US-Born Pakistani Babies May Need Parents to Prove Legal Status

The US State Department has introduced new guidelines that would require parents to provide proof of their legal status when applying for passports for their US-born children as part of President Trump's measures to combat "birth tourism" and expand exceptions to birthright citizenship. The draft guidance, obtained by Reuters, outlines the specific steps parents would need to take when applying for a passport for a child.

This change would go beyond the current requirement for parents to only establish their relationship to the child and provide a form of photo identification. Currently, parents generally do not need to submit any supporting evidence of their citizenship or immigration status when applying for a passport for their child. The proposed directive would potentially deny citizenship to certain children who fall under categories such as foreign government employees, individuals involved in fraudulent activities to obtain citizenship, or those classified as "alien enemies."

This development comes in response to President Trump's earlier executive order that sought to limit automatic citizenship at birth to children with at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. However, this initial attempt was blocked by the US Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling, which found the order to be unlawful and inconsistent with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The new order, while narrower in scope, specifically targets the practice of birth tourism, where foreign women travel to the US to give birth so their children can acquire citizenship. The order is currently facing legal challenges, with lawyers representing affected families and children seeking to have it blocked by federal courts.

US District Judge Deborah Boardman, presiding over one of the cases in Maryland, has shown skepticism towards the order and has permitted the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit as she deliberates on whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Justice Department lawyers have contended that judicial intervention would be premature, arguing that federal agencies have not yet published public guidance on how the directive would be implemented.