The United State of America has reiterated its firm stance against birth tourism, specifically issuing a warning to Nigerians. The US Mission in Nigeria announced via its official X handle that visas would be denied if the primary purpose of travel is deemed to be giving birth in the United States to secure US citizenship for the child. This practice, often referred to as birth tourism, is explicitly not permitted under US regulations, and consular officers are instructed to deny applications where such intent is suspected.

Birth tourism involves pregnant individuals traveling to another country with the sole aim of giving birth there, thereby enabling their child to acquire citizenship based on that country's birthright citizenship laws. This practice is particularly appealing in nations that adhere to'jus soli,' or 'right of soil' citizenship, where a child born on the country's territory automatically becomes a citizen, irrespective of their parents' nationality or residency status. The United States operates under the principle of 'jus soli' as enshrined in the

Photo Credit: Quartz

However, the concept of birthright citizenship has recently come under intense scrutiny, especially in America. Former President Donald Trump, early in his administration, attempted to curtail this practice by signing an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to parents residing illegally in the US, with a proposed effective date of February 2025. This executive order ignited a series of legal challenges and has been a contentious subject since its inception.

In a significant development, a federal judge recently issued a new nationwide block, temporarily halting the Trump administration's efforts to end birthright citizenship. This ruling marks the third court injunction issued nationwide against the birthright order since a pivotal Supreme Court decision in June, which sought to limit the authority of lower court judges to issue such broad injunctions. States challenging the order had argued that it was fundamentally unconstitutional and posed substantial financial threats to health insurance services, which are often contingent on citizenship status.

Photo Credit: Joanna Goddard

Delivering the recent ruling, Judge Joseph Laplante emphasized the profound significance of US citizenship, describing it as 'the greatest privilege that exists in the world.' Judge Laplante further articulated his rationale for the injunction, stating that 'he has no difficulty concluding that the rapid adoption by executive order, without legislation and the attending national debate, of a new government policy of highly questionable constitutionality that would deny citizenship to many thousands of individuals previously granted citizenship under an indisputably longstanding policy, constitutes irreparable harm, and that all class representatives could suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.' This legal battle underscores the complex interplay between immigration policy, constitutional law, and the interpretation of citizenship rights in the United States.