From USA Today/AP:
A Mexican Senate committee passed a measure Wednesday urging President Felipe Calderon to send a diplomatic note to the United States protesting the deportation of an illegal migrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year.
The committee also approved a scholarship to help her 8-year-old U.S.-born son, Saul, who is an American citizen and stayed in the United States.
Elvira Arellano, 32, became an activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents by defying her deportation order and speaking out from her sanctuary in the Adalberto United Methodist Church. She announced last week that she was leaving to try to lobby U.S. lawmakers for immigration reform.
On Sunday, shortly after she spoke at a rally in a Los Angeles church, she was arrested and deported to Tijuana, across the border from San Diego.
“We cannot remain quiet in view of this injustice and must ask for firm action from our authorities,” Mexican Sen. Humberto Zazue said.
Interesting. In the world of Mexican Sen Zazue, the US is guilty of “injustice” when it enforces its own laws.
Though one can hardly blame him. After all, more than a few Americans are willing to call their fellow countrymen “racists” or “nativists” or “xenophobes” for insisting that immigration laws be enforced — and in this instance, it is President Bush, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and Senators like Lindsey Graham who are using repugnant rhetorical practices to try to quell debate, and to suggest that it is somehow “unjust” for the US to enforce its own laws.
On the flip side, of course, you have Tom Tancredo — who, were it not for how nasty he looks in a codpiece and red cape, would likely volunteer to lead a band of 300 into the desert, with a promise not to return without the head of Alfredo Garcia.
Mixed signals, you might say.
(thanks to Dan)
Yes. 300. No more, no less.
I thought that the Mexican Senate were, like, the slave owners that the Mexicans were escaping from and that we were, like, the people catching the slaves and returning them to their inhuman condition.
Did I get that wrong?
I, for one U.S. taxpayer, much appreciate the Mexican Senate approving a scholarship for her kid, it’s about time they started sending some money back north.
P.S. BTW, it’s 11:53 here, so I get the time zone difference in posting, but 9:23 on the last post? Is PW on a Chavez clock, or what? :-)
I think the time is recorded when you start writing the post. I compose right in the WP box. I blockquoted the AP/USA Today bit, then went upstairs to play with my kid, read him a book, and put him to bed. After that I came down and finished the post.
That likely accounts for the time difference, if there was one.
Hmm, well, okay Jeff, but it didn’t take half an hour for me write that first post before hitting enter… Hence my suspicion about the 1/2 hour off in Chavez time :-)
If she is so worried about being with her son why didn’t she take him with her? He won’t lose his US citizenship by living in Mexico for a few years.
Why doesn’t the Mexican government just get on with it and pass U.S. Immigration legislation itself, and cut out the U.S. Congress cum middleman?
They pretty much dictate the policy as it is, right? It wouldn’t be that much more absurd, would it?
– Well you have to admit if they did, they’d get more done than our Senate.
– “We cannot remain quiet in view of this injustice and must ask for firm action from our authorities,†Mexican Sen. Humberto Zazue said.”
– By “firm action” he means pick up tthe phone and scream some orders to that weinie of a US Border Control director for not earning his kickbacks.
One day that note from Presidente Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa will not just sit among George Bush’s papers in his library. Like the Magna Carta, it will tour this land. Schoolchildren will stand in solemn queues to glimpse it, resting on red velvet behind thick glass.
“What did they call em agin?”
“Illegal immigrants, Juan. And do you know who freed them?”
“Sen-nor-a A-ray-yah-no.”
“Yes. Bueno.”
If she’s really as good and great as Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman and all that, you’d think they’d be grateful to have her back.
brilliant commetary with a disturbing mental image at the end. *very* disturbing.
Mexico should thumb their noses at the US and grant her sanctuary in Mexico. That would teach us.
Let’s see if I can get the quotes to work…
It’s all part of the reconquista, man. Didn’t ya know?
Mexico has a Senate? That’s the only real news here. Is it the retirement place for US Senators? Can we expect Teddy to take up tequila (assuming Mexico will still makes it, with farmers burning their agave to start growing maize) and move south when he retires in 30 or 40 years?
What does Mexico have against Mexicans that they don’t want them back?
The greedy, uppity, hinckty parvenus want jobs and social services, the provision of which would disturb the cozy equilibrium of the oligarchs whose mansions surround Chapultepec Park and/or the violent pseudocommunists who engage them en baile sanguin. Best to ship them off somewhere, and the U.S. is the traditional place.
If Arellano really was comparable to Rosa Parks, she’d show up at ISSTE demanding the benefits Mexican law defines for her. Unfortunately she’d have the life expectancy of a four-year-old in a gangbanger gunfight, with both the Stalinist oligarchs and the Trotskyite “protesters” treating her as a weapon or shield depending on specific circumstances.
Regards,
Ric
It’s important that we understand .
Let us all agree that, had Sra Arellano broken Mexican immigration law, she’d have spent her time a lot more uncomfortably than she did.
Okay….why’d my link now show?
Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318
Text: what’s really happening here
The irony here is that Mexico has a draconian immigration system.
This is what bothers me so much about the current system. Mexico feels it has a right to send it’s citizens here, legally or otherwise.
“Interesting. In the world of Mexican Sen Zazue, the US is guilty of “injustice†when it enforces its own laws.”
It’s almost as if they’d been reading MLK, and stopped to think about American children losing their mothers. Zero tolerance for those sorts of things.
Go easy on the loud pedal with that one, markel. Somebody’s likely to make the connection with Elion Gonzalez.
Regards,
Ric
“Go easy on the loud pedal with that one, markel. Somebody’s likely to make the connection with Elion Gonzalez.”
That would be silly. Elian was an undocumented immigrant. Well, maybe. Did he apply for asylum? I’m not sure. I think that pending application would make him undeportable. But this kid here? Not even an immigrant: he’s a citizen. I suppose that difference doesn’t mean much these days.
His mother’s relatives in Florida did, on his behalf. ‘Cause o’ his mother died trying to get him here.
The Reno Justice Department reacted to that in much the same way Kos reacted to the civilian contractors murdered and desecrated by terrorists in Iraq.
“The Reno Justice Department reacted to that in much the same way Kos reacted to the civilian contractors murdered and desecrated by terrorists in Iraq.”
Kos reunited them with their custodial fathers following an aborted international parental kidnapping?
Mexican Senate sides with mom deported from USA
Why is she afforded the title, “mom”. Should it not read, “Mexican Senate sides with illegal immigrant deported from USA”? What does her status as a mother have to do with anything? She was not deported because she was a mother, she was deported because she was an illegal immigrant.
I second #3. If the Mexican Senate approved full scholarships for all the anchor babies, I (and I think most of the American public) would have an easier time with it.
Is there some way we can just start sending a bill to Mexico for tuition for kids whose parents are illegal immigrants? Since we can’t verify they’re paying their taxes to help cover the tuition costs and all.
Find the kid and ship him to Mama. He’s a Mexican citizen too, and I hate to see children separated from their mothers. He can come back when he’s 18 if he wants to. Mama? She can go to hell.
Hmmmm.
with a promise not to return without the head of Alfredo Garcia.
Or at least without a plate of Fettuccine Alfredo.
Lessee… father abandons mother and child in Cuba; mother tries to escape the giant Caribbean Gulag, and dies in the attempt; child survives and is taken in by relatives in Miami. Yep. Clear-cut case of “international parental kidnapping”. I’m surprised Cuba didn’t declare war.
Yeah.
You went through an ugly divorce, didn’t you, markel?
Bastards, forcing her to enter the U.S. illegally and then conceive a child while she was here so they could later deport her while ensuring that he got left behind. Very sneaky.
American children lose their mothers all the time, if their mothers are convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, no?
The difference here is that he is free to go with his mother. Hell, he can bus back and forth across the border, even, and go to school in the US.
Better not draw a gun, though.
markel = timmah?
Mexican Sen. Humberto Zazue, just make her the Mexican ambasador and then she can live here ON YOUR DIME.
“You went through an ugly divorce, didn’t you, markel?”
I’ll let some of the regulars weigh in on father’s rights. You ever seen them go? It’s a sight to behold.
“American children lose their mothers all the time, if their mothers are convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail, no?”
Sure. But around here we have things like supervised release and other matters that allow them to work and support and raise their kids. Things like this are considered part of justice. And not even at the level of MLK. Not just simple idiocies of “enforce the law” which leave us with an American losing their mother to foreign lands forever.
Hmmmm.
But around here we have things like supervised release and other matters that allow them to work and support and raise their kids.
What kind of jail sentence is that?
Of course, you conveniently ignored most of Jeff’s comment. Tell us, what is stopping this kid from going back to Mexico with her? How was she lost forever?
Things like this are considered part of justice. And not even at the level of MLK. Not just simple idiocies of “enforce the law†which leave us with an American losing their mother to foreign lands forever.
Ya know, you’re right, merkel. Maybe it’s time to re-examine the whole policy of automatically granting citizenship to the child of someone who is in this country illegally. That way, the family stays together, wherever they may roam.
This is double hilarious in that, as far as I understand it, Mexico’s immigration laws and enforcement are far harsher than the United States’.
I’m led to believe that simply being in Mexico illegally is a felony there, and I’d be shocked if there was automatic citizenship for foreign nationals’ children born in the country.
“How was she lost forever?”
He’s lost her to a foreign land. Thats true whether he goes back or not. Some people think its a feature, not a bug, that deporting a mother is effectively deporting an American citizen. Thats the kind of lost I’m talking about. That an American child can no longer live in America with his mother.
“What kind of jail sentence is that?”
It’s not. It’s halfway houses and probation and work-release programs.
“Maybe it’s time to re-examine the whole policy of automatically granting citizenship to the child of someone who is in this country illegally. That way, the family stays together, wherever they may roam.”
We could. But it’s quite an entrenched policy: It’s in the constitution. But it seems that for some people, of people born here, some are more born here than others.
Hold it right there.
It’s all well and good to have compassion for this criminal’s innocent child. But to expect us to absolve the criminal just because she had a child while here illegally, and then taking that moral high horse tone with us, is just spoiling for a spanking.
Kind of like the criminal herself was by defying the deportation order for a year.
markel believes anchor babies for illegal immigrants is a feature, not a bug.
Darned if there isn’t an amendment process in the Constitution, too.
“But to expect us to absolve the criminal just because she had a child while here illegally, and then taking that moral high horse tone with us, is just spoiling for a spanking.”
Absolve? Where I’m talking about probation and work release and halfway houses being ways that justice is done?
“markel believes anchor babies for illegal immigrants is a feature, not a bug.”
Citizenship is certainly a feature of our constitution.
And so is “not-citizenship”. The woman’s not a citizen plus she’s already a convicted and deported (IOW “unwanted and unwelcome”) criminal. She should be shipped home.
The kid can come back when he comes of age.
“. The woman’s not a citizen plus she’s already a convicted and deported (IOW “unwanted and unwelcomeâ€Â) criminal”
I don’t know if she’s been convicted. Deportation is an administrative process, which does not involve the criminal system and thus does not mean one has a conviction.
“The kid can come back when he comes of age.”
If he’s an American I’d think he can come and go as he pleases. But like I said, his having to leave appears to be a feature, not a bug, for some.
Re-read Rob’s comment and pay particular attention to “…when he comes of age.”
Is that concept unusually difficult for you?
markel = timmah
There was a legal immigration process she could have gone through.Having a child as a citizen would have made it easier. Or is that too much to ask?
“Re-read Rob’s comment and pay particular attention to “…when he comes of age.—
Yes. That would seem to limit when he can come. I’d say he can come into the country as he pleases.
it’s settled then. The kid can come back, but mom has to stay in old Mexico.Elian Gonzalez couldn’t be reached for comment.
“It’s in the constitution.” Where? 14th amendment? The people that wrote it would disagree with you. I am not aware if the Supreme Court has ever ruled on this. I know legal aliens who give birth here are covered. Either way, if you come down on shipping a kid back to Castro’s dictatorship to be with his father, then you must support this child moving to Mexico to be with his mother.
markel-
The 14th Amendment was post Civil War and was meant to guarantee slaves – and their children – some rights after Emancipation. It was NOT intended to be used as a lever by people here illegally in order to guarantee a free ride on the American Gravy Train; nor was it meant to set up a separate ‘immigration system’ that circumvents the established one by giving women who have children while residing in the US illegally a leg up in the process.
Normally, during the admission of a crime, any ‘loot’ obtained has to be returned. So should it be with regard to this ugly aspect of illegal immigraion; you came here illegally and you, and your family, don’t get to benefit from your disregard of the law, i.e. your child is not automatically a citizen.
“Either way, if you come down on shipping a kid back to Castro’s dictatorship to be with his father, then you must support this child moving to Mexico to be with his mother.”
If the father wanted to stay in the US should he have been able to? I’d say maybe. You don’t have him being the father of a US citizen though. It also was a custody issue, not immigration: two family members disagreed over where the child should be.
The constitution says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
All persons. Not just slaves. You may think they intended something very specific, but that is not what they wrote in the law, so that is not the law. It is this constitutional provision that makes all people born here citizens.
“I am not aware if the Supreme Court has ever ruled on this.”
Pyler v. Doe
“So should it be with regard to this ugly aspect of illegal immigraion; you came here illegally and you, and your family, don’t get to benefit from your disregard of the law, i.e. your child is not automatically a citizen.”
Could fly. But that’s not what the constitution says. However, most people realize the child committed no crime. I’d say even children brought here by their parents aren’t really guilty. But loot? that child’s citizenship is no loot. It is a right given by the constitution.
I disagree with you with regard to citizenship as ‘loot’; illegal aliens in this country are using it as such. They are using it as a tool that they can then barter with, saying that deporting them ‘separates families’ because their children are citizens. They don’t care for citizenship except as a means to an end – the future legalisation of their illegal presence here.
Personally, I think of citizenship in this country as a priviledge and it which comes with responsibilities. That, however, is not how illegal aliens are treating it. I think the excuse can be made for abuse of the intent of the 14th; after all, anti-gun groups argue all the time about intent with regard to the militias/private gun ownership language the Bill of Rights uses; why can’t a similar argument take place with regard to granting citizenship?
People even have considered changing the rules governing Presidential races so Schwarzenegger and other naturalised citizens can run, which is a big deal! If we’re willing to court that change because of a groundswell of populist mentality supporting it, surely we can open debate about something so pivotal as the abuse of the 14th Amendment.
“They don’t care for citizenship except as a means to an end – the future legalisation of their illegal presence here.”
They care for citizenship like the slaves and all citizens do: it gives them the rights and benefits of citizenship. All citizens use the rights of citizenship.
“Personally, I think of citizenship in this country as a priviledge and it which comes with responsibilities.”
How does that square with the fact that anyone born here just has it? You think thats not proper? That people born here should somehow have to earn citizenship?