Pro-lifers are inherently pro-baby and pro-woman. We want what’s best for both the baby and the mother, whether before or after birth.

The birthright citizenship case currently before the Supreme Court highlights one area of conflict. Coming to America is likely better for both mother and child than staying in their former country. But we are (supposed to be) a nation of laws, and the idea that a woman can illegally cross the border, give birth to a child, and have that child enjoy all the benefits of citizenship because the mother broke our laws is anathema to our constitutional system.

We can only pray that a majority of justices see it the same way, though it doesn’t seem likely. I’ll admit that most Americans don’t see it that way, either.

Meanwhile, this isn’t a rare phenomenon. While the U.S. birth rate is plummeting to dangerous lows, the number of babies born to illegal alien mothers has risen to nearly 10% of all U.S. births in 2023 — 320,000 out of 3.6 million babies born were anchor babies.

Enter The New York Times, which on Friday published what was intended to be an emotionally manipulative story about one mother and her baby.

“She Made Sure Her Baby Was Born an American. Then Federal Agents Separated Them,” reads the headline, followed by the subtitle, “Diana Acosta Verde, who came into the United States illegally when she was six months pregnant, had to leave her baby at a hospital while she returned to a detention center.”

Truly, that sounds distressing, and it’s quite natural to groan with sympathy for the mother and her newborn son. Mothers ought to be with their children.

Yet after four brief, heartwrenching paragraphs, we get some key information:

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.

• She’s unmarried.
• She had already been deported before getting pregnant, as had her partner.
• They knew they were breaking the law, but that if they succeeded in breaking it, they’d reap the rewards.

Then came two more paragraphs meant to provoke and exploit a visceral, emotional response:

Of all the potential perils they had contemplated, the couple never imagined they would be separated from their newborn. Gael was in the hospital without a family member for more than 24 hours before his grandmother, a U.S. resident, came to collect him.

“I felt so much pain that I didn’t really know where it hurt,” Ms. Acosta said in an interview. “I wanted to vomit. I felt like my world was falling to pieces.”

Don’t misunderstand me. I do feel for a mother and child who are separated. It surely does hurt, and it’s a trial. “The mom and newborn should always be together,” the Times quotes Dr. Rose Molina, an obstetrician-gynecologist. “Especially in those first days.” She’s right.

But Acosta brought this on herself by breaking the law after months of planning, despite the risk. “Our daughter or son is not going to be born here [in Honduras],” her partner, Jaime Murillo, told her when they got pregnant last year.

“We knew the importance of that birth certificate,” he said. Mr. Murillo was also eager to return to his family. He has three other children in the United States from previous relationships who are American citizens.

He gets around.

Now, months after the birth, Gael is a U.S. citizen with a passport, though he currently resides in Honduras with his parents after returning there with his grandmother. “It’s the biggest win for us. All we can think about now is, your future is set,” said Murillo. “He is a U.S. citizen.”

How should American law enforcement handle these situations?

Well, on the one hand, it seems that the compassionate thing to do is to make sure mother and child are together. A child shouldn’t be punished for the illegal actions of his mother, and the default ought to be keeping families together.

Yet other crimes necessitate separating parents from their children, so why would illegally crossing the border be different? This isn’t a family, either. It’s a promiscuous dude who plotted to have an anchor baby with his baby momma.

Moreover, we should deter people from this behavior, even if the Supreme Court gets it wrong in June. If the Court upholds the incorrect understanding of birthright citizenship, the Trump administration and successive administrations should take action to keep the border closed to birth tourism.

This story is a hard one, but I hope others read it and get a simple message: Don’t put your family at risk like this. I fear that, instead, readers will hear The New York Times’s intended message loud and clear: Donald Trump is uniquely evil and cruel. Vote Democrat.

Follow Nate Jackson on X.