Unassigned

NYT Tries Sympathy for Illegal Who Sneaked Back In to Birth ‘Anchor Baby’ — Backfires Spectacularly

The New York Times ran an article they probably felt was sympathetic to the illegals. A whole bunch of people on X didn't take it that way.

Advertisement

 A 27-year-old immigrant from Honduras, she and her partner had crossed the southern border in the fall, when Ms. Acosta was about six months pregnant, after being deported from the United States the previous spring. The couple knew they were taking a chance when they began their 1,700-mile journey back to the United States. But to give their first child together a chance at American citizenship — to be born on U.S. soil — they had agreed that they would do anything.

In arguing at the Supreme Court this month to overturn birthright citizenship, which many see as central to the country’s identity, the Trump administration asserted that the practice acts as a “powerful pull factor,” encouraging people to cross the border illegally and give birth in the United States. With a majority of justices appearing likely to uphold birthright citizenship, Ms. Acosta’s experiences reflect the often fraught choices and questions inherent in the policy.

Ms. Acosta and the baby’s father, Jaime Murillo Padilla, made decisions that put themselves and their future child at risk — desperate for their son to achieve citizenship in a stable country rich with economic promise. They also encountered an immigration system ill equipped to deal with the consequences of a practice that creates strong incentives for noncitizens to have children in the United States, with detention policies and conditions that can put mothers and their babies in jeopardy.

Advertisement

So, they were deported once when she was pregnant. They then snuck back across the border so their kid would be an American citizen. That child now has the same rights as any other American citizen. Something has to change.

“Every day we get up and we thank God for the opportunity of our son being born over there,” he said. “It’s the biggest win for us. All we can think about now is, your future is set.

“He is a U.S. citizen.”

The United States should not have kept the pregnant woman in custody until she had the baby. They should have deported her immediately so the child wasn't born in America. 

The United States has now paid to hold the parents in detention, the cost of the mother's birthing care, the cost of the NICU for the premature child and frankly, probably welfare for the child once he was living with the grandmother.

Advertisement

The parents admit the whole family will never have to suffer because the one baby was born on American soil. That's outrageous.

Yes. The article said Dad had three children by other relationship(s). So, apparently he has several other mothers of his children. What a scam artist. 

Advertisement

This story should be enough evidence for the Supreme Court.

This was not what the founders intended.