Nice suit. Who paid for that?

DannoJyd on October 3, 2006 at 11:27 PM

Nice suit. Who paid for that?

DannoJyd on October 3, 2006 at 11:27 PM

Seriously, that kid looks like he’s straight out of the Matrix in that suit!

RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 11:33 PM

Am I missing something? What is preventing the mother from becoming a legal citizen of this country?

SisterToldjah on October 3, 2006 at 11:35 PM

RightWinged, you haven’t been around Mexicans much, eh? That suit would be seen as quite sharp by the folks I’ve associated with.

That’ll be the end of that line of discussion, thanks.

Allahpundit on October 3, 2006 at 11:40 PM

How many groups are there out there that support either Hispanics or Illegals or both???
new additions to my KB: Luis Gutierrez at a meeting of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus Institute plus
Adalberto United Methodist Church in a heavily Latino neighborhood. and Chicago immigration-rights group Centro Sin Fronteras.
And which on is the travel agency? In the states or across the borders? Or are they all in the “travel business”?

The GOOD news:

“On Friday, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the pastor of the church on Saul’s behalf, which contended the boy’s rights would be violated if his mother was deported.”

Now if we could just enforce the LAW! Send her BACK, AGAIN, FOR GOOD!!!

Am I missing something? What is preventing the mother from becoming a legal citizen of this country?
SisterToldjah on October 3, 2006 at 11:35 PM

Sis, she broke in (to the US) , more than once, she’s an ILLEGAL ALIEN and has a record. Get her gone.

shooter on October 3, 2006 at 11:57 PM

hope not to be too redundant:
Sista, She’s been arrested at least two or three times in America.
from Breitbart: Arellano illegally crossed into the United States in 1997 and was deported shortly afterward. She returned within days, living for three years in Oregon before moving to Chicago in 2000. Arrested two years later at O’Hare Airport, where she was working as a cleaning woman, she was convicted of working under a false Social Security number and ordered to appear at the immigration office in Chicago.
Do a search and there is more. She’s broken the law at least 6 times by my count, not including evading right now.
We just cant allow this ‘church sitting’ or White House shopping-for-amnesty or it will spread like fire, and might be as costly and damaging as real fires.

shooter on October 4, 2006 at 12:10 AM

for those who might want one…this is close.

shooter on October 4, 2006 at 12:31 AM

I always knew that Allah had a thing for Ann.

DannoJyd on October 4, 2006 at 12:45 AM

I’m sorry, but that is a really nice suit.

Alex K on October 4, 2006 at 1:06 AM

It’s a Zoot suit folks. Long jacket, short lapel and shiny!

http://www.elpachuco.com/

Theworldisnotenough on October 4, 2006 at 1:26 AM

Hate to sound cruel, but, should have taken the little guy into custody and turned him over to child welfare…. where was his parental supervision??? and I take it he crossed state lines (Mann act?)…

Romeo13 on October 4, 2006 at 1:53 AM

I was wondering the same thing, who brought the kid to DC? We know it wasn’t the mother. I’ve made my thoughts on the anchor babies known before and was called “heartless” for it. I think this woman needs to be deported and one of the do-gooders at the church that is giving her “sanctuary” should take the little chap in. Where is his father or does she even know who he is? Why doesn’t daddy take him and let her go back from whence she came. Yes, old Reno packed up Elian and shipped him back to Castro pretty quick but there was a biological parent there. This one evidently was hatched in the cabbage patch because the only biological parent is the criminal since no daddy has shown up. Of course he’s probably illegal too.

Catie96706 on October 4, 2006 at 2:10 AM

So, are you telling me that Mexico is such a horrible place to be that the only possible salvation is the evil, corrupt, USA? Isn’t the culture of Mexico equal to ours in every way?

Maybe a nice Spanish speaking country would give his mother and he a home. Maybe Uncle Hugo has a place for them.

Wander on October 4, 2006 at 7:18 AM

So, are you telling me that Mexico is such a horrible place to be that the only possible salvation is the evil, corrupt, USA? Isn’t the culture of Mexico equal to ours in every way?

24 years travelling the globe in the U.S. Navy and a travelling gig since leaving and I’ve got to say that Mexico - and specifically Mexico City - is the filthiest and by far the worst place I’ve ever travelled.

I’d want to leave Mexico, too, and would look at the US as something more than simply “evil and corrupt.”

Corky on October 4, 2006 at 8:05 AM

Anchor babies and dual citizenship are just two of the things that desperately need to be addressed. And yet, our Representatives seem to be “Stuck on Stupid”!

At least there are some attempting to act on this… we’ll see what happens
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mexico/stories/MYSA092606.01A.borderbabies.3069c90.html

RightWinged on October 4, 2006 at 9:04 AM

Romeo13, I belive he’s in town interviewing with Foley for the Jr. Congressional Page program.

Alden Pyle on October 4, 2006 at 9:37 AM

No more anchor babies.
These people are using them as human shields so that their law breaking butts will get sympathy to stay in the US.
They’re popping them out like Gremlins.
Please don’t feed them after midnight.

Kramer on October 4, 2006 at 9:49 AM

egfrow,

Most of the money earned by Illigal immigrants is not spent in the USA but spent in Mexico. This is why the Mexico does not want the borders closed. It will destroy their freeloading economy, sales taxes, real estate, food, and goods.

Exactly. Remittances from wages earned in America are Mexico’s second largest source of revenue, after oil. The 2002 amount is estimated at $9 Billion. As always, just follow the money.

Pablo on October 4, 2006 at 10:26 AM

anchor babies and dual citizenship are just two of the things that desperately need to be addressed. And yet, our Representatives seem to be “Stuck on Stupid”!

labwrs on October 4, 2006 at 7:25 AM

And stuck on foleygate.

I’ve made my thoughts on the anchor babies known before and was called “heartless” for it.

that would have been me…and I still feel this way. BUT! To use this child in this manner is borderline child abuse. sick. Catie, I agree totally with you that the church members who are housing the mom need to take responsibility for the child should she be deported. Unfortunately, that’s not the case for SO MANY OTHER anchor babies (make note of the numbers of children born in houston, my hometown, to illegals…) seriously, what should we do with those children who are AMERICAN CITIZENS???

Until the constitution is amended (which will happen when pigs fly or Texas A&M win the national championship) we will continue to have a serious problem with anchor babies. It’s fine to say “deport ‘em all” but in reality, much more difficult to do because their children are citizens of our country.

So, what is your solution?

pullingmyhairout on October 4, 2006 at 10:44 AM

Why were children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil given legal status in the first place? Sounds like a liberal, we-care-for-the-children type of legislation. If Mommy and Daddy entered this country illegally, their offspring happened to be born here only because their parents broke the law.

Why should they be entitled to anything, especially U.S. citizenship?

fogw on October 4, 2006 at 11:27 AM

Why were children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil given legal status in the first place? Sounds like a liberal, we-care-for-the-children type of legislation. If Mommy and Daddy entered this country illegally, their offspring happened to be born here only because their parents broke the law.

Why should they be entitled to anything, especially U.S. citizenship?

fogw on October 4, 2006 at 11:27 AM

Fogw, check out the 14th amendment. text as follows:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

pullingmyhairout on October 4, 2006 at 11:49 AM

Send the little brat back with his mommy.

Vic on October 4, 2006 at 11:39 AM

So sorry Vic. you can’t just “send the little brat citizen back.”

pullingmyhairout on October 4, 2006 at 11:52 AM

sorry pullingmyhairout, but the kid IS an anchor baby just like the rest of them & the U.S. military should go into that church and send the two illegals back to Mexico where they belong, because THEY BROKE THE LAW!

Starblazer on October 4, 2006 at 12:36 PM

Congress needs to either abolish the 14th admendment or change it to say this - “only children of natural-born citizens & legal immigrants of this country are american citizens & not those of illegal immigrants”

like i said in my last post, the U.S. military needs to go into that church & deport that illegal immigrant & her son back to Mexico & make sure that they do it the right way.

Starblazer on October 4, 2006 at 1:29 PM

Poor little Saul has been pumped by amnesty advocates so much his growth is probably stunted.
As much as I would never wish Saul ill, he isn’t a citizen of the United States and neither are the children of other non naturalized residents.
The Fourteenth Ammendment was never intended for the children of foreign nationals.
Properly clarified, only citizens can make citizens.
I sincerly hope that SCOTUS will soon take a case that would clarify this issue.

By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 6/2/06

We are fortuante to have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term “jurisdiction” was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm

Speakup on October 4, 2006 at 1:35 PM

Poor little Saul has been pumped by amnesty advocates so much his growth is probably stunted.
As much as I would never wish Saul ill, he isn’t a citizen of the United States and neither are the children of other non naturalized residents.
The Fourteenth Ammendment was never intended for the children of foreign nationals.
Properly clarified, only citizens can make citizens.
I sincerly hope that SCOTUS will soon take a case that would clarify this issue.

yes, SCOTUS does need to hear a case such as this. you are correct when you state that the intent of the amendment as presented 150 years ago was that ‘citizens make citizens.’ but, it has been misinterpreted for well over a century.

BTW, I am not at all an apologist for illegal immigration. I just fail to see how sending back the illegal immigrants and leaving their minor children to fend for themselves is going to solve the problem. IMHO, it will create more problems than it will solve.

that being said, I have to go pick up the kiddos and do the ‘afternoon mom thing.’

xoxo

pullingmyhairout on October 4, 2006 at 2:19 PM

I never thought I would ache for Janet Reno…

Theworldisnotenough on October 4, 2006 at 2:00 AM

aka Uncle Janet.

Of course, Uncle Janet wouldn’t do anything about this - she only believes in sending ‘illegals’ back when they are political refugees from a slave state like Cuba (waits for one of our liberal trolls to chime in about their great health care).

thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 2:26 PM

What is to become of him (and all the other anchor babies) if his parents are deported? These children are CITIZENS. we can’t just SEND THEM BACK.

Just what kind of parents would want to leave their child behind, if deported? How could that child left behind ever truly live the “better life” here in the U.S., void of the love, comfort and protection of his Mother and Father?

As a vulnerable child, if I had the choice of living with my parents or living on the greatest place on earth without my parents, I would have chosen the former. IMHO the cohesive family unit takes precedence over the expensive condo unit.

The BEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE way to punish a child is to take him away from his parents and that is exactly what will happen if we start deporting illegal immigrants who have anchor babies.

Nowhere in the constitution or in our immigration laws does it state deported illegal immigrants are denied the right to take their naturalized children with them. If the parents choose to leave them behind, they are dishing out the punishment, they are responsible for the consequences of their actions - not our government.

Yes it’s a gut-wrenching decision, but one that could have been avoided by obeying our laws in the first place. I too have sympathy for any child found in this predicament through no fault of his own. I have none, however, for the parents who created this dilemma.

fogw on October 4, 2006 at 2:32 PM

you say that you’re not a bleeding liberal, but yet, you keep defending someone who is NOT an american citizen, whose mother who came here ILLEGALY, thus makes the anchor baby an illegal immigramt as well. illegal immigrants & children of illegal immigrants have no U.S constituional rights in this country at all, whether you liberals (although, you claim not to be) like it or not. this is why i don’t want democrats to win this November & in ‘08, because democrats will give amnesty to those who broke the law.

Starblazer on October 4, 2006 at 3:12 PM

the ONLY reason why illegals have anchor babies is because they know that they won’t be deported because of their anchor babies & i refuse to call them U.S. citizens because their parents came here illegally and it makes their anchor babies ILLEGAL immigrants as well. you are a liberal when you stick up for these anchor babies & their ILLEGAL parents.

Starblazer on October 4, 2006 at 6:28 PM

Oh. I see. This is YOUR axe to grind - it’s not based on the law. I advocate for minor children, regardless of their status. Sorry if that’s “liberal” to you. I happen to see it as compassion.

I do not, however, condone the behavior of their PARENTS. You will be hard pressed to find anything that I’ve said that indicates otherwise.

I am growing tired of this conversation.

pullingmyhairout on October 4, 2006 at 6:52 PM

Speakup, I followed your link and read the article, which makes perfect sense to my non-legal mind. The phrase that caught my attention was

Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

how does one to bring something like this to the attention of SCOTUS? Having SCOTUS clarify this seems a lot easier than amending the constitution - but then we’d be accused of practicing “judicial activism.”

And I will state again for the record, I AM NOT A LIBERAL.

Now. I have to go feed the family.

Nighty night!

And Speakup, thanks so much for the link and for not getting upset with me, unlike others on this board.

pullingmyhairout on October 4, 2006 at 7:24 PM