CNN commentator Tara Setmayer launched into an emotional on-air rant over the issue of birthright citizenship, dismissing Republican concerns about birth tourism as “a bunch of bulls**t” during a heated panel discussion that underscored the nation’s deep divide over immigration and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The fiery exchange took place on the July 1 edition of *NewsNight with Abby Phillip*, where panelists debated the Supreme Court’s recent decision reaffirming birthright citizenship and the Trump administration’s next steps to address what conservatives view as loopholes in America’s immigration system.
Birth tourism refers to the practice of foreign nationals traveling to the United States primarily to give birth so their child automatically acquires U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Critics argue that some families later use that citizenship to help relatives legally immigrate to the United States, creating what they see as an abuse of the nation’s immigration laws.
The Supreme Court’s ruling dealt a setback to President Donald Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, prompting senior adviser Stephen Miller to announce that the administration would explore other legal avenues, including tighter restrictions on travel by pregnant foreign nationals suspected of entering the country solely to give birth.
That proposal sparked an emotional reaction from Setmayer.
Reflecting on a recent sightseeing trip in New York Harbor, she described becoming emotional while passing Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.
“We’re about to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our country,” Setmayer said. “I took one of those sightseeing boats… and I passed by Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.”
She argued that America’s history as a nation of immigrants stood in contrast to the administration’s immigration agenda.
Setmayer also criticized Stephen Miller personally, referencing his family’s Jewish heritage and accusing him of hypocrisy.
She then turned to her own family’s story, explaining that her Italian relatives arrived through Ellis Island in 1924 and faced discrimination before eventually building successful lives in America.
“My Italian, my Sicilian family… you know what they were called when they came here?” she said. “All kinds of things.”
Setmayer went on to suggest that efforts to crack down on birth tourism could lead to discrimination against pregnant women based on their appearance or ethnicity.
“What have we become?” she asked. “This is… targeting women.”
Her remarks, however, were met with pushback from fellow panelist Lydia Moynihan of the *New York Post*, who argued that birth tourism is not an imaginary issue but a legitimate policy concern.
“It’s a legitimate concern,” Moynihan said.
Setmayer immediately dismissed the argument, insisting Republicans were exaggerating the problem.
“It’s a concern about this big,” she replied, indicating what she believed was only a tiny issue.
Moynihan pressed further, asking why concerns over birth tourism should simply be ignored.
“Why can’t we accept the concern?” she asked.
Setmayer responded by accusing Republicans of selectively focusing on pregnant women rather than alleged threats posed by agents of the Chinese Communist Party.
For conservatives, however, the discussion highlighted what they see as a familiar pattern in the immigration debate: dismissing legitimate border-security concerns as xenophobia instead of engaging with the underlying policy questions.
Supporters of stronger immigration enforcement argue that birth tourism is a documented practice that has been the subject of federal investigations for years, with authorities previously prosecuting businesses that allegedly helped foreign nationals travel to the United States specifically to obtain citizenship for their children.
They contend that raising concerns about abuse of immigration law is fundamentally different from opposing legal immigration or criticizing America’s immigrant heritage.
The debate is likely to intensify following the Supreme Court’s ruling, as the Trump administration weighs alternative measures to curb birth tourism without directly challenging the Constitution’s citizenship clause.
For supporters of the administration, the question is not whether America should welcome lawful immigrants, but whether loopholes in the current system should continue to be exploited. Setmayer’s passionate defense of the existing framework, meanwhile, demonstrated just how politically explosive that question has become.
