Recent comments from Delegate Kimberlyn King-Hinds suggesting that she is considering legislation to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to parents who entered on tourist visas deserve careful scrutiny. While concerns about birth tourism are understandable, the proposal raises serious legal and constitutional questions that cannot simply be resolved through a single piece of legislation.
Birthright citizenship is not a policy created by the CNMI government, nor is it something the Commonwealth can selectively suspend. It is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which establishes that individuals born on U.S. soil and subject to U.S. jurisdiction are citizens at birth. For the CNMI, this principle is reinforced in the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States. Section 303 of the Covenant explicitly recognizes that persons born in the CNMI after the Covenant took effect are citizens of the United States.
This means that any attempt to deny citizenship based on the immigration status of parents would face immediate constitutional challenges. Federal courts have long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment broadly, most notably in the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that birth on U.S. soil generally confers citizenship regardless of the parents’ nationality or immigration status, with only narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
In practical terms, the CNMI government does not have the authority to rewrite U.S. citizenship law. Even Congress would face significant legal barriers in attempting to create a special exception for children born in the Commonwealth. The Covenant itself functions as a binding political compact approved by Congress and the people of the Northern Mariana Islands. Altering the citizenship provisions embedded within it would not be a simple legislative adjustment.
This is why proposals to end birthright citizenship specifically for the CNMI risk creating false expectations within our community. The issue cannot be resolved by local legislation, and even federal action would likely trigger lengthy constitutional litigation.
That does not mean the concerns surrounding birth tourism should be dismissed. Residents have legitimate questions about healthcare costs, immigration oversight, and the integrity of visitor entry programs. But those concerns should be addressed through policies that are actually achievable.
The Commonwealth can advocate for stronger pre-arrival screening of travelers whose primary purpose is childbirth. Federal visa rules already prohibit issuing travel documents when birth tourism is the main intent of travel. Improving enforcement of these rules and strengthening oversight of visitor authorization programs would address the issue where it actually occurs: before entry into the CNMI.
Local authorities can also pursue stricter regulation of businesses that organize and advertise maternity travel packages. In many jurisdictions, birth tourism operates through coordinated commercial networks that arrange housing, medical appointments, and transportation. These activities fall within areas where local licensing, taxation, and consumer protection laws already apply.
Finally, the CNMI should continue pressing federal agencies and Congress for support in managing the unique pressures that federal immigration policies create in our islands. If Washington expects the Commonwealth to host visitor programs that are important to our tourism economy, then Washington must also be prepared to help ensure those programs are implemented responsibly.
The conversation about birth tourism deserves seriousness and honesty. Our community should not be misled into believing that birthright citizenship can be easily switched off through legislation aimed only at the CNMI.
Real leadership requires confronting legal realities while pursuing practical solutions. The challenge before us is not rewriting constitutional citizenship law. It is ensuring that the policies governing entry, enforcement, and accountability are strong enough to protect the interests of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Gregorie Michael Towai (Eipéráng)
Gregorie Michael Towai is a cultural advocate, independent researcher on Oceanic indigeneity, and community leader who grew up in Garapan, Saipan. He is a vocal opponent of seabed mining and advocate for the Ocean Rights movement in the Marianas.
Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMI News Service or its staff. All assertions are the sole responsibility of the writer.
To submit an op-ed for consideration, email your piece to brad.ruszala@nminewsservice.com
