An illegal immigrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born son has been deported to Mexico, the church’s pastor said.
Elvira Arellano became an activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents as she defied her deportation order and spoke out from her religious sanctuary. She held a news conference last week to announce that she would finally leave the church to try to lobby U.S. lawmakers for change.
She had just spoken at a Los Angeles rally when she was arrested Sunday outside Our Lady Queen of Angels church and deported, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, where Arellano had been living.
“She is free and in Tijuana,” said Coleman, who said he spoke to her on the phone. “She is in good spirits. She is ready to continue the struggle against the separation of families from the other side of the border.”
Her 8-year-old son, Saul, is now living with Coleman’s family. During a news conference in Los Angeles after Arellano’s arrest, the boy hid behind the pastor’s wife and wiped away tears.
The real problem in this story is that the family was rewarded for their law-breaking by giving the son born in the U.S. (while they were in the U.S. illegally) citizenship. That is a reward that should have been abolished years ago.
I should say while the mom was in the U.S. illegally.
She could have taken her son with her to Mexico, could she not? Does Mexico prohibit the entry of U.S.-born children of Mexican parents? If not, then this excuse about “avoiding separation” is nonsense.
Yes, on further thought, she is separating herself from her son to create a sob story. And, of course, the news media is lapping it right up.
Are we ready to stop wasting food and and willing to pay the higher price that will result if we use only US laborers. If there is money to be made with illegal labor the problem will always be with us.
For myself, Harvey, certainly. I already sometimes pay out-of-season prices for produce from Mexico and Central America. And I clean my own house. It is the current illegal status of these people which allows their exploitation. They’re making more than they do at home, so they come. With actual border security in place, we could admit workers for whom there are jobs, prevent the entry of criminals, terrorists, and people with infectious diseases, and better police the conditions in which guest laborers work. What’s unreasonable about that?
Good. Now let her and all others deported for being here illegally start lobbying their home governments for reforms that will allow them to make living wages there.
Libraryjim: My thoughts, exactly! The Mexican government’s policies are, and always have been, the single biggest reason why its own citizens come here illegally. Corruption reigns supreme there, and that’s why my son-in-law is now an American citizen!
Can you imagine 12 million illegal aliens returning to their home country and protesting in front of their government houses? Change will have to come.
#5 — To answer your question, yes, I would be willing to pay higher prices. Further mechanization of the farms would help alleviate the need for cheap labor, too. But we already have guest worker programs! There are several avenues by which agriculture and other industries can bring in the workers they need LEGALLY, just as they did when they recruited workers from Europe for various industries in the early 20th Century. And, as Katherine said, going through the channels legally allows for monitoring and workers’ rights. Cesar Chavez was NOT in favor of illegal immigration, and for good reason!
Yes, she has split up her own family and my heart goes out to that little boy. She has used him to further her own ends and cause, and now she left him behind. She needs to take responsibility for her decisions and actions! Btw, not only did she break our immigration laws, but she also committed Social Security fraud.
A recent radio commentator suggested that prices for produce need not go up with the deportation of illegal aliens who work in the fields — just reform the welfare program where healthy recipients who are able to work will report to the farms for work or stop getting their check. Two problems solved.
The costs associated with illegals getting free education and medical care is mind-boggling. Ending that would lmore than cover any increase in groceries.
What [i]can [/i] we do about changing the law which makes someone born here an automatic citizen?
For those who support raising the minimum wage – why not lobby the Mexican government to raise their minimum wage to the equivalent of $8/hr? Won’t that solve everything?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote]What can we do about changing the law which makes someone born here an automatic citizen?[/blockquote]
It would take a constitutional amendment. The text of the 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this includes children of illegal immigrants. Short of the Supreme Court reversing itself (unlikely), it would take an amendment.
Adam, I’ve read that this constitutional amendment was passed to ensure the citizenship of the children of slaves. Do you or does anyone know how and when the interpretation was broadened to include the children of illegal immigrants?
OK, the Supreme Court didn’t directly rule that it includes children of illegal immigrants (I found after more digging about the specific case). However, it ruled that illegal immigrants are “under the jurisdiction” of the state they occupy at a given time, and the part of the text I ellipsed out had to do with being under the jurisdiction of the state, so it would still take a reversal by the Supreme Court to overturn the [i]jus soli[/i] (birthright citizenship) of children born in the U.S. to illegal residents.
BTW, I’m no lawyer or constitutional scholar, as if it isn’t already apparent. 😉
teatime – well, the interpretation wasn’t necessarily “broadened.” While the intention may have been passed to ensure the citizenship of slaves, the idea of [i]jus soli[/i] has roots in English common law that precede even the 14th Amendment. However, the clarification of the jurisdiction point came under [i]Plyler v. Doe[/i] in 1982. Also [i]U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark[/i], a case in 1898, affirmed birthright citizenship.
U.S. Code (8 U.S.C. § 1401) also gives birthright citizenship, though this could be repealed with a new law passed by Congress. The bigger hurdle is the 14th Amendment. There has never been an official interpretation of it to exclude illegal immigrants, and it would seem to me that it would require a herculean effort to read that into the language of the amendment, in addition to the disregard of precedence. But again, I’m just a layperson when it comes to this, so who knows what could happen.
BTW, Wikipedia has a lot of good information when it comes to these sorts of issues. It’s always good to check the references, as with anything from Wikipedia, but their info seems pretty solid on this one.
Er, #17 should say “While the [i]amendment[/i] may have been passed (should be ratified)…” Was going to say “the intention of the amendment” and thought better of it. It’s late, I’m punchy, and should go to bed. 😉