Ending Birth Tourism in Texas: What the Law Says, What We’re Doing About It, and Why It Matters
Ending Birth Tourism in Texas: What the Law Says, What We’re Doing About It, and Why It Matters
After the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship on June 30, 2026, Rep. Brian Harrison demanded a special session and seven specific legislative actions. Here is exactly what Texas law currently says, what this bill does, and why it is the strongest constitutionally sound response available to any Texas legislator today.
- The Problem: What Birth Tourism Actually Is
- What Texas Law Says Today — and What It’s Missing
- Harrison’s Seven Demands and the Supreme Court Decision
- What This Bill Does — Article by Article
- What Texas Cannot Do — and Why This Bill Is Honest About It
- Why This Matters for HD109 and Every Texas Community
- The Legislation — Texas Birth Tourism Criminalization Act
- References & Annotated Bibliography
The Problem: What Birth Tourism Actually Is
A plain-language explanation of a commercial industry operating in plain sight
Birth tourism is not a rumor or a political talking point. It is a commercial industry. Businesses operating in China, Russia, and several other countries — and some inside the United States — recruit pregnant women, charge fees ranging from $20,000 to $80,000 or more, arrange tourist visas, provide lodging in facilities called “maternity hotels,” and coordinate obstetric care. The explicit goal is to ensure the child is born on U.S. soil so the child automatically receives United States citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. [14th Amend., 1868]
The child is then raised abroad, in many cases in countries whose governments are hostile to American interests, while holding a United States passport. The parents often later use their child’s citizenship as a pathway for their own immigration into the United States. Meanwhile, the commercial enterprise that arranged the birth collects a fee and moves on to the next client.
On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), holding 5–4 that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a majority that included Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. The decision struck down President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 (January 20, 2025). [Trump v. Barbara, 2026]
The decision was not a surprise to legal scholars. It reaffirmed 128 years of Supreme Court precedent going back to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which itself reaffirmed the English common law doctrine of jus soli — citizenship by birth on the soil. [Wong Kim Ark, 1898] What the decision did was remove any remaining uncertainty and make clear that the only path to changing birthright citizenship runs through Congress, not through executive orders or state statutes.
That is where Texas comes in. What Texas can do — and what this bill does — is criminalize the commercial enterprises that profit from birth tourism, expand the existing illegal entry law to cover entry for birth tourism purposes, arm the attorney general with real enforcement tools, and formally demand that Congress provide the constitutional remedy Texas cannot create on its own.
On July 1, 2026 — the day after the Supreme Court’s ruling — State Representative Brian Harrison (R-District 10, Waxahachie) issued an official press release: “Texas must start acting like the sovereign state it is and stop taking it on the chin when actions from DC threaten to destroy the very fabric of our republic.” He identified seven specific legislative demands and called for an immediate special session. This bill is a direct, comprehensive response to all seven of those demands. [Harrison Press Release, July 1, 2026]
What Texas Law Says Today — and What It’s Missing
The gap in current Texas statutes that this bill closes
Texas currently has no law that specifically targets birth tourism as a commercial enterprise. Several existing statutes come close, but none hits the target. Here is what is already on the books — and why it falls short:
| Statute | What It Does | Why It Falls Short |
|---|---|---|
| Tex. Penal Code § 20.05 Smuggling of Persons |
Felony for transporting persons for pecuniary benefit knowing they entered illegally or will be harbored | Targets illegal entry transport; does not address noncitizens who enter legally on tourist visas for birth tourism purposes |
| Tex. Penal Code § 20.06 Continuous Smuggling |
Enhanced felony (2nd degree, min. 10 yrs) for two or more smuggling acts in 10+ days | Same limitation as § 20.05; no coverage of lawful-entry birth tourism enterprises |
| Tex. Penal Code § 20.07 Stash House |
Felony 3rd degree (min. 5 yrs) for operating a facility to harbor persons smuggled into the U.S. | Requires connection to smuggling; a maternity hotel serving visa-holders on valid tourist visas is not covered |
| Tex. H&SC § 195.003 False Vital Records |
Felony 3rd degree for making a false statement on a vital records certificate | Addresses individual fraud; does not target the commercial enterprise organizing birth tourism or the maternity hotel operator |
| Tex. Penal Code § 51.02 Illegal Entry (SB 4, 2023) |
Class B misdemeanor (enhanced) for entering Texas from a foreign nation at other than a lawful port of entry | Does not expressly cover entry at a lawful port with intent to engage in birth tourism; base offense is only a misdemeanor |
The bottom line is straightforward: a Chinese company running a maternity hotel in Houston, advertising “birth packages” on its website, arranging prenatal care for customers who arrive on B-2 tourist visas, and collecting $40,000 per client faces no specific criminal liability under current Texas law. That is the gap this bill closes. [Tex. Penal Code §§ 20.05–20.07]
A maternity hotel is any residential property, apartment, rental unit, short-term rental, or hotel that is operated, marketed, or used primarily to house pregnant noncitizens who are in Texas for the purpose of giving birth. The term covers everything from a single Airbnb rented to multiple expectant mothers to a purpose-built commercial facility. Under this bill, operating one is a felony.
The Florida Model Texas Is Following
Florida is already ahead of Texas on this front. On May 8, 2026 — just 57 days before this bill was drafted — Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s Foreign Interference Restriction and Enforcement (FIRE) Act (H.B. 905), which voids gestational surrogacy contracts if any party is a citizen or resident of a country of concern (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, or Syria). Rep. Harrison specifically cited Florida’s law as a model Texas should follow. Article 6 of this bill is the direct Texas analog, adapted to the Texas Family Code. [Florida FIRE Act, H.B. 905, 2026]
Harrison’s Seven Demands — and How This Bill Answers Each One
A complete demand-by-demand crosswalk from Rep. Harrison’s July 1, 2026 official press release to the specific sections of this Act
Rep. Harrison’s press release was specific. He did not just call for “action” — he identified seven concrete legislative steps. This bill meets every single one. Here is how: [Harrison Press Release, July 1, 2026]
| # | Harrison’s Demand (Verbatim) | How This Bill Responds | Bill Section |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | “Make it a felony to operate or participate in birth tourism within our borders” | Creates Tex. Penal Code § 20.08 (felony 2nd degree base; felony 1st degree enhanced) for operators and § 20.10 (state jail → 3rd degree felony) for participants | Art. 2, §§ 2.01, 2.03 |
| 2 | “Expand criminal offense of illegal entry to include entering for purposes of birth tourism” | Amends Tex. Penal Code § 51.02 to add subsection (e): entry with primary purpose of birth tourism is a felony of the 3rd degree without deferred adjudication | Art. 3, § 3.01 |
| 3 | “Stop issuing birth certificates to children of non-citizens” | Creates confidential immigration status notation on internal records (cannot constitutionally withhold certificates); formally demands Congress fix the constitutional law. See Section 5 of this article for full explanation. | Art. 4, § 4.01; Art. 7 |
| 4 | “Give the Attorney General authority to investigate and prosecute birth tourism” | Adds Tex. H&SC § 195.010 expressly directing the AG to investigate; establishes Birth Tourism Enforcement Unit within 90 days; authorizes civil penalties of $10,000/day/occurrence, injunctive relief, and subpoenas | Art. 5, § 5.01 |
| 5 | “Ban preplanned adoption agreements and gestational surrogacy contracts if any party involved is a citizen or resident of a country of concern (as Florida has already done)” | Adds Family Code § 160.0021 voiding surrogacy agreements; adds Family Code § 162.0081 voiding preplanned adoption agreements — both for countries of concern | Art. 6, §§ 6.01, 6.02 |
| 6 | “Pass a resolution formally condemning the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara” | Sec. 7.01(4) states findings formally objecting to the decision; Sec. 7.02(1) formally condemns the holding as an incorrect construction of the Fourteenth Amendment | Art. 7, §§ 7.01–7.02 |
| 7 | “Pass a resolution formally demanding the U.S. Congress take any and all necessary actions to fix birthright citizenship” | Sec. 7.02(2) formally demands congressional action; Sec. 7.02(3) directs the Secretary of State to deliver the Act to the President, Senate President pro tempore, House Speaker, and every Texas member of Congress | Art. 7, § 7.02 |
“After yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, Texans deserve action, not just rhetoric, from their state leaders. Texas must start acting like the sovereign state it is and stop taking it on the chin when actions from DC threaten to destroy the very fabric of our republic. I hope every elected Republican in Texas joins my call for immediate action. Delay is unacceptable for a state like Texas!”— State Rep. Brian Harrison (R-District 10, Waxahachie), Official Press Release, July 1, 2026
What This Bill Does — Article by Article
A plain-language breakdown of all eight articles and the new criminal offenses created
Article 1 — Definitions
Before you can prosecute something, you have to define it. Article 1 adds a new Subchapter C to Chapter 192 of the Health and Safety Code containing precise legal definitions of the terms used throughout the bill: “birth tourism,” “birth tourism enterprise,” “maternity hotel,” “country of concern,” and “noncitizen.” Clear definitions protect innocent people — a doctor who treats a pregnant patient without knowing she is part of a birth tourism operation is not liable. A company that charges a fee to recruit pregnant foreign nationals and place them in Texas maternity hotels with full knowledge of the purpose is.
Article 2 — Three New Criminal Offenses
This is the heart of the bill. Three new Penal Code sections create a tiered criminal enforcement structure: [Tex. Penal Code §§ 20.05, 20.06 (structural model)]
| Offense | Code Section | Classification | Enhancement Triggers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operation of Birth Tourism Enterprise | Tex. Penal Code § 20.08 | Felony 2nd degree (base) | Felony 1st degree if: $100K+ gross receipts, country of concern involved, or prior conviction |
| Continuous Birth Tourism Enterprise | Tex. Penal Code § 20.09 | Felony 1st degree | Two or more acts in 10+ days; modeled directly on § 20.06 continuous smuggling |
| Participation in Birth Tourism Enterprise | Tex. Penal Code § 20.10 | State jail felony (base) | Felony 3rd degree if pecuniary benefit received or country of concern involved; covers lodging providers, translators, referral agents |
| Illegal Entry — Birth Tourism Purpose | Tex. Penal Code § 51.02(e) | Felony 3rd degree | Enhancement of existing § 51.02; no deferred adjudication available; subject to ongoing federal litigation on § 51.02 |
Article 3 — Expanding Illegal Entry
Texas Penal Code § 51.02 was enacted by S.B. 4 in 2023. It makes it a criminal offense to enter Texas from a foreign nation at a location other than a lawful port of entry. This bill adds a new subsection (e) that makes it a felony of the third degree when a person enters Texas — through any means — with the primary purpose of giving birth in Texas to obtain a United States birth certificate or citizenship documentation. The key word is “primary purpose.” A woman who enters Texas legally and later decides to give birth here is not covered. The target is the person who is specifically coming for the purpose of birth tourism. [Tex. Penal Code § 51.02; SB 4, 88th Leg., 4th Called Session, 2023]
Article 4 — Vital Records and Reporting
Texas cannot deny a birth certificate to any child born on its soil — that is a constitutional floor set by the Fourteenth Amendment. But Texas can — and already does — include confidential administrative notations on internal birth records that are not part of the legal certificate. (Health and Safety Code § 192.002(c) already includes spaces for social security numbers that are “not a part of the legal birth certificate” — this bill uses the exact same legal mechanism.) Section 4.01 adds a confidential immigration status notation for law enforcement use by the attorney general. Section 4.02 requires licensed hospitals and birth centers to file monthly aggregate reports identifying birth tourism indicators. [Tex. H&SC § 192.002(c)]
The notation added by Section 4.01 is a confidential administrative record — identical in legal structure to the existing social security number notation under § 192.002(c). It is not included in any certified copy of the birth certificate issued to the family. It cannot be used to deny, delay, or condition the issuance of a birth certificate to any child. It is available only to the attorney general for birth tourism investigations. This is enforcement infrastructure, not an attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
Article 5 — Attorney General Enforcement
A law without a cop on the beat is a suggestion. Article 5 makes the attorney general the cop. It adds Health and Safety Code § 195.010 expressly directing the AG to investigate any person reasonably suspected of operating a birth tourism enterprise. It authorizes civil penalties of up to $10,000 per occurrence per day, injunctive relief, and subpoenas. The AG is required to establish a dedicated Birth Tourism Enforcement Unit within 90 days of the effective date. Section 5.02 adds a new deceptive trade practice to the Business & Commerce Code (§ 17.4625), allowing the AG to pursue birth tourism advertisers under the DTPA framework. [Tex. H&SC § 195.003; Tex. B&C Code § 17.46]
Article 6 — Surrogacy and Adoption Bans for Countries of Concern
Rep. Harrison specifically asked Texas to do what Florida already did. Article 6 does exactly that. Any gestational surrogacy agreement under Family Code Chapter 160 is void and unenforceable if any intended parent is a citizen or national of China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, or any country the governor designates. Any preplanned adoption agreement under Family Code Chapter 162 is void if it was entered into primarily to obtain a U.S. birth certificate and the prospective adoptive parents are citizens of a country of concern. A court cannot confirm or enforce a void agreement. The gestational carrier is not civilly liable. [Florida H.B. 905, FIRE Act, 2026]
Article 7 — Legislative Resolutions to Congress
This article does two things. First, it formally states that the Texas Legislature objects to and condemns the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara as an incorrect construction of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, it formally demands that Congress either pass legislation like the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (Graham–Cruz–Britt) or pursue a constitutional amendment, and it directs the Texas Secretary of State to physically deliver certified copies of this Act to the President of the United States, the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and every member of the Texas congressional delegation. This is not symbolic — it is a formal, official, documented demand from the sovereign State of Texas. [Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025; BACK OFF Act, Cornyn, 2026]
Article 8 — Effective Date and Transition
The bill takes effect immediately upon passage by a two-thirds vote of both chambers — the standard for emergency legislation under Article III, Section 39 of the Texas Constitution. If it does not receive a two-thirds vote, it takes effect September 1, 2026. The vital statistics unit has 60 days to develop reporting forms. The attorney general has 90 days to stand up the Enforcement Unit.
What Texas Cannot Do — and Why This Bill Is Honest About It
The constitutional reality, the legal boundaries, and why intellectual honesty serves Texas better than false promises
Rep. Harrison’s third demand — “stop issuing birth certificates to children of non-citizens” — is the one demand this bill cannot fully deliver through direct legislation. That is not a political failure. It is a constitutional fact. And any Texas politician who tells constituents otherwise is either uninformed or misleading them.
Trump v. Barbara held 5–4 that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a constitutional rule, not merely a statutory one. A Texas statute purporting to withhold a birth certificate from a U.S.-born child would be facially unconstitutional, immediately enjoined in federal court, and ultimately struck down. This is not an opinion; it is the current state of federal constitutional law binding on every state. [Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026)]
What the Constitution Actually Says — and What It Was Written to Do
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) states: “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.” The plain text has four words that have become the center of one of the most consequential legal debates in American history: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The majority in Trump v. Barbara held those words mean simply that a person is physically present within U.S. territorial authority at birth. I disagree with that holding. So did four justices of the Supreme Court itself. [Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026); U.S. Const. amend. XIV]
The Fourteenth Amendment was written in 1866 and ratified in 1868 for a specific, urgent, and morally non-negotiable purpose: to undo Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants, who were born on American soil, lived under American law, paid any taxes they were permitted to pay, and were subject to American courts in every meaningful sense. They were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — because the law controlled every aspect of their lives, including when and where they could move, marry, work, and worship. The Amendment was written to make permanent what Dred Scott had robbed them of: the unambiguous recognition that birth on American soil, under American authority, made you an American. Senator Jacob Howard, the Amendment’s principal floor sponsor in the Senate, stated plainly on May 30, 1866 that the Citizenship Clause would not apply to “foreigners” or “aliens” and would exclude persons who were not “subject to the complete jurisdiction” of the United States. [Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890–2896 (1866) (Sen. Howard)]
Four justices dissented in whole or in part in Trump v. Barbara. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote the primary dissent. Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment on statutory grounds only, refusing to endorse the majority’s constitutional holding. The dissenters’ core argument: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment requires complete allegiance to the United States — not mere physical presence — and children of persons who owe primary allegiance to a foreign sovereign do not satisfy that requirement. [Trump v. Barbara, Thomas, J., dissenting; Alito, J., dissenting; Kavanaugh, J., concurring in judgment]
Justice Thomas’s dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch, argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was understood by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to require complete jurisdiction — the kind that attaches when a person has established domicile in the United States and owes exclusive allegiance here, not the temporary, limited jurisdiction that attaches to any visitor passing through our borders. Thomas argued that children born to temporary visitors “owed allegiance to another government — the country of their domicile — so they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” within the original meaning of that phrase. He further argued that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was itself consistent with that reading, because Wong’s parents were domiciled in the United States, not mere tourists or temporary visitors. [Trump v. Barbara, Thomas, J., dissenting, slip op. at 3–18]
Justice Alito, writing separately in what he called “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court,” argued that the Fourteenth Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.” He found that the Citizenship Clause was consistently interpreted in the decades after ratification not to apply to children of foreign temporary visitors, who by definition owe primary allegiance to another sovereign. He rejected the majority’s reliance on English common law jus soli as a guide, arguing that the framers were writing a new American constitutional standard, not simply copying British common law. He noted that the dissenters’ reading “does not recogni[ze] a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens” — and that the Constitution was never meant to. [Trump v. Barbara, Alito, J., dissenting, slip op. at 1, 5–8]
I concur with the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. The Fourteenth Amendment was written to protect freed slaves — people who lived here, worked here, died here, and were completely subject to every American law, but were denied the citizenship that their total subjection to American jurisdiction plainly warranted. It was not written to grant automatic citizenship to a child whose mother flew in from Beijing on a tourist visa last week, paid $40,000 to a birth tourism broker, and plans to fly home next month. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was chosen deliberately to describe the quality of the relationship between a person and this country — not merely the accident of which hospital they happened to be standing next to when they went into labor. The Supreme Court’s majority got this wrong. The ruling is now in effect and binding on every state. That is precisely why this Act takes every available step Texas can take right now — and why Article 7 formally demands that Congress provide the constitutional remedy that four Supreme Court justices agreed is both available and necessary.
The Status of § 51.02 and Federal Litigation
The bill’s Article 3 expansion of Texas Penal Code § 51.02 comes with an important caveat. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the preliminary injunction against § 51.02 on April 24, 2026 on standing grounds, so § 51.02 is currently operative. However, the underlying litigation is ongoing. The birth tourism purpose enhancement in Section 3.01 operates in tandem with § 51.02 and is subject to the same federal litigation landscape. Texas legislators and the public should understand this bill’s Article 3 provisions may face legal challenges parallel to those facing § 51.02 itself. [Tex. Penal Code § 51.02; SB 4, 88th Leg.]
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (Graham–Cruz–Britt), introduced January 28, 2025, would specify that birthright citizenship requires at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen, national, lawful permanent resident, or member of the Armed Forces at the time of birth. If passed, this federal statute — or a constitutional amendment — would be the only mechanism capable of changing the rule Trump v. Barbara reaffirmed. Article 7 of this bill formally demands that Congress act. [Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025]
Why Intellectual Honesty Is the Right Political Strategy
Texas constituents deserve the truth. This bill does everything Texas law can constitutionally do to fight birth tourism: it criminalizes the commercial enterprises, expands illegal entry law, arms the attorney general, voids adversary-nation surrogacy and adoption schemes, and sends a formal, legally binding demand to Congress. What it does not do — and what no state law can currently do — is deny a birth certificate to a child born on Texas soil. Acknowledging that limitation and demanding the federal remedy is stronger, more credible, and more effective than passing legislation that would be struck down before the ink dried. The people of HD109 and across Texas deserve legislators who tell them the truth and fight smart. That is what this bill does.
Why This Matters for HD109 and Every Texas Community
What Cedar Hill, Lancaster, DeSoto, and South Dallas communities stand to gain
House District 109 covers Cedar Hill, Lancaster, the eastern half of DeSoto, Glenn Heights, Wilmer, Hutchins, Combine, a small piece of Ferris, and Seagoville. These are working communities. They are communities that believe in earning your place, paying your dues, and doing things right. The commercial exploitation of birthright citizenship — a status that cost generations of Texans and Americans their lives in wars from the Civil War to Iraq — is an affront to everything these communities stand for.
HD109 is a majority Black district. That matters deeply in this conversation — because the Fourteenth Amendment is, at its foundation, our community’s amendment. It was written in blood and ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War specifically to guarantee that the men, women, and children who had been enslaved on this soil — who had built this country with their labor, who had lived every day of their lives completely subject to American law while being denied its protections — would be recognized, at last, as full citizens of the United States. That was the promise. That was the purpose. The Fourteenth Amendment was the legal seal on the end of the most profound injustice in American history, and the citizenship it conferred was hard-won, morally unambiguous, and absolutely deserved by every person it was written to protect.
When the Supreme Court’s majority in Trump v. Barbara extended that same constitutional guarantee — the one that was purchased with the suffering of enslaved Americans and the blood of the Civil War — to a tourist who flew in from Beijing, paid $40,000 to a birth broker, gave birth, and flew home, they did not honor the Fourteenth Amendment. They diluted it. They took the most important civil rights achievement in American constitutional history and turned it into a commodity available to anyone with a valid visa and a credit card. The people of HD109, whose ancestors are the very reason that Amendment exists, deserve better than that. Their legacy deserves better than that. This legislation says so directly — and fights back.
For families in Cedar Hill, Lancaster, and DeSoto who followed the rules, who immigrated legally if they came from elsewhere, who served in the military, who work and pay taxes and invest in their communities — this bill says Texas sees you, Texas respects what you earned, and Texas is going to protect it. The commercial sale of what your family worked for is going to be treated as what it is: a felony.
Concrete Effects When This Bill Passes
- Commercial birth tourism operators face felony charges — from the first offense. A birth tourism enterprise generating $100,000 or more in gross receipts faces a first-degree felony, the same classification as murder in Texas.
- The attorney general has a specific mandate and a dedicated unit. Investigations begin within 90 days of enactment. Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per occurrence per day start flowing to the state general revenue fund — money that goes back to Texas communities.
- Foreign adversary birth schemes are specifically targeted. Enterprises involving citizens of China, Iran, Russia, or North Korea face enhanced penalties. Texas is specifically calling out adversary-nation exploitation of our citizenship laws.
- The advertising is shut down. Companies advertising birth tourism packages targeting Texas, including foreign-based websites, face deceptive trade practice liability under the DTPA — even if they are not physically located here.
- The data infrastructure exists for the first time. Monthly aggregate reports from every licensed birth facility give the attorney general real intelligence about where birth tourism is occurring so prosecutions can be targeted effectively.
- Texas’s formal demand goes to Washington, D.C. Every member of the Texas congressional delegation — from both parties — receives a certified copy of the legislature’s demand that Congress fix birthright citizenship. This bill puts them on record. Silence is a choice.
A Note to Veterans and Military Families in HD109
I served with 1st Battalion 3rd Marines, Bravo Company, in Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. I watched fellow Marines — young men from Texas communities like ours — pay the ultimate price for this country. United States citizenship carries the weight of every one of those sacrifices. The idea that a commercial enterprise can sell access to it for $40,000 a package is not something any of us who wore the uniform can accept. This bill is Texas’s answer.
If you are a resident of Cedar Hill, Lancaster, DeSoto, Glenn Heights, Wilmer, Hutchins, Combine, Ferris, or Seagoville, your representative is fighting for this legislation. Contact your state senator and the Governor’s office and demand they call and attend the special session. Contact your U.S. congressional representative and demand they co-sponsor the Birthright Citizenship Act. Texas has done its part. Now Washington must do its part.
The Legislation
Texas Birth Tourism Criminalization Act — Pre-Filing Draft, Special Session 2026
Texas Birth Tourism Criminalization Act
H.B. No. _____ · Special Session · Rep. Will Campbell, HD-109 · July 5, 2026
By: ___________________H.B. No. _____
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the criminalization of birth tourism enterprises and related conduct; expanding the criminal offense of illegal entry to include entry for purposes of birth tourism; creating additional criminal offenses; providing civil penalties; authorizing and directing the attorney general to investigate and prosecute certain offenses; amending provisions of the Health and Safety Code, Penal Code, Business & Commerce Code, and Family Code; and adopting legislative resolutions regarding birthright citizenship.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
SECTION 1.01. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to:
(1) protect the integrity of Texas vital records and the meaning of United States citizenship;
(2) deter and criminalize the commercial exploitation of birth on Texas soil for the purpose of obtaining citizenship documentation for children of noncitizens;
(3) expand the criminal offense of illegal entry to expressly encompass entry into Texas for the primary purpose of birth tourism;
(4) assign comprehensive enforcement authority to the attorney general; and
(5) formally communicate to the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States this legislature’s demand that birthright citizenship be corrected by federal legislative action.
SECTION 1.02. Chapter 192, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Subchapter C to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER C. BIRTH TOURISM — DEFINITIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Sec. 192.101. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter and in Sections 20.08, 20.09, and 20.10, Penal Code, and Section 17.4625, Business & Commerce Code, as created by this Act:
(1) “Birth tourism” means the organized commercial practice of recruiting, soliciting, transporting, housing, or providing medical coordination services to a noncitizen, with the primary or a substantial purpose of facilitating the birth of that person’s child on Texas soil in order to obtain a United States birth certificate, citizenship documentation, or other government identification for the child.
(2) “Birth tourism enterprise” means a person, entity, business, organization, network, or combination of persons who, for pecuniary benefit, engage in, organize, direct, manage, or facilitate birth tourism activities, including:
(A) operating a maternity hotel, birthing house, or similar residential or lodging facility used primarily by pregnant noncitizens for the purpose of giving birth in Texas;
(B) recruiting or soliciting pregnant noncitizens inside or outside the United States, including through internet-based platforms and social media, to travel to or remain in Texas for the purpose of giving birth;
(C) coordinating, arranging, or providing prenatal, obstetric, or postpartum medical care in Texas for pregnant noncitizens whose primary purpose in being in Texas is to give birth for citizenship or documentation purposes; or
(D) providing coaching, consulting, or advisory services to a noncitizen regarding how to misrepresent the purpose of travel on a visa application or to a federal or state officer in order to facilitate birth in Texas.
(3) “Country of concern” means a country identified as a foreign adversary under Section 572.070, Government Code, or designated by the governor under that section. As of the effective date of this Act, countries of concern include the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation, and the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.
(4) “Maternity hotel” means any real property, dwelling, apartment, rental unit, short-term rental, hotel room, or similar structure that is operated, marketed, or used primarily to house pregnant noncitizens who are in Texas for the purpose of giving birth.
(5) “Noncitizen” means a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and who is not a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
(6) “Pecuniary benefit” has the meaning assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code.
(7) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, association, trust, or other legal entity, whether domestic or foreign.
ARTICLE 2. CRIMINAL OFFENSES — BIRTH TOURISM ENTERPRISE
SECTION 2.01. Chapter 20, Penal Code, is amended by adding Section 20.08 to read as follows:
Sec. 20.08. OPERATION OF A BIRTH TOURISM ENTERPRISE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person, for pecuniary benefit, intentionally or knowingly:
(1) operates, manages, directs, or participates in the management of a birth tourism enterprise as defined by Section 192.101, Health and Safety Code;
(2) operates or controls a maternity hotel for the purpose of facilitating birth tourism;
(3) advertises or solicits birth tourism services through any platform with substantial Texas users;
(4) recruits, transports, or arranges the transport of a noncitizen into or within Texas for the primary purpose of facilitating birth tourism;
(5) provides, arranges, or coordinates prenatal, obstetric, or postpartum medical services in Texas to a noncitizen as part of a birth tourism enterprise; or
(6) instructs, coaches, or assists a noncitizen to make a material misrepresentation to a federal or state officer regarding the purpose of the person’s presence in or entry into Texas or the United States.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if: (1) the offense generates gross receipts of $100,000 or more within any 12-month period; (2) the offense involves a noncitizen who is a citizen or national of a country of concern; or (3) the actor was previously convicted of an offense under this section or Section 20.09.
(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or under both sections.
SECTION 2.02. Chapter 20, Penal Code, is amended by adding Section 20.09 to read as follows:
Sec. 20.09. CONTINUOUS BIRTH TOURISM ENTERPRISE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, during a period that is 10 or more days in duration, the person engages two or more times in conduct that constitutes an offense under Section 20.08.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(c) Jury members are not required to agree unanimously on which specific conduct constituted an offense under Section 20.08 or on which exact date that conduct occurred. The jury must agree unanimously that the defendant, during a period that is 10 or more days in duration, engaged two or more times in conduct that constitutes an offense under Section 20.08.
(d) A defendant may not be convicted of an offense under Section 20.08 in the same criminal action as an offense under this section for conduct alleged to have occurred within the same period, unless the Section 20.08 offense is: (1) charged in the alternative; (2) alleged to have occurred outside the applicable period; or (3) considered by the trier of fact to be a lesser included offense.
SECTION 2.03. Chapter 20, Penal Code, is amended by adding Section 20.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 20.10. PARTICIPATION IN A BIRTH TOURISM ENTERPRISE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly participates in, assists, or facilitates a birth tourism enterprise as defined by Section 192.101, Health and Safety Code, regardless of whether the person receives pecuniary benefit, including by: (1) providing lodging at a maternity hotel knowing the facility is used for birth tourism purposes; (2) providing translation, financial, legal, or logistical services to a birth tourism enterprise; or (3) referring a noncitizen to a birth tourism enterprise knowing the purpose is to facilitate birth for citizenship documentation purposes.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if: (1) the person committed the offense for pecuniary benefit; or (2) the offense involves a noncitizen who is a citizen or national of a country of concern.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor is the gestational carrier who carried the child at issue and did not organize, manage, or control the enterprise.
ARTICLE 3. ILLEGAL ENTRY — EXPANSION TO INCLUDE BIRTH TOURISM PURPOSE
SECTION 3.01. Section 51.02, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
(e) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, without the possibility of deferred adjudication, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that: (1) the defendant entered or attempted to enter this state from a foreign nation at a location other than a lawful port of entry; and (2) the primary purpose of the defendant’s entry or attempted entry into this state was to give birth in Texas in order to obtain a United States birth certificate or citizenship documentation for the child to be born.
ARTICLE 4. VITAL RECORDS — ADMINISTRATIVE NOTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL REPORTING
SECTION 4.01. Section 192.002, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
(e) The form of the birth certificate shall include a designated space, not part of the legal birth certificate, for recording the immigration status and visa classification, if known, of the mother at the time of birth. This information: (1) is a confidential administrative notation and shall not be included in any certified copy of a birth certificate; (2) shall be retained by the vital statistics unit and made available only to the attorney general upon written request in connection with a birth tourism investigation or prosecution; and (3) may not be used as a basis to deny, delay, or condition the issuance of a birth certificate to any child born in Texas.
SECTION 4.02. Chapter 192, Subchapter C, as added by Section 1.02 of this Act, is amended by adding Section 192.102 to read as follows:
Sec. 192.102. MATERNITY HOTEL AND BIRTH TOURISM REPORTING BY LICENSED INSTITUTIONS.
(a) A licensed institution that provides obstetric services shall report to the vital statistics unit and the attorney general, not later than the 30th day of each month, the number of births in which: (1) the mother presented immigration documentation indicating she is a noncitizen on a temporary nonimmigrant visa; (2) the mother identified a maternity hotel or short-term rental used primarily by pregnant noncitizens as her Texas lodging; or (3) the mother indicated her prenatal care was arranged by a third-party birth tourism broker or enterprise.
(b) Reports shall be: (1) submitted in a form and manner prescribed by the vital statistics unit; (2) aggregate in nature and may not include personally identifying information; and (3) confidential and not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code, except to the attorney general.
(c) The vital statistics unit shall compile reports and submit aggregate statewide data to the legislature annually, not later than December 1 of each year.
ARTICLE 5. CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY
SECTION 5.01. Chapter 195, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Section 195.010 to read as follows:
Sec. 195.010. ATTORNEY GENERAL — INVESTIGATION AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF BIRTH TOURISM PROHIBITION.
(a) The attorney general shall investigate any person reasonably suspected of operating a birth tourism enterprise as defined by Section 192.101 of this code.
(b) The attorney general may bring a civil action for: (1) civil penalties of not more than $10,000 per occurrence per day; (2) injunctive relief; and (3) attorney’s fees, investigative costs, and court costs.
(c) Actions may be brought in Travis County or any county in which a violation occurred.
(d) The attorney general may issue civil investigative demands and subpoenas under Chapter 402, Government Code.
(e) Civil penalties shall be deposited to the state general revenue fund.
(f) The attorney general shall establish a Birth Tourism Enforcement Unit within 90 days of the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 5.02. Chapter 17, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by adding Section 17.4625 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.4625. BIRTH TOURISM ADVERTISING — DECEPTIVE AND UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICE.
(a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice if the person advertises birth tourism services, maternity hotel accommodations, or visa coaching services to conceal a birth tourism purpose from federal officers, whether in Texas or through platforms with substantial Texas users.
(b) The consumer protection provisions of this subchapter apply regardless of whether the advertiser is physically located in Texas.
(c) The attorney general may pursue enforcement under this section using all DTPA remedies, including civil penalties and injunctive relief.
ARTICLE 6. SURROGACY AND ADOPTION — COUNTRIES OF CONCERN
SECTION 6.01. Chapter 160, Family Code, is amended by adding Section 160.0021:
Sec. 160.0021. GESTATIONAL SURROGACY AGREEMENTS — COUNTRIES OF CONCERN — VOID.
(a) A gestational agreement is void and unenforceable if any intended parent is: (1) a citizen or national of a country of concern; or (2) an entity owned or controlled by a citizen, national, or government of a country of concern.
(b) Exception: This section does not apply if at least one intended parent is a U.S. citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident, and the agreement was entered into for bona fide family formation purposes unrelated to birth tourism.
(c) A court may not validate, confirm, or enforce a void agreement. A gestational carrier who performed under a void agreement shall not be subject to civil liability to the intended parents.
SECTION 6.02. Chapter 162, Family Code, is amended by adding Section 162.0081:
Sec. 162.0081. PREPLANNED ADOPTION AGREEMENTS — COUNTRIES OF CONCERN — VOID.
(a) A preplanned adoption agreement is void and a court may not grant the adoption if: (1) the agreement was entered into primarily to obtain a U.S. birth certificate or citizenship documentation through birth in Texas; and (2) the prospective adoptive parents are citizens or nationals of a country of concern.
(b) A court shall treat such a void agreement as if never executed and shall dismiss the adoption proceeding without prejudice.
ARTICLE 7. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS
SECTION 7.01. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. The legislature finds and declares:
(1) Commercial birth tourism enterprises represent an organized, profit-driven industry that exploits Texas’s proximity to international borders, world-class obstetric care, and birthright citizenship to manufacture citizenship documentation for children of foreign nationals for a fee.
(2) The value of United States citizenship, earned at great cost including the lives of countless Texans and Americans across generations of military service, is undermined by commercial enterprises that sell access to citizenship through birth tourism.
(3) On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), holding 5-4 that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, invalidating Executive Order 14160 signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025.
(4) The legislature respectfully but firmly objects to the holding and reasoning of Trump v. Barbara and finds that the Court’s decision perpetuates the exploitation of birthright citizenship by commercial birth tourism enterprises and by citizens of adversary nations.
(5) Because birthright citizenship is a matter of constitutional law as interpreted by the federal courts, the remedy for Trump v. Barbara lies with the United States Congress through either a statute clarifying the Citizenship Clause or a constitutional amendment, and Texas demands that Congress act immediately.
SECTION 7.02. FORMAL RESOLUTIONS. The legislature of the State of Texas hereby:
(1) formally objects to and condemns the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), as an incorrect construction of the Fourteenth Amendment that perpetuates the commercial exploitation of birthright citizenship;
(2) formally demands that the Congress of the United States take any and all necessary actions — including legislation clarifying the scope of the Citizenship Clause and, if necessary, a constitutional amendment — to end the exploitation of birthright citizenship by birth tourism enterprises and foreign adversary nationals; and
(3) directs the secretary of state to transmit certified copies of this Act to: (A) the President of the United States; (B) the President pro tempore of the United States Senate; (C) the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and (D) each member of the Texas congressional delegation.
ARTICLE 8. SAVING CLAUSE, TRANSITION, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
SECTION 8.01. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 8.02. Gestational agreements and preplanned adoption agreements entered into before the effective date of this Act are not affected by the additions made by Article 6 of this Act.
SECTION 8.03. Not later than the 60th day after the effective date of this Act: (1) the vital statistics unit shall develop and distribute the immigration status notation form required by Section 192.002(e); and (2) the vital statistics unit shall develop and disseminate reporting forms required under Section 192.102.
SECTION 8.04. Not later than the 90th day after the effective date of this Act, the attorney general shall establish the Birth Tourism Enforcement Unit required by Section 195.010(f), Health and Safety Code.
SECTION 8.05. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2026.
References & Annotated Bibliography
Sources are organized by the sections of this article and the articles of the legislation they principally inform. Citations follow APA 7th Edition format. All sources are primary originals — constitutions, statutes, official court decisions, official press releases, and official legislative records. No secondary or aggregator sources were used as the basis for any operative legal text or factual claim. Sources verified as of July 5, 2026.
I. Triggering Political Authority — All Sections
Harrison, B. (July 1, 2026). Harrison Demands Special Session to Combat Birth Tourism [Official Press Release]. Office of State Representative Brian Harrison, Texas House of Representatives, District 10. Contact: 214.499.5750.
This press release is the direct legislative impetus for all eight articles of this Act. Rep. Harrison identified seven specific legislative demands, each of which is addressed by a corresponding section of this bill. The full verbatim text of the seven demands and the full verbatim Harrison statement (“After yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, Texans deserve action, not just rhetoric…”) appear in the bill analysis crosswalk and in Section 3 of this article. The press release confirms the official nature of the demand, complete with office contact information.
II. Constitutional and Supreme Court Authorities — Sections 4, 5; Articles 4, 7
Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (June 30, 2026) (Roberts, C.J., for a 5–4 Court). Official Slip Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf
Establishes the outer constitutional boundary within which this entire Act operates. The Court held 5–4 that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil regardless of parental immigration status, invalidating Executive Order 14160 (Jan. 20, 2025). Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a majority joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented; Alito separately; Kavanaugh concurred in judgment. This decision establishes why Texas cannot withhold birth certificates (Section 4.01 caveat), why the administrative notation mechanism is necessary, and why Article 7’s congressional demand is the only constitutionally available path to Harrison’s third demand. The opinion traced jus soli from Calvin’s Case (1608) through Wong Kim Ark (1898). Note: Confirm final bound volume citation at supremecourt.gov once assigned.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (Citizenship Clause, ratified 1868). Full text: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
The Citizenship Clause (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”) is the supreme legal constraint within which all provisions of this Act must operate. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the constitutional language at the center of the birth tourism debate. All operational provisions of this Act were designed to operate within the boundaries established by this clause as construed in Trump v. Barbara. Informs Sections 5, Constitution section; Article 4 administrative notation; Article 7 congressional demand.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Full text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Held that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. Established that the Amendment was “declaratory” of the fundamental common law rule of citizenship by birth. Represents 128 years of binding precedent explicitly reaffirmed by Trump v. Barbara. Reinforces that the Article 7 remedy must come through Congress or constitutional amendment, not state legislation. Grounds the historical framing in Sections 1 and 5 of this article.
Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (January 20, 2025).
Signed by President Trump on his first day of his second term. Declared children born to unlawfully or temporarily present mothers (where the father is not a U.S. citizen or LPR) are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Immediately enjoined by multiple federal district courts; ultimately invalidated by Trump v. Barbara (June 30, 2026). The Article 7 resolutions reference this executive order as the model federal action Congress should codify through legislation or constitutional amendment, since executive action alone was constitutionally foreclosed.
Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), Thomas, J., dissenting (joined by Gorsuch, J.); Alito, J., dissenting; Gorsuch, J., dissenting; Kavanaugh, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part. Official Slip Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf
Four justices dissented in whole or in part. Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) argued that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires complete allegiance to the United States, not mere physical presence — and that children born to temporary visitors owe primary allegiance to another sovereign, disqualifying them under the original meaning of the Clause. He further argued that Wong Kim Ark does not foreclose this reading because Wong’s parents were domiciled in the U.S. Justice Alito wrote separately, calling the decision “one of the most important in the history of the Court,” and arguing the Amendment confers citizenship only on children who “owe allegiance solely to this country” at birth — not birth tourists or children of illegal aliens. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment on statutory grounds only, refused to reach the constitutional question, and explicitly left Congress a roadmap to change the statutory rule without a constitutional amendment. Rep. Campbell concurs with the dissenting positions of Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. These dissents establish the basis for the Article 7 congressional demand in this Act.
Senator Jacob Howard, Floor Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at 2890–2896 (May 30, 1866). National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment · Constitution Center: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/jacob-howard-speech-introducing-the-fourteenth-amendment-to-the-senate-1866
Senator Howard was the Fourteenth Amendment’s principal Senate floor sponsor. On May 30, 1866, he stated clearly that the Citizenship Clause would exclude “foreigners” and “aliens” and would require that a person be subject to the “complete jurisdiction” of the United States. This legislative record directly supports the dissenting justices’ reading of the Clause and Rep. Campbell’s position that the Amendment was designed to protect freed slaves — persons fully subject to American law in every meaningful way — not to confer automatic citizenship on the children of temporary foreign visitors. The Howard speech is the single most important piece of original legislative history for interpreting the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
III. Texas Statutes — Operative Provisions Amended — Articles 1–6
Texas Health & Safety Code §§ 192.001, 192.002, 192.003. (2024 Texas Statutes). Justia: https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-3/chapter-192/subchapter-a/section-192-002/
These sections are directly amended by Article 4. Key fact: § 192.002(c) already includes spaces for social security numbers that are “not a part of the legal birth certificate” — this is the existing statutory model and legal precedent for the confidential administrative immigration status notation added by Section 4.01. Using an existing mechanism rather than creating a novel one makes the notation legally robust. § 192.001 establishes the birth registration mandate. § 192.003 sets the 5-day filing requirement (with 15-day extension) by physicians, midwives, and administrators.
Texas Health & Safety Code § 195.003, False Records. (2024 Texas Statutes). Justia: https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-3/chapter-195/section-195-003/
Existing felony-third-degree offense for making a false statement in a vital records certificate ($10,000 fine; 2–10 years). Addresses individual fraud but not commercial enterprise operation. Article 5’s civil enforcement provision (§ 195.010) builds on and complements § 195.003 within Chapter 195 without duplicating the existing individual fraud offense. Establishes Chapter 195 as the appropriate chapter for the attorney general enforcement provisions.
Texas Penal Code §§ 20.05 (Smuggling of Persons), 20.06 (Continuous Smuggling), 20.07 (Stash House). (2023–2024 Statutes). Justia: https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/penal-code/title-5/chapter-20/section-20-05/ · FindLaw: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-20-07/
The two-statute structure of §§ 20.05 / 20.06 (base offense + continuous conduct enhancement with 10-day period) is the direct structural model for the new §§ 20.08 / 20.09. § 20.09’s jury unanimity instruction (not required to agree on which specific acts) is taken verbatim from § 20.06. § 20.07 (stash house, felony 3rd degree, min. 5-year term) is the direct model for characterizing maternity hotels. Establishes Chapter 20 as the appropriate chapter and confirms the bill integrates cleanly into existing Penal Code architecture.
Texas Penal Code § 51.02, Illegal Entry from Foreign Nation. (S.B. 4, 88th Tex. Legislature, 4th Called Session, 2023). Current text: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-51-02/
Section 3.01 amends this statute only, adding subsection (e) for entry with primary birth tourism purpose (felony 3rd degree, no deferred adjudication). Fifth Circuit (en banc) vacated preliminary injunction on April 24, 2026 on standing grounds; § 51.02 currently operative. Underlying litigation continues. This is the most legally vulnerable article of the bill due to the § 51.02 federal litigation landscape; legislators and the public should understand this enhancement may face parallel legal challenges.
Texas Penal Code § 37.10, Tampering with Governmental Record. (2024 Texas Statutes): https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/penal-code/title-8/chapter-37/section-37-10/
Existing offense covering false or fraudulent entries in government records. Relevant background statute confirming existing individual document fraud is already covered; this bill fills the gap of commercial enterprise operation, not individual document fraud. Provides additional existing coverage parallel to this Act’s new offenses.
Texas Penal Code § 51.03, Illegal Reentry. (2024 Texas Statutes). Justia: https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/penal-code/title-10/chapter-51/section-51-03/
Section 3.01 amends § 51.02 only (illegal entry), not § 51.03 (illegal reentry), to avoid compounding the more contested reentry and removal order provisions that face greater legal uncertainty. District court enjoined § 51.03 on May 14, 2026; Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction May 29, 2026. The drafting decision to limit Article 3 to § 51.02 reflects deliberate risk management.
Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.46, Deceptive Trade Practices. Official text: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/Docs/bc/htm/bc.17.htm
Section 5.02 inserts § 17.4625 into Chapter 17 to expressly classify birth tourism advertising as a deceptive trade practice, leveraging the DTPA’s existing enforcement infrastructure for the attorney general’s birth tourism enforcement mission. The DTPA framework allows the AG to pursue civil penalties and injunctive relief against foreign-based advertisers who target Texas users.
Texas Government Code § 752.053 (SB 4, 2017). FindLaw: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/government-code/gov-t-sect-752-053/
Provides existing statewide framework for immigration enforcement cooperation by local entities. Confirms Texas has existing statutory architecture for immigration enforcement cooperation; this Act layers birth tourism-specific criminal offenses on top of that framework rather than duplicating it.
Texas Government Code § 572.070, Foreign Adversary Definition. Texas Ethics Commission: https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/filinginfo/rfac.php
Defines “foreign adversary” by cross-reference to the U.S. Director of National Intelligence Annual Threat Assessments. As of August 2025, designated countries include China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. The definition of “country of concern” in § 192.101(3) cross-references § 572.070 to ensure the list updates automatically as the governor designates new countries — no legislative amendment required to add future adversaries.
IV. Federal Legislative Context — Section 5; Article 7
Cornyn, J. (May 11, 2026). Barring American Citizenship by Keeping Out Foreign Fraudsters (BACK OFF) Act [Senate Bill Press Release]. U.S. Senate. https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-on-new-bill-to-end-birth-tourism-protect-americas-sovereignty/
Would make aliens involved in birth tourism inadmissible and deportable, create federal criminal penalties for facilitators, establish a federal birth tourism task force, and require DHS detention of birth tourism aliens. The BACK OFF Act framework for defining birth tourism enterprises and criminal penalties for facilitators informed the structure of Articles 2 and 5 of this Act. This Act creates parallel state criminal offenses under Texas law to act independently of and in coordination with any federal enforcement.
Graham, L., Cruz, T., & Britt, K. (January 28, 2025). Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 [Senate Bill]. U.S. Senate.
Would specify that birthright citizenship requires at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen, national, LPR, or member of the Armed Forces at the time of the child’s birth. Applies only to children born after enactment. The Article 7 congressional resolution calls on Congress to enact precisely this kind of federal legislation as the only constitutionally available remedy for Trump v. Barbara. Directly cited in the Article 7 resolutions as the model federal remedy.
V. State Precedent — Florida FIRE Act — Article 6
Florida Foreign Interference Restriction and Enforcement (FIRE) Act, H.B. 905 (signed May 8, 2026; effective July 1, 2026). WUSF News (May 9, 2026): https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues/2026-05-09/desantis-signs-foreign-influence-crackdown-bill
Signed by Governor DeSantis on May 8, 2026; effective July 1, 2026 — 24 days before this draft. Voids gestational surrogacy contracts if any party is a citizen or resident of a “country of concern” (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria). Because the surrogacy contract is void, there is no guaranteed transfer of parental rights and no automatic legal status for the child under that void contract. Rep. Harrison expressly cited this law (“as Florida has already done”) in demand #5. Article 6, §§ 6.01 and 6.02 are the direct Texas analog adapted to the Texas Family Code’s Chapter 160 (surrogacy) and Chapter 162 (adoption) structure. Sponsor: Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka.
VI. Texas Vital Records Administrative Authority — Article 4
25 Tex. Admin. Code § 503.54, Reporting and Filing Requirements (Birthing Centers). Law.Cornell.Edu: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/texas/26-Tex-Admin-Code-SS-503-54
Birthing center administrators or their designees are required to file a birth certificate for each birth at the center pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 192.003. Birth attendants must comply with §§ 195.003 and 195.004. Confirms that administrative oversight of birth certificate filing at all licensed birth facilities is already within the regulatory authority of the vital statistics unit, supporting the legal foundation for the maternity hotel reporting requirement in § 192.102. Establishes that the reporting obligation in Section 4.02 fits within existing regulatory architecture.