this year they successfully delivered their youngest daughter and obtained Chilean citizenship for her.

Xu admitted that choosing to give birth in Chile was an “unconventional” decision, but compared to the US or Canada, Chile offers several distinct advantages: overall costs are more affordable, the barriers for investment immigration are lower and it is comparatively easier for parents to obtain residency to accompany their children.

She revealed that the cost of giving birth in the US ranges from 400,000 to 500,000 RMB (US$56,084 to US$70,105), whereas in Chile it only costs between 100,000 to 200,000 RMB. “For me, the main reason I didn’t choose to have a child in the US is that we don’t have legal status there. The cost just doesn’t feel worth it, and the policies around birth tourism seem too uncertain.”

Xu emphasised that the initial decision to give birth abroad was to broaden her children’s horizons and provide them with more life options. In her view, Chile has one of the world’s “better passports”, enough to enhance the freedom of travel and residence.

According to the latest Henley Passport Index, Chilean passports rank at 14 globally, not far from the US at 10.

Another key consideration is that Chile can serve as a stepping stone, as citizens of Chile and other Latin American countries can apply for Spanish citizenship after legally residing there for two years. Xu’s children could use this to open doors to Europe. “I hope my daughters will have more opportunities to go to different countries in the future, be it for work, study or residence.”

After deciding to move to South America, Xu and her husband stayed in Chile for three months and are presently experiencing life in Ecuador. As for whether they will settle in Chile, Ecuador or move to another country in the future, Xu is keeping her options open, laughingly commenting that “moving countries is really exhausting”, and that everything will depend on pragmatic living and educational needs for the children.

Trump’s executive order disrupted many couples’ plans to have children in the US, with some pregnant women having to change their birth location due to visa rejections, in turn spurring an upturn in birth tourism in other countries.

Danis Iliasov, co-founder of Chile Kids, a Chilean immigration and birth travel services company, stated that since the company’s establishment in 2016, it has experienced two spikes: one after the pandemic restrictions were lifted, and one following Trump’s inauguration as US president.

He revealed that since the beginning of this year, inquiries about giving birth in Chile have increased by 30% year-on-year, and clients travelling to Chile to give birth have increased by 15% to 20%. The company’s clients mainly came from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine among other countries, with a steady increase in Chinese clients, helping over 270 babies obtain Chilean citizenship since its inception.

He stated that some clients previously gave birth in the US, but in recent months, due to visa rejections, they switched to Chile. “Personally, I know about three families in this situation.” Based on his experience, 75% of those who give birth in Chile return to their home countries, while the rest seek residency or citizenship.

He opined that if Trump’s executive order were to be implemented, it would undoubtedly impact the entire birth tourism industry. “At least half would abandon plans to give birth overseas, while the other half will be looking at other countries.”

Iliasov is optimistic about the prospects of Chile’s birth tourism industry and hopes to further expand into the Chinese market. To this end, he has even specially hired three staff proficient in Chinese. “People might not know much about Chile now, but I believe more and more people will come to understand it as a great country to live in.”

US rights groups say that although the executive order targeting birthright citizenship has yet to be implemented, its negative impact is already beginning to show.

Vanessa Gutierrez, deputy director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, a US non-governmental organisation, said in an interview that the current crackdown on undocumented immigrants has intensified, and even some legal immigrants are being deported, creating widespread fear among immigrant communities.

“We don’t know why they’re choosing certain individuals… Initially, it was criminal history, but now it’s far more reaching than criminals… The government is trying to paint people as these violent monsters, which is very far from the truth in most cases,” she noted.

She asserted that Trump’s series of anti-immigration policies are aimed at creating “chaos and fear”. Among local immigrant communities, reactions to the government’s plan to end birthright citizenship generally fall into two camps: some dismiss it as absurd and unlikely, while others are deeply concerned.

She opined, “They will change the view of migrants choosing to go to the US in the long run. And that’s going to have an economic impact on our country because we rely so heavily on immigrant labour and knowledge… and all the diversity that comes with that.”

Calvin Schermerhorn, a history professor at Arizona State University, said in an interview that if US courts reinterpret the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, US-born children of undocumented immigrants would be stripped of most civil rights and face deportation. He said, “Many would be stateless, having no citizenship claims to a nation outside the country of their birth… This would leave them in a permanent refugee situation and consequently without reliable access to education, medical care, food or a career path.”

He stressed that while cases of travelling to the US to give birth do exist, most immigrants and their families enter the US “to work and take asylum from violence, famine or environmental devastation, or other pressures”.

A February report released by US think tank Center for Immigration Studies found that roughly 225,000 to 250,000 children are born each year in the US to undocumented immigrants, accounting for around 7% of all births in the country. Another study from 2020 estimated that approximately 33,000 babies are born to women on tourist visas annually.

Gutierrez said that at present, some states may move to implement Trump’s anti-immigration policies — for example, by refusing to issue social security cards or other identification documents to children of undocumented immigrants. This could lead to a rise in legal challenges from individuals and organisations. However, the fact that different states or courts may adopt varying approaches to immigration matters makes legal consultation particularly complex.

She pointed out that some immigrants may choose to relocate to more immigration-friendly states, such as Washington or California. However, most lack the financial means to support such a move and are reluctant to uproot their lives once again.

A Pew Research Center survey shows that 56% of US adults disapprove of Trump’s executive order, while 43% approve. It seems that public opinion is split on whether children born to undocumented immigrants should be granted citizenship — about half are in favour, and the other half opposed.

The executive order has also sparked widespread backlash, with over 20 US states and rights groups filing class-action lawsuits to oppose Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship.

According to the latest court ruling, the US Court of Appeals found the executive order unconstitutional on 23 July and upheld a lower court’s nationwide injunction. However, the legal battle is ongoing, with the Supreme Court expected to make a final ruling on the constitutionality of the order in October.

Gutierrez stressed, “Most of the children that were born in the US will probably grow up in the US and work in the US and they should have the same opportunity as any other child, regardless of what their parent’s status is.”

Interviewed academics believe that Trump cannot end birthright citizenship through just an executive order. However, if enforced aggressively, it would likely intensify polarisation within American society and affect the US economy and other sectors.

Adrian Ang, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, said in an interview that targeting birth tourism has always been a longstanding MAGA right-wing talking point. However, he does not see birth tourism as a major issue, especially regarding how public resources are allocated, despite political claims to the contrary.

Regarding whether Trump can truly end birthright citizenship, most academics believe the US Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn the 1898 precedent set by “United States v. Wong Kim Ark”, which firmly established the principle of birthright citizenship.

Ang pointed out that if the court ultimately upholds birthright citizenship, the Trump administration would have to pursue a constitutional amendment to make changes — a process that is extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible.

“If the Supreme Court strikes it down, the Constitution is extremely hard to amend; you need two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then you need three-quarters of the states. The US is in an environment of great polarisation — that is not going to happen, it is very difficult to amend the Constitution,” he explained.

Ang added that what is concerning is that even if the Supreme Court delivers a negative ruling, the Trump administration might still enforce the executive order aggressively, effectively “throwing fuel on what is already a dumpster fire” of existing polarisation.

Meanwhile, Professor Emeritus Francois Crépeau of McGill University’s Faculty of Law thinks that Trump’s goal is not genuinely to end birthright citizenship. “The push against birthright citizenship is a populist push. It is a discourse which has a political objective, which is to gain votes. For populists, what counts is the effect of what they say, not the effect on the ground,” he opined.

He noted that populist rhetoric often exaggerates issues like birth tourism to portray immigrants as a threat, so that Trump can be presented as the “saviour” against those threats.

He believes that if policies ending birthright citizenship are implemented, they would further marginalise vulnerable groups such as undocumented immigrants and refugees, while also impacting the US economy, workforce and population growth.

He said, “I trust that the checks and balances that are found in the US political system will survive Trump and that other people will be able to take up what Trump has left in tatters… Hopefully, we will have politicians that will see that it needs to be done. And hopefully, it will not take long.”

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as ““美宝”公民权不保 赴美生娃此路不通？”.

Related: Studying in the US or staying home? Chinese students face a hard choice | How ‘America Last’ built power — and ‘America First’ could destroy it