Reports that Chinese billionaire Xu Bo has more than 100 U.S.-born children through surrogacy have renewed debate over birthright citizenship, commercial surrogacy and potential national security concerns.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A Chinese technology billionaire’s reported use of U.S. surrogacy services to father more than 100 American-born children has intensified debate over birthright citizenship, commercial surrogacy and whether foreign nationals are exploiting U.S. law for long-term political and strategic advantage.
The controversy centers on Xu Bo, a Chinese tech tycoon tied to Duoyi Network, after commentator Jennifer Zeng said Xu posted a photo on his company’s official Weibo account showing more than 100 babies obtained through surrogacy services in the United States.
“Look at this terrifying photo! At first, I thought it was AI-generated, but it turns out it wasn’t!” Zeng wrote in an X post.
“This is something Chinese tycoon Xu Bo himself posted on the official Weibo of his company Duoyi Network: more than 100 American babies he obtained through surrogacy services!” Zeng said.
Zeng said Xu’s former partner, Tang Jing, previously claimed Xu has at least 300 children, though Xu has acknowledged more than 100.
“Xu Bo’s former partner, Tang Jing, once claimed that Xu Bo has at least 300 children,” Zeng wrote. “However, Xu Bo only admits to having more than 100.”
Zeng later shared a screenshot that she said confirmed the image had appeared on the company’s Weibo account. Weibo is one of China’s largest social media platforms.
The case has drawn attention because children born in the United States generally receive U.S. citizenship, even if they are later raised overseas. Critics of birthright citizenship argue that the practice can allow wealthy foreign nationals to secure American citizenship for children who may grow up outside the United States but later gain the right to vote, hold public office or seek sensitive positions.
The debate follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that did not end birthright citizenship. Zeng noted the ruling in a June 30 post.
“The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected Trump’s birthright citizenship ban,” Zeng wrote.
“So, is this good news for those who still want to come to the U.S. to give birth to ‘anchor babies?’” she asked.
Katy Faust, founder and president of the global children’s rights organization Them Before Us, said the case demonstrates both a moral concern and a national security problem tied to commercial surrogacy.
In an X post, Faust called surrogacy a “Trojan Horse.”
“Surrogacy about infertile couples having babies,” Faust wrote. “That Trojan horse allows Big Fertility to manufacture 100+ American citizens to single Chinese billionaires.”
“100 motherless babies is enough of a tragedy,” Faust wrote. “The national security threat? Should be the nail in the coffin.”
The broader issue has also drawn congressional attention. After publication of a Wall Street Journal report on the matter, Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Rick Scott of Florida sent a letter to the Department of Justice earlier this year asking for an investigation into “surrogacy centers operated by foreign nationals.”
“Alarming reports indicate that Chinese nationals are systematically exploiting America’s surrogacy and birthright citizenship laws,” the senators wrote.
The senators said reports had identified more than 107 Chinese-owned surrogacy agencies operating in Southern California alone.
“Recent reports have uncovered more than 107 Chinese-owned surrogacy agencies operating in Southern California alone,” Cotton and Scott wrote. “These agencies cater almost exclusively to wealthy Chinese clients, and some are affiliated with Chinese state-owned entities. Chinese nationals pay women living in the United States more than $50,000 to serve as surrogates. The children are born on United States soil and granted automatic citizenship. And in most cases, the infants are promptly flown to China and raised there under the direct influence of the Chinese Communist P”
The excerpted letter text ends there in the submitted material, but Cotton and Scott also warned that the children could later use U.S. citizenship in ways that affect American national interests.
“These children will eventually be eligible to vote in American elections, access sensitive positions, or otherwise advance Beijing’s interests, all while owing their allegiance to the CCP,” Cotton and Scott wrote, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.
The senators said the pattern could reflect a “long-term strategy” to “ideologically and systematically undermine the United States.”
Them Before Us spokeswoman Samantha DeLoach told LifeSiteNews at the time that the reported practice shows a deeper problem in U.S. law.
“When wealthy foreign nationals can shop for women’s wombs, contract for babies, and then use U.S. citizenship laws to their advantage, it’s a sign that the system is fundamentally broken,” DeLoach said.
“At minimum, the U.S. should stop functioning as a surrogacy haven by banning or strictly limiting commercial surrogacy,” DeLoach said. “Surrogacy contracts treat pregnancy as a service and babies as products – something Them Before Us has consistently opposed because children are not commodities.”
Xu’s reported case has now become a focal point in the wider argument over birthright citizenship and commercial surrogacy. Supporters of reform say the issue extends beyond immigration policy into questions of child welfare, national security and whether U.S. citizenship can be effectively obtained through paid surrogacy arrangements by foreign nationals.
The debate is likely to continue as lawmakers, family-policy advocates and immigration hawks press for tighter restrictions on foreign-operated surrogacy agencies and renewed scrutiny of birthright citizenship rules.
Original article
Comments