We have finally discovered what will make The New York Times treat an unborn child as a human being. 

Make the mother an illegal alien, and the fetus is suddenly fully human. 

Clump of birthright cells

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 22, 2025

Pre-born children have always had a dual identity, actually, so I may be exaggerating a bit when I describe the Times' change of heart. A sort of Schrödinger's fetus: if the mother wants to give birth, it is a precious gift to be cherished; if the mother wants to chuck it in the trash, it is a clump of cells. 

It is always thus with people who endorse critical theory: something is what they say it is, and only that thing. 

But for a president who has made immigration a pillar of his agenda, the legal hurdles seem to be besides the point. Indeed, the Constitution seems little comfort to undocumented women like Ms. Calderas who are expecting to give birth to their children after the order goes into effect, 30 days from Jan. 20.

Ms. Calderas, who is from Guatemala, said Mr. Trump’s move stirred anxiety and uncertainty about the future of her family and especially her son. “It worries me that the new president doesn’t want to give citizenship to our baby,” she said. “This is where he will go to school and grow up. He will speak English like an American.”

In interviews, many of the women said that citizenship would guarantee their children access to health care and other vital benefits during their childhood, and provide a foundation for them to build successful lives as fully integrated Americans.

The executive order directs federal agencies not to issue documents recognizing U.S. citizenship of children born to mothers unlawfully in the United States or on a temporary legal status, such as work or student visas, unless the father is a green-card holder or citizen.

Well, it turns out the clump of cells that inhabit the wombs of illegal aliens are "unborn children," a belief with which I agree wholeheartedly. But as somebody who doesn't accept that children are merely quantum entities, I would love to see the Times acknowledge the same with regard to the unborn children of any mother and join the fight to protect them. 

Good luck with that. 

I sympathize with these mothers--who wouldn't prefer one's child to be an American citizen rather than a Guatemalan? If I lived in an impoverished area filled with crime, I would probably try to find a way to get out--especially if I wanted to have children.  

The thing is that we are not talking about a few people wanting to have a better life. It's not all moms and dads who are just like you and me.

It's 28% of Latin America. 37% of Sub-Saharan Africa. 26% of the Middle East and North Africa. 

Most of whom want to live here. And get welfare benefits and a free education. Free medical care. Social Security. Disability. Child care. And so on...

Focusing on the sob stories of a few moms for whom anybody would feel sorry is a distraction from the issue. Hard cases make bad laws, as they say. There is a point where empathy gets weaponized, and this New York Times story is a perfect example. Focus on this pregnant mom so we can convince you to import tens of millions of people. 

We can talk about the edge cases--the DACA kids, for instance--but when making large-scale policies, you need to be rational and hard-headed. 

Go back to that quote from above: "In interviews, many of the women said that citizenship would guarantee their children access to health care and other vital benefits during their childhood..." Exactly. I understand why these women want this for their children. I also understand that the way they get it is by making the people legally here pay for it. 

The University of Amsterdam did a study of the net costs or benefits of first-generation immigrants to the economy, and what they found wasn't surprising: importing immigrants from poor countries is very costly to society as a whole. Immigrants who come from Western countries are net contributors, but the people who come in from poorer countries drain the national treasure. 

The study concluded that for at least two generations, migrants from non-Western countries (except Japan) are wildly expensive because they require enormous amounts of state services. 

Open borders, birthright citizenship, and all the policies sound great, but as you can see, the costs are astronomical. A family of four from Morocco costs Dutch taxpayers somewhere around a million Euros. 

If you focus on the tear-jerking stories and not the whole picture, you may not notice this, but reality intrudes at some point. Here in the US, reality hit most Americans somewhere around 2023, which is why a majority of Americans approve of not just closing the border but mass deportations. 

The one great thing about this tear-jerking story is that it forced a New York Times reporter to admit that unborn children are human beings worthy of compassion--at least until they write a tear-jerking story about an unwed mother who is being "forced" to carry her "clump of cells" to term.