Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller used a Fox News appearance Tuesday to argue the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision will force changes to immigration policy, including concerns about “birth tourism.” The comments came as Rep. Andy
When the Supreme Court delivered its Tuesday ruling on birthright citizenship, Stephen Miller didn’t just criticize the decision—he tried to reshape the argument around it, turning to a theme he and other MAGA allies have used before: so-called “birth tourism.”
Speaking on Fox News with host Jesse Watters. Miller said the policy shift means someone can come to the United States while pregnant. stay long enough to have a child on American soil. and then remain connected to the country for life—through citizenship and public benefits. “But if you have birthright citizenship. it means if a person comes here nine months pregnant to go look around at some things. in a couple of weeks. that is the mother of a lifetime American citizen and a direct line into American cash and welfare for the rest of that child’s life. ” Miller said.
Watters pressed him on what that would require. “Are we banning pregnant women from America?” he asked.
Miller answered by narrowing the focus to entry rules and warning that the government would have to “think very carefully about who you let into your country. even on a temporary basis.” He returned to the same premise: people could come “just to have babies on American soil. ” and the child would become a citizen for life. “So. yes. you can’t have the kinds of immigration programs other countries have when you can just have a baby here. and now that child is an American citizen. So, there’s a lot of things we’re gonna have to take a hard look at, Jesse,” Miller said.
He went further, arguing that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants could send welfare payments back to other countries. “Miller added that he believes that babies born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants would be able to send welfare checks back home to ‘support a whole family in the third world.’”.
The exchange landed with an emphasis that is becoming familiar in the immigration debate: not only a legal challenge to birthright citizenship, but a push to restrict who can enter while pregnant.
In a separate move on Tuesday, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) introduced what he called the “Anchors Away Act.” In a video posted to social media. Ogles described the legislation as an effort to limit or bar certain foreign-born pregnant women from entering the United States. “Under my bill, under my legislation, we fix that and go back to what our founders intended. So in short. what this bill does is if you are a pregnant woman. you can’t come into this country. You got to be a citizen, be here, you have to be a green card holder. So if you’re pregnant and you don’t have one of those statuses, no admittance allowed,” Ogles said.
President Donald Trump also weighed in on the same issue, calling on Congress to pass legislation to end birthright citizenship.
For opponents of the idea. the policy debate turns on whether the feared “birth tourism” scenario is widespread enough to justify sweeping restrictions. In 2020. the Center for Immigration Studies—an organization that advocates low immigration—estimated the possible number of birth tourism cases at 20. 000 to 26. 000 per year. which it framed as less than 1% of the 3.61 million births in the U.S. that year.
Taken together. Miller’s comments on “birth tourism. ” Ogles’s “Anchors Away Act” proposal to bar pregnant women without citizenship or a green card status. and Trump’s call for Congress to end birthright citizenship show how quickly the Supreme Court’s decision is being translated into concrete immigration restrictions. The fight now isn’t only over legal doctrine—it’s over who gets to enter the country at all. and under what conditions. before a birth can even happen.
Stephen Miller birthright citizenship Supreme Court birth tourism immigration policy Andy Ogles Anchors Away Act Trump welfare