Chris Krok, filling in for Dan Proft on Chicago’s Morning Answer, spoke with Merrill Matthews, an opinion contributor at The Hill, about Matthews’ recent column examining efforts to curb birth tourism in the United States. The two began by noting they were both broadcasting from the Dallas-Fort Worth area before turning to the substance of the interview.
Krok opened by asking whether President Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship through executive action was likely to succeed, suggesting the administration’s broad approach left it vulnerable when the case reached the Supreme Court. Matthews agreed the administration went broad and that the court’s pushback was widely anticipated. He explained that birthright citizenship stems from the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, and that most people who benefit from it are economic immigrants seeking to build a life in the country. Birth tourism, he said, is a narrower phenomenon involving largely affluent foreign women who travel to the United States, often staying at specialized hotels or medical facilities, to give birth and then return home with a child who holds U.S. citizenship.
Matthews cited a 2018 Georgetown Law O’Neill Institute report identifying China and Russia as leading countries of origin for the practice, along with more recent estimates, including one from Rep. Andy Ogles putting the number of such births at roughly 70,000 in 2023, up from a Center for Immigration Studies estimate of about 33,000 annually in 2020. He pointed to additional source countries named by the Center for Immigration Studies, including Taiwan, South Korea, Nigeria, Turkey and Brazil, and referenced a two-hour documentary by Chinese American filmmaker Leslie Tai chronicling the industry built around the practice. He also cited Guardian reporting that Chinese women paid between $30,000 and $100,000 for birth tourism packages during the Obama years, and referenced a 2009 report on an Arizona medical facility that advertised itemized pricing for births tied to the service.
Asked whether operators of such facilities face criminal penalties, Matthews said he was not aware of any meaningful legal consequences or state crackdowns, though he noted Trump had directed consulates during his first term to deny visas to visibly pregnant applicants believed to be traveling for the purpose of giving birth in the U.S., an approach revived in a recent executive order. Matthews and Krok agreed the practice represents an abuse of the immigration system distinct from immigrants seeking to work and build a life in the country, with Matthews arguing that any broader immigration overhaul should require people currently in the country illegally to return home before applying to enter legally.
The conversation closed with Matthews responding to arguments that birth tourism is too small in scale to warrant concern, noting that while the numbers are modest compared to overall illegal immigration during the Biden administration, the trend appears to be growing and constitutes a clear circumvention of immigration law. He also highlighted a line from his column observing what he described as an inconsistency among progressives who typically criticize wealthy individuals for using money to bypass rules, yet largely overlook the role affluence plays in enabling birth tourism.