Of course it's harmful to the child. But there are millions of children born in various parts of the world who would suffer the same harms. Why should we protect a Mexican child who's parents crept across the border to give birth, but not an Indian child who's parents applied for immigration but were rejected?

I feel like you are implicitly appealing to a very extreme version of the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics: http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...

The question isn't who we should protect, but who the US government should protect in the course of implementing its immigration policy. The Indian child is not a US citizen.

If you scroll up you'll see that we are discussing whether current policy is good, not what current policy actually is. "Is" != "aught".

Yes, I know. I think that it is legitimate for the US government to prioritize the interests of US citizens in implementing and defining its immigration policy. After all, if it did not, the US would simply have open borders, and there is not much point in discussing that hypothetical.