Birth tourism: US go deny visa to foreign nationals wey wan go America to born for citizenship
Di embassy wey give di informate for one statement on dia X account on Monday, 28 July tok say, "we go deny your visa if we believe say di primary purpose of travel na to give birth for di United States to get U.S. citizenship for your pikin."
For di statement, di embassy say dem no go permit anyone to travel go America for di purpose of "birth tourism."
"Consular officers go deny your visa application if dem get reason to believe say dat na your intention," dem add.
Dis advisory dey come afta one Supreme Court ruling for June wey allow US President Donald Trump to go ahead wit im executive order of ending birthright citizenship.
Di Supreme Court ruling bin limit di power of federal judges to block presidential orders and allow for di birthright citizenship policy to start in 30 days. Although, some lower courts don file counter lawsuits against di ruling.
However, wit dis statement from di US embassy, e be like say Oga Trump administration dey fall-in-line wit di executive order to deny citizenship to children of immigrants wey dey US illegally or children wey dem born for there on temporary visa, as no be only di US embassy for Nigeria issue di statement.
For one of im first acts as di 47th president of di United States, Donald Trump bin sign one executive order wey di purpose na ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly everybody born on US territory - known as "birthright citizenship".
Na one policy wey for long e promise to change - but to implement am no go dey easy.
For nearly 160 years, di 14th Amendment of di US Constitution establish one principle say anybody dem born for di kontri go automatically become US citizen.
However, within hours of President Trump order, Democratic-run states and cities, civil rights groups and individuals bin launch various lawsuits against am.
Dem argue say di order go against di 14th Amendment to di US Constitution, wey establish say "all pesins born or naturalized in di United States, and subject to di jurisdiction thereof, na citizens of di United States and of di state wia dem reside".
However, di Trump administration say di clause "subject to di jurisdiction thereof" mean say di amendment exclude children of pipo wey no dey live for di kontri permanently or lawfully.
Three federal judges bin rule against Trump, as dem issue nationwide injunctions to block di orders from taking effect.
Most legal scholars agree say President Trump no fit end birthright citizenship wit an executive order.
Wetin Supreme Court tok on di birthright citizenship case and wia di mata dey now
In a win for President Trump, on 27 June, di Supreme Court rule against nationwide injunctions.
Di case bin surround weda Trump attempt to use executive order to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens and undocumented migrants dey allowed.
For one 6-3 ruling for June, di Supreme Court conservative justices bin side Trump and say dem no dey address Oga Trump attempt to end birthright citizenship. Rather, dia ruling dey address presidential actions broadly.
For di majority opinion wey conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett deliver, di court say: "Universal injunctions likely exceed di equitable authority wey Congress give to federal courts."
Sake of di ruling to limit injunctions, Trump birthright citizenship order go fit take effect 30 days afta dem file di court opinion, di court tok.
E go apply to di 28 states wey no participate for di lawsuit.
Di Supreme Court dey expected to rule on di merits of di birthright citizenship order itself at some date in di future.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor bin write say birthright citizenship na di "law of di land" and di order dey "patently unconstitutional".
Embassies wey don issue similar statements wey ban birth tourism
No be only Nigerians di US govment cut warning against birth tourism for.
Uganda, Jamaica, di Caribbeans, among odas follow for di warning.
For 1 July, di US embassy for Uganda warn Ugandans wey dey travel go US just to go born so dat dia pikin go be citizen, say e no dey allowed.
Di govment say many Ugandan parents dey travel wit tourist visas go America for di purpose of giving birth, and dem dey use govment assistance to pay for dia medical care.
"Na American taxpayer dey bear dis cost, and those parents fit no dey eligible to renew dia visas for future.
US embassy for Colombo also issue similar statement to Sri Lankan nationals and foreign travellers, wey advise dem against using tourist visas for di purpose of giving birth di United States to secure U.S. citizenship for dia pikin.
Wetin be 'birthright citizenship'?
Di first sentence of di 14th Amendment to di US Constitution bin establish di principle of birthright citizenship:
"All pesins born or naturalized for di United States, and subject to di jurisdiction thereof, na citizens of di United States and of di state wia dem reside."
Immigration hardliners argue say di policy na "great magnet for illegal immigration" and say e dey encourage pregnant women to cross di border in order to born and remain for di US, an act wey dem commonly refer to as "birth tourism" or having "anchor baby".
Supporters of birthright citizenship point out say dat na di law of di land for ova a century and to cancel am go create a "permanent subclass of pipo wey dem born for US wey dey denied full rights as Americans."
Birthright citizenship worldwide
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), no be di norm globally.
US na one of about 30 kontris - mostly for di Americas - wey dey grant automatic citizenship to any child dem born within dia borders.
In contrast, many countries for Asia, Europe, and parts of Africa dey follow di jus sanguinis (right of blood) principle, wia children inherit dia nationality from dia parents, regardless of dia birthplace.
Oda countries get combination of both principles, dem also dey grant citizenship to children of permanent residents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
16 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
.jpg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why Trump is threatening to double India's tariffs
Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing a 50% tariff on Indian imports, citing India 's purchase of Russian oil This action has been criticised by India's opposition and public as 'bullying', with analysts warning it could undo two decades of diplomatic progress between the two nations. India has accused the US of double standards regarding Russian imports and vowed to protect its national interests, despite concerns that further escalation could harm it beyond trade. Analysts suggest the relationship is at its worst point since 1998, with India facing pressure to reduce Russian oil purchases without appearing to surrender to Trump's demands. Indian government sources indicate a need to gradually repair ties with the US while increasing engagement with the BRICS bloc and other nations affected by Trump's tariffs and aid cuts.
Leader Live
24 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Trump says he plans to put a 100% tariff on computer chips
The Republican president said that companies who make computer chips in the US would be spared the import tax. 'We'll be putting a tariff on of approximately 100% on chips and semiconductors,' Mr Trump said in the Oval Office while meeting Apple chief executive Tim Cook. 'But if you're building in the United States of America, there's no charge.' During the Covid-19 pandemic, a shortage of computer chips increased the price of cars and contributed to an uptick in overall inflation. Mr Trump's announcement came as Mr Cook joined him at the White House to announce a commitment by the tech company to increase its investment in US manufacturing by an additional 100 billion dollars (£74.9 billion) over the next four years. 'This is a significant step toward the ultimate goal of ensuring that iPhones sold in the United States of America also are made in America,' Mr Trump said at the press conference. 'Today's announcement is one of the largest commitments in what has become among the greatest investment booms in our nation's history.' As part of the Apple announcement, the investments will be about bringing more of its supply chain and advanced manufacturing to the US as part of an initiative called the American Manufacturing Programme, but it is not a full commitment to build its popular iPhone device domestically. 'This includes new and expanded work with 10 companies across America. They produce components — semiconductor chips included — that are used in Apple products sold all over the world, and we're grateful to the president for his support,' Mr Cook said in a statement announcing the investment. The new manufacturing partners include Corning, Coherent, Applied Materials, Texas Instruments and Broadcom among others. Apple had previously said it intended to invest 500 billion dollars (£374 billion) domestically, a figure it will now increase to 600 billion dollars (£449 billion). Mr Trump in recent months has criticised the tech company and Mr Cook for efforts to shift iPhone production to India to avoid the tariffs his Republican administration had planned for China. While in Qatar earlier this year, Mr Trump said there was 'a little problem' with the Cupertino, California, company and recalled a conversation with Mr Cook in which he said he told the businessman 'I don't want you building in India'. India has incurred Mr Trump's wrath, as the president signed an order on Wednesday to put an additional 25% tariff on the world's most populous country for its use of Russian oil. The new import taxes to be imposed in 21 days could put the combined tariffs on Indian goods at 50%. Apple's new pledge comes just a few weeks after it forged a 500 million-dollar deal with MP Materials, which runs the only rare earths producer in the country. That agreement will enable MP Materials to expand a factory in Texas to use recycled materials to produce magnets that make iPhones vibrate. Speaking on a recent investors call, Mr Cook emphasised that 'there's a load of different things done in the United States'. As examples, he cited some of the iPhone components made in the US such as the device's glass display and module for identifying people's faces and then indicated the company was gearing to expand its productions of other components in its home country. 'We're doing more in this country, and that's on top of having roughly 19 billion chips coming out of the US now, and we will do more,' Mr Cook told analysts last week, without elaborating. News of Apple's latest investment in the US caused the company's stock price to surge by nearly 6% in Wednesday's midday trading. That gains reflect investors' relief that Mr Cook 'is extending an olive branch' to the Trump administration, said Nancy Tengler, chief executive of money manager Laffer Tengler Investments, which owns Apple stock. Despite Wednesday's upturn, Apple's shares are still down by 14% this year, a reversal of fortune that has also been driven by the company's botched start in the pivotal field of artificial intelligence.
