A South Florida concierge service says it has helped deliver more than 2,000 babies for foreign nationals on American soil, and business is good. While the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments on President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, an entire industry built around selling access to U.S. citizenship at birth continues to operate in plain sight.
The company, Have my Baby in Miami, markets maternity services to expectant mothers from countries including Colombia and Brazil, Fox News Digital reported. Its website walks prospective clients through the process: prepare travel documents, arrive with at least six months of passport validity, give birth in Miami, begin applying for the newborn's U.S. documentation, and head home with an American citizen in tow.
One testimonial on the site, from a Colombian woman identified only as Marypaz, captures the pitch neatly. She called the experience worthwhile despite being far from family.
"We are very pleased with the decision to have our baby in Miami by this excellent group of professionals. It was worth the sacrifice to be away from our country and our family at this important time."
Fox News Digital reached out to Have my Baby in Miami for comment. No response was reported.
The legal backdrop makes the timing impossible to ignore. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on a challenge to Executive Order 14160, the Day One directive from President Trump that limits birthright citizenship in the United States. The case, identified as Trump v. Barbara, centers on whether the administration can direct federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for certain children born on or after February 19, 2025.
Lower courts have blocked the order so far. The First Circuit found it likely violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. A final decision from the Supreme Court is not expected until late June.
The constitutional question turns on the meaning of a single sentence written in the aftermath of the Civil War: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Courts have routinely upheld birthright citizenship for over a century. But the Trump administration argues the clause was never intended to cover the children of people who entered the country unlawfully or temporarily, and certainly not those who flew in on tourist visas for the express purpose of obtaining citizenship for their babies.
President Trump framed the stakes bluntly in a Truth Social post on Monday, as we previously reported ahead of oral arguments.
"Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!"
He added: "The World is getting rich selling citizenships to our Country."
The Supreme Court has already weighed in on a related procedural question. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court found that nationwide injunctions issued by single district judges likely exceed their authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789. That decision did not address the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order itself, the New York Post reported.
But the administration treated the procedural win as a green light. President Trump said the ruling allows the government to "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." He singled out birthright citizenship as a case that "now comes to the fore."
Opponents have already launched fresh legal challenges to keep the order blocked. The constitutional merits remain unresolved. And while lawyers argue, the birth tourism business keeps running.
This is not a new problem. The State Department introduced a rule in 2020 declaring that birth tourism is "an inappropriate basis for the issuance of temporary visitor visas." The rule directs consular officers to deny B nonimmigrant visas, the B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas most commonly abused for this purpose, when they have reason to believe the applicant's primary intent is to give birth in the United States.
The language is unambiguous. As the State Department rule states:
"A consular officer shall deny a B nonimmigrant visa to an alien [whom] he or she has reason to believe intends to travel for this primary purpose."
Yet five years later, a concierge service in Miami openly advertises that it has facilitated more than 2,000 international births. It publishes glowing testimonials. It instructs foreign clients on how to prepare their paperwork. The gap between the rule and reality is wide enough to deliver a baby through.
University of California Berkeley law professor John Yoo told Fox News Digital he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately overrule Trump's birthright citizenship order. But even Yoo acknowledged the enforcement failure.
"The better way to operate under the current constitutional rule of birthright citizenship is to more vigorously enforce visas and to shut down businesses that encourage and enable birth tourism."
That is a remarkable admission from a legal scholar who disagrees with the executive order's approach. Even critics of Trump's method concede the underlying problem is real and that existing tools sit unused.
The U.S. government has not been silent internationally. In July, the U.S. Mission to Nigeria posted a warning on its X account aimed directly at would-be birth tourists.
"Using your visa to travel for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States [so that your child] will have U.S. citizenship is not permitted."
The mission posted a similar notice on Facebook: "We will deny your visa if we believe your primary purpose [of travel] is to give birth in the United States to get U.S. citizenship for your child. This is not permitted."
So the State Department tells Nigerians not to come for birth tourism. It tells consular officers to deny visas for birth tourism. And a Miami-based company publicly boasts about helping more than two thousand foreign nationals do exactly that. The left hand posts warnings. The right hand does nothing.
A recent Fox News Poll found that 69% of voters support birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, up from 45% when Fox News first asked the question in 2006. That shift complicates the political math for any executive action, even one aimed at the narrower category of birth tourists who enter legally on temporary visas.
But the poll number obscures a distinction that matters. There is a difference between a child born to parents who have lived and worked in this country for years and a child whose mother flew into Miami on a B-2 tourist visa, checked into a concierge maternity suite, delivered, collected the paperwork, and flew home. The former is a hard case. The latter is a transaction.
President Trump drew that line explicitly when he said the Fourteenth Amendment "was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation."
The Supreme Court will decide whether the executive order survives constitutional review. Legal scholars on both sides expect that fight to continue well beyond this term. But regardless of where the justices land on the Fourteenth Amendment's outer boundaries, the enforcement question remains. A 2020 rule already prohibits birth tourism visas. Consular officers already have the authority to deny them. The U.S. Mission to Nigeria already tells applicants not to try it.
And still, in South Florida, the industry thrives.
When a country cannot enforce the rules it already has on the books, the problem is not a lack of law. It is a lack of will.
