Full text of the official published hearing record. Extracted from the source document — verify against the official record for citation.
[House Hearing, 119 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP: CONFRONTING BIRTH TOURISM ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE TASK FORCE ON DEFENDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND EXPOSING INSTITUTIONAL ABUSES OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 __________ Serial No. 119-73 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 64-500 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026 ======================================================================= COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida Pat Fallon, Texas Greg Casar, Texas Byron Donalds, Florida Jasmine Crockett, Texas Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Emily Randall, Washington William Timmons, South Carolina Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia Tim Burchett, Tennessee Yassamin Ansari, Arizona Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California Eric Burlison, Missouri James Walkinshaw, Virginia Elijah Crane, Arizona Christian Menefee, Texas Brian Jack, Georgia Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts John McGuire, Virginia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Brandon Gill, Texas Richard McCormick, Georgia ------ Mark Marin, Staff Director James Rust, Deputy Staff Director Ryan Giachetti, Chief Counsel Karl Keyzer-Andre, Professional Staff Member Rodney Rios, Counsel Charles Donahue, Professional Staff Member Edward Kim, Professional Staff Member Hayes Orr, Research Assistant Mallory Cogar, Director of Operations and Chief Clerk Contact Number: 202-225-5074 Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director Contact Number: 202-225-5051 ------ Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses Brandon Gill, Texas, Chairman Jim Jordan, Ohio Lateefah Simon, California, Michael Cloud, Texas Ranking Member Andy Biggs, Arizona Dave Min, California Byron Donalds, Florida James Walkinshaw, Virginia Brian Jack, Georgia Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts C O N T E N T S ---------- OPENING STATEMENTS Page Hon. Brandon Gill, U.S. Representative, Chairman................. 1 Hon. Lateefah Simon, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member......... 2 WITNESSES Dr. Wladimir Lorentz, Founder and Chief Medical Officer, Miami Medical Concierge Services, LLC Oral Statement................................................... 4 Dr. Julio Cesar Novoa (Invited), Medical Director and Owner, International Maternity Services Dr. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) Oral Statement................................................... 5 Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document Repository at: docs.house.gov. INDEX OF DOCUMENTS * Article, CBS News, ``21 Kids Taken by State, Now Fighting For Custody of More Surrogate Babies''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, The American Mind, ``Birth Tourism's Next Evolution, Commissioned Citizenship''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, News Insights, ``Birth-Tourism Group Arrested-- Actively Promoting U.S. Tours''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, NYP, ``How China Supercharged Birth Tourism and Scammed American Citizenship''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, Breitbart, ``Manchurian Generation--More than 1M Chinese With U.S. Citizenship Could Vote''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, Heritage Foundation, ``New Face of Birth Tourism, Chinese Nationals, American Surrogates''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, WSJ, ``The Chinese Billionaires Having U.S.-Born Babies Via Surrogate''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, NYP, ``US Territory Where Thousands of Chinese Moms Give Birth to American Babies''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, NYT, ``Women in `Birth Tourism' Ring Had 119 Babies on Long Island, Officials Say''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Press Release, DOJ ``Turkish National Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy in Birth Tourism Scheme''; submitted by Rep. Biggs. * Article, CNBC, ``DOJ Charges Southern Poverty Law Center With Fraud Over Secret Funding of Extremist Groups''; submitted by Rep. Crane. * Press Release, DOJ ``Federal Grand Jury Charges Southern Poverty Law Center for Wire Fraud, False Statements, and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering''; submitted by Rep. Crane. * Blog post by David Bier, January 23, 2020, ``The Laughable `Security' Justification for Cracking Down on Birth Tourism''; submitted by Rep. Simon. * Article, NBC, ``A Dramatic Rise in Pregnant Women Dying in Texas After Abortion Ban''; submitted by Rep. Simon. * Article, LA Times, ``Attack on Birthright Citizenship Highlights Trump's White Nationalist Ambitions''; submitted by Rep. Simon. * Article, The Week, ``Birth Tourism: A Key Part of Trump's Anti-Immigration Platform''; submitted by Rep. Simon. * Article, Brennan Center for Justice, ``Birthright Citizenship Shouldn't Be Up for Debate''; submitted by Rep. Simon. * Article, The Hill, ``Oversight Democrats Push Comer to Subpoena Blanche, Patel in Epstein Files Probe''; submitted by Rep. Simon. * Article, Common Cause, ``Seven Ways the Trump Administration is Hurting Women''; submitted by Rep. Simon. * Article, Vox, ``The Ugly History Behind Trump's Birthright Citizenship Case in the Supreme Court''; submitted by Rep. Simon. The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov. PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP: CONFRONTING BIRTH TOURISM ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses Washington, D.C. The Task Force met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brandon Gill [Chairman of the Task Force] presiding. Present: Representatives Gill, Jordan, Cloud, Biggs, Jack, Simon, Min, Walkinshaw, and Pressley. Also present: Representatives Comer, Luna, Crane, McCormick, and Menefee. Mr. Gill. This hearing of the Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses will come to order. Welcome, everybody. Thanks for being here. Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any time. I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRANDON GILL REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS Good morning, and welcome to this hearing on the harms of birth tourism in the United States. American citizenship is the glue which binds our Republic together. Being a citizen of the United States of America represents full legal membership in the great American experiment. But the concept of birthright citizenship is being exploited by foreign nationals, including those from adversarial nations like the People's Republic of China and Russia. Decades ago, even Democrat leaders, such as Harry Reid, believed that the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors should not be granted automatic citizenship. Since then, the view of the Democrat Party has radically changed. Now, through misguided policies and exploitation of our immigration laws, through fraud and other criminal activity, our country has become a hub of birth tourism. Thousands of foreigners travel to all parts of the country--to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, to El Paso, to Miami--for the sole purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child. There are few reliable statistics available on the annual numbers of birth tourists, but the little we do know is incredibly alarming. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated in 2020 that the annual number of birth tourists could be as high as 20,000 to 26,000 a year. The abuse of our laws and our Constitution does not benefit the American people. There are serious risks and consequences to birth tourism. Between 750,000 to 1.5 million Chinese nationals living outside the United States may have acquired American citizenship simply by being born here. These are children who may have no connection or allegiance to the United States of America and who have been raised under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. When they grow up, like any other citizen, they will be eligible for government service, election to public office, voting in American elections, social service benefits, and the ability to extend immigration benefits and a path to citizenship to their parents, spouses, and other family members. Birth tourism has created a for-profit industry that abuses our Nation's immigration laws. The birth tourism industry consists of a complex underground network of fraud involving visa manipulation, maternity hotels, and sometimes unpaid medical bills, which place burdens on American taxpayers. Thankfully, Republicans and the Trump Administration are working to expose and address the birth tourism problem through proposed legislation and executive action. We must protect, strengthen, and uphold the dignity and value of American citizenship and protect our country from foreign efforts to subvert what it means to be an American. And, with that, I yield to Ranking Member Simon for her opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER LATEEFAH SIMON REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA Ms. Simon. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and to our guest. Thank you for calling this hearing. You know, today's hearing is being presented as a conversation about birth tourism--which is already illegal. It is illegal and it is rare for someone to obtain a visa to come to the United States for the primary purpose of giving birth so that their child receives citizenship. It is visa fraud, and there are serious consequences. It is illegal--it is illegal--it is illegal and rare for businesses to market birth tourism services to expectant parents abroad. Again, it is illegal. This facilitating of such actions are, in fact, visa fraud, and such businesses face criminal prosecution. One of our witnesses here today is already under criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. But the Majority has put a much bigger and more sinister goal for this hearing today. Our Chairman is asserting and conflating visa fraud and birthright citizenship so that our President and Stephen Miller can continue their campaign to rewrite the Constitution and change the ethnic makeup of this country to one that they prefer. The Chairman has introduced H.R. 9854, legislation that would gut the constitutional right to citizenship for children born here in the United States, and he has argued that the 14th Amendment was written for formerly enslaved people and their children and nothing more. Well, Mr. Chairman, as a direct descendant of enslaved Africans who is now serving in the U.S. Congress, I would like to correct your history. It was in the mid-1860s, as you may recall, that Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois first drafted citizenship language that would later form the basis of the 14th Amendment. His initial version applied specifically to people of African descent. Then, literally a day later, he expanded it. He replaced that language with a guarantee for all persons born in the United States. That was not an accident. And in July of this year, the Supreme Court of these United States reiterated that, and it is settled law. Now, I have to wonder if the team studied the history, because the Members of the U.S. Congress who wrote the guarantee made a deliberate decision to not limit American citizenship by race, by ancestry, or the circumstances of a child's parents. And now, 160 years later, the Chairman's legislation would gut the intentional and inclusive guarantee by labeling people ``invaders.'' Think about what that means. The historical exception being invoked here concerns foreign enemies during hostile occupation of American territory. We are talking armies, an occupying force. Mr. Chairman, your bill attempts to apply the concept to a volunteer firefighter, a pastor who provided shelter and food and clothing for those in need, a beloved daycare teacher, a nurse who cares for dialysis patients, and, of course--we know this visual--a 5-year-old in a bunny hat. These are our neighbors, not a foreign army. Now, we know that the real threat is our President's decision to pull more than 25,000 members of law enforcement away from their jobs across the country fighting drugs and child exploitation and human trafficking and terrorism so that they can instead--and we have seen it; it is clear--instead, they go after peaceful mothers and fathers and children. Mr. Chairman's bill and this hearing today is a clear attempt to formally create a caste system here in the United States of America. This vision would bar American-born children from the American Dream and from fully participating in American life. It is decidedly un-American. These are babies, children, born in the United States. This Task Force, which purports to be about defending constitutional rights, has no place in potently attempting to dictate American-born children, who deserve citizenship--who deserves it and who does not. Especially when the same politicians, calling these children a burden, have voted to cut food assistance for millions of Americans. In Texas alone, more than 344,000 babies, children, have lost their SNAP benefits in the last year. Now, if we care about children, let us care about children. The 14th Amendment was written in the aftermath of slavery because this country had learned, at an extraordinary cost, what happens when the government gets to decide which people born on American soil fully belong. We should not reopen that door. We must not reopen that door. And for anyone watching this hearing today who believes that citizenship should not depend on the politics of your parents, call your Representative. Tell them to oppose H.R. 9854, and tell them that this bill should never get a markup. And I will yield back. Mr. Gill. Thank you, Ranking Member Simon. Without objection, Representatives Luna of Florida, Crane of Arizona, McCormick of Georgia, and Menefee of Texas are waived on to the Committee for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at today's Task Force hearing. I would now like to welcome the witnesses. First we have Dr. Wladimir--is that correct? Dr. Lorentz. Yes. Mr. Gill. Dr. Wladimir Lorentz, founder and Chief Medical Officer for Miami Medical Concierge Services, also known as, quote, ``Have My Baby in Miami,'' unquote. Next, we have Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies, who has studied issues linked to immigration for decades, including economic, fiscal, and demographic impacts of immigration. Thank you for joining us, and I look forward to hearing from both of you. Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will--will the witnesses please stand and raise their right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? [Chorus of ayes.] Mr. Gill. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And thank you. You can take a seat. We appreciate you being here today and look forward to hearing from both of you. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statement and it will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your 5 minutes will have expired and we would ask you to please wrap up. I now recognize Dr. Lorentz for his opening statement. STATEMENT OF DR. WLADIMIR LORENTZ FOUNDER AND CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER MIAMI MEDICAL CONCIERGE SERVICES, LLC Dr. Lorentz. Can you hear me? Mr. Gill. Yes. Dr. Lorentz. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Task Force, my name is Wladimir Lorentz. I appear today in response to a subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on August 26, 2026, compelling my attendance and testimony at this hearing. I am represented by counsel, Jeffrey Sloman, seated behind me today. On the advice of counsel, I will respectfully decline to answer any questions touching the subject matter of a pending Federal investigation on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nothing in my appearance here today and nothing in my declining to answer questions should be understood as a concession regarding the merits of any matter under my investigation. All rights, privileges, and objections available to me are expressly reserved. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here. Mr. Gill. The witness declines to testify. I now recognize Dr. Camarota for his opening statement. STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN A. CAMAROTA DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES (CIS) Dr. Camarota. Thank you. I would like to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify on this important topic of birth tourism. Paraphrasing Justice Clarence Thomas, birth tourism is the practice of traveling here with a temporary visa solely to give birth and obtain citizenship for one's child, then returning home to raise the child. My testimony will focus only on the likely number of birth tourists, specific concerns raised by this practice, and what might be done about it or to deter it. I will not discuss the larger issue of birthright citizenship, though I am happy to answer any questions in that area. My analysis of the 2024 public-use birth certificate records provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show about 8,700 births to foreign-born mothers who provided an overseas address on the birth certificate application. Although some researchers have tried to use this information to estimate the scale of the problem, this is not really a valid approach because there is ample evidence that so-called ``birthing centers'' or ``birth houses'' in the United States, which have U.S. addresses, are where the mother stays after she has given birth, are the addresses provided on birth certificates so the mother can receive the birth records before she leaves, ensuring citizenship has been properly registered. Because birth tourists have a very strong incentive to stay long enough to ensure that the whole reason they came has been accomplished. Birth certificate addresses may be of little use in estimating birth tourism, but based on a comparison of Census Bureau data and birth records, the Center estimated that there were 20,000 to 26,000 birth tourists each year. Unfortunately, our estimate is a bit dated, and we cannot update it because of changes in the way the data is being reported. Nevertheless, there were likely 200,000 to 300,000 children born to birth tourists in the last decade. So, it is not a trivial number. Now, relative to the total number of births in the United States, it is still a small share, but the absolute number appears to be quite significant. Why is this a problem? Well, a survey found that 25 percent of Americans believe that children of tourists should not get citizenship. The strong sense that birth tourism is wrong, I think, stems from the idea that American citizenship, one of the most valuable things in the world, should not be attained under false pretenses. Further, the whole point of our legal immigration system is that the American people are deciding, through their elected representatives and their laws, who will become their fellow Americans. Birth tourism bypasses the will of the people and gives out American citizenship to those who game the system. Now, birth tourism raises questions, too, I think, about assimilation and even national security. Even the children of more run-of-the-mill illegal immigrants typically grow up in the United States, so they are much more likely to develop some attachment to the country, but because the children of birth tourists grow up outside of the United States, they are much less likely to develop this attachment. And, yes, as American citizens, of course, though, they can still enter the United States anytime they want, travel to and from the country without any prior screening; they can attend college; they can work at almost any job, even within the Federal Government; and they can access public benefits immediately. Further, only citizens can obtain a security clearance, so there is potentially a national security dimension to birth tourism. The children of birth tourists can also sponsor their parents for a green card once they reach adulthood, rewarding the very people who committed the visa fraud. So, what can we do about this? First, birth tourists can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C., which criminalizes fraud and misuse of visa application and other documents. Getting convictions in this area would be a major deterrent, particularly of the birth tourist industry, those who run these birthing houses. Another issue to think about is, at present, consular officers generally cannot even ask a tourist applicant if they are pregnant and intend to come to the United States to have a child. Every tourist must be asked this directly. If they lie, it makes prosecution a whole lot easier, because right now they could say, ``Well, I did not intend for this to happen.'' But if you ask them if you are coming here to have a child and they say no, but they are using a birth tourist center and they have a child as soon as they get here, it makes the case easier. As the President's recent executive order stated, ``Citizenship is not a commodity to be acquired through calculated exploitation and evasion of immigration laws.'' Policy changes, coupled with prosecutions, can greatly reduce this problem. Mr. Gill. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. We are now going to move on to the question-and-answer portion of this hearing. And we will start off--I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. And, first of all, I want to begin by thanking the witnesses once again for taking the time to be here. Dr. Lorentz, you run a medical business. Is that correct? Press the ``talk'' button, please, so I can hear you. Dr. Lorentz. Can you hear me? Mr. Gill. You run a medical business. Is that correct? Dr. Lorentz. I am. Yes, I am. Mr. Gill. You do. Is it true that your business, Have My Baby in Miami, marketed itself to and facilitated the entry of foreign nationals seeking to come to the United States to give birth and obtain birthright citizenship for their children? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may intend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Mr. Gill. Okay. The witness invokes his Fifth Amendment right. I have got your website right here, that you had spent quite a bit of time marketing, which suggests that you were, in fact, facilitating the entry of foreign nationals so that they could give birth and obtain citizenship for their children. This is Have My Baby in Miami's website. On the front page of it, the last line of the commentary states, ``Now the dream of having a child in the United States is closer to reality than you ever imagined.'' Is this your website, Dr. Lorentz? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may incriminate me, and I invoke the rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Mr. Gill. Okay. The website continues. There is a step-by-step guide, preparing for the trip to the United States. It has got information on arrival, waiting for the delivery, the birth, preparing for return, and returning back home to the person's home country. It has even got a section on legal topics. Do you recognize this? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on the grounds that a truthful answer may intend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Mr. Gill. Dr. Lorentz, how many babies have you birthed in the United States to the parents of foreign nationals? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on the grounds that a truthful answer may intend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States. Mr. Gill. Your website says over 2,000 deliveries of international patients so far, so I think we can assume it is over 2,000. The website continues. It has got a section for documentation, health insurance, advising foreign nationals on how to obtain international health insurance, housing in the United States even. It is quite thorough. Dr. Lorentz, what--this website is not public anymore. What motivated you to take down or at least substantially modify this website for Have My Baby in Miami after we first wrote to you about birth tourism in May? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Gill. Does your business help children of members of the Chinese Communist Party obtain American citizenship? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may intend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Gill. Have you ever facilitated the childbirth in America for a member of Tren de Aragua, MS-13, or any other narco-terrorist organization? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may intend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Gill. Dr. Lorentz, are you declining to answer any question that I put to you today on the basis that you believe that an answer would incriminate you? Dr. Lorentz. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me---- Mr. Gill. Dr. Lorentz---- Dr. Lorentz [continuing]. And I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. Mr. Gill [continuing]. Is it your intention to answer any question put to you by the Committee today with an assertion of your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? Dr. Lorentz. Can you please repeat the question? Mr. Gill. Is it your intention to answer any question put to you today by the Committee with an assertion of your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? Dr. Lorentz. Speak to counsel, please? Mr. Gill. No. Dr. Lorentz. No? Mr. Gill. No. No, sir. Dr. Lorentz. Okay. On the advice of---- Mr. Gill. Sir, this is a---- Dr. Lorentz. Yes. Mr. Gill. All right. Let the record reflect that Dr. Lorentz has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination to all questions posed to him today. Dr. Lorentz, considering your invocation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, pursuant to the terms of the subpoena issued for your appearance at this hearing, I have no choice but to excuse you from the witness panel. You are hereby excused from the witness panel, and we will continue the hearing. And, with that, my time is up, and I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Menefee from Texas for the purpose of asking questions. Mr. Menefee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Trump has sent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) into American communities to terrorize Americans and immigrants, and they have harmed people and even killed people--people who were never charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. Some of them were American citizens, but all of them were folks who were deserving of dignity--Renee Good; Alex Pretti; Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who was killed in my hometown of Houston; and many more. The Trump Administration's immigration campaign has been brutal and inhumane, and, Dr. Camarota, you own that outcome. Trump's right hand on immigration policy, Stephen Miller, has been the architect of this Administration's brutality, and he has called you, quote, a ``top expert'' on immigration policy. And you were so proud of that, that you put it in your bio. They have used your research to craft policy, to craft laws. You have testified before Congress more than two dozen times on this subject. So, you own this Administration's immigration record as much as anybody sitting outside of the West Wing. We are here today to talk about undocumented women giving birth in this country, so let us talk about what is happening to pregnant women already in ICE custody. Dr. Camarota, I have got an NBC News article right here from late last year entitled, ``Pregnant Women Describe Miscarrying and Bleeding Out While in ICE Custody, Advocates Say.'' Are you familiar with this article? Dr. Camarota. I am not. Mr. Menefee. It says that over a dozen women told advocates and their attorneys that they suffered mistreatment and neglect while they were pregnant and held in immigration custody. It even describes a situation where a woman had lost so much blood that she had to get a transfusion while in immigration custody. It describes women saying they were shackled and restrained, some even while actively miscarrying. Dr. Camarota, you have written a ton about upping immigration enforcement to protect national security, to help American workers, to save taxpayers money. So, my question to you is very direct: Shackling a pregnant woman who poses no violent threat and no security risk does nothing to protect national security. Agree or disagree? Dr. Camarota. I am not sure I understand your question, but it sounds like what you are trying to ask me is, should any person---- Mr. Menefee. Well, my question was very straightforward. I am not interested in what you think I am trying to ask; I am interested in what I am actually asking you. Let me repeat the question to you. It is very direct. Shackling a pregnant woman who poses no violent threat and no threat to national security does nothing to protect our national security. Agree or disagree? Dr. Camarota. I know nothing about this case. I am sorry, I cannot comment on it. But if this woman was abused, I am 100 percent against that. Mr. Menefee. Shackling a pregnant woman who does nothing to help American workers--shackling a pregnant woman does nothing to help American workers. Agree or disagree? Dr. Camarota. Again, if this woman was abused, the parties should be prosecuted. I have never advocated any such thing. Mr. Menefee. So, if ICE agents shackled a pregnant woman who was in ICE detention and she was not a threat to their physical safety, those ICE agents should be prosecuted. That is your testimony here today before Congress. Dr. Camarota. I do not know anything about this incident, and you are asking me to say--but I do believe this woman should be treated humanely and should never be abused, and if anyone does, they should be prosecuted, any law enforcement. I certainly would say that. Mr. Menefee. I am glad that you agree with me on that. Shackling a pregnant woman does nothing to save taxpayers money. Agree or disagree? Dr. Camarota. Again, I know nothing about this case, but if this woman is abused, people should be--you know, the people who did it should be held accountable. I think we both agree on that. Mr. Menefee. Well, you follow immigration policy pretty closely. Are you familiar with the murder of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo out of Houston, Texas? Dr. Camarota. I cannot say I know enough about it to really comment. I have read a couple news stories, but, as we all know, it takes a long time for investigations to be complete. But---- Mr. Menefee. The President's right hand on immigration has cited you as a top expert on immigration policy, and you are not familiar with ICE's murder of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo out of Houston, Texas? This has been national news for months. You are not familiar with that? Dr. Camarota. I have read some news stories about it. Does that make me an expert on this man's---- Mr. Menefee. I did not ask you if you were an expert. I asked you if you were familiar with it. You listen to my questions and you answer them. Dr. Camarota. I told you, I was--I had listened---- Mr. Menefee. Are you familiar with it, yes or no? Dr. Camarota. I read a few news stories on it. I do not know that I could make a whole lot of comments. But, again, if this man was shot incorrectly, people involved should be held accountable. I just do not have any information that would allow me to say what happened. Mr. Menefee. Just so we are clear, the gentleman who Stephen Miller has designated as a top expert on immigration policy, your testimony here today is that if ICE agents improperly shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, they should be prosecuted. Dr. Camarota. They should be held accountable, absolutely, 100 percent. Mr. Menefee. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Gill. Thank you. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Chairman Comer for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate you holding this hearing. Dr. Camarota, is the objective of birth tourism to make money? Or is it more sinister, to change the demographics and political atmosphere? Dr. Camarota. Well, it is obviously to make money for those who run the birth houses, the birthing centers, that kind of thing. Obviously, they are in it for the money. They are getting paid a fee. But for the individual, I do not think there is some kind of big conspiratorial reason. I think the reason they do it, is they do not trust their own governments--and that is understandable; Russia and China have very arbitrary governments--and they are hoping that their children might have this as an out. They could come to America, you know, land of the free. That is what they want. And their children will be able to sponsor them as adults. I do not--there is no evidence that this is some kind of effort by these foreign countries to change the demography of the United States. Rather, it is an individual act--illegal, engage in fraud and abuse of our citizenship laws--but, nonetheless, that is their motive. It is selfish. Chairman Comer. It definitely is an abuse---- Dr. Camarota. That is for sure. Chairman Comer [continuing]. Of the citizenship laws. How do people in other countries find out about birth tourism? Dr. Camarota. Well, the fact is that the--the fact that the United States has, you know, one of the most--maybe not the most, but one of the most--liberal or permissive citizenship laws is known. So, and, of course, these facilities that arrange for the birth, they advertise a lot. Chairman Comer. They are advertising. And how are they advertising? Are they advertising on social media? Are they advertising in newspapers? Are local---- Dr. Camarota. Everything I have seen, it is social media, the web, maybe newspapers, but a whole lot of word of mouth too. Chairman Comer. So, let us go to when the births happen in the United States. I would assume that many of the births happen without a method of payment, without private health insurance. Who pays for that? What is the cost to the hospitals or the taxpayers? I mean, somebody has to pay. I have had three children. It is very expensive. Dr. Camarota. It is. Chairman Comer. My wife had three children, so. But what is--who pays for this? Dr. Camarota. Yes, sometimes it is the taxpayers, because, remember, hospitals do not turn anyone away who needs urgent care or emergency care. Chairman Comer. Would it be paid for by Medicaid? Dr. Camarota. Yes, there is the Disproportionate Share Hospital Program---- Chairman Comer. Uh-huh. Mr. Camarota [continuing]. And there might be charity at that hospital. Sometimes there could be self-pay. But the taxpayer is often getting stuck with the bill, based on anecdotal evidence. But I do not know that we have any systematic evidence. Chairman Comer. So, just on the childbirth part, these people that are promoting birth tourism, that are profiting from birth tourism, they are advertising in foreign countries for those illegals to come to the United States, and when they have their childbirth, the Medicaid program, our Medicaid program that we are trying to fight on this Committee--the Republicans, not the Democrats; they do not care about waste, fraud, and abuse--we are trying to prevent Medicaid payments to people that are not citizens, at the very least, among other things, among fraudsters and everything else. They are advertising, people come over here, the hospitals get them signed up on Medicaid, and it is paid for. So, that is a huge cost to the American taxpayer. How many of these would you estimate are happening annually? Dr. Camarota. It is certainly going to run into the millions of dollars, but it does not take much to do that. If we are right and there are 20,000 to 26,000 births and even 10,000 of them are paid for by the taxpayer, however that is done, then you are talking tens of millions of dollars, because each birth is, as you rightly---- Chairman Comer. Right. Mr. Camarota [continuing]. Point out, expensive. So, this is another problem of birth tourism. Chairman Comer. So, what happens once they are born? Do they go back to the country, or are they in the United States for good? Dr. Camarota. Well, no, I think the concept of birth tourism is the way Clarence Thomas defined it. It is somebody who does not stay. Right? Chairman Comer. Uh-huh. Dr. Camarota. They do not have a valid visa to stay, so they would have to join the illegal population. But I do not think that is the goal. The goal is to return home with their-- -- Chairman Comer. With a citizen child. Mr. Camarota [continuing]. Citizen child. Right. Chairman Comer. With a citizen child. Dr. Camarota. That child then can come back to the United States as an adult. That child, when they reach adulthood, could sponsor the parents for green cards. But they typically-- -- Chairman Comer. Do we know if, in China, for example--if Chinese people come to the United States, they have their children here, the American taxpayer pays for it, they go back to China, do we have any knowledge of what China is doing? Are they trying to develop those children to come back to the United States to be bad actors? We know the CCP does things like this. Is this what the Chinese Communist Party is doing with birth tourism? Dr. Camarota. Yes, I cannot say. I do not know what they are doing. Chairman Comer. It is possible, though. Dr. Camarota. It is certainly possible, because, remember, that individual, unlike a normal, you know, green-card holder or anyone else, is not vetted. They can arrive in the United States, travel to and from the United States without limit as an American citizen. Is the CCP using that? I do not know. Chairman Comer. I believe they are. And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing. I yield back. Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC request, please. Mr. Gill. Without objection. Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 2020 blog from David Bier, current Director of Immigration, the title, which I would like to complete: ``The Laughable `Security' Justification for Cracking Down on Birth Tourism.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Ms. Simon. Thank you. Mr. Gill. And I now recognize Ms. Pressley for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. My apologies. Excuse me. I now recognize Mr. Walkinshaw for 5 minutes. Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us be clear. We are not here today because the Majority is opposed to so-called ``birth tourism,'' which, as we have heard, is illegal, wrong, and rare. We are not even here because they are opposed to birthright citizenship or illegal immigration. We are here because the ``Make America Great Again'' (MAGA) majority in this Congress is opposed to immigration and immigrants. ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States.'' President Trump and his ever- loyal followers on this Task Force do not like that part of the Constitution. They want to twist it so they can ramp up their brutal campaign against immigrants, so they can maybe turn citizenship into a favor granted or withheld based on your race, where you are from, who you know, or maybe who you vote for. It was not always this way in the Republican Party. President Reagan in his farewell address said, ``I have spoken of the shining city all my political life . . . a tall, proud city . . . teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace . . . and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get there.'' A Republican President who recognized that an immigrant from Ireland, China, Guatemala, or elsewhere is just as American as someone like me whose family arrived in Virginia before our Nation was founded, a Republican President confident in America's strength and ability to incorporate and integrate, as he said, people of all kinds. Today, our President makes decisions from weakness, is overwhelmed by events, and falls asleep in the Oval Office. It is pathetic. The Majority's star witness today, Dr. Camarota, is here not because he is opposed to so-called ``birth tourism'' or illegal immigration. He opposes immigration, the legal kind. His economic claims surrounding immigration have been debunked by economists and experts on the left, the right, and the center. So, let us be clear on what this hearing is about. It is about ramping up the brutal, reckless mass-deportation machine that is terrorizing Americans and dragging down our economy. And I wish they were--but they are not--deporting the worst of the worst. They have diverted Federal law enforcement from fighting sex trafficking, child trafficking, gun trafficking, and fentanyl trafficking. They are actually deporting Americans. Brian Jose Morales Garcia, born in Denver, worked construction in Texas, expecting his first child. Federal immigration agents pulled him over because he had tinted windows. They did not believe him when he said he was born here. They deported him to Mexico--an American citizen. It took his family, his lawyers, months fighting to bring him back. If this Task Force actually cared about constitutional rights, we would be talking about the rights this Administration is stripping from American citizens like Brian Jose Morales Garcia; we could talk about ICE agents killing Americans in our streets, like Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo; we could talk about ICE agents entering an American citizen's home with military-grade weapons and no judicial warrant to detain a law-abiding husband and father. And for my colleagues who describe themselves as conservatives, there is nothing conservative about an armed agent of the Federal Government breaking down your door, while your family is sleeping, without a warrant signed by a judge. That is the opposite of small government. That is as big as government gets. And yet there is silence from this Task Force. We could talk about the detention and deporting of American citizens; the children being detained as we speak; the pregnant women being detained and deported as we speak. Those are abuses of institutional power, and they are worthy of this Task Force and this Committee's exploration. And yet here we are, talking about an action that is already illegal and is exceedingly rare, while we ignore the violations of constitutional rights that take place on a daily basis in every community across this country. I yield back. Mr. Gill. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am struck by the fact that Mr. Walkinshaw seems to know so much about what we are thinking. My wife is a naturalized citizen, and I was there at her citizenship ceremony watching many shed tears as they said the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time. Yesterday, I actually wrote a letter to a citizen in my district who is now proud to call himself a citizen. He had written me just to let me know that he had become a naturalized citizen. Those are things we celebrate. There is a right way to come to this country; there is a wrong way to come to this country. And there is a, kind of, idea coming from the other side of the aisle that just because something is illegal we should not discuss it. Yet, entering this country is illegal, and we saw the Biden Administration completely open our borders and allow ten million people into our country illegally. So, it is worth discussing. You are the only one left, so we will talk to you. Could you talk about the fact--when it comes to birth tourism, I guess the thing that concerns me most is, the countries that seem to be taking advantage of it most seem to be the countries that do not like us the most. What country is most taking advantage of this? Dr. Camarota. Yes, as far as we can tell--but, remember, we do not have great data on this---- Mr. Cloud. Sure. Mr. Camarota [continuing]. It does look like, as you might guess, Russia and China. It looks like Turkey is big on it. There are some from Brazil; a smattering of other countries, some in Europe, some outside of Europe; some Latin American countries. But you are right; it looks like, based--but this is only based on news stories, and we all know news stories can be inaccurate or give a false impression--it looks like China and Russia. And based on criminal prosecutions---- Mr. Cloud. As best as we can tell---- Dr. Camarota. Yes, as best we can tell. Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Russia and China. China is definitely an adversary to this Nation, has worked in many ways to undermine us. We could spend a whole half an hour or hours, actually, on that. I am concerned, too, that when--so what they are doing is, they are basically taking a B-1 or a B-2 visa and they are coming over here and having a child and then going home and raising that child in their, you know, ``my neighborhood communist school.'' That child is raised, maybe comes here later, works in one of the research institutions. And then, through chain migration, they can then apply for their parents to become citizens as well. Is that roughly---- Dr. Camarota. Yes, that is essentially true. The child can come back and maybe sponsor the parents. And I think the primary motive is at the individual level. There might be communist agents or something, but the main motive is they do not trust their own regime--to confiscate their wealth, to treat them--and they want to have this possible escape out, if not for themselves, their children. So, that is generally what is going on, but with a cascading series of consequences for the United States. Mr. Cloud. One of the things that concerns me in this is the vast number of B-1 and B-2 visas we allow China to obtain. Do you know roughly what that number is? Dr. Camarota. No, I do not know off the--obviously, it is in the hundreds of thousands or more. And, remember, those visas are good for more than one visit and they are good for more than one year, so the same person keeps coming back. But we do get over a million visitors from China; that is for sure. Mr. Cloud. Right. I think it is roughly 650,000 a year. And they are usually good for ten years, which means---- Dr. Camarota. Right. Mr. Cloud [continuing]. At any moment, six million or seven million---- Dr. Camarota. Yes. Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Chinese nationals can have tourist visas here---- Dr. Camarota. Right. Mr. Cloud [continuing]. And then they can come and stay. Okay. And so, doctors like Dr. Lorentz come, and I noticed--on his website that the Chairman noticed, he has since revised and taken some of the details down, but, you know, we can still research and find some of those things--he required payment up front. A lot of the hospitals--there was a Senate report that said, you know, sometimes they would pay, you know, the doctor in advance, but the hospitals and taxpayers are left footing the rest of the bill. Could you speak more to that? Dr. Camarota. Yes, sure. So, remember, all hospitals are required to treat anybody who shows up in their emergency room who needs urgent or emergency care, and a pregnant woman about to have a baby falls under that category. The hospital is not going to say no. I do not think we are the kind of society that ever would want to say no. But that has consequences for taxpayers, because the vast majority of these people, as far as we can tell, do not pay for it, and so the hospital ends up eating at least the hospital- innate costs, which run into the millions when you consider the number of people who are engaged in birth tourism. So, that is one of the consequences of this problem. Mr. Cloud. And you mentioned this a little bit, too, but I think a lot of American citizens do not realize how favorable, in a sense, or how lax our immigration system is and especially on this. Like, if a U.S. mother went to a different country, would this be the norm across the world in other countries? Dr. Camarota. Well, in general, most countries do not have the same extremely permissive automatic citizenship, right? Now, some countries have very extensive public healthcare, but they would expect you to pay. But, you know, they do have similar rules about emergency care; it is just that the scale is not the same. Mr. Cloud. But the citizenship is not---- Dr. Camarota. Yes. Right. Mr. Cloud. Okay. Dr. Camarota. So, this is a serious problem here because it happens so often and we have such permissive rules. So, for us, it is a really big deal; other countries, much smaller. Mr. Cloud. I think my time is up, Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC. Mr. Gill. You are recognized. Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a May 2026 article from The Week entitled, ``Birth Tourism: A Key Part of Trump's Anti-Immigration Platform.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Ms. Simon. Thank you. Mr. Gill. I now recognize Ms. Pressley this time for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Today's hearing is yet another assault on our democracy and our Constitution. Now, Trump tried to dismantle the 14th Amendment through executive order, but even the conservatives on the Supreme Court said that it was wrong, that he was wrong. And now, Republicans in Congress are trying to do exactly that. They are not just attacking birthright citizenship; they are attacking Black Americans, my ancestors, who built this country but were denied the fruits of their labor. And Black folks would still be denied citizenship, but for the 14th Amendment. They are attacking women. As co-chair of the Reproductive Freedom Caucus, it is abundantly clear to me the Republicans want to continue surveying women's bodies and end the freedom of movement for pregnant people. They are attacking immigrants. Changing birthright citizenship is the next step from their Project 2025 playbook after the mass deportations of people who have been legally working, living, contributing to the United States for decades. The Chair of this Task Force, Congressman Gill, recently introduced a bill that would label undocumented immigrants and others as, quote/unquote, ``invaders.'' That word is not merely inflammatory. That is more than a dog whistle; hell, that is a bullhorn. It is more than just a wink and a nod to what the bill's true motivation is. Dr. Camarota, yes or no, are you familiar with the Great Replacement theory? Dr. Camarota. I have certainly read an article---- Ms. Pressley. Just a yes or no. Dr. Camarota. I have read an article or two about it, so I---- Ms. Pressley. Okay. Well---- Mr. Camarota [continuing]. So, I do not know exactly---- Ms. Pressley. Well, let me elucidate--let me elucidate you and the public watching at home, because it is foundational to what is happening here. The Great Replacement theory is a conspiracy that falsely claims that White people are being deliberately replaced by immigrants and people of color. It is a far-right, White- supremacist ideology that far too many Republicans believe is real. In fact, in 2017, in Charlottesville, at the Unite the Right rally, when people were brandishing those tiki torches, that is what they were saying: ``You will not replace us.'' So, it often relies on ``invasion'' rhetoric to advance that narrative by portraying Black and Brown families as an ``invading force'' rather than as human beings and people that are entitled to dignity. A parent crossing a border becomes the ``enemy.'' A pregnant woman becomes a ``threat.'' A child born in the United States becomes ``proof of a takeover.'' The consequences of this rhetoric have been deadly. In 2018, a gunman who embraced antisemitic ``replacement'' rhetoric murdered 11 worshipers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. In 2019, the El Paso shooter killed 23 people and described his attack as a response to a supposed ``Hispanic invasion of Texas.'' In 2022, in Buffalo, New York, a shooter motivated by ``replacement'' ideology killed ten Black Americans while they shopped for groceries. Republicans have the choice. You could focus on healing and uniting our communities, but you are hell-bent on division and hate. As my colleague made clear, we all understand that birth tourism is illegal, is wrong, and it is rare. That is not really what today's hearing is about. What this is about is a strategy to codify the Great Replacement theory in law, to further codify White supremacy, and to weaponize the entire Federal Government in pursuance of it. And that is the fact of the matter. And I refuse to let that happen. Dr. Camarota. I do not believe any of those things, so it has nothing to do with me. But I understand your concerns. I think they are wrong. I mean, I think that any kind of hateful or racist ideology has no place in the immigration debate. And I have never used any of those phrases, and I never will. Ms. Pressley. I yield. Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC. Mr. Gill. You are recognized. Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a March 2026 De Los article, and it is entitled--and I would like to finish the title--``Attack on Birthright Citizenship Highlights Trump's White Nationalist Ambitions.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. All right. I now recognize for 5 minutes, for the purpose of asking questions, Mr. Biggs from Arizona. Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that. So, I just have to respond to a couple things from the other side. The ``Mr. Bier'' that was just referenced by one of my colleagues across the aisle is a totally open-borders Libertarian. He wants no restriction on legal or illegal immigration. How do I know? He has testified before me at least five times. He is sitting right next-door in Judiciary. I was just there before I came here. And, also, if you think that we do not care about victims, I think you have got to step next-door and listen to the victims of crimes, perpetuated by illegal aliens, who are testifying next-door. That might give you some insight that maybe you do not know about. And I did get a kick out of someone talking as if they understand what went on during the border--during the open- border era of Joe Biden. Living in Arizona, growing up in southern Arizona, and been all over the border countless times. If you went into the Yuma, Arizona, hospital, the only hospital in that vicinity, if you went into the maternity ward and you talked to the head of the maternity ward and you talked to the head of the hospital--and there were times that, since they only had ten bays, ten beds, there were times during the Biden era, many, many times, if not the majority of times, where every one of those beds was taken up by an illegal alien who came to deliver their baby in the United States, and when local moms came in to deliver their baby, they had to go to Phoenix or San Diego, four hours away. And if it was an emergency--they even had a cardiac instance where they had to air-evac people to Phoenix and San Diego, not because of the acuteness of the case, simply because there was no place to treat them. That is what was going on. And the birth tourism that we keep hearing the Democrats say is so rare--I have a UC, Mr. Chairman, entitled, ``Birth- Tourism Group ARRESTED--Actively Promoting U.S. Tours!'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. Thank you. So, you had a Texas hospital that was advertising in Mexico in Spanish for moms to come to the south Texas hospital so that they could have their baby born there, with the incentive being citizenship in the United States. A Turkish national pled guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare and wire fraud in a birth tourism scheme. He was bringing in pregnant Turkish women who fraudulently entered the United States using tourist and business visas to give birth so that their children would obtain birthright citizenship and medical benefits. That is an article, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. Another one: ``Women in `Birth Tourism' Ring Had 119 Babies on Long Island.'' Six people were charged in Federal court with bilking Medicaid of $2.1 million and taking $750,000. Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. Here is another one: `` `Manchurian Generation' Ballot Flood: More Than One Million Chinese With U.S. Citizenship Could Vote in 2030 Elections.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. Here is another: ``How China Supercharged `Birth Tourism' and Scammed American Citizenship for up to 1.5 Million Babies.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. Another: ``U.S. Territory Turned Tropical Maternity Ward Has Produced Thousands of `American' Babies for Parents Living in China.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. That is specifically talking about a thousand companies, offering birth tourism to China, headquartered in the Northern Mariana Islands. Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. Another one: ``Their 21 Kids Were Taken by the State. Now They're Fighting for Custody of Even More Surrogate- Born Babies.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. ``The Chinese Billionaires Having Dozens of U.S.-Born Babies Via Surrogate.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. ``The New Face of Birth Tourism: Chinese Nationals, American Surrogates, and Birthright Citizenship.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. ``Birth Tourism's Next Evolution: Commissioned Citizenship.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I thank you for holding this hearing. This is a real issue that must be addressed, and I appreciate your willingness to take on the slings and arrows that come from the other side. Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, I have two UC requests, please. Mr. Gill. You are recognized. Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, September 2024, an NBC News article entitled, ``A Dramatic Rise in Pregnant Women Dying in Texas After Abortion Ban.'' My second UC, sir, is---- Mr. Gill. Without objection. Ms. Simon. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a March 2026 Common Cause article entitled, ``Seven Ways the Trump Administration is Hurting Women.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. I now recognize Mr. Min for 5 minutes. Mr. Min. Thank you, Chair Gill, Ranking Member Simon, for holding this hearing. I want to begin, again, by noting that this Task Force, which is explicitly charged with defending constitutional rights and exposing institutional abuses, a really important set of responsibilities, is doing none of the above. We have ICE agents right now randomly stopping and detaining people based on their race or ethnic identity, assaulting citizens in our streets. The President and his family are allegedly selling pardons to those who donate to his campaign or his family's business. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and other Federal agencies have been weaponized to go after Trump's critics. And, just a few days ago, Trump directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to go after a reporter, Kristen Welker, who had the audacity to point out that Trump's record of endorsing candidates this year has had mixed results. The American people, the people I talk to, are outraged by all of this, and they are outraged that Congress is doing nothing, literally nothing, to stop it. And it is, frankly, quite shameful that this Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses has refused to do its job, refused to engage in any hearings on any of these topics. Shameful. But going back to the Constitution, Dr. Camarota, I have a series of yes/no questions for you. I know you are not a lawyer, but do you believe that when Members of Congress or military servicemembers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, that means that we support and defend the Constitution even if we disagree with parts of it or do not like parts of it? Dr. Camarota. I support the Constitution, yes. Mr. Min. That was not the question. Do you think that we, taking that oath, are sworn to defend and support parts of the Constitution we may not agree with or do not like? Dr. Camarota. We all are, yes, absolutely. Mr. Min. Yes. And so, for example, if I personally disagree that the Third Amendment's prohibition on quartering soldiers in people's homes was wrong, I would still have to support and defend the Third Amendment because it is part of the Constitution. I could try to amend it, but until an amendment was in place, is ratified, I have a sworn duty to defend and support it. So, we are talking about citizenship today. Are you aware of the Constitution saying anything about this topic, yes/no? Dr. Camarota. It does not speak of birth tourism, to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Min. It talks about citizenship. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that ``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.'' That is very clear language. That text has been part of the Constitution for over 150 years now and since it was ratified in 1868. You may not like it, you may think that we should change it, but that is the law of the land. And you do not have to take my word for it. Shortly after that amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark, made clear that essentially anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen. Notwithstanding this language, however, President Trump tried to overturn the 14th Amendment on his first day in office, issuing Executive Order 14160, which would deny citizenship to certain U.S.-born mothers who were here either with a temporary visa or no documentation. After the Supreme Court held that this was unconstitutional, Trump again tried to overturn parts of the 14th Amendment by issuing two additional executive orders purporting to deny citizenship to certain categories of people born here. Now, a quick yes/no question: Do you think that the President, any President, should be able to unilaterally ignore or amend the Constitution by executive order? Dr. Camarota. The Supreme Court has decided this question. Mr. Min. That was---- Dr. Camarota. All people born in the United States---- Mr. Min. Reclaim my time. Do you think the Constitution allows us to revoke people's citizenship because we do not like what they have to say? Dr. Camarota. No. I do not think that makes---- Mr. Min. Well, the Chair of this Task Force, Brandon Gill, tried to revoke the citizenship of one of our congressional colleagues last year, circulating a petition to try to pressure the Trump Administration to deport Representative Ilhan Omar because he did not agree with some of her comments and her actions. I would just note that is the opposite of supporting and defending the Constitution. Some might call it sedition. And this is all very deeply personal to me because I am myself a birthright citizen. My parents were here in American on student visas when I was born. They did not become naturalized until after I was born. And if Donald Trump and Brandon Gill had had their way, maybe my parents would have been denied their visas. Maybe they would have been deported. Maybe my citizenship would have been denied. And maybe if I say something today or beyond that Brandon Gill does not like, he will try to revoke my citizenship. But, thankfully, Brandon Gill does not get to decide who is a citizen because that question is clearly laid out in the Constitution of the United States. And while we are apparently living through a moment of doublespeak, where a task force meant to, quote, ``defend constitutional rights'' is chaired by a person with no regard for the Constitution, with an agenda to try to take away constitutional rights, I and my colleagues here will continue to fight as long as we are Members of Congress to ensure that every American is ensured the due process and fair representation that the 14th Amendment also guarantees. And, with that, I yield back. Mr. Gill. The gentleman yields back. Do not worry, I will not try to revoke your citizenship, Mr. Min. I now recognize, for 5 minutes, Mr. Crane. Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on birthright citizenship and birthright tourism industry. I want to start by talking about a comment from my colleague, Ms. Pressley, who brought up that Charlottesville Unite the Right rally, trying to use this as a reason--White supremacy--as a reason that we are holding this hearing today. And I would like to enter a couple articles into the record. Number one: ``DOJ Charges Southern Poverty Law Center With Fraud Over Secret Funding of Extremist Groups.'' Number two: ``Federal Grand Jury Charges Southern Poverty Lawsuit [sic] for Wire Fraud, False Statements, and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering.'' It is pretty obviously--you know, pretty obvious here that the Southern Poverty Law Center paid White supremacists to show up at that rally, paid an informant to plan it and post racist content online and coordinate transportation. I just thought that would be pertinent to the discussion here today. I want to talk about the Democrat Socialists of America, who are becoming more and more powerful in the United States. They provide an interesting contrast to the concerns being discussed at this hearing. Their own platform calls for abolishing ICE, ending immigration detention and deportations, granting amnesty regardless of status, and ending visa caps and quotas. You can find that all on their website. In fact, one of their rising stars, Ms. Diana Moreno, the New York City assembly member who took over Zohran Mamdani's seat, said the following. Please play the video. [Video shown.] Mr. Crane. As you could see, she said she spent years as a closeted socialist. She saw political power that undocumented people were wielding and that you do not have to have papers to have power. And I think that is a lot of what we are concerned about in this hearing today. Dr. Camarota, you talked about the fact that these birthright citizenships, you know, that are issued were--you know, foreign nationals come into the country to have a baby, get a birth certificate. The difference between them and illegal aliens who have a baby is that they go back to their country and then they are raised in their foreign country. Is that correct, sir? Dr. Camarota. Yes. Obviously, the number of illegal immigrants who have children here and stay is--we can estimate that number---- Mr. Crane. Right. I got that. Dr. Camarota. About 300,000 a year. Mr. Crane. I think you testified that, according to your research, you estimated between 20- and 25,000 of these, you know, birthright babies being born annually. Is that correct? Dr. Camarota. It is 20- to 26,000 for the birth tourists. Yes. Mr. Crane. And these children that then do not grow up in the United States, you know, they can then run for public office. Is that correct? Dr. Camarota. They can do all the things that any other citizen does. Mr. Crane. Yes. And one of the leading countries that you mentioned that are having citizens come over here and have birthright babies is Communist China. Is that correct? Dr. Camarota. Yes. Russia and China appear to be the leaders. Mr. Crane. How could that end up being a problem? Dr. Camarota. Right. So, there are many potential issues. Remember, if you are specifically focused on national security, remember, only a citizen can get a national security clearance. All of these individuals, however, who have grown up in a foreign country, are not vetted before they arrive, could conceivably get a national security clearance because they are American citizens. And that is a concern. Mr. Crane. You know, it is interesting because my colleagues on the left--they always try and make this about White supremacy or saying that Republicans, you know, hate immigrants. And they know that that is the furthest thing from the truth. Actually, we love immigrants. We love the legal immigrants, the folks that come here and go through the process and do it the right way. Mr. Cloud talked about his wife being a naturalized citizen who came here the right way. That is what we want to see because we do not want to see these countries, many of them Communist or Marxist or socialist, come into the country, have babies here, raise these kids outside the United States, and then these kids can come back here, run for office, bring their parents in as well, and it is just one more loophole that gets exploited in our immigration system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Crane. I now recognize Ranking Member Simon for 5 minutes. Ms. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin my remarks, it has come to my attention that our witness has lied under oath. He talked about not having any idea about the Great Replacement theory, but in August 2025, an article entitled ``There is No Such Thing as Replacement Theory; It is a Clear Replacement Fact,'' authored by his boss at the Center for Immigration Studies. So, I am saddened that this hearing did not have a witness that tells the truth. In fact, we know that our witness has been debunked by conservative scholars for his creative use of statistics. Dr. Camarota. I never said I never heard of it. Ms. Simon. I did not ask you to speak, sir. Thank you. Dr. Camarota. But you are not telling the truth. Ms. Simon. No, no, no, no. No. No, no, no. We are not doing that today. I did not ask you to speak. And, if you read the rules of Committee, you have to be asked to speak. And you were not. So, I want to continue and reclaim my time. You know, Chairman Comer used subpoena power to compel one of the witnesses to show up today at this Task Force. The power of the subpoena is a mighty one. And it comes with great responsibility. Unfortunately, this hearing takes and makes a mockery of that subpoena power. It is clear that Republican Committee leadership does not take that responsibility seriously. Committee Democrats have repeatedly requested that our Chairman of this Committee, Chairman Comer, compel now Attorney General Todd Blanche to testify before the Committee about his prominent role--his prominent role--in the Trump Administration's Epstein files cover-up. Ranking Member Garcia sent a letter to Chairman Comer on August 20 of 2026 about how urgent his testimony is. But there is no indication that the Committee Republicans have any interest in compelling him to appear. It has been over a month since Chairman Comer publicly stated that he wanted him to testify as soon as the confirmation was complete. This misuse of subpoena power and authority shows just who the Republicans really care about holding accountable. I think that the American people have heard this message loud and clear. And I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, sir-- -- Mr. Gill. Sure. Ms. Simon [continuing]. A June 2, 2026, article from The Hill, entitled ``Oversight Democrats Push Comer to Subpoena Blanche, Patel in Epstein Files Probe.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. Ms. Simon. Now I want to turn back to Chairman's recently introduced bill, which claims that immigration has, quote, ``downstream negative consequences for many aspects of American life.'' It blames immigrants for housing prices and low wage and crime. But, Mr. Chairman, these facts are wrong because President Trump is ripping families apart and communities apart and deporting people at an unprecedented rate, but everyday costs are going up for working families. You might think that seeing immigrants at Walmart is downstream, negative consequence. But we know it is not. The reason for affordability and its crisis is that our President, not a working family who happened to be born in this country or abroad, our President is rising prices on everyday Americans. In your state alone, each Texas family has had to spend an additional $329 on housing costs since the President took office. Each family in your district, Mr. Chairman, has had to spend an additional $623 on gas since Trump started this illegal war with Iran. That is $195 million in increased costs for your constituents alone. Across the country, each American family has had to pay more than $3,800 in increased costs while President Trump has waged his war on immigrants. On top of that, we know that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. We know that. The stats are clear. I am sure our witness would agree. Meanwhile, Trump is deploying undisciplined and untrained agents to terrorize our communities. Let us talk more about this. My Republican colleagues like to talk about the sanctity of life. This Administration's policies are intent on causing harm and cruelty to pregnant women and children in the name of mass deportation. Postpartum women have been deported, separated from their babies, infants, against their wishes. Pregnant women--pregnant women--have been detained and abused. ``Sanctity of life.'' And I will yield back. Mr. Gill. Thank you, Ranking Member Simon. Dr. Camarota, do you want to respond to any of that? Dr. Camarota. Yes, sure. I do not think she is being truthful here. I never said I never heard of it. I just said I do not know much about it. I never used that terminology. I never make that argument. Now, it sounds like she would like to have my colleague, Mark Krikorian, you know, testify on that topic. It is not my topic. I do not talk about it. I have never--I have never made that argument or any adjacent arguments. So, that is the truth, what I am saying, and I think it is important to set the record straight. I, it is not, has nothing to do with me. Mr. Gill. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. I now recognize, for 5 minutes, for the purpose of asking questions, Mrs. Luna. Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman. Just real quick, on the updates specifically pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. I know that that has been brought up a lot, actually, at this Task Force--or at this hearing. But I do believe that there might be a criminal referral being made for prosecution on Lesley Groff for perjury. So, I am sorry that you were berated like that. I do not have the understanding that you had perjured yourself. I did have some questions for you, though. Your written testimony puts a figure at around 20,000 to 26,000 birth tourists a year, totaling around 200- to 300,000 of children that were born via birth tourism over the last decade. I want the American people to understand specifically the national security threat that this poses. It is, to my understanding, that, under the Biden Administration, Chinese nationals were allowed to enter the Mariana Islands visa-free for 14 days. For anyone who has given birth in 14 days, that is enough time to literally check into a hotel, deliver a baby, recover well enough to travel, and then to go back home. And a couple years ago, Federal agents had searched 37 maternity hotels across southern California specifically catering to Chinese nationals that were coming here for the purpose of birth tourism. And just last year, in 2025, a search warrant was executed on an operation tied to Guojun Xuan, a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, which turned up 15 children linked to multistate embryo networks, all results of birth tourism. Many of these kids were taken back and raised in China, withholding U.S. citizenship, and then all while retaining the right to vote in our elections once they turn 18. I just have a question, if you can elaborate on the national security threat that this poses, having people essentially being born here but not culturally American and then brought back to a country of origin. Dr. Camarota. Yes. And this is a distinction between a more typical illegal immigrant whose child grows up in the United States and is likely to develop some attachment, identification with United States. These are individuals who purposely want to go back. And now that child is raised entirely in that culture. And, you know, in a country like Russia or China that is pretty hostile to the United States, it is very likely they are inculcated with some very anti-American views. Yet that individual, with no real contact to the United States, is allowed to come into the United States; travel to and from the United States; work at any job, even in the Federal Government; do everything from vote and receive Federal benefits. And finally, that child is eligible for a national security clearance unlike, say, a legal immigrant who is foreign-born, who has to be vetted before they came, then they have to live here for a while, then they have to have a background check when they get their citizenship. Then that person is also eligible for national security. The person born to a birth tourism bypasses all of that and can immediately apply for national security. Now, they will still be investigated and maybe will turn up something. But since they grew up their whole life in the foreign country, it is not that likely that we are going to know if they have any concerning ties. Mrs. Luna. Is it your opinion that the Founding Fathers or authors of our amendments intended to cover a fee-for-service arrangement between Chinese nationals and maternity concierge business in the 14th Amendment? Dr. Camarota. I mean, look, obviously they never anticipated everything from plane travel to this kind of birth tourism, so it is very hard to say what they thought. But no one at the time was thinking in these terms. This is an amendment designed to guarantee, rightly, the citizenship of previous slaves, of former slaves. That is what it was for. Mrs. Luna. Do you at all find it ironic, yes or no, that you have Democrats today encouraging birth of foreign nationals yet, in the same perspective and ideology, encouraging the abortion of American-born children? Dr. Camarota. I do not know that I can comment on that. Mrs. Luna. I am just interested in your opinion because I find it extremely hypocritical. Dr. Camarota. You know, that touches on the issue of abortion, and my organization has no position on abortion. Mrs. Luna. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield my time. Mr. Gill. I now recognize Mr. McCormick, for 5 minutes, for the purpose of asking questions. Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you allowing me to be here today. I think it is interesting to watch what the other side of the aisle is doing to confound this questioning and to distract us from the real question at hand, which is the value of citizenship. I think everyone here should be able to agree that American citizenship is one of the greatest privileges in the world. It should not be brought as a product, exploited through a loophole, or handed out to foreign nationals who fly here solely to give birth and then return home. The average citizen would always agree on that. Every year, roughly 33,000 children are born here in the United States to birth tourists, many of whose parents are coached by businesses that teach how to deceive immigration officials as basically a business. That is what they do for a living. That is not a legal gray area. It is fraud. It is by design. And we cannot tolerate it any longer. That is why I joined Senator Marsha Blackburn to introduce H.R. 9919, the Ban Birth Tourism Act of 2026, to deport and deny entry to any foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States and engage in birth tourism. Doctor, you had a lot of experience in this area. Do you think there is something better we could do? Do you think this is a good step in the right direction? What can we do to stop this? Which the average American would be appalled by it if they were actually informed on what is going on around the world. Dr. Camarota. Yes. So, part of it is prosecution, right? You go after the birth centers. You go after the people who do it. If you can get any kind of conviction, at least the parents would be forever barred from coming into the United States. But as I point out in my testimony, the very regulation given to consular officers, where they cannot ask any questions in this area, is, I think, also problematic. That can be changed. That is just a regulation. So, we could create a situation where people are reminded when they apply for a visa and if--that they are not allowed to do this, and if they do do it, they will have explicitly lied. It is illegal. You can be prosecuted. But there is some gray area, and you might be able to--``Well, I did not intend this.'' But if you are asked if you are pregnant, if you are asked if you intend 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. But our current consular regulations, based on the questions they ask, make that more difficult. So, some changes there would be, I think, one of the places to look, in addition for law enforcement here to take it seriously and go after the birthing centers and the people who do it. Mr. McCormick. And this worries me as far as chain migration goes, especially since you are already deceiving the government, you are doing it intentionally, and, of course, that is another way to get over here to the United States. If you are marked as somebody who is basically federally identified as a breaker of law, you are not going to be able to come here as a citizen through chain migration, hopefully, as a result of this law. One of the things I found interesting, the United States became a birthright citizenship Nation in 1868 when we ratified the 14th Amendment and its Citizenship Clause. In other words, birthright citizenship is not new, but it seems like birthright tourism, as a practice, is something new. Would you think that this is a new phenomenon or something that has been going on for a long time? About when do you think it started? Dr. Camarota. Well, I am sure it has always gone on a little bit, right? But, no, it is only with the advent of cheap travel. It is only with the advent of, you know, the affordability of that. I think that it is probably only something in the last 20, 30 years, as far as we can tell. We do not really hear of it in the past. That does not mean it never went on. But it really is more of a modern phenomenon, as far as we can tell. But, you know, we are not--cannot say that with certainty. Mr. McCormick. Certainly nobody can defend, from an average standpoint of just common sense, the fact that tens of thousands of people fly into distant territories of the United States, have babies, and fly back to their country with no tourism--that is outside of birthright--and no actual interaction with the public, no interaction with spending money other than in a business model for a hospital system that is literally propagating this and advertising this, in many cases, which should be outlawed, in my opinion. But once again, exposing the fact--I am going to reiterate this fact--33,000 people per year from foreign countries that are identified as adversaries, at least competitors of ourselves, allowed to come in here through a loophole that should be closed. I think the average American would be absolutely appalled. This is our most valuable commodity. As citizens of the United States, we should be protecting that citizenship beyond measure. And with that, I yield. Thank you. Ms. Simon. I have a UC, sir. Mr. Gill. You are recognized. Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a March 2026 Vox article, entitled ``The Ugly History Behind Trump's Birthright Citizenship Case in the Supreme Court.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. All right. Thank you. And I think we are now on to our final set of questions, so I now recognize, for 5 minutes, for the purpose of asking questions, Mr. Jack from Georgia. Mr. Jack. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this Task Force today. I would like to start, if I could, with a topic I know you know much about, B-2 visas. And specifically, I want to ask--as we both know, B-2 visas permit temporary travel for tourism, vacation, family visits, medical treatment, and they are the nonimmigrant visa category most frequently associated with birth tourism. Would you say that is an accurate statement? Dr. Camarota. B-1 and B-2, yes. Mr. Jack. And with the United States coming off of a very successful World Cup, while preparing to host the 2028 Olympics, B-2 visa applications are expected to surge in the coming years. And I am curious, are there any realistic safeguards to differentiate genuine tourists and individuals who wish to participate in birth tourism, as we discussed today? Dr. Camarota. Well, as we have discussed, it is against the law. But the way in which visas are administered at the consular level, make it more difficult to weed people out and to prosecute them after the fact. But that could change. So, we are not stuck with this issue. It is not hopeless. We can do some things on the ground, where the rubber meets the road, and we should. Mr. Jack. What are some of the things we can do? Dr. Camarota. Yes. Well, you can instruct consular officers that they can ask about pregnancy, they can ask about your intent to have a child in the United States. We could adopt a rule that you do not get to come to the United States if you are pregnant for a tourist visa. We are not talking about a green card. We are talking about--and if someone is going to come here and live. We are talking about someone who says, ``I am coming temporarily to your country,'' and we say, ``Okay. Well, after you have the kid, you could come.'' And we could ask those questions. And consular officers can do that, even the--you know, when a person arrives at a port of entry, we can ask those questions and exclude those who do that. Many countries do things like that. It is perfectly reasonable. Mr. Jack. Thank you very much. I am curious, today we talked about--and obviously, we did not hear from the witness that we should have heard from because of his approach to this hearing. But I am curious--that was regarding Florida. Which other states are you seeing this concept of birth tourism most exploited, or at least attempted to be exploited? Dr. Camarota. Yes. That is a good question. As far as the stories coming out of the media, it looks like Florida, Texas, California, and New York. They seem to be where the stories are concentrated. That does not necessarily mean--it probably happens other places, but big, international airports and--that is one of the factors. Mr. Jack. Well, one of the things that we are talking a lot about--obviously, in 60 days we are going to have an election. And we cannot campaign from here, but I am curious. A lot of people talk about, really, what we see the Democrats looking to do if they themselves are successful this November. And I am curious, could you describe for us, as a Committee, what the Trump Administration has successfully achieved with respect to limiting birth tourism and what that could look like if Democrats were in control of Congress? Dr. Camarota. Yes. Well, I mean, they have tried to look at visas, and what they have also tried to do is encourage prosecution of those under the law for visa fraud, wire fraud, those kinds of crimes. So, the hope is that this could really serve as a deterrent. And, at the same time, they have really stepped up trying to go after the birthing houses or the birth tourist centers. So, these are some of the areas where they are trying to do. I do not know--I have not been able to determine what they are doing with regard to instructions to consular officers, but clearly, that is an important area that would also buttress these efforts. Mr. Jack. What would you say if Democrats were in control of this Congress? What do you think would happen with respect to this issue? Dr. Camarota. I mean, you know, that is like a--I am not here to make a partisan judgment on Democrats. I am sorry. Obviously, in my experience, I have run into a lot of Democrats who are concerned about this problem, mostly---- Mr. Jack. Let me frame the question a different way. Dr. Camarota. Yes. Mr. Jack. Under the Biden Administration, how did that differ? How did they approach birth tourism versus this Administration. Dr. Camarota. There were some prosecutions. It just was not a priority. It was not seen as the kind of important national issue that it is by the Trump Administration. I think that is a fair characterization. Mr. Jack. You have spoken a lot about things that we can do. Just curious, as you wrap up your--or we wrap up our line of questioning today. What are some closing ideas you have for this Committee to--it seems like consular officer directions is definitely one of your ideas. Curious what else you may have for us as we close out? Dr. Camarota. And some of those same things can be done at port of entry by Border Patrol, so that would be asking questions and things like that. Other things, in addition to prosecutions, I mean, you could look at, you know, broader ranging things, you know, adopting rules for people to retain their citizenship. It is unclear whether that could have much effect. But the point is-- so, there might be some stuff in that area. But the reality is, as other Members have pointed out, the nature of the 14th Amendment is that they get citizenship. I am not disputing they are citizens, and that is the whole reason we are here. So, if you have a very permissive citizenship Constitution, then you have to tightly control it. You have to take that reality seriously. And we can, in this area do that, but it would require coordinated effort between law enforcement and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department. And I think we could greatly curtail it. Could we eliminate it? No. Could we get rid of much of it? Yes. Mr. Jack. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Simon. I have a UC request, sir. Mr. Gill. You are recognized. Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a March 2026 Brennan Center analysis, entitled ``Birthright Citizenship Shouldn't Be Up for Debate.'' Mr. Gill. Without objection. With that and, without objection, all Members have five legislative days within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses. If there is no further business, without objection, the Task Force stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Task Force was adjourned.] [all]