Thanks for the Time magazines' link. The content lines up 100% with what I have been saying.

TWoods:


At this point, you’re simply arguing just to argue. To claim I have an agenda is unserious... to also claim that US media agencies, most of whom got the scoop before the policy was published, do not understand the policy better than you is downright laughable.

99% of Nigerians who get a birthing visa do so expressly to obtain US citizenship for their children. There is practically little medical reason for a Nigerian to have a child in the US since most birthing-related medical issues can be addressed in Nigeria. Here is Time magazines’ take on the issue... feel free to lecture them too - https://time.com/5770372/us-birth-tourism-visa/

I think your statement should be directed to Twoods. If we are both saying the same thing, why would he say that my statement is absolutely untrue.

lami88:


Relax. You both are saying the same thing. Or rather, you are saying exactly what he is saying with some little twist.

I can see your whole aim in this forum is to scare people. The policy document is clear. You don't need to twist it to suit your agenda. What I stated earlier is absolutely correct.

What is 'impermissible' is 'travel to the US with primary purpose of obtaining US citizenship for a child by giving birth in the US'

It is very permissible to 'travel for the primary purpose of obtaining medical treatment for reasons related to childbirth for maternal and infant health'

The rest of your statement is just regurgitating exactly what I stated earlier in my submission. I have taken time to read the policy document and I do not know what you gain by scaremongering.

The summary of the policy is that giving birth is no longer classified under pleasure. You can no longer just feel like coming to the USA to give birth and obtain citizenship for your child. It is now tied under medical treatment. If you are pregnant, be prepared to prove you need special medicare not accessible in Nigeria or any country close to Nigeria and not that you want to come and have baby to obtain US citizenship for the child.

TWoods:


That is absolutely untrue. The rule is clear - obtaining a visa for the sole purpose of having a baby in the US is now “impermissible” (that is the word used in the rule). Unless you have a clearly defined medical procedure, in connection with your pregnancy, that cannot be treated in your home country, you cannot simply show up at your interview claiming giving birth as your medical need in the US.

I can see people are still misrepresenting this issue. The issue is straight forward. People should read the actual policy document and not the false intepretations that are tailored to what ever intended purposes.

The B2 visa is generally used for tourism, pleasure and medical treatment. What the new policy says is that having a baby in the USA will no longer be classified as use of the Visa for pleasure purposes. Having baby in the USA will now be classified as use of visa for medical treatment and the consular officer will evaluate the applicant as required. You cannot just show up and say I wish to have my baby in the US as before. Now you need a strong medical reason for going to the US to have your baby and also evidence you can pay for the medical services. All these are with respect to your visa interview with consular officer and not the POE.

The rule also does not affect the POE CBP officers in any way. Please read excerpt from the federal register below for reference.

'SUMMARY: The Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (“Department”), is
amending its regulation governing the issuance of visas in the “B” nonimmigrant
classification for temporary visitors for pleasure. This rule establishes that travel to the
United States with the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving
birth in the United States is an impermissible basis for the issuance of a B nonimmigrant
visa. Consequently, a consular officer shall deny a B nonimmigrant visa to an alien who
he or she has reason to believe intends to travel for this primary purpose. The Department
does not believe that visiting the United States for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S.
citizenship for a child, by giving birth in the United States – an activity commonly
referred to as “birth tourism”–is a legitimate activity for pleasure or of a recreational
nature, for purposes of consular officers adjudicating applications for B nonimmigrant
visas. The final rule addresses concerns about the attendant risks of this activity to
national security and law enforcement, including criminal activity associated with the
birth tourism industry, as reflected in federal prosecutions of individuals and entities
involved in that industry. The final rule also codifies a requirement that B nonimmigrant
visa applicants who seek medical treatment in the United States must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the consular officer, their arrangements for such treatment and establish
their ability to pay all costs associated with such treatment. The rule establishes a
rebuttable presumption that a B nonimmigrant visa applicant who a consular officer has
reason to believe will give birth during her stay in the United States is traveling for the
primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child.
DATES: This rule is effective on [insert date of publication in Federal Register].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Herndon, Deputy Director for
Legal Affairs, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State,
600 19th St. NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 485-7586.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What changes to 22 CFR 41.31 does this rule make?
This rule makes certain changes to the Department’s regulation on B
nonimmigrant visas, but does not change Department of Homeland Security regulations
regarding the admissibility of aliens, including Visa Waiver Program travelers, or
otherwise modify the standards enforced by officials of the Department of Homeland
Security. The Department is revising the definition of “pleasure” and subdividing 22
CFR 41.31(b)(2) into three paragraph levels. The Department is retaining its existing,
and longstanding, general rule that pleasure, as referred to in Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) section 101(a)(15)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B), for purposes of visa issuance,
refers to legitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement,
visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment, and activities of a fraternal, social,
or services nature. The Department is also adding a provision that provides, for purposes
of visa issuance, that the term pleasure, as used in INA 101(a)(15)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B), does not include travel for the primary purpose of obtaining United States citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. The Department is renumbering this provision as paragraph (i).


The Department is adding a provision that provides that a nonimmigrant B visa
applicant seeking medical treatment in the United States shall be denied a visa under INA
section 214(b), 8 U.S.C. 1184, if unable to establish, to the satisfaction of a consular
officer, a legitimate reason why he or she wishes to travel to the United States for
medical treatment, and that a medical practitioner or facility in the United States has
agreed to provide treatment. Additionally, the applicant must provide the projected
duration and cost of treatment and any incidental expenses. The applicant must also
establish to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he or she has the means and intent
to pay for the medical treatment and all incidental expenses, including transportation and
living expenses, either independently or with the pre-arranged assistance of others. If an
applicant’s responses to this line of questions are not credible, that may give consular
officers reason to question whether the applicant qualifies for a visa in the B
nonimmigrant classification, and could lead to additional questions as to whether the
applicant intends to timely depart the United States, or intends to engage in other
impermissible activity. The Department is renumbering this provision as paragraph (ii). '

The rules are not as strict as you imagine. Once you lay down the rules, Nigerians will find ways around it. Before long folks will come on this platform to publish list of conditions not treatable in Nigeria and every visa applicant will have documents showing they have such conditions.


Quite frankly, the reason why the US embassy has such high rate of visa denials in Nigeria is because it almost follows no rules. Sometimes they deny you for no clear reason and they are not required to communicate why they are refusing you visa. Thats why I said that nothing much has changed as regards Nigeria.

Compare this to UK and other countries that are required to communicate reason for refusal, rejection rates are far lower.

TWoods:


The rule is far stricter than you've made it appear to be. It is not intended merely to "register displeasure", it is a clear binding rule on all US consulates around the world and the news agencies have reported the intent of the rule correctly. Yes you are correct that the rule only applies to the D/S and not to the DHS. This simply means the rule applies to every consular officer who has to make a determination as to whether you can obtain a visa to the US or not. As i read the rule, unless there is a specific medical reason that you cannot have your baby in the US that cannot be treated in your home country, simply stating "i want to have my baby in the US so he can have citizenship" is no longer a permissible reason to obtain a B visa. Not only are you required to state what the medical reason is, you also have to prove that a medical facility in the US has agreed to treat you and has provided you a projected duration and cost for the medical procedure. Based on this rule, i would wager 99% of cases here will no longer qualify for a visa.

As you said, the rule does not affect the CBP, so folks who have current visas and intend to have their babies in the US may still have the chance to do so (please do your own homework before you travel). Those affected are those who will be applying for a visa after tomorrow sadly.

Folks should please read the new policy as captured in the Federal Register (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-01218.pdf).


The different news outlets are interpreting the policy in very different ways, sometimes in ways that are completely wrong. Some news outlets do not even know the difference between consular officers and CBP officers.


There is only one fundamental change in the new policy and that is that a pregnant lady or someone suspected to have intentions of having a baby in the US would be treated as someone requiring medical teatment for visa purposes. You would no longer get visa to give birth in the USA just because you would like to. Consequently you need to prove that you require specialized medicare and it is not available where you are. You also need to establish that you have enough funds and that a doctor in the USA has accepted you as a patient. Actually, there are other reasons you can give to get the visa but you can not just say you would like to give birth in the US. Other than this nothing has changed.

Another thing to point out is that the new rule was released by the Department of state not the Dept of Homeland Security. The Dept of homeland security is in charge at the border and have not changed any of their rules. B1/B2 visa allows you to have baby in the US...period. Actually there are no immediate plans for the dept of homeland security to change rules regarding birthing. Any rule change of this magnitude by a US agency needs to be published in the 'Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions' and it will go through reviews over months. The new policy by the state dept had been advertised probably over a year ago and it had gone through all the stages... through proposed rule and ended as final rule after input by relevant bodies.

In the coming weeks, many folks would come here and report how they passed through border with ease and had their babies.

Maybe this rule will change a lot for other countries but definitely not Nigeria considering the number of denials in the past one year.

Reading the policy, what I felt was that the US govt just wanted to register their dsipleasure with birth tourism and attempt to reduce the number of births by foreigners within the limits of the constitution.