Brandon Gill Leads Contentious House Oversight Committee Hearing On Birth Tourism

[0:00] of Americans. In Texas alone, more than 344,000 babies, children, have lost their SNAP benefits [0:09] in the last year. Now, if we care about children, let's care about children. The 14th Amendment was [0:18] written in the aftermath of slavery because this country had learned at an extraordinary cost. [0:25] What happens when the government gets to decide which people born on American soil fully belong? [0:34] We should not reopen that door. We must not reopen that door. And for anyone watching this hearing [0:42] today who believes that citizenship should not depend on the politics of your parents, [0:49] call your representative. Tell them to oppose H.R. 9854 and tell them that this bill should never [0:56] get a markup, and I will yield back. Thank you, Ranking Member Simon. Without objection, [1:03] Representatives Luna of Florida, Crane of Arizona, McCormick of Georgia, and Minifee of Texas are [1:09] waived onto the committee for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at today's task force [1:13] hearing. I'd now like to welcome the witnesses. First, we have Dr. Vladimir. Is that correct? [1:22] Dr. Vladimir Lawrence, founder and chief medical officer for Miami Medical Concierge Services, [1:28] also known as, quote, have my baby in Miami, unquote. Next, we have Dr. Stephen Camerota, [1:36] director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, who has studied issues linked immigration [1:41] for decades, including economic, fiscal, and demographic impacts of immigration. [1:47] Thank you for joining us. I look forward to hearing from both of you. Pursuant to committee rule 9G, [1:54] the witnesses, will the witnesses please stand and raise their right hand? Do you solemnly swear or [2:03] affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the [2:07] truth, so help you God? Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and thank you. [2:13] You can take a seat. I appreciate you being here today and look forward to hearing from both of you. [2:19] Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statement, and it will appear in full in [2:25] the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. As a reminder, [2:30] please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it's on and the members can hear you. [2:34] When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will [2:39] turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes will have expired, and we would ask you [2:43] to please wrap up. I now recognize Dr. Lorenz for his opening statement. [2:56] Mr. Chairman, members of the task force, my name is Vladimir Lorenz. I appear today in response to a [3:05] subpoena issued by the Committee of Oversight and Government Reform on August 26, 2026, compelling my [3:14] attendance and testimony at this hearing. I am represented by counsel, Jeffrey Sloman, seated behind [3:23] me today. On the advice of counsel, I will respectfully decline to answer any questions [3:31] touching the subject matter of a pending federal investigation on the grounds that a truthful answer [3:38] may tend to incriminate me. And I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States [3:47] Constitution. Nothing in my appearance here today and nothing in my declining to answer questions [3:55] should be understood as a concession regarding the merits of any matter under my investigation. [4:04] All rights, privileges, and objections available to me are expressively reserved. Thank you for the [4:12] opportunity to appear here. Witness declines to testify. I now recognize Dr. Camarota for his opening [4:23] statement. Thank you. I would like to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify [4:29] on this important topic of birth tourism. Paraphrasing Justice Clarence Thomas, birth tourism is the [4:36] practice of traveling here with a temporary visa solely to give birth and obtain citizenship for one's [4:42] child, then returning home to raise the child. My testimony will focus only on the likely number of birth [4:51] tourists, specific concerns raised by this practice, and what might be done to, uh, about it or to deter it. [4:58] I will not discuss the larger issue of, uh, birthright citizenship, though I'm happy to answer any [5:04] questions in that area. My analysis of the 2024 public use birth certificate records provided by CDC show [5:12] about 8,700 births to foreign-born mothers who provided an overseas address on the birth certificate [5:19] application. Although some researchers have tried to use this information to estimate the scale of the [5:25] problem, this is not really a valid approach because there is ample evidence that so-called birthing [5:32] centers or birth houses in the United States, which have U.S. addresses, are where the mother stays after [5:39] she's given birth, are the addresses provided on birth certificates so the mother can receive the birth [5:46] records before she leaves ensuring citizenship has been properly registered. Because birth tourists have a very [5:54] strong incentive to stay as long long enough to ensure that the whole reason they came has been [6:02] accomplished. Birth certificates address may be of little use in estimating birth tourism, but based on [6:08] a comparison of Census Bureau data and birth records, the center estimated that there were 20 to 26,000 birth [6:16] tourists each year. Unfortunately, our estimate is a bit dated and we can't update it because of changes in the way the [6:22] data is being reported. Nevertheless, there were likely two to three hundred thousand children born [6:29] to birth tourists in the last decade. So it's not a trivial number. Now relative to the total number of [6:35] births in the United States, it's still a small share, but the absolute number appears to be quite [6:41] significant. Why is this a problem? Well, a survey found that 25 percent of Americans believe that children of [6:47] shorts should not get citizenship. The strong sense that birth tourism is wrong, I think, stems from [6:53] the idea that American citizenship, one of the most valuable things in the world, should not be attained [6:59] under false pretenses. Further, the whole point of our legal immigration system is that the American [7:05] people are deciding through their elected representatives and their laws who will become their fellow Americans. [7:12] Birth tourism bypasses the will of the people and gives out American citizenship to those who game the [7:19] system. Now, birth tourism raises questions, too. I think about assimilation and even national security. [7:29] Even the children of more run-of-the-mill illegal immigrants typically grow up in the United States, [7:34] so they're much more likely to develop some attachment to the country. But because the children of birth [7:38] tourists grow up outside of the United States, are much less likely to develop this attachment. [7:44] And yes, as American citizens, of course, though, they can still enter the United States anytime they [7:50] went, travel to and from the country without any prior screening. They can attend college, they can [7:55] work at almost any job, even within the federal government, and they can access public benefits [8:00] immediately. Further, only citizens can obtain a security clearance. So there is potentially a national [8:07] security dimension to birth tourism. The children of birth tourists can also sponsor their parents for a [8:13] green card once they reach adulthood, rewarding the very people who committed the visa fraud. So what [8:19] can we do about this? First, birth tourists can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C., which criminalizes fraud and [8:27] misuse of visa application and other documents. Getting convictions in this area would be a major deterrent, [8:34] particularly of the birth tourist industry, those who run these birthing houses. Another issue to think about is, [8:41] at present, consular officers generally cannot even ask a tourist applicant if they are pregnant and intends to [8:49] come to the United States to have a child. Every tourist must be asked this directly. If they lie, it makes [8:57] prosecution a whole lot easier because right now they could say, well, I didn't intend for this to happen. But if you [9:03] ask them if you're if you're coming here to have a child and they say no, but they're using a birth tourist center and they have a [9:09] child as soon as they get here, it makes the case easier. As the president's recent executive order stated, [9:16] citizenship is not a commodity to be acquired through calculated exploitation and invasion of immigration [9:24] laws. Policy changes coupled with prosecutions can greatly reduce this problem. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. [9:37] We're now going to move on to the question and answer portion of this hearing. We'll start off. I'll now [9:42] recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. First of all, I want to begin [9:49] by thanking the witnesses once again for taking the time to be here. Dr. Lawrence, you run a medical [9:54] business, is that correct? Press the talk button, please, so I can hear you. You hear me? You run a medical [10:06] business, is that correct? I am. Yes, I am. You do. Is it true that your business Have My Baby in Miami [10:14] marketed itself to and facilitated the entry of foreign nationals seeking to come to the United [10:19] States to give birth and obtain birthright citizenship for their children? On the advice of counsel, [10:26] I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to [10:31] incriminate me and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Okay. Witness invokes [10:38] as Fifth Amendment right. I've got your website right here that you had spent quite a bit of time [10:43] marketing, which suggests that you were, in fact, facilitating the entry of foreign nationals [10:49] so that they could give birth and obtain citizenship for their children. This is Have My Baby in Miami's [10:56] website. On the front page of it, the last line of the commentary states, now the dream of having a [11:03] child in the United States is closer to reality than you ever imagined. Is this your website, Dr. Lorenz? [11:12] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful [11:19] answer may incriminate me and I invoke the rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Okay. [11:25] The website continues. There's a step-by-step guide preparing for the trip to the United States. It's got [11:33] information on arrival, waiting for the delivery, the birth, preparing for return and returning back [11:41] home to the person's home country. It's even got a section on legal topics. Do you recognize this? [11:51] On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on the ground that a truthful [11:56] answer may tend to incriminate me and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. [12:02] Your website says over 2,000 deliveries of international patients so far, so I think we [12:29] can assume it's over 2,000. The website continues. It's got a section for documentation, health insurance, [12:37] advising foreign nationals on how to obtain international health insurance, housing in [12:42] the United States even. It's quite thorough. Dr. Lorenz, this website isn't public anymore. What [12:55] made it motivated you to take down or at least substantially modify this website for Have My Baby [13:02] in Miami after we first wrote to you about birth tourism in May? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully [13:10] decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may incriminate me and I invoke [13:14] my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Does your business help children [13:20] of members of the Chinese Communist Party obtain American citizenship? On the advice of counsel, [13:26] I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to [13:31] incriminate me and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Have you ever [13:37] facilitated the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may incriminate me and I invoke my rights under [13:53] the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Dr. Lorenz, are you declining to answer any question [13:59] that I've put you today on the basis that you believe that an answer would incriminate you? On the [14:06] advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on the grounds that a truthful answer [14:11] may tend to incriminate me and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Is it [14:17] your intention to answer any question put to you by the committee today with an assertion of your Fifth [14:22] Amendment right against self-incrimination? Can you please repeat that question? Is it your intention to [14:27] answer any question put to you today by the committee with an assertion of your Fifth Amendment right [14:33] against self-incrimination? Speak to counsel, please. No. No? No, sir. Okay. On the advisor? Yes. Sir, [14:44] this is a... All right. Let the record reflect that Dr. Lorenz has asserted his Fifth Amendment right [14:58] against self-incrimination. To all questions posed to him today, Dr. Lorenz, considering your invocation [15:04] of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination pursuant to the terms of the subpoena issued for your [15:09] appearance at this hearing, I have no choice but to excuse you from the witness panel. You're hereby excused from the [15:14] witness panel and we will continue the hearing. And with that, my time is up. And I'd like to yield [15:23] five minutes to Mr. Menifee from Texas for the purpose of asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [15:29] President Trump has sent ICE into American communities to terrorize Americans and immigrants. And they have [15:36] harmed people and even killed people. People who were never charged with a crime, let alone convicted of [15:42] one. Some of them were American citizens, but all of them were folks who were deserving of dignity. [15:49] Renee Good, Alex Preddy, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who was killed in my hometown of Houston, and many more. [15:56] The Trump administration's immigration campaign has been brutal and inhumane. And Dr. Camerota, you own [16:04] that outcome. Trump's right hand on immigration policy, Stephen Miller, has been the architect of this [16:11] administration's brutality. And he has called you, quote, a top expert on immigration policy. And you're [16:17] so proud of that that you put it in your bio. They've used your research to craft policy, to craft laws. [16:23] You've testified before Congress more than two dozen times on this subject. So you own this [16:29] administration's immigration record as much as anybody sitting outside of the West Wing. We're here today [16:35] to talk about undocumented women giving birth in this country. So let's talk about what's happening to [16:40] pregnant women already in ICE custody. Dr. Camerota, I've got an NBC News article right here from late [16:47] last year entitled, Pregnant Women Describe Miscaring and Bleeding Out While in Ice Custody Advocates Say. [16:54] Are you familiar with this article? It says that over a dozen women told advocates and their attorneys [17:02] that they suffered mistreatment and neglect while they were pregnant and held in immigration custody. [17:07] It even describes a situation where a woman had lost so much blood that she had to get [17:12] a transfusion while in immigration custody. It describes women saying they were shackled and [17:19] restrained, some even while actively miscarrying. Dr. Camerota, you've written a ton about upping [17:26] immigration enforcement to protect national security, to help American workers, to save taxpayers money. [17:33] So my question to you is very direct. Shackling a pregnant woman who poses no violent threat and no [17:40] security risk does nothing to protect national security. Agree or disagree? I'm not sure I [17:47] understand your question, but it sounds like what you're trying to ask me is, should every person... [17:51] Well, my question was very straightforward. I'm not interested in what you think I'm trying to ask. [17:55] I'm interested in what I'm actually asking you. Let me repeat the question to you. It's very direct. [17:59] Shackling a pregnant woman who poses no violent threat and no threat to national security does nothing to [18:07] protect our national security. Agree or disagree? I don't know nothing about this case. I'm sorry. I can't comment on it. [18:12] But if this woman was abused, I'm 100% against that. Shackling a pregnant woman who does nothing [18:18] to help American workers. Shackling a pregnant woman does nothing to help American workers. Agree or [18:23] disagree? Again, if this woman was abused, the party should be prosecuted. I've never advocated any [18:30] such thing. So if ICE agents shackled a pregnant woman who is in ICE detention and she was not a threat [18:35] to their physical safety, those ICE agents should be prosecuted. That's your testimony here today before [18:40] Congress. I don't know anything about this incident you're asking me to say. But I do believe this [18:45] woman should be treated humanely and should never be abused. And if anyone does, they should be [18:51] prosecuted. Any law enforcement. I certainly would say that. I'm glad that you agree with me on that. [18:55] Shackling a pregnant woman does nothing to save taxpayers money. Agree or disagree? Again, I know [19:01] nothing about this case. But if this woman is abused, people should be, you know, the people who did it [19:07] should be held accountable. I think we both agree on that. Well, you follow immigration policy pretty [19:12] closely. Are you familiar with the murder of Lorenzo Sagado Araujo out of Houston, Texas? I can't say I [19:18] know enough about it to really comment. I have read a couple news stories. But as we all know, it takes a [19:22] long time for investigations to be complete. But the president's right hand on immigration has cited you [19:28] as a top expert on immigration policy. And you're not familiar with ICE's murder of Lorenzo Sagado Araujo out of [19:36] Houston, Texas. This has been national news for months. You're not familiar with that? I have read [19:40] some news stories about it. Does that make me an expert on this man's truck? I didn't ask you if you [19:45] were an expert. I asked you if you were familiar with it. You listen to my questions and you answer [19:48] them. I told you. Are you familiar with it? Yes or no? I read a few news stories on it. I don't know that I [19:53] could make a whole lot of comments. But again, if this man was shot incorrectly, people involved should be [20:00] held accountable. I just don't have any information that would allow me to say what happened. Just so we're [20:05] clear the gentleman who Stephen Miller has designated as a top expert on immigration policy. Your testimony [20:12] here today is that if ICE agents improperly shot and killed Lorenzo Sagado Araujo, they should be [20:18] prosecuted. They should be held accountable. Absolutely. 100 percent. Thank you. I yield back. [20:25] Thank you. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Chairman Comer for five minutes for the purpose of asking [20:30] questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing. Dr. Camarota, [20:40] is the objective of birth tourism to make money? Or is it more sinister to change the [20:47] demographics and political atmosphere? Well, it's obviously to make money for those who run the birth [20:52] houses, the birthing centers, that kind of thing. Obviously, they're in it for the money. They're [20:57] getting paid a fee. But for the individual, I don't think there's some kind of big conspiratorial [21:02] reason. I think the reason they do it is they don't trust their own governments. And it's [21:07] understandable. Russia and China have very arbitrary governments. And they're hoping that their children [21:11] might have this as an out. They could come to America, you know, land of the free. That's what [21:15] they want. And their children will be able to sponsor them as adults. There's no evidence that this is [21:22] some kind of effort by these foreign countries to change the demography of the United States. Rather, [21:29] it's an individual act. Illegal, engaged in fraud, and abuse of our citizenship laws. But nonetheless, [21:37] that's their motive. It's selfish. It's their own. It definitely is an abuse. [21:42] That's for sure. Citizenship laws. How do people in other countries find out about birth tourism? [21:49] Well, the fact is that the fact that the United States has, you know, one of the most, maybe not the [21:53] most, but one of the most liberal or permissive citizenship laws is known. So, and of course, [21:59] these facilities that arrange for the births, they advertise a lot. They're advertising. How are [22:04] they advertising? Are they advertising on social media? Are they advertising in newspapers? [22:09] Everything I've seen, it's social media, the web, maybe newspapers, but a whole lot of word of mouth too. [22:16] So, let's go to when the births happen in the United States. I would assume that many of the births [22:25] happen without a method of payment, without private health insurance. Who pays for that? What's the cost [22:34] to the hospitals or the taxpayers? I mean, somebody has to pay. I've had three children. It's very [22:40] expensive. It is. My wife had three children. But who pays for this? Yeah, sometimes it is the [22:47] taxpayers. Remember, hospitals don't turn anyone away who needs urgent care or emergency care. [22:52] Would it be paid for by Medicaid? Yeah, there's the disproportionate share hospital program, [22:58] and there might be charity at that hospital. Sometimes there could be self-pay, but the [23:02] taxpayer is often getting stuck with the bill based on anecdotal evidence. But I don't know that we have [23:07] any systematic evidence. So, just on the childbirth part, these people that are promoting birth [23:17] tourism that are profiting from birth tourism, they're advertising in foreign countries for [23:23] those illegals to come to the United States. And when they have their childbirth, the Medicaid program, [23:30] our Medicaid program that we're trying to fight on this committee, the Republicans, not the Democrats, [23:35] they don't care about waste fraud abuse. We're trying to prevent Medicaid payments to people that [23:42] that aren't citizens, at the very least, among other things, among fraudsters and everything else. [23:48] They're advertising people come over here, the hospitals get them signed up on Medicaid, [23:53] and it's paid for. So that's a huge cost to the American taxpayer. How many of these would you [24:00] estimate are happening annually? It's certainly going to run into the millions of dollars, but it [24:04] doesn't take much to do that. If we're right, and there's 20 to 26,000 births, and even 10,000 of them [24:11] are paid for by the taxpayer, however that's done, then you're talking tens of millions of dollars, [24:17] because each birth is, as you rightly point out, expensive. So this is another problem of birth [24:22] tourism. So what happens once they're born? Do they go back to the country? Are they in the United [24:27] States for good? Well, no, I think the concept of birth tourism is the way Clarence Thomas defined it. [24:33] It's somebody who doesn't stay, right? They don't have a valid visa to stay, so they'd have to [24:38] join the illegal population, but I don't think that's the goal. The goal is to return home [24:43] with their citizen child. With a citizen child, with a citizen child. That child then can come back to [24:47] the United States as an adult. That child, when they reach adulthood, could sponsor the parents [24:52] for green cards, but they typically arrange that type. Do we know if in China, for example, if Chinese [24:58] people come to the United States, they have their children here, the American taxpayer pays for it, [25:04] they go back to China. Do we have any knowledge of what China's doing? Are they trying to develop [25:10] those children to come back to the United States to be bad actors? We know the CCP does things like [25:16] this. Is this what the Chinese Communist Party's doing with birth tourism? Yeah, I can't say. I don't [25:21] know what they're doing. It's possible, though. It's certainly possible, because remember, [25:25] that individual, unlike a normal green card holder or anyone else, is not vetted. They can arrive in the [25:31] United States, travel to and from the United States without limit as an American citizen. [25:37] Is the CCP using that? I don't, I don't know. I believe they are. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate [25:43] you having this hearing. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC request, please. [25:48] Out of objection. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 2020 blog [25:55] from David Beer, current director of immigration. The title, which I would like to complete, [26:00] the laughable security justification for cracking down on birth tourism. [26:05] Without objection. Thank you. And I now recognize Ms. Presley for five minutes for the purpose of [26:12] asking questions. What was that? My apologies. Excuse me. I now recognize Mr. Walkinshaw for five [26:21] minutes. Mr. Chairman, let's be clear. We're not here today because the majority is opposed to so-called [26:26] birth tourism, which, as we've heard, is illegal, wrong, and rare. We're not even here because they're [26:32] opposed to birthright citizenship or illegal immigration. We're here because the MAGA majority [26:37] in this Congress is opposed to immigration and immigrants. All persons born or naturalized in the [26:44] United States are citizens of the United States. President Trump and his ever loyal followers on [26:51] this task force don't like that part of the Constitution. They want to twist it so they can ramp up their [26:56] brutal campaign against immigrants. So they can maybe turn citizenship into a favor granted or withheld [27:03] based on your race, where you're from, who you know, or maybe who you vote for. It wasn't always [27:09] this way in the Republican Party. President Reagan in his farewell address said, I've spoken of the [27:16] shining city all my political life. A tall, proud city, teeming with people of all kinds, living in [27:23] harmony and peace. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to [27:29] anyone with the will and the heart to get there. A Republican president who recognized that [27:35] an immigrant from Ireland, China, Guatemala or elsewhere is just as American as someone like me, [27:42] whose family arrived in Virginia before a nation was founded. A Republican president confident [27:49] in America's strength and ability to incorporate and integrate, as he said, people of all kinds. [27:55] Today, our president makes decisions from weakness, is overwhelmed by events and falls asleep in the Oval [28:02] office. It's pathetic. The majority star witness today, Dr. Camarata, is here not because he's opposed [28:09] to so-called birth tourism or illegal immigration. He opposes immigration, the legal kind. His economic [28:17] claims surrounding immigration have been debunked by economists and experts on the left, the right and [28:22] the center. So let's be clear on what this hearing is about. It's about ramping up the brutal, reckless, mass [28:29] deportation machine that's terrorizing Americans and dragging down our economy. And I wish they were, [28:36] but they are not deporting the worst of the worst. They've diverted federal law enforcement from [28:42] fighting sex trafficking, child trafficking, gun trafficking, and fentanyl trafficking. [28:47] They're actually deporting Americans. Brian Jose Morales Garcia, born in Denver, [28:53] worked construction in Texas, expecting his first child. Federal immigration agents pulled him over [29:00] because he had tinted windows. They didn't believe him when he said he was born here. They deported him to [29:06] Mexico, an American citizen. It took his family, his lawyers, months fighting to bring him back. If this [29:16] task force actually cared about constitutional rights, we'd be talking about the rights this [29:22] administration is stripping from American citizens like Brian, Jose, Morales, Garcia. We could talk about [29:30] ICE agents killing Americans in our streets like Rene Good, Alex Preddy, Lorenzo Salgado, Araujo. We could talk about [29:41] ICE agents entering an American citizen's home with military-grade weapons and no judicial warrant to detain a [29:51] law-abiding husband and father. And for my colleagues who describe themselves as conservatives, there is nothing [29:59] conservative about an armed agent of the federal government breaking down your door while your [30:05] family is sleeping without a warrant signed by a judge. That is the opposite of small government. [30:11] That is as big as government gets, and yet there is silence from this task force. We could talk about [30:19] the detention and deporting of American citizens, the children being detained as we speak, the pregnant [30:29] women being detained and deported as we speak. Those are abuses of institutional power, and they are [30:40] worthy of this task force and this committee's exploration. And yet here we are talking about an [30:49] action that is already illegal and is exceedingly rare while we ignore the violations of constitutional [30:59] rights that take place on a daily basis in every community across this country. I yield back. [31:05] Gentlemen, yields. I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for five minutes for the purpose of asking [31:12] questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm struck by the fact that Mr. Walkenshaw seems to know so much [31:17] about what we're thinking. My wife is a naturalized citizen, and I was there at her citizenship ceremony [31:24] watching many shed tears, as they said, the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time. Yesterday, I actually [31:30] wrote a letter to a citizen in my district who's now proud to call himself a citizen. He had written me [31:35] just to let him let me know that he had become a naturalized citizen. Those are things we celebrate. [31:44] There's a right way to come to this country. There's a wrong way to come to this country. [31:48] And there's a kind of idea coming from the other side of the aisle that just because something is [31:55] illegal, we shouldn't discuss it. Yet entering this country is illegal. And we saw the Biden administration [32:01] completely open our borders and allow 10 million people into our country illegally. So it's worth [32:09] discussing. You're the only one left, so we'll talk to you. Could you talk about the fact, [32:22] when it comes to birth tourism, I guess the thing that concerns me most is the countries that seem to [32:27] be taking advantage of it most seem to be the countries that don't like us the most. What country's [32:35] most taking advantage of this? Yeah, as far as we can tell, but remember, we don't have great data on [32:40] this. It does look like, as you might guess, Russia and China. It looks like Turkey is big on it. [32:46] There's some from Brazil, a smattering of other countries, some in Europe, some outside of Europe, [32:52] some Latin American countries. But you're right, it looks like a base, but this is only based on news [32:58] stories. And we all know news stories can be inaccurate or give a false impression. It looks like China and [33:03] Russia and based on criminal prosecution. As best as we can tell. Yeah, as best we can tell. [33:07] Russia and China. China is definitely an adversary to this nation, has worked in many ways to undermine [33:13] us. We could spend a whole half an hour or hours actually on that. I am concerned too. So what they're [33:23] doing is they're basically taking a B-1 or a B-2 visa and they're coming over here and having a child and [33:29] then going home and raising that child in their, you know, my neighborhood communist school. That [33:34] child's raised, maybe comes here later, works in one of the research institutions, and then through [33:41] chain migration, they can then apply for their parents to become citizens as well. Is that roughly? [33:48] Yeah, that's essentially true. The child can come back and maybe sponsor the parents. And I think the [33:53] primary motive is at the individual level. There might be communist agents or something, but that's [33:58] the main motive is they don't trust their own regime to confiscate their wealth, to treat them. And [34:03] they want to have this possible escape valve, if not for themselves, their children. So that's [34:10] generally what's going on, but with the cascading series of consequences for the United States. [34:16] One of the things that concerns me in this is the vast number of B-1 and B-2 visas we allow [34:21] China to obtain. Do you know roughly what that number is? [34:24] No, I don't know. Obviously, it's in the hundreds of thousands or more. And remember, [34:30] those visas are good for more than one visit, and they're good for more than one year. So the same [34:35] person keeps coming back. But we do get over a million visitors from China, that's for sure. [34:40] Right. I think it's roughly 650,000 a year, and they're usually good for 10 years, which means [34:47] at any moment, six or seven million Chinese nationals can have tourist visas here. [34:53] Right. And then they can come and stay. Okay. And so doctors like Dr. Lorenz come, [34:59] and I noticed on his website that the chairman noticed he has since revised and taken some of [35:04] the details down. But, you know, we can still research and find some of those things. He required [35:10] payment up front. A lot of the hospitals, there was a Senate report that said, you know, sometimes they [35:15] would pay, you know, the doctor in advance, but the hospitals and taxpayers left footing the rest of the [35:21] bill. Could you speak more to that? Yes, sir. So remember, all hospitals are required to treat [35:25] anybody who shows up in their emergency room who needs urgent or emergency care. And a pregnant woman [35:30] about to have a baby falls under that category. The hospital is not going to say no. I don't think [35:36] we're the kind of society that everyone would want to say no. But that has consequences for taxpayers, [35:41] because the vast majority of people, as far as we can tell, don't pay for it. And so the hospital ends up [35:47] eating at least the hospital innate costs, which run into the millions when you consider the number [35:53] of people who are engaged in birth tourism. So that is one of the consequences of this problem. [36:00] You mentioned this a little bit too, but I think a lot of American citizens don't realize how [36:06] favorable in a sense or how lax our immigration system is. And especially on this, like if a U.S. [36:12] mother went to a different country, would this be the norm across the world and other countries? [36:17] Well, in general, most countries don't have the same extremely permissive automatic [36:21] citizenship, right? Now, some countries have very extensive public health care, [36:26] but they would expect you to pay. But, you know, they do have similar rules about emergency care. [36:32] It's just that the scale is not the same. But the citizen apps. Yeah, right. So this is a serious [36:38] problem here because it happens so often. And and we have such permissive rules. So for us, [36:44] it's a really big deal. Other countries much smaller. I think my time's up, Chairman. [36:50] Mr. Chairman, I have a UC. You're recognized. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter [36:57] into the record of May 2026 article from the week entitled birth tourism, a key part of Trump's [37:05] anti-immigration platform without objection. Thank you. I now recognize Miss Presley this time for [37:11] five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Thank you. Today's hearing is yet another assault on [37:18] our democracy and our Constitution. Now, Trump tried to dismantle the 14th Amendment through [37:23] executive order, but even the conservatives on the Supreme Court said that it was wrong, [37:27] that he was wrong. And now Republicans in Congress are trying to do exactly that. [37:32] They aren't just attacking birthright citizenship. They're attacking black Americans, my ancestors, [37:37] who built this country but were denied the fruits of their labor. And black folks would still be denied [37:43] citizenship but for the 14th Amendment. They are attacking women. As co-chair of the Reproductive [37:50] Freedom Caucus, it's abundantly clear to me the Republicans want to continue surveying women's [37:54] bodies and end the freedom of movement for pregnant people. They are attacking immigrants. Changing [37:59] birthright citizenship is the next step from their Project 2025 playbook after the mass deportations of [38:05] people who have been legally working, living, contributing to the United States for decades. [38:10] The chair of this task force, Congressman Gill, recently introduced a bill that would label [38:15] undocumented immigrants and others as quote-unquote invaders. That word is not merely inflammatory. [38:22] That's more than a dog whistle. Hell, that's a bullhorn. It's more than just a wink and a nod [38:27] to what the bill's true motivation is. Dr. Camerota, yes or no, are you familiar with the Great [38:34] Replacement Theory? I certainly read an article. I read an article or two about it, so I don't know exactly. [38:45] Well, let me elucidate you and the public watching at home because it's foundational to what's [38:51] happening here. The Great Replacement Theory is a conspiracy that falsely claims that white people [38:57] are being deliberately replaced by immigrants and people of color. It is a far-right white supremacist [39:02] ideology that far too many Republicans believe is real. In fact, in 2017 in Charlottesville at the Unite [39:10] the Right Rally, when people were brandishing those tiki torches, that's what they were saying, [39:15] you will not replace us. So it often relies on invasion rhetoric to advance that narrative by [39:22] portraying black and brown families as an invading force rather than as human beings and people that [39:28] are entitled to dignity. A parent crossing a border becomes the enemy. A pregnant woman becomes a threat. [39:34] A child born in the United States becomes proof of a takeover. The consequences of this rhetoric have [39:39] been deadly. In 2018, a gunman who embraced anti-Semitic replacement rhetoric murdered 11 [39:46] worshipers at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. In 2019, the El Paso shooter killed [39:52] 23 people and described his attack as a response to a supposed Hispanic invasion of Texas. In 2022, [40:00] in Buffalo, New York, a shooter motivated by replacement ideology killed 10 black Americans while they [40:07] shopped for groceries. Republicans have the choice. You could focus on healing and uniting our communities, [40:16] but you were hell-bent on division and hate. As my colleague made clear, we all understand that birth [40:25] tourism is illegal, it is wrong, and it is rare. That is not really what today's hearing is about. [40:32] What this is about is a strategy to codify the great replacement theory in law, to further codify white [40:40] supremacy, and to weaponize the entire federal government in pursuance of it. And that is the [40:48] fact of the matter. And I refuse to let that happen. I don't believe any of those things, so it has [40:56] nothing to do with me, but I understand your concerns. I think they're wrong. I mean, I think that [41:02] that any kind of hateful or racist ideology has no place in the immigration debate, and I've never [41:10] used any of those phrases, and I never will. Mr. Chairman, I have the UC. You're recognized. Thank [41:21] you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a March 2026 de los article, and it's [41:28] entitled, and I would like to finish the title, Attack on Birthright Citizenship Highlights Trump's White [41:34] nationalist ambitions. Without objection? All right. I now recognize for five minutes, [41:42] for the purpose of asking questions, Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Thanks, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:49] I appreciate that. So I just have to respond to a couple of things from the other side. [41:56] Mr. Byer that was just referenced by one of my colleagues across the aisle is a totally open [42:05] borders libertarian. He wants no restriction on legal or illegal immigration. How do I know? [42:14] He's testified before me at least five times. He's sitting right next door in judiciary. I was just [42:20] there before I came here. And also, if you think that we don't care about victims, I think you've got [42:30] to step next door and listen to the victims of crimes perpetuated by illegal aliens who are testifying [42:37] next door. That might give you some insight that maybe you don't know about. And I did get a kick out [42:42] of someone talking as if they understand what went on during the border, during the open border era of Joe [42:50] Biden, living in Arizona, growing up in Southern Arizona, and been all over the border countless [43:00] times. If you went into the Yuma, Arizona hospital, the only hospital in that vicinity. If you went into [43:09] the maternity ward and you talked to the head of the maternity ward and you talked to the head of the [43:16] hospital. And there were times that since they only had 10 bays, 10 beds, there were times during [43:24] the Biden era many, many times, if not the majority of times, where every one of those beds was taken up [43:33] by an illegal alien who came to deliver their baby in the United States. And when local moms came in to [43:43] deliver their baby, they had to go to Phoenix or San Diego four hours away. And if it was an emergency, [43:51] they even had a cardiac instance where they had to air evac people to Phoenix and San Diego, not because [44:00] of the acuteness of the case, simply because there was no place to treat them. That's, that's what was [44:07] going on. And the birth tourism that we keep hearing the Democrats say is so rare. I'm, I have a UC, Mr. Chairman, [44:20] entitled Birth Tourism Group Arrested. They were actively promoting U.S. tourists. Without objection. [44:28] Thank you. So you had a Texas hospital that was advertising in Mexico, in Spanish, for moms to come [44:41] to the South Texas hospital so that they could have their baby born there with the incentive being [44:49] citizenship in the United States. A Turkish, Turkish national pled guilty to conspiracy to commit [45:00] health care and wire fraud in a birth tourism scheme. He was bringing in pregnant Turkish women [45:08] who fraudulently entered the U.S. using tourist and business visas to give birth so that their [45:13] children would obtain birthright citizenship and medical benefits. That's an article, Mr. Chairman. [45:20] Without objection. Another one. Women in birth tourism ring had 119 babies on Long Island. [45:30] Six people were charged in federal court with bilking Medicaid of 2.1 million dollars [45:35] and taking 750 thousand dollars. Without objection. Here's another one. Manchurian generation ballot [45:43] flood. More than a million Chinese with U.S. citizenship could vote in 2030 elections. Without objection. [45:50] Here's another. How China supercharged birth tourism and scammed American citizenship for up to 1.5 [45:58] million babies. Without objection. Another. U.S. territory turned tropical maternity ward [46:06] has produced thousands of American babies for parents living in China. Without objection. [46:11] That's specifically talking about a thousand companies offering birth tourism to China headquartered in the [46:20] northern Mariana Islands. Without objection. Another one. Their 21 kids were taken by the [46:27] state. Now they're fighting for custody of even more surrogate born babies. Without objection. [46:32] The Chinese billionaires having dozens of U.S. born babies via surrogate. Without objection. [46:38] The new face of birth tourism, Chinese nationals, American surrogates and birthright citizenship. Without [46:44] objection. Birth tourism's next evolution commissioned citizenship. Without objection. [46:50] Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I thank you for holding this hearing. This is a real issue. Must be [46:57] addressed. And I appreciate your willingness to take on the slings and arrows that come from the other [47:02] side. Mr. Chairman, I have two U.C. requests, please. You're recognized. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous [47:07] consent to enter to the record September 2024. An NBC News article entitled, A Dramatic Rise in Pregnant Women [47:15] Dying in Texas After Abortion Ban. My second U.C., sir, is. Without objection. Thank you. I ask [47:22] unanimous consent to enter enter into the record a March 2026 Common Cause article entitled, Seven [47:29] Ways the Trump Administration is Hurting Women. Without objection. I now recognize Mr. Min for five minutes. [47:36] Thank you, Chair Gill, Ranking Member Simon for holding this hearing. I want to begin again by noting that this [47:41] task force, which is explicitly charged with defending constitutional rights and exposing institutional [47:46] abuses, a really important set of responsibilities, is doing none of the above. We have ICE agents right [47:53] now randomly stopping and detaining people based on their race or ethnic identity, assaulting citizens [47:58] in our streets. The president and his family are allegedly selling pardons to those who donate to his [48:03] campaign or his family's business. The DOJ and other federal agencies have been weaponized to go after [48:08] Trump's critics. And just a few days ago, Trump directed the FCC to go after a reporter, Kristen Welker, [48:14] who had the audacity to point out that Trump's record of endorsing candidates this year has had mixed [48:19] results. The American people, the people I talk to, are outraged by all this and they're outraged that [48:24] Congress has done nothing, literally nothing to stop it. And it's frankly quite shameful that this task [48:29] force on defending constitutional rights and exposing institutional abuses has refused to do its job, [48:35] refused to engage in any hearings on any of these topics. Shameful. But going back to the Constitution, [48:41] Dr. Camarota, I have a series of yes-no questions for you. I know you're not a lawyer, [48:45] but do you believe that when members of Congress or military service members take an oath to support [48:50] and defend the Constitution, that means that we support and defend the Constitution even if we disagree [48:54] with parts of it or don't like parts of it? I support the Constitution, yes. That was not the question. [48:58] Do you think that we, taking that oath, are sworn to defend and support parts of the Constitution we may not [49:03] agree with or don't like? We all are, yeah, absolutely. And so, for example, if I personally [49:07] disagree that the Third Amendment's prohibition on quartering soldiers in people's homes was wrong, [49:12] I would still have to support and defend the Third Amendment because it's part of the Constitution. [49:16] I could try to amend it, but until an amendment was in place, it was ratified, I have a sworn duty to [49:21] defend and support it. So we're talking about citizenship today. Are you aware of the Constitution saying [49:25] anything about this topic? Yes, no? It doesn't speak of birth tourism to the best of my mind. It talks about [49:32] citizenship. It talks section one of the 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized [49:37] in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens [49:42] of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. It's very clear language. The text has [49:47] been part of the Constitution for over 150 years now and since it was ratified in 1868. You may not like [49:53] it, you may think that we should change it, but that is the law of the land and you don't have to take my [49:57] word for it. Shortly after that amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court in a case called [50:02] U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark made clear that essentially anyone born in the United States automatically becomes [50:08] a citizen. Notwithstanding this language, however, President Trump tried to overturn the 14th Amendment [50:13] on his first day in office, issuing Executive Order 14160, which would deny citizenship to certain [50:19] U.S. born mothers who were here either with a temporary visa or no documentation. After the Supreme Court [50:26] held that this was unconstitutional, Trump again tried to overturn parts of the Fourth Amendment by [50:30] issuing two additional executive orders purporting to deny citizenship to certain categories of people [50:36] born here. Now a quick yes-no question. Do you think that the president, any president, should be able [50:40] to unilaterally ignore or amend the Constitution by executive order? Supreme Court has decided this [50:45] question. That was all people born in the United States. I'll reclaim my time. Do you think the Constitution [50:49] allows us to revoke people's citizenship because we don't like what they have to say? No, I don't think that [50:54] that makes sense. Well, the chair of this task force, Brandon Gill, tried to revoke the citizenship [50:57] of one of our congressional colleagues last year, circulating a petition to try to pressure the [51:02] Trump administration to deport Representative Ilhan Omar because he did not agree with some of her [51:07] comments and her actions. I would just note that's the opposite of supporting and defending the [51:11] Constitution. Some might call it sedition. And this is all very deeply personal to me because I am [51:16] myself a birthright citizen. My parents were here in America on student visas when I was born. [51:21] They had not become naturalized until after I was born. And if Donald Trump and Brandon Gill [51:26] had had their way, maybe my parents would have been denied their visas. Maybe they would have [51:29] been deported. Maybe my citizenship would have been denied. And maybe if I say something today [51:34] or beyond that Brandon Gill doesn't like, he'll try to revoke my citizenship. But thankfully, [51:38] Brandon Gill does not get to decide who is a citizen because that question is clearly laid out in [51:43] the Constitution of the United States. And while we're apparently living through a moment of doublespeak, [51:48] where a task force meant to, quote, defend constitutional rights is shared by a person [51:52] with no regard for the Constitution, with an agenda to try to take away constitutional rights, [51:58] I and my colleagues here will continue to fight as long as we're members of Congress to ensure that [52:02] every American is ensured the due process and fair representation that the 14th Amendment also [52:07] guarantees. And with that, I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Don't worry, I won't try to revoke [52:14] your citizenship, Mr. Min. I now recognize for five minutes, Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [52:22] for holding this hearing today on birthright citizenship and birthright tourism industry. [52:30] I want to start by talking about a comment from my colleague, Ms. Presley, who brought up the [52:36] Charlottesville Unite the Right rally, trying to use this as a reason, white supremacy as a reason that [52:44] we're holding this hearing today. And I'd like to enter a couple articles into the record. Number one, [52:50] DOJ charges Southern Poverty Law Center with fraud over secret funding of extremist groups. [52:55] Number two, federal grand jury charges Southern Poverty lawsuit with for wire fraud, false statements [53:01] and conspiracy to commit money laundering. It's pretty obviously, you know, pretty obvious here that the [53:07] Southern Poverty Law Center paid white supremacists to show up at that rally, paid an informant to plan [53:15] and post racist content online and coordinate transportation. I just thought that would be [53:21] pertinent to the discussion here today. I want to talk about the Democrat Socialists of America, [53:27] who are becoming more and more powerful in the United States. They provide an interesting contrast to the [53:34] concerns being discussed at this hearing. Their own platform calls for abolishing ICE, ending immigration [53:40] detention, and deportations, granting amnesty regardless of status and ending visa caps and quotas. [53:48] You can find that all on their website. In fact, one of their rising stars, Miss Deanna Moreno, [53:55] excuse me, the New York City Assembly member who took over Zoran Mondami's seat, said the following. [54:02] Please play the video. [54:11] As someone who just got her citizenship in 2016 for a while, I was a closeted socialist. Part of the work [54:19] that I did and the reason I moved to Queens was because I saw the political power that undocumented [54:25] workers and undocumented people in Queens were building. So I know deeply and personally and [54:30] firsthand that you don't have to have papers to have power, right? [54:35] As you could see, she said she spent years as a closeted socialist. She saw political power that [54:43] undocumented people were wielding and that you don't have to have papers to have power. And I think that's a [54:49] lot of what we are concerned about in this hearing today. Dr. Camarota, you talked about the fact that [54:56] these birthright citizenships, you know, that are issued were, you know, foreign nationals come into [55:03] the country to have a baby, get a birth certificate. The difference between them and illegal aliens who [55:09] have a baby is that they go back to their country and then they are raised in their foreign country. Is that [55:15] correct, sir? Yes, obviously the number of illegal immigrants who have child children here and stay [55:21] is, we can estimate that number, about 300,000 a year. So you were, I think you testified that [55:28] according to your research, you estimated between 20 and 25,000 of these, you know, birthright babies [55:34] being born annually. Is that correct? It's 20 to 26,000 for the, uh, for the birth tourists. Yes. [55:41] And these children that then don't grow up in the United States, you know, they can, they can then [55:47] run for public office. Is that correct? They can do all the things that any other citizen does. Yeah. [55:53] And one of the leading countries that you mentioned that are having citizens come over here and have [55:58] birthright babies is, uh, communist China. Is that correct? Yes. Russia and China appear to be the leaders. [56:06] How could that, how could that end up being a problem? [56:08] Right. So that there are many potential issues. Remember, if you're specifically focused on national [56:15] security, remember only a citizen can get a national security clearance. All of these individuals, [56:21] however, who've grown up in a foreign country are not vetted before they arrive, could conceivably get [56:27] a national security clearance because they're American citizens. And that is a concern. [56:31] You know, it's interesting because my colleagues on the left, they always try and make this about white [56:37] supremacy or saying that Republicans, you know, hate immigrants and they know that that's the furthest [56:42] thing from the truth. Actually, we love immigrants. We, we love, we love the legal immigrants, the folks [56:49] that come here and go through the process and do it the right way. Mr. Cloud talked about his wife [56:55] being a naturalized citizen who came here the right way. That's what we want to see because we don't want to [57:00] see these countries, many of them communists or Marxists or socialists come into the country, have babies [57:07] here, raise these kids outside the U.S., and then these kids can come back here, run for office, bring their [57:13] parents in as well. And it's just one more loophole that gets exploited in our immigration system. Thank you, [57:19] Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Crane. I now recognize ranking member Simon for five minutes. [57:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin my remarks, it's come to my attention that our witnesses [57:38] lied under oath. He talked about not having any idea about the great replacement theory. But in August, [57:49] 2025, an article entitled, there's no such thing as replacement theory. It's a clear, it's a replacement [57:58] fact authored by his boss at the Center for Immigration Studies. So I'm saddened that this [58:08] hearing didn't have a witness that tells the truth. In fact, we know that our witness has been debunked [58:18] by conservative scholars for his creative use of statistics. I never said I never heard of it. [58:24] I didn't ask you to speak, sir. Thank you. But you're not telling the truth. No, no, no, no. We don't. [58:29] We're not doing that today. I didn't ask you to speak. And if you read the rules of committee, [58:36] you have to be asked to speak and you were not. So I want to continue and reclaim my time. [58:42] You know, Chairman Comer used subpoena power to compel one of the witnesses to show up today [58:49] at this task force. The power of the subpoena is a mighty one and it comes with great responsibility. [58:56] Unfortunately, this hearing takes and makes a mockery of that subpoena power. [59:04] It's clear that Republican committee leadership does not take that responsibility seriously. [59:11] Committee Democrats have repeatedly requested that our chairman of this committee, [59:17] Chairman Comer, compel now Attorney General Todd Blanche to testify before the committee about his [59:23] prominent role, his prominent role in the Trump administration's Epstein file coverup. Ranking [59:30] member Garcia sent a letter to Chairman Comer on August the 20th of 2026 about how urgent his testimony is. [59:39] But there's no indication that the committee Republicans have any interest in compelling him to appear. [59:46] It has been over a month since Chairman Comer publicly stated that he wanted him to testify as soon [59:52] as the confirmation was complete. This misuse of subpoena power and authority shows just who [59:59] the Republicans really care about holding accountable. I think that the American people [1:00:05] have heard this message loud and clear and I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, [1:00:11] sir. Sure. A June 2nd, 2026 article from The Hill entitled Oversight Democrats Push Comer to [1:00:20] Subpoena Blanche Patel in Epstein's file probe. Without objection. Now, I want to turn back to [1:00:27] Chairman's recently introduced bill, which claims that immigration has, quote, downstream negative [1:00:33] consequences for many aspects of American life. It blames immigrants for housing prices and low wage and [1:00:42] crime. But Mr. Chairman, these facts are wrong because President Trump is ripping families apart and [1:00:49] communities apart and deporting people at an unprecedented rate. But everyday costs are going up for working [1:00:57] families. You might think that seeing immigrants at Walmart is downstream negative consequence. But we [1:01:04] know it's not. The reason for affordability and its crisis is that our president, not a working family [1:01:12] who happened to be born in this country or abroad, a president is rising prices on everyday Americans. [1:01:19] And your state alone in each Texas family has had to spend an additional $329 on housing costs [1:01:28] since the president took office. Each family in your district, Mr. Chairman, has had to spend an [1:01:34] additional $623 on gas since Trump started this illegal war with Iran. That's $195 million in increased cost [1:01:46] for your constituents alone. Across the country, each American family has had to pay more than $3,800 [1:01:55] in increased cost while President Trump has waged his war on immigrants. On top of that, we know that [1:02:01] immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans. We know that. The stats are clear. I'm sure [1:02:07] our witness would agree. Meanwhile, Trump is deploying undisciplined and untrained agents to terrorize our [1:02:17] communities. Let's talk more about this. My Republican colleagues like to talk about the sanctity of [1:02:27] life. This administration's policies are intent on causing harm and cruelty to pregnant women and [1:02:36] children in the name of mass deportation. Postpartum women have been deported, separated from their babies, [1:02:45] infants against their wishes. Pregnant women, pregnant women have been detained and abused. Sanctity of [1:02:53] life. And I'll yield back. Thank you, Ranking Member Simon. Dr. Camarota, do you want to respond to any of that? [1:03:00] Yeah, sure. I don't think she's being truthful here. I never said I never heard of it. I just said I don't [1:03:05] know much about it. I never use that terminology. I never make that argument. Now, it sounds like she'd like [1:03:11] to have my colleague, Mark Rickorian, you know, testify on that topic. It's not my topic. I don't [1:03:15] talk about it. I've never made that argument or any adjacent arguments. So that is the truth, [1:03:22] what I'm saying. And I think it's important to set the record straight. It's nothing to do with me. [1:03:28] Thank you, Dr. Camarota. And I now recognize for five minutes, for the purpose of asking questions, [1:03:35] Ms. Luna. Thank you, Chairman. Just real quick on an update specifically pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. I [1:03:42] know that that's been brought up a lot, actually, at this task force or at this hearing. But I do [1:03:48] believe that there might be a criminal referral being made for prosecution on Leslie Groff for [1:03:52] perjury. So I'm sorry that you were berated like that. I don't have the understanding that you had [1:03:57] perjured yourself. I did have some questions for you, though. Your written testimony puts a figure at [1:04:02] around 20,000 to 26,000 birth tourists a year, totaling around 200,000 to 300,000 of children that were [1:04:09] born via birth tourism over the last decade. I want the American people to understand specifically [1:04:15] the national security threat that this poses. It's, to my understanding, that under the Biden [1:04:19] administration, Chinese nationals were allowed to enter the Mariana Islands visa-free for 14 days. [1:04:25] For anyone who's given birth in 14 days, that's enough time to literally check into a hotel, [1:04:30] deliver a baby, recover well enough to travel, and then to go back home. And a couple years ago, [1:04:36] federal agents had searched 37 maternity hotels across Southern California, specifically catering [1:04:42] to Chinese nationals that were coming here for the purpose of birth tourism. And just last year, [1:04:48] in 2025, a search warrant was executed on an operation tied to Gu Guantuan, a senior member of [1:04:55] the Chinese Communist Party, which turned up 15 children linked to multi-state embryo networks, [1:05:01] all results of birth tourism. Many of these kids were taken back and raised in China, [1:05:07] withholding U.S. citizenship, and then all while retaining the right to vote in our elections once [1:05:11] they turn 18. I just have a question, if you can elaborate on the national security threat that this [1:05:17] poses, having people essentially being born here, but not culturally American, and then brought back [1:05:24] to a country of origin. Yeah, and this is a distinction between a more typical illegal immigrant whose child [1:05:30] grows up in the United States and is likely to develop some attachment identification with the [1:05:34] United States. These are individuals who purposely want to go back, and now that child is raised entirely [1:05:40] in that culture. And, you know, in a country like Russia or China that's pretty hostile to the United [1:05:45] States, it's very likely they're inculcated with some very anti-American views. Yet that individual, [1:05:52] with no real contact to the United States, is allowed to come into the United States, travel to and from [1:05:57] the United States, work at any job, even in the federal government, do everything from vote and [1:06:02] receive federal benefits, and finally that child is eligible for national security clearance. Unlike, [1:06:09] say, a legal immigrant who's foreign born, who has to be vetted before they came, then they have to live [1:06:14] here for a while, then they have to have a background check when they get their citizenship, then that [1:06:18] person is also eligible for national security. The person born to a birth tourism bypasses all of that, [1:06:25] and can immediately apply for national security. Now, they'll still be investigated and maybe will [1:06:31] turn up something, but since they grew up their whole life in the foreign country, it's not that [1:06:36] likely that we're going to know if they have any concerning ties. Is it your opinion that the founding [1:06:41] fathers or authors of our amendments intended to cover a free-for-service arrangement between Chinese [1:06:48] nationals and maternity concierge business in the 14th Amendment? I mean, look, obviously they never [1:06:53] anticipated everything from plane travel to this kind of birth tourism, so it's very hard to say [1:07:00] what they thought, but no one at the time was thinking in these terms. This is an amendment [1:07:05] designed to guarantee, rightly, the citizenship of previous slaves, of former slaves. That's what it was [1:07:12] for. Do you at all find it ironic, yes or no, that you have Democrats today encouraging birth of foreign [1:07:20] nationals, yet in the same perspective and ideology encouraging the abortion of American-born children? [1:07:28] Yeah, I don't know that I can comment on that. I mean, I'm just interested in your opinion because [1:07:32] I find it extremely hypocritical. You know, that touches on the issue of abortion and my organization [1:07:38] has no position on abortion. Okay, thank you very much. I yield my time. I now recognize Mr. McCormick for [1:07:48] five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you allowing me to be here [1:07:53] today. I think it's interesting to watch what the other side of the aisle is doing to confound this [1:08:00] questioning and to distract us from the real question at hand, which is the value of citizenship. [1:08:05] I think everyone here should be able to agree that American citizenship is one of the greatest [1:08:10] privileges in the world. It should be brought as a, it shouldn't be brought as a product, [1:08:16] exploited through a loophole or handed out to foreign nationals who fly here solely to give birth [1:08:21] and then return home. The average citizen would always agree on that. Every year, roughly 33,000 [1:08:29] children are born here in the United States to birth tourists, many whose parents are coached by [1:08:34] businesses that teach how to deceive immigration officials as basically a business. That's what [1:08:41] they do for a living. That is not a legal gray area. It's fraud. It's by design and we cannot tolerate [1:08:49] it any longer. That's why I joined Senator Marshall Blackburn to introduce HR 9919, the ban tourism, [1:08:58] birth tourism act of 2026 to deport and deny entry to any foreign nationals seeking to enter the United [1:09:04] States and engage in birth tourism. Doctor, you had a lot of experience in this area. Do you think [1:09:12] there's something better we can do? Do you think this is a good step in the right direction? What can we do [1:09:16] to stop this? Which the average American would be appalled by if they were actually informed on what's going on [1:09:20] around the world? Yeah, so part of it is prosecution, right? You go after the birth centers, you go after the [1:09:25] people who do it. If you can get any kind of conviction, at least the parents would be forever [1:09:29] barred from coming into the United States. But as I point out in my testimony, the very regulation given [1:09:34] to consular officers where they can't ask any questions in this area is, I think, also problematic. [1:09:41] That can be changed. That's just a regulation. So we could create a situation where people are reminded [1:09:46] when they apply for a visa and that they're not allowed to do this. And if they do do it, they will [1:09:52] have explicitly lied. It is illegal. You can be prosecuted, but there's some gray area and you might be [1:09:58] able to, well, I didn't intend on this. But if you're asked if you're pregnant, if you're asked if you intend [1:10:03] to do this and you say no and no and I'm not going to do it and then you do it, it makes the case much easier. [1:10:09] But our current consular regulations, based on the questions they ask, make that more difficult. [1:10:15] So some changes there would be, I think, one of the places to look in addition to for law enforcement [1:10:21] here to take it seriously and go after the birthing centers and the people who do it. [1:10:26] And this worries me as far as chain migration goes, especially since you're already deceiving the [1:10:29] government, you're doing it intentionally. And of course, that's another way to get over here to the [1:10:33] United States. If you're marked as somebody who's basically federally federally identified as a [1:10:38] breaker of the law, you're not going to be able to come here as a citizen through chain migration, [1:10:44] hopefully, as a result of this law. One of the things I found interesting, the United States [1:10:50] became a birthright citizenship nation in 1868 when we ratified the 14th Amendment and its [1:10:57] citizenship clause. In other words, birthright citizenship isn't new, but it seems like birthright [1:11:03] tourism as a practice is something new. Would you think that this is a new phenomenon [1:11:09] or something that's been going on for a long time? About when do you think it started? [1:11:12] Well, I'm sure it's always gone on a little bit, right? But no, it's only with the advent of cheap [1:11:17] travel. It's only with the advent of, you know, the affordability of that. I think that it's probably [1:11:24] only something in the last 20, 30 years, as far as we can tell. We don't really hear of it in the past. [1:11:30] It doesn't mean it never went on, but it really is a more of a modern phenomenon, as far as we can tell. [1:11:35] But, you know, we can't say that with certainty. Certainly nobody can defend from an average [1:11:41] standpoint of just common sense the fact that tens of thousands of people fly into distant [1:11:47] territories of the United States, have babies, and fly back to their country with no tourism [1:11:52] that's outside of birthright and no actual interaction with the public, no interaction with [1:11:57] spending money other than in a business model for a hospital system that's literally propagating this [1:12:04] and advertising this in many cases, which should be outlawed in my opinion. But once again, exposing [1:12:08] the fact, I'm going to reiterate this fact, 33,000 people per year from foreign countries that are [1:12:16] identified as adversaries, at least competitors of ourselves, allowed to come in here through a [1:12:22] loophole that should be closed. I think the average American would be absolutely appalled. [1:12:26] This is our most valuable commodity as citizens of the United States. We should be protecting [1:12:32] that citizenship beyond measure and with that a yield. Thank you. [1:12:35] I have a UC, sir. [1:12:36] You're recognized. [1:12:38] Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a March 2026 Vox article entitled [1:12:45] The Ugly History Behind Trump's Birthright Citizenship Case in the Supreme Court. [1:12:50] Without objection. All right. Thank you. And I think we're now on to our final set of questions. [1:12:58] So I now recognize for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions, Mr. Jack from Georgia. [1:13:04] Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this task force today. [1:13:09] I'd like to start, if I could, with the topic I know you know much about, B-2 visas. And specifically, [1:13:15] I want to ask, I mean, as we both know, B-2 visas are permit temporary travel for tourism, vacation, [1:13:22] family visits, medical treatment, and they are the non-immigrant visa category most frequently [1:13:27] associated with birth tourism. Would you say that's an accurate statement? [1:13:30] B-1 and B-2, yeah. [1:13:31] And with the U.S. coming off of a very successful World Cup while preparing to host the 2028 Olympics, [1:13:38] B-2 visa applications are expected to surge in the coming years. And I'm curious, [1:13:42] are there any realistic safeguards to differentiate genuine tourists and individuals who wish to [1:13:47] participate in birth tourism as we discussed today? [1:13:50] Well, as we discussed, it's against the law. But the way in which visas are administered at the consular [1:13:56] level, make it more difficult to weed people out and to prosecute them after the fact. But that could [1:14:02] change. So we're not stuck with this issue. It's not hopeless. We can do some things on the ground [1:14:07] where the rubber meets the road. And we should. [1:14:09] What are some of the things we can do? [1:14:11] Yeah, well, you could instruct consular officers that they can ask about pregnancy. They can ask [1:14:15] about your intent to have a child in the United States. And we could adopt a rule that you don't get [1:14:19] to come to the United States if you're pregnant for a tourist visa. We're not talking about a green card. [1:14:24] We're talking about someone who's going to come here and live. We're talking about someone who says, [1:14:27] look, I'm coming temporarily to your country. And we say, okay, well, after you have the kids, [1:14:30] you could come. And we could ask those questions. And consular officers can do that. Even, you know, [1:14:37] when a person arrives at a port of entry, we can ask those questions and exclude those who do that. [1:14:43] Many countries do things like that. It's perfectly reasonable. [1:14:46] Thank you very much. I'm curious, today we talked about, and obviously we did not hear from the witness [1:14:50] that we should have heard from because of his approach to this hearing. But I'm curious, [1:14:55] that was regarding Florida. Which other states are you seeing this concept of tourism most exploited, [1:15:02] or at least attempted to be exploited? Yeah, that's a good question. As far as the [1:15:05] stories coming out for the media, it looks like Florida, Texas, California, and New York. They seem to [1:15:10] be where the stories are concentrated. It doesn't necessarily mean it probably happens other places, [1:15:16] but big international airports. And that's one of the factors. [1:15:22] Well, one of the things that we're talking a lot about, obviously in 60 days, we're going to have [1:15:25] an election and we can't campaign from here. But I am curious, a lot of people talk about [1:15:30] really what we see the Democrats looking to do if they themselves are successful this November. [1:15:37] And I'm curious, could you describe for us as a committee what the Trump administration has [1:15:42] successfully achieved with respect to limiting part tourism and what that could look like if [1:15:46] Democrats were in control of Congress? Yeah, well, I mean, they've tried to look at visas, [1:15:52] and what they've also tried to do is encourage prosecution of those under the law for visa fraud, [1:16:00] wire fraud, those kinds of crimes. So the hope is that this could really serve as a deterrent, [1:16:06] and at the same time, they've really stepped up trying to go after the birthing houses or the birth [1:16:11] tourist centers. So these are some of the areas where they're trying to do. I don't know. I have [1:16:16] not been able to determine what they're doing with regard to instructions to consular officers, [1:16:20] but clearly that is an important area that would also buttress these efforts. [1:16:26] What would you say if Democrats were in control of this Congress? What do you think would happen [1:16:29] with respect to this issue? I mean, you know, that's like, I'm not here to make a partisan [1:16:35] judgment on Democrats. I'm sorry. Obviously, in my experience, I have run into a lot of Democrats who [1:16:41] are concerned about this problem. Let me frame the question a different way. [1:16:44] Under the Biden administration, how did that differ? How did they approach pro-tourism versus [1:16:48] this administration? There was some prosecutions. It just wasn't a priority. It wasn't seen [1:16:53] as the kind of important national issue that it is by the Trump administration. I think that's a fair [1:16:58] characterization. You've spoken a lot about things that we can do. Just curious, as you wrap up your, [1:17:04] or we wrap up our line of questioning today, what are some closing ideas you have for this committee? [1:17:08] It seems like consular officer direction is definitely one of your ideas. Curious what else you may have for us [1:17:13] as we close out? And some of those same things can be done at poor entry by border patrol. So that [1:17:18] would be asking questions and things like that. Other things in addition to prosecutions. I mean, [1:17:24] you could look at, you know, broader ranging things, you know, adopting rules for people to retain their [1:17:30] citizenship. It's unclear whether that could have much effect. But the point is, so there might be some [1:17:35] stuff in that area. But the reality is, as other members have pointed out, the nature of the 14th [1:17:42] amendment is that they get citizenship. I'm not disputing their citizens. And that's the whole [1:17:46] reason we're here. So if you have a very permissive citizenship constitution, then you have to tightly [1:17:53] control it. You have to take that reality seriously. And we can in this area do that, but it would require [1:18:00] coordinated effort between law enforcement and DHS and State Department. And I think we could greatly [1:18:07] curtail it. Could we eliminate it? No. Could we get rid of much of it? Yes. Thank you very much. [1:18:12] I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I have a UC request, sir. You're right.