Second-Grader Fights Mom's Deportation

[NVMojo]

CHICAGO (AP) - From a second-floor bedroom in a storefront church, Elvira Arellano scanned the Internet for news of her son - a 7-year-old boy who had traveled to Mexico to ask that nation to help his family and others like them.

Dozens of Web site links flashed on her screen. Many featured headlines about the boy's appearance before Mexico's 500-member Chamber of Deputies and his plea that Mexico lobby Washington to stop the deportation of his mother.

Arellano, 31, who has taken refuge in the Methodist church during the past three months, learned that her son Saul had succeeded. Mexican lawmakers passed a resolution Tuesday asking President Bush to suspend his mother's deportation and that of any other illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens.

The second-grader, a U.S. citizen by birth, was a bit overwhelmed during his visit with Mexico's legislature. The boy hid his face and ducked under a table after being swamped by reporters.

Critics who say Saul is being used unfairly in the immigration reform debate don't understand what the family has gone through, said Arellano, wearing a white T-shirt emblazoned with "Who would Jesus deport?" on the front.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/nov/15/111509978.html

[Maat]

1. If you are born here, you are a U.S. citizen ... period.

And, if you are a minor, you have a fundamental right to be raised by your parent in the United States, the land of your birth, as far as I'm concerned. When I was a social worker ('93 to 2000), it was NEVER an issue; parents always wound up with green cards (provided they had not been convicted of a felony). I even was a part of getting a grandparent permission to stay (green card?) because the parents had been sent up on a methamphetamine-possession-related charge.

[dysfunctional press]

2. one big problem with that if it were official policy-

women would be getting pregnant just to cross the border and give birth...and there could also be lots of 'marriages for convienence', wherein the 'father' would go awol once considered to be here "legally".

I don't think that giving birth in the u.s. should be an automatic way to get a green card or citizenship, except for the one being born.

[closeupready]

3. Why should honest mothers

who just happened to have children here in the US be penalized because there are some women who will scheme to get pregnant overseas, come to the US, and commence childbirth here as a means of getting a green card?

No offense but that's really not a persuasive argument.

[dysfunctional press]

4. then why have green cards at all? or immigration laws?

after all- the honest ones will go home when their stay is over- why penalize them by making them jump thru hoops, just because some people will stay here against the rules...

no offense, but that's not really a persuasive response.

[hogwyld]

6. That's exactly why we need to abolish these archaic laws

and implement a fairer solution to allow people to come and go as they please.

[dysfunctional press]

11. so what's your solution?

what would you consider to be 'fairer'?

[closeupready]

12. It has to be at least twofold.

Enforce existing immigration laws, both on the supply and demand side. Also, if the child is born here, and the parents wish to stay and raise their kids here, then in the absence of a felonious record, give them resident visas. If that creates a deluge of illegals, then you rethink your approach. I just am not seeing how currently, illegals are having an impact on life here.

[dysfunctional press]

24. where do you live...?

"I just am not seeing how currently, illegals are having an impact on life here."

i'm guessing that you don't live in the southwest and/or the chicago area.

[bpeale]

28. i live in the southwest

and i don't see how it affects anything either. explain this
to me like i'm a 2 year old.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

31. New York.

eom.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. They are having an impact on life where I live

and I am very much in favor of allowing them to stay. It's called DIVERSITY. Then there is this thing called TOLERANCE.

[hogwyld]

16. Until we can amend the current legislation

The most fair way to deal with this is to automatically grant citizenship to any relative of a child born here. Anything else would be discriminatory, and create hardship for others solely based on where they were originally born.

[w4rma]

18. That would be bad. It would create an incentive for women to illegally cross the border

and try to birth a child on this side of the border.

There would probably be a huge underground market that would spring up overnight to take advantage of that loophole.

I really don't know what to say to this child. He does have the capability to become a duel citizen of Mexico and the U.S. He can live in Mexico, with his mother, until he is 21 (so they really aren't being split apart) or so and then he can petition for his mother's green card and citizenship. Or she can stand in the immigration line with everyone else. :shrug:

[hogwyld]

21. Well, if the child has only known life in the US

to force him to relocate to Mexico so he can be with his mother is just wrong. As a nation of immigrants, we all have a responsibility to welcome newcomers. I don't remember the "No Vacancy" sign being put out.

[dysfunctional press]

25. why is it "just wrong"?

if there's a problem, the blame lies with the mother, not the government enforcing it's laws.

besides, a lot of kids would LOVE the opportunity to be immersed in another culture.

so are you saying that parents with children should never even consider accepting a job that would mean their relocation to a foreign country, seeing as their children have only known life in their home country?

[Solon]

38. Why are you assuming the child will get deported, its illegal to deport citizens...

especially the natural born citizens, who cannot lose that citizenship unless they denounce it AFTER they reach age of Majority. Children of Immigrants who are deported usually end up in the foster care system, or, if they are lucky, being raised by either family or friends that are citizens or have green cards.

[dysfunctional press]

42. when did i say anything about deporting the kid?

for instance- in the chicago case, the mother should DEFINITELY be deported...and if she wants to raise her child- take him with. he does hold dual citizenship, after all.

[dysfunctional press]

23. she can't really stand in the line with everyone else...

seeing as she's already broken the law(iirc) to be here.

[PirateJoe]

78. i hope...

i hope you're not suggesting eliminating all border control.

[closeupready]

7. An mother who stays because the laws allow her to

is not being dishonest. If a woman comes here illegally from, say, Venezuela where her life is likely pretty miserable (like in those shantytowns on the hills of Caracas), and she finds decent a decent job, and she happens to later have a baby here in the US (which happens), why should she and her child be forced to go back to that misery because "what message will that send to other foreigners"?

Is that what you think Democrats should stand for???

[dysfunctional press]

10. i think democrats should stand for enforcement of immigration laws.

not ignoring the ones that any of us may have a personal problem with.

[closeupready]

13. Immigration laws are unenforced because

the GOP's base favors cheap labor.

[silverojo]

33. Exactly!

Which is why Democrats should be against it. We're supposed to oppose the exploitation of people for cheap labor, not support it!

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. Gee the Democratic party I know would never advocate deporting a child

Maybe you belong to a different branch. :shrug:

[nosillies]

5. But if you came here illegally can you be considered "honest" in that regard?

I'm not commenting on our immigration policy, good or bad, I'm just asking. And is it OK to "profit," in a sense, from illegal acts? (Some might argue that it would be perfectly legal to profit from commission of this crime, as the Supreme Court overturned the Son of Sam laws in 1991).

[closeupready]

8. If your life was miserable where you came from AND

the de facto US government policy is not to send illegals back unless they're troublemakers, then who is being dishonest, because it's not so simple a scenario as you describe.

[closeupready]

9. On the other hand, I agree that

the government doesn't enforce immigration policy, allowing people to profit from the illegal act of crossing the border without authorization.

[nosillies]

14. Exactly...my only argument is that the laws are not "good" and not

equitably enforced, whether good or bad. I realize that life is full of gray areas and nothing is ever really too simple or cut and dry. However, government's refusal to clarify, simplify and enforce existing immigration laws only leads to more muddy waters.

But problems with the law aside, is it OK to label someone as "honest" while at the same time describing their illegal act? That's like saying to a judge "I know you have video of him robbing that bank, sir, but he is a really honest person." For some that's a valid reason to cut the offender some slack, for others, no.

I, for one, tend to consider all circumstances before passing judgment, but I am just one. And there is probably little room for my kind of thinking within our legal system, especially when it comes to immigration issues. Hell, I'd like to see some kind of silly borderless utopia, truth be told. But I have to live within the boundaries of today's laws. And I mean that personally, as I married a foreigner who will probably never try to become a citizen, so we'll have to deal with immigration issues for him and our dual-citizenship children for a lifetime.

And I'm honestly never sure what my own answers to my own questions are. But this question keeps popping up for me, and I always like to know what others think:

Under any type of immigration law reform, when dealing with those who have already broken the law (because let's face it, no matter what your feelings on immigration, a law has been broken, right or wrong), must we consider them to be (a) those who have committed an illegal act or (b) victims of circumstance?

I argue that all illegal immigrants are (a), and many are both (a) and (b). There are plenty of bad apples that are simply (a). But how does our legal system go about deciding who is who? And do we really want a legal system that is that subjective?

edited for typo

[closeupready]

20. Here's the problem as I see it:

Characterizing "illegals" as criminals or lawbreakers is counterproductive.

To concede the term is to accept easy answers (detention or deportation) which will only drive other illegals underground even as they continue to find plentiful work here in the US, a huge, continent-sized economy of 300 million people. How are you going to counter that if you are employing harsh language and talking about forcibly deporting people, some of whom basically have never known any home but the US?

[nosillies]

22. It may be counterproductive to some, but at the same time it is factual.

I have run a stop sign; therefore, I am a law breaker.

I have driven way over the speed limit; therefore, I am a law breaker.

I once accidentally made it home from the grocery store with a magazine I forgot to pay for; therefore, I'm a law breaker.

I once spray painted on some public property; therefore, I am a law breaker.

I have committed criminal acts and broken laws. I have faced and would face the consequences for these and any other criminal acts I have committed or will commit. You call it harsh language, I call it the facts.

And I have never once called for forcibly deporting people. I have called for immigration law reform. And no, I don't know what all the reforms should include, as I also never claimed to have a master plan.

[closeupready]

26. You're going down that road, though, sounds like.

Drawing these harsh distinctions where only people like Limbaugh and Buchanan have been doing so. Honestly, I mean no offense, but the only people who have illegals as "criminals" and stigmatizing them are Republicans. As a dem, you obviously aren't THAT, but be careful about who you antagonize, as immigrants could be a rich source of votes. There was an article recently that immigrants voted dem this year because of pukes' xenophobic rhetoric.

anyway, peace. :hi:

[nosillies]

30. Peace to you too...I just like to ask tough questions sometimes!

If we're truly going to make America the welcoming place that it should be, we're going to have to do a helluva job changing the process...and that means facing up to some really uncomfortable feelings and motives and consequences when our politicians ever decide to really dig in and fix the broken system. I'm glad that we can get people thinking about it.

As someone who has had to deal first-hand with the nightmare bureaucracy that is the USCIS, I hope this issue, no matter how uncomfortable, stays at the forefront, so that America becomes a leader in supporting humanity regardless of nationality.

[cap]

39. ergo... you are a criminal???

you are doing illegal acts?

I forget what the rule of argumentation it is. But the terms used must be commensurate with the act. Otherwise, we are all criminals.

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. What if

you ran that stop sign because you were rushing to a hospital with a severely injured passenger?

Or you drove over the speed limit for the same reason?

You can always take the magazine back and pay for it. Dumb example.

Spray painting 'IMPEACH BUSH' is seen as a patriotic act by many DUers.

NONE of these acts compares to the desperation faced by those who cross our borders illegally. Well, maybe the driving offenses. But the penalty for those isn't as harsh as those for undocumented immigrants.

[Ms. Clio]

58. If you've ever broken a traffic law or drank a beer while underage, are you "honest?"

Were you speeding as you drove down the highway toward your place of employment? I guess you profited from your "illegal act," too.

[Maat]

17. That was generally the policy when I was a social worker,

and I understood the reason why. We should not lower ourselves to the level of many European nations, which get downright snobbish about who can become a citizen or get a resident visa.

I guess that we have to agree to disagree.

[dysfunctional press]

35. it wasn't the "official" stated policy tho...

and i'm guessing that it may not even "generally" be the policy anymore.

[Katzenjammer]

29. I don't think being born in the US should confer citizenship either.

There should be a requirement that the mother already have citizenship at the time of the child's birth.

[Solon]

36. Thankfully, your attitude, while atrocious, could never be enshrined in law...

without requiring a constitutional Amendment, one that either gets rid of or modifies the 14th Amendment.

[Katzenjammer]

40. What's atrocious about requiring that the child get the mother's citizenship?

If it means a clarifying amendment (the 14th was written to give citizenship to people formerly enslaved in the US) then so be it. The alternatives are worse.

Not that long ago, people were marrying US citizens purely so that they could be fast-tracked to citizenship. A lot of money changed hands, and the relationships had about as much substance as you'd expect.

We'd see a similar rush if we made it so mommy gets citizenship based on giving birth in the US. If mommy gets citizenship, what about daddy? And you don't mean to tell me you'd leave all the little brothers and sisters as foreigners, do you? And how about abuelita and opa? You wouldn't be so cruel as to deprive the children of their grandparents, would you? There's no end to it.

Hang around just over the border til ready to drop, sneak across, instant citizenship. That's great for the cheap-labor folks, and it's great for the plutocracies these people are fleeing, but it's a frigging disaster for US working people.

What we should be doing is forcing the ruling classes in their countries to provide for them instead. But we won't do that, because our ruling class is allied to theirs, not to us.

[Solon]

41. What are you objecting to? The non-existent "Mother gets citizenship" thing...

or the idea that anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen by birth?

News flash, Mothers, and Fathers, do NOT get automatic citizenship when their kid is born here, period. If they are a legal immigrant who is living in the U.S. and petitioning for citizenship, they may get fast tracked. Most of the time they get extensions on their Visas when appropriate, until the child in question is 18 years old or emancipated, whichever comes first. Since their children are citizens, and in many countries, are NOT given dual citizenships, they cannot be deported along with their parents if a visa expires, or the parent is illegal. They either end up in the foster care system, or they end up with family or friends in the U.S.

Of course, there are other things to consider, is the mother the only one who "counts" for citizenship, or does the father count as well? Many immigrants, both legal and illegal, marry or have children with citizens, this complicates things at the very least.

The thing to consider is this, what is in the best interest of the child in question? If the parents, regardless of immigration status, can support said child, doubly so if they are given a visa to stay, then why not a compromise, a temporary visa, for parents of citizens, that allows them to stay till the child is 18 years of age.

[Katzenjammer]

46. I'm objecting to the situation where the kid gets citizenship, because

unless mommy already has citizenship at that time, there's suddenly a GIANT DISCONNECT in the situation. Unless we want to say that kids don't need a family, or we give all the other family members citizenship too, then we've created a massive, stupid problem where no problem existed before.

"why not a compromise, a temporary visa, for parents of citizens, that allows them to stay till the child is 18 years of age."

Why not simply say that being born here does not grant citizenship to the children of non-citizen parents? Problem solved.

Unless you're a "US Is The Best" booster who believes that no other country is worth a damn, and that everyone comes here "yearning to breathe free" rather than in pursuit of El Dorado y los caminos del oro, there is nothing wrong with refusing to make our situation worse. Our wellbeing is not less important than the wellbeing of others. Let's make our lives better, first.

[Solon]

48. How would the problem be solved, and what would happen to the kids?

You seem to simplify things into this black and white thinking that may make things MUCH worse than you think. For example, quite a few nations do NOT recognize the kids of their citizens born outside their national borders. In a case like that, what is the status of the child, where would they be deported to? Do they stay in the country, and then petition for citizenship later?

What about those who are born of "mixed" heritage, one parent a citizen, the other not?

Look, we have two classes for citizens in this country, as enshrined in the Constitution through the original text and 14th amendment. Naturalized citizens are those that qualify for all benefits of citizenship, except running for president, which they can't do. The other are natural born citizens, those who are born in this nation and are subject to all laws and benefits of citizenship, including even running for president, if they wish.

Also, I'm not a "US is the best" type of person, I just don't believe in punishing CHILDREN for the actions of their parents, I thought we gave up this type of "Original Sin" crap by now.

[Katzenjammer]

49. What would happen to the kids if they were born in Germany? Japan? Italy? Denmark?

They'd have the citizenship of their parents, that's what would happen to them.

We're not punishing the kids by denying them citizenship. They don't have an intrinsic right to it any more than corporations have the right to be treated as human beings. The fact that citizenship is being auto-granted and corporations are treated better than we are is very good for the US ruling class, and very good for the ruling classes of the countries these people are fleeing. But it's terrible for us. Whatever good these immigrants get comes out of our hides. It is we who pay the price, not the ruling class.

[Solon]

50. Actually, in this country, they DO have that right...

its EXPLICITLY MENTIONED in the 14th Amendment. Why you connect it to the fraudulently obtained person hood for corporations, I do not know. I do know this, the ruling class here in this country would LOVE your idea much better than mine, for a simple reason, those kids would then be the next generation to be exploited for cheap labor. Unlike right now, where, since those kids are citizens, they have all the rights of citizens, and therefore can't be forced to work like illegal immigrants. If your idea was taken to fruitation, then those kids can be exploited as cheap child labor, great idea slick.

Besides which, it still won't solve the illegal immigration problem, and would require a constitutional amendment also. Why not do stuff that's can actually happen instead of this fantasy you have in your head. Illegal immigration happens for one simple reason, economics, so why not come up with an economical solution. The first thing would be to get rid of or reform, radically, NAFTA, one of the keys here is to get rid of our own corn subsidies, and stop flooding the Mexican market with below market value corn. This drives many farmers in Mexico off their land, and there is only one place to go to look for jobs, the United States.

Other things include forcing our corporations to pay living wages in Mexico if they have factories there. Oddly enough, the wages in Mexico have been decreasing for a long time now. We could also increase foreign investment in LOCAL Mexican businesses, which focus on Mexican owned and operated businesses. Many have been destroyed recently, and the formerly growing middle class in Mexico is now shrinking. We should also pressure the Mexican government in doing these same things for their own businesses. There are MANY other things that can be done that will reduce, greatly, illegal immigration, and can actually create jobs, on BOTH sides of the border.

[Katzenjammer]

51. Yes, it's in the 14th Amendment because they were turning natural-born ex-slaves into citizens

and I'm sure it never crossed their mind that there would come a day when a non-citizen parent might not be welcome to stay in the US along with their citizen kid.

The 14th was created for a specific purpose, and it is now being misused. But just because it's being misused doesn't mean that we have to let it be misused forever, or that the misuse is somehow holy!

[Solon]

52. My ancestors became citizens because of that amendment....

They "misused" it just as MOST Americans' ancestors did. This xenophobic crap has gone on long enough, you would probably LOVE to make the damned thing retroactive too, stripping the citizenship out of millions of Americans. As I said, you attitude disgusts me to no end!

[Katzenjammer]

55. What makes you think it's about you?

We working people are getting screwed by immigration and job export. Check out the number of DUers who are out of work, why don't you? Do you think it's by choice?

Stop jerking your knee and think about the implications of immigration. Either there should be tight borders here or no borders at all anywhere, because the moment we say to some woman (as you keep proposing) "okay, you dropped a kid here so you can stay for the next 18 years, and so can your hubby and your other six kids and their abuela, bube, opa, and grandpere". But then at the end of the 18 years you're going to say, as people like you are now saying about earlier migrants, "Oh we can't deport them now, they've been here 18 years, their whole lives are here! The kids don't even speak Hispanogulistani". So let's just cut through the horseshit, shall we, and admit that under your scheme, anyone who drops a kid here gets automatic citizenship for their whole family.

Okay, now why should it just be them? Are the childless LESS deserving than those increasing our already-too-large population? (How do we know it's too large? Because there are DUers who can't find work!) And if the childless are deserving too, then what about the people who are too poor even to migrate? Are THEY less deserving, and if so, why?

Where does it end? It ends with everyone moving to the US and replicating the same conditions that caused them to flee their own countries. Only this time we get to participate in the disaster too.

Nobody has ever countered Maslow's theory of a needs hierarchy, and for good reason: it expresses a universal truth. A law of nature. That's why the ruling class likes it when we're in the shit---people who are in the shit are very docile, very obedient, very disinclined to make waves. If we want to create a better world, then our number one priority has to be Stay out of the shit.

Unlimited immigration will drop us all in the shit. That's why your idea is stupid and faux-liberal, even though you yourself are not stupid or (I presume) faux-liberal.

[Solon]

66. Look, I get it, you hate brown folks with funny accents...

You really can't get any more transparent, I mean, c'mon, Hispanogulistani? Obvious!

Not to mention the astounding leaps of logic you come up with, hell, I'm surprised your brain didn't short out just thinking up that BS.

Here's a key difference between you and me, in regards to immigration, I look for solutions, you look for scapegoats. Do you honestly think that eliminating the 14th amendment would actually curtail ANY immigration? You drop Maslow in there, look at the hierarchy, where would potential citizenship fit in, above or below the deficiency line?

I would say it's up near the self-actualization line myself. In other words, given the well known reasons for illegal immigration, you know, abject poverty. I don't think your "idea" would make even ONE potential illegal immigrant have any second thoughts when they cross the border. In other words, its not going to do Jack Shit in regards to illegal immigration, and you know it.

Hell, the ruling classes LOVE ideas like yours, for a very simple reason, they divide the working class. Do you really think national borders exist for the ruling class? They can cross those borders whenever they want, they can transfer their wealth freely, they can dodge taxes, they close and open factories with impunity. This has little to do with immigration policy, and everything to do with "free" trade, where capital is free of borders, tariffs, and other protections.

Through our trade policies, we are not only impoverishing ourselves, but making it harder for the poor to make a living in their own countries. This isn't a time for scapegoats, an "Operation Wetback 2" isn't called for, no matter how much your hatred has blinded you. Go join a militia or something.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. You're assuming the child WILL get citizenship of the mother's country of origin.

That's not always the case.

[Katzenjammer]

64. Can you document such a case? Where the mum still has the right to return, I mean?

I certainly can't think of any. I can think of cases where if the mum is now persona non, so's her kid. But not the case where the mum can return any time she likes but the kids have to stay behind.

[Triana]

44. Bingo. I agree. Persons born of illegal immigrants should not

be considered citizens. Too many women/men come over here and have 'anchor babies' so that it makes it harder for them to be deported - since they have child(ren) here who are citizens and who will therefore stay. That's precisely the reason they come here to have them. They put themselves in this predicament deliberately.

That practice has to stop. We can stop it by changing the law so that anyone born of an illegal immigrant is not a citizen and then the whole family (babies included) go back to their home country.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

61. So enforce the existing law more effectively.

Less illegal immigration = less citizens you don't like. Problem solved.

[Ms. Clio]

59. Why do hate the Constitution?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Solon]

37. Why not a transitional visa, till the child is 18...

Look, its pretty simple, which is cheaper, and in the BEST interests of the child, letting the mother stay till the child is emancipated(age 18 or other type of legal emancipation), or forcing the child into the Foster Care system till they are 18.

Most of these kids are NOT dual citizens, and many CANNOT be deported, period, we should think about the best interests of the CHILD, NOT what the parents may or may not have done.

[Katzenjammer]

47. Because you're ignoring a third possibility: don't give the kid citizenship.

You've framed it up as a dichotomy when it's not. There is a third alternative, namely the kid gets the mother's citizenship, not US citizenship. If the mother has US citizenship, then it all works. And if not, then the kid goes with her if she gets evicted.

That clause in the 14th Amendment was designed purely to give citizenship to people who, though born here, were non-citizens because of their enslavement.

[Solon]

53. Its a dichotomy because there is NO CHANCE IN HELL, that its going to happen...

Get that through your thick skull, there is NO CHANCE THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OF THAT SORT WILL EVER PASS, PERIOD! So lets work within the system we were GIVEN, rather than some damned xenophobic pipe dream that you thought up while dropping acid.

Also, as far as the original intention of the 14th amendment, who gives a fuck? The founders didn't think the 4th would be used so that abortion would be legal, but that's how it was interpreted later. What the fuck are you, some strict constitutionalist or something?

[Ms. Clio]

60. some of these people are just vile as well as stupid

I just loathe them.

[Telly Savalas]

43. And once these women gain citizenship would they use

their welfare checks to buy cadillacs?

[Solon]

54. LOL...

Zing! Excellent! :)

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

15. FWIW... a U.S. citizen child can only petition for a

'green card' or lawful permanent residence for the parent(s) only when said child turns 21. Until then, a child who is a U.S. citizen cannot petition for a parent.

Looking back at my own dealings with U.S. immigration, it took me nearly 14 years to go from a non-immigrant to a green card and then only because I married a U.S. citizen. Yet, in my professional dealings I often get calls from people who ask openly if having a child in the U.S. will automatically and magically make them able to remain in the U.S., even if they entered illegally or as tourists, but with the intent to remain in the U.S.

[Megahurtz]

19. How Sad.

But why is the kid going back to Mexico to do something about it
by begging the Government they are avoiding? :wtf: That's just weird.

Although why are they targeting her for deportation
when there are so many other illegal immigrants here in limbo
waiting for a decision on the immigration issue? :shrug:

This Coutry is truely fucked up and I can't stand it anymore.:grr:

Anyone that fights this hard to stay in another Country must have good reason.
It's all too familiar to me. :cry:

[NorthernSpy]

27. Oh, please. We send American women who have children to prison every damn day...

We seem to have no problem with taking legal action against American women who have kids, but we shouldn't enforce our laws when foreigners break them? 'Cause that would be O, so heartless?

:eyes:

That woman has no right to be here. She is a citizen of Mexico, and it's up to Mexico to provide for her and her son.

Send Arellano home. Let take her child with her, if that's what she wants. And send Mexico the bill for everything we've spent on this family and this case so far.

And finally, let's clarify the law on citizenshp: the children of illegals should not automatically be considered American citizens. You can count on one hand the number of countries in the world that make citizens of persons born to illegal aliens.

[jkg4peace]

34. oh please, stop calling them illegals

This discourse from so-called progressives so annoys me. People move around the world all the time - billions of them. The immigration laws don't work because migration is a natural phenomenon that occurs whether you like it or not, and no law has ever been able to stop it. You might as well pass a law to stop birds from migrating. In the last ten years, this country has hugely increased its spending, equipment, and manpower on the border, only to see clandestine border crossings increase 10-fold! The only thing inherently criminal about immigration is the stupid racist law against it. The physical act of going to another country in search of work (which is plentiful here)because you were run out of business by NAFTA (or even just because you feel like moving) is not a crime against anyone. It is all the road blocks that we put up to full participation in our society that forces them to break ever more laws once they are here. They illegally pick the food you eat everyday, empty your trash in your office, cook the food in your favorite restaurant, build your cheap cookie-cutter houses and make the bed for you in your hotel rooms, but I didn't see that on the list of crimes. There is not a single person in this country that has not benefited from their sweat and hardship.

I have "immigrated" to another country before (and for a while, I was there on an expired visa, so technically illegal, I suppose). Yeah, so I didn't have the little piece of paper with the right date on it-- I don't think that made me a criminal deserving of incarceration. I have several friends in this country who are "illegals", and they almost all came into this country legally, as have more than 40% of the "illegals". And the person with the list of criminal statistics, don't make me laugh! There are so many "illegal aliens" as you call them in those prisons because that is where they hold the ones they pick up while they await deportation. And they CAN'T get drivers licenses, insurance or registrations, so DUH!, they are not going to have it when they get pulled over (just try to live in the Southwest without a car - forget it!). And the idea that it is Mexico's job to take care of its people ignores the IMF structural adjustment packages and Free trade laws imposed by the US that severely restrict Mexico's spending on social services (including infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc.). So, imagine that you all were not so FUCKING LUCKY to be born in a "rich" country. What would you do? Starve? Just resign yourself to a life of misery and idleness? Or would you do whatever it fucking took, including risking your life, to fulfill your dreams? What if there was no "legal" place for you in the world? No matter what you did, you were somehow breaking the law. Would you give a damn if doing what it took to survive was illegal (even though once you got to the other side of the border, the employers welcomed you with open arms)?

I just got back from a trip to Agua Prieta on the Douglas, Arizona/Mexico border where I interviewed some folks from Chiapas who have a fair trade coffee cooperative that distributes out of Agua Prieta. The MAIN goal of this business (as established by the Mexican owners) is to prevent the villagers from having to migrate. In a town of only 7,000, around 1,000 were forced to migrate when the coffee prices nose-dived below production costs(due to market forces beyond their control, but that are highly manipulated by the multinational corporations). They don't ask for much -- just enough to subsist in what we would all consider dire poverty. Why do we think it is so important - a right even! - for business and capital to be able to migrate freely about the world, seeking out the best fucking deal wherever they can find it no matter how it impacts others, but when it comes to people, they should be imprisoned behind imaginary lines in the sand, regardless of the opportunities that might exist for them beyond their birthplace? Talk about privilege! Who on this earth gets to control where they are born! What happened to "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Not that this country has ever embraced Jefferson's declaration - we have always been racist from the get go. But don't believe the myths that try to convince you that we have to have border controls or else everyone will want to come live here (how egotistical is that!). If we would just allow the southern hemispheric countries to develop autonomously in ways that make sense for THEM (and not for US)we wouldn't have an immigration "problem". Most people (certainly the ones that Americans so object to migrating) would much rather stay in their own lands, with their own people and their own culture. They resent having to migrate due to a deal made by corrupt politicians on both sides of the border on behalf of multinational corporations that has destroyed their whole way of life. It creates tremendous harships for families and communities when their most able members are forced to leave. Incidentally, this coffee cooperative, Just Coffee (www.justcoffee.org) was able to do with a $30,000 loan from a mission what a $7B fence will never be able to do -- give people a reason to stay home! So, if you want to support EFFECTIVE immigration control, buy FAIR TRADE!!! -- No, not just that, because it is really only a help, but doesn't solve the real problem. WE must also oppose these so-called Free trade deals that are nothing but raw deals for average folks on both sides of the border, forgive the debt that has already been paid over and over again (how long are we going to collect interest on "aid" money anyway?) and let them vote for whomever they want and keep our military and tycoons out of their way. But as long as we are addicted to oil and cheap labor, I guess we'll keep getting what we got.

[OKthatsIT]

45. give peoplle a reason to stay home....exactly!

I agree with strong laws dirceted at employers. The old policy, 'look the other way' sends a message of 'permission' to migrate here. We've done a lot of that. And because we have had this practice..case by case decisions should be made where it involves children and elderly. Also, the length of time they've been here should be considered.

I don't like traumatizing children, either.

We really need to pressure Congress to study and address the situation in Mexico. It seems the western and southern regions are more socialist..we would find that anywhere in the world that is struggling economically. Its a natural response to collective poverty. Spreading the wealth in Mexico won't happen until they secure honest voting. I feel it would be a good thing to support the Socialist in this situation, until their economic base grows.

[Ms. Clio]

63. Great post, thanks

What really scares these people is the "Brown Menace" to white culture.

[rocktivity]

57. DING DING DING! NorthernSpy, you're our grand prize winner!

That woman...is a citizen of Mexico, and it's up to Mexico to provide for her and her son. Send Arellano home. Let take her child with her, if that's what she wants. And send Mexico the bill for everything we've spent on this family and this case so far.

Never mind "if that's what she wants"--her son is a minor, so Arellano should be REQUIRED to take him with her. Maybe he can apply for legal U.S. citizenship when he turns eighteen, has learned English, finished high school, and doesn't have a criminal record.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Ms. Clio]

62. loathsome and stupid

[MGD]

65. Right on the money.

[Nikia]

68. Her son is already a U.S. citizen

It is my understanding that he speaks fluent English.
What was your point?

[Solon]

70. Don't you know that only God fearing White folks are "Real Citizens"?

They also have to be able to speak English, or as many call it, Amurikan.

[rocktivity]

71. He is also the minor child of the non-US citizen in question

and his mother's responsibility at least until he turns 18. Therefore, he should be deported with her, and allowed to re-activate his citizenship when he becomes a legal adult. Parental rights trump citizenship rights, which is why I also believed that Elian Gonazalez should have been returned to his father as soon as he had recovered from his voyage to America.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Solon]

72. Um, you do realize the kid was a NATURAL BORN citizen, right?

His citizenship is not up for "reactivation" or even deactivation, come to that. There are ONLY two ways he could lose his citizenship in the United States the first is if, after he turned 18, and currently holds citizenship in another nation, that he repudiates his citizenship in a consulate or embassy of the United States. Some nations actually REQUIRE this as a consequence of citizenship, the U.S. does, others, like Canada, don't. I could apply for Canadian citizenship tomorrow, take the oath the next day, and be a dual citizen of both nations, the reverse, on the other hand, can't happen.

The U.S. also has a rule, though rarely enforced, for many reasons, that a U.S. citizen can, theoretically, lose citizenship if they join a foreign military. I say rarely enforced, because during WWII, as an example, many African Americans, who COULDN'T serve in the US army fought in the Canadian army instead, and served admirably, many returned to the U.S. and joined some of the African American forces that were in the US Army, with no obvious consequences outside the usual racism they faced on a regular basis. Another example would be the Americans who fought against Fascism in the Spanish civil war.

Elian Gonazalez is a bad example because he was never a citizen of the United States.

[Ms. Clio]

73. you really just pull this stuff out of some orifice: "parental rights trump citizenship rights"

Really? Under what theory of Constitutional law? Amazing and ironic to see you in some other threads when you clearly don't understand the document at all.

[rocktivity]

77. It has more to do with common sense.

The mother is the Mexican government's responsbililty, and the child is the mother's responsibility!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Ms. Clio]

81. Well thank goodness the Constitution trumps your notion of "common sense"

[Katzenjammer]

67. The amount of knee-jerk faux liberalism at DU is frightening.

If the people displaying it really think of themselves as liberal, then it's small wonder that liberalism is reviled by so many. They are both insulting and stupid.

Personally, I'd rather believe that they're crypto-rightwingers exercizing an almost comically stereotypical "liberalism". I wish I could feel sure it's so, though. The idea that they might be for real doesn't give me good feelings.

[fleabert]

69. to which liberal view are you speaking? nt

[Katzenjammer]

74. Since it's not okay to point at other DUers, I'll just mention the "how wealthy are you"

site that's the subject of another thread in GD.

What I'm castigating is "slogan liberalism", where people are too shallow or stupid or something and they can't or won't work their way through the implications of the "liberal" position they're pushing. Are people like that actually well-meaning but immature? I don't know. The only alternative I can think of, though, is that they're rightwingers trying to discredit liberalism by pretending to be liberals who can't think worth shit.

[Ms. Clio]

75. Your CONCERN about DUers discrediting liberalism is duly noted

snicker

[Katzenjammer]

76. I doubt that.