Illegal’s son visits Mexico, begs legislature to interfere in U.S. affairs

posted at 3:06 pm on November 13, 2006 by Allahpundit

Remember this kid? He was at the White House last month, hand-delivering a plea for amnesty for his mother, who’s been living in a church in Chicago for the past three months. ICE refuses to go in and get her on account of the special “sanctuary” exception to the Establishment Clause that only they seem to know about.

This latest stunt is basically the illegal-immigration equivalent of that repulsive stem-cell ad with the little girl that the left dropped on Jim Talent. Absolute moral authority:

The 7-year-old son of an immigration activist who has taken refuge in a church to avoid deportation left for Mexico on Sunday in search of support for his mother from legislators and President Vincente Fox.

Saul Arellano, who is an American citizen, will meet with members of the Mexican House of Representatives and Senate on Tuesday in an effort to get a resolution supporting Elvira Arellano’s bid to stay in the United States…

The boy has been speaking at conferences and writing letters to political figures, including President Bush and Fox, asking for help.

They should all just relax. Unless Kyl can pull a rabbit out of a hat, within a few months this problem will resolve itself.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What’s wrong with this picture?

Sorry – that’s rhetorical and would require too lengthy and answer.

Stop the world, I want to get off!

Corky on November 13, 2006 at 3:09 PM

Quick deport the mom. That poor boy should be traveling without his mommy!
Wasn’t that the reason they were using for keeping her here?

LakeRuins on November 13, 2006 at 3:10 PM

Please Mr. Fox, let my Mommy come back to Mexico!

Pablo on November 13, 2006 at 3:12 PM

Boy to Mexican legislators: Help us become better criminals in another country!

Cary on November 13, 2006 at 3:12 PM

I hope he’s taking this to the UN next.

Curious – how does this kid get all the time and money to travel all over the world about this. Doesn’t he have school or some oranges to pick or something?

And how does he get instant access to the legistlatures everywhere he goes? Little Saul goes to Washington?

What activist group is behind all this?

lorien1973 on November 13, 2006 at 3:20 PM

Well, one left the country willingly. Only twenty million to go…

jaleach on November 13, 2006 at 3:26 PM

I was born and raised as a Catholic. That said, it really pisses me off that the Catholic Church, or any other church or religious group, here in the US sides with illegal persons instead of supporting the law of the land. Repeal or rewrite the 14th Amendment to keep this from happening again and again.

ic1redeye on November 13, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Saul Arellano, who is an American citizen, will meet with members of the Mexican House of Representatives and Senate on Tuesday in an effort to get a resolution supporting Elvira Arellano’s bid to stay in the United States…

Wouldn’t a Mexican citizen and the Mexican government want to pass a resolution improving the lot of citizens and workers in Mexico??? It’s all so backassward.

EF on November 13, 2006 at 3:49 PM

Only twenty million to go…

If they’re admitting to 20,000,000 of them I can assure it’s most likely at least 10,000,000 more of them.

SouthernGent on November 13, 2006 at 3:52 PM

Well, one left the country willingly. Only twenty million to go…

Hear, hear…

x95b10 on November 13, 2006 at 3:53 PM

Please Mr. Fox, let my Mommy come back to Mexico!

Pablo on November 13, 2006 at 3:12 PM

heh…

Jaibones on November 13, 2006 at 4:05 PM

Doesn’t he have school or some oranges to pick or something?

Wow. Xenophopic? So you are saying that children born in this country by illegal aliens should be picking oranges? Even if he wasn’t born here–that statement says a lot about you.

As a conservative, I find that statement repulsive on many levels. It’s statements like this one that give fuel to leftists. The more user comments I read on this site, the more I stick with National Review. Sorry, Allah.

robblefarian on November 13, 2006 at 4:06 PM

So you are saying that children born in this country by illegal aliens should be picking oranges

Actually. I’m not saying that. But that you read that into it makes me think that you believe this. *shrug*

I’m just stating the obvious, that kids and families that come to this country from Mexico pick crops and have little chance for more because they are illegal and don’t speak the language. That is what they do. That’s xenophobic?

lorien1973 on November 13, 2006 at 4:18 PM

So you are saying that children born in this country by illegal aliens should be picking oranges?

No, he’s saying the kid should be in school and not be used as a tool for the leftards. And anyway, this picking fruit is the standard excuse given as to why we must allow open borders — that illegal aliens are needed to pick fruit and vegtables otherwise us lazy ass Americans would STARVE!!!

EF on November 13, 2006 at 4:22 PM

Doesn’t he have school or some oranges to pick or something?
Wow. Xenophopic? So you are saying that children born in this country by illegal aliens should be picking oranges?

What I get from this is the fact that he shouldn’t be a citizen because Mommy was here illegally in the first place. Jeez!

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 4:26 PM

Ah, but that is exactly how it sounds. I reread your post a few times before posting myself. I teach many illegal’s kids. Some of the kids are here illegally, some are not. Is there a problem. Definitely. Will anything change? Probably not. And whether I like it or not–I have to teach these children to the best of my ability.

I read what I read. That is the conclusion I made. If that wasn’t what you meant–I’m sorry, but your statement wasn’t obvious at all.

robblefarian on November 13, 2006 at 4:27 PM

We can prevent these unfortunate situations in the future by enforcing our laws and strengthening our borders. I am so sick of the Victimhood Card.

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 4:29 PM

How come the liberals were so quick to send the little Gonzales kid back to Cuba, but this little illegal needs to stay?

Bob on November 13, 2006 at 4:29 PM

I’ll tell the Mexican Govt. what it can do with that resolution….I’ll tell it where it can put it too……

americanpundit on November 13, 2006 at 4:32 PM

What I get from this is the fact that he shouldn’t be a citizen because Mommy was here illegally in the first place. Jeez!

Really? So someone born here of illegal aliens–whether Mexican or German or whatever–and become good citizens, that pledge allegience to our flag and then go on to college or whatever don’t deserve to be here? At what age should children be deported then? What is the cut-off date for being born in this country and then getting sent back? How many generations?

Please tell? Our government let this happen. Should we change the laws? If you’re born in this country by illegals, we have 24 hours to get you out?

robblefarian on November 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM

How come the liberals were so quick to send the little Gonzales kid back to Cuba, but this little illegal needs to stay?

1)because libs love Communists and Che and Castro

2)a lot of Cuban Americans vote red

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM

“That said, it really pisses me off that the Catholic Church, or any other church or religious group, here in the US sides with illegal persons instead of supporting the law of the land.”

As another life-long Catholic, I agree. The church should side on the law of the land.

americanpundit on November 13, 2006 at 4:35 PM

“Really? So someone born here of illegal aliens–whether Mexican or German or whatever–and become good citizens, that pledge allegience to our flag and then go on to college or whatever don’t deserve to be here?”

I, personally, haven’t seem many Germans running across the border, but hey, that’s just me. And that’s great lets sit around and sing “Kumbaya” but the mom is still illegal and therefore the kid should be too.

americanpundit on November 13, 2006 at 4:37 PM

Churches are just like political parties. They need to keep their constituents happy; whether is thru the rule of law of their country or not.

lorien1973 on November 13, 2006 at 4:38 PM

By the way, one of the largest sources of money for Mexico, is anchor babies and illegals sending back most of the money they earn here, to spend there.

americanpundit on November 13, 2006 at 4:38 PM

I thought the orange pickin’ comment was funny. I don’t really think anyone wants little Saul in the orchard. He should be in robblefarian’s classroom reading hillbillyjim’s post and learning about the law.

doginblack on November 13, 2006 at 4:39 PM

“We really believe Mexico could use its influence more in supporting people like Elvira.”

How about Mexico starts minding its own business?

“We immigrants need representation,” Arellano said Sunday. “The millions of Mexican immigrants who are living in the U.S. are being treated like criminals. I’m not a criminal. I’m a mother who worked to support my son in this country.”

ILLEGAL immigrants and invaders should tell us how to run our country?! And yes, you are a criminal, you broke our laws!

Megan on November 13, 2006 at 4:41 PM

Really? So someone born here of illegal aliens–whether Mexican or German or whatever–and become good citizens, that pledge allegience to our flag and then go on to college or whatever don’t deserve to be here? At what age should children be deported then? What is the cut-off date for being born in this country and then getting sent back? How many generations?

Please tell? Our government let this happen. Should we change the laws? If you’re born in this country by illegals, we have 24 hours to get you out?

The point is this: The boy would not have been born here had we been enforcing our laws. Automatic citizenship for those born of illegals only encourages more illegal immigration.

“How many generations?”–C’mon man. Let’s not get carried away here. I just love your righteous indignation, though..

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 4:42 PM

But the kids aren’t illegal. That law will not change.

robblefarian on November 13, 2006 at 4:43 PM

Should we change the laws?

Alot of people do believe we should change the constitution. Are we allowed to discuss that subject? Is it okay with you? As I would hope you know, granting citizenship to those born here was to correct the injustice of slavery.

EF on November 13, 2006 at 4:45 PM

“How many generations?”–C’mon man. Let’s not get carried away here. I just love your righteous indignation, though..

What? Don’t like being called out? I’m not being righteous–I’m arguing a point. I’m not getting carried away, nor am I righteous. Conservativism is about ideas and debating those ideas within the framework of issues. I’m not the one that keeps diggin’ that hole. But I’ll leave it there. I’m not going to change any minds here. I’m just surprised no one dropped any f-bombs yet.

robblefarian on November 13, 2006 at 4:47 PM

But the kids aren’t illegal. That law will not change.

Not for the next two years, anyway.

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 4:48 PM

Really? So someone born here of illegal aliens–whether Mexican or German or whatever–and become good citizens, that pledge allegience to our flag and then go on to college or whatever don’t deserve to be here?

I often see them carrying the Mexican flag in their immigration marches…

jman on November 13, 2006 at 4:48 PM

You’re not getting carried away — you’re just insinuating that people who disagree with you are racist.

EF on November 13, 2006 at 4:49 PM

As another life-long Catholic, I agree. The church should side on the law of the land.

To do so, in some cases, would violate scripture. Acts 5:29 comes to mind.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 4:57 PM

What? Don’t like being called out? I’m not being righteous–I’m arguing a point. I’m not getting carried away, nor am I righteous.

Sorry, dude, I call ‘em like I see ‘em. Just re-read thread and I stand by my comments. Lorien was arguing a point when she facetiously used the “picking oranges” reference, and for that she is labelled “xenophobic. So it is fine for you to use asinine rhetorical questions, but no one else?

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 5:00 PM

robblefarian,

But the kids aren’t illegal. That law will not change.

Why not? What other countries can you sneak into and have a baby where they will consider that baby a citizen? Please cite the policies of one or two countries that allow this.

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

Pablo on November 13, 2006 at 5:04 PM

If I commit a crime, all I need to do is hide in a church and pretend I’m the victim? And then the government won’t go after me, and the media will call me an activist and not a criminal?

Megan on November 13, 2006 at 5:06 PM

I’m not saying the constitution SHOULDN’T change. If it were up to me, there would be a 100 foot wall around the whole of the country. But I don’t feel confident that the constitution will get changed, nor will there be a wall built.

robblefarian on November 13, 2006 at 5:10 PM

Lorien,

I hope you don’t get the impression that I was referring to you when I used the term “asinine” in my last comment. Good use of humor to make a valid point with “oranges” question.

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2006 at 5:11 PM

AP. You all totally need to install a VB forum or something instead of these comments. Its hard to follow different trains of thought. Plus, with the ability to let users make their own topics and discussions, lots of possibility for $$$$. Just a thought :)

lorien1973 on November 13, 2006 at 5:12 PM

I hope you don’t get the impression that I was referring to you when I used the term “asinine” in my last comment. Good use of humor to make a valid point with “oranges” question.

I lost track of that about 20 posts ago. Comments are SOO hard to follow. I think a few people got the point(s) I was making. Sarcasm is hard to follow without smiley’s, I forget that people don’t know my style here ;) I do quite well with it in other forums.

lorien1973 on November 13, 2006 at 5:16 PM

The Catholic Church preaches true liberalism, not the bastardized version that our American liberals have invented. The Church is without blame in this matter as it acts as it has for over a millenium. Many decent Catholics died when Catholic Churches tried to provide sanctuary for American soldiers caught behind enemy lines. This is no different.

This story provides another prime reason for why the Anchor Baby Law should be revoked. The idea that people who have babies in our country are decent, America loving, well meaning people is ridiculous on its face. Anyone who has any respect for America could avail themselves of the many other means to become US citizens and stop breaking our laws, but they don’t.

DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 5:25 PM

Saul is an American citizen because we have stupid laws – like “the progeny of two illegal aliens who happens to be born in the US is an American citizen.”

mojo on November 13, 2006 at 5:30 PM

This story provides another prime reason for why the Anchor Baby Law should be revoked.

The 14th Amendment, you mean?

The idea that people who have babies in our country are decent, America loving, well meaning people is ridiculous on its face.

Kind of a broad generalization there. My relatives had babies in this country that became Americans. They are now all working, taxpaying Americans. Some of them even vote Republican.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 5:35 PM

Slublog: Times have changed.

EF on November 13, 2006 at 5:37 PM

Not as much as you think.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 5:39 PM

There is less incentive to assimulate and learn english. There is less incentive to obey all lows because unless they have multiple felony convictions, they don’t get deported.

EF on November 13, 2006 at 5:49 PM

That should b: obey all laws.

EF on November 13, 2006 at 5:49 PM

By the way, one of the largest sources of money for Mexico, is anchor babies and illegals sending back most of the money they earn here, to spend there.

americanpundit on November 13, 2006 at 4:38 PM

And you can watch the dollars tick away in real time here!

NTWR on November 13, 2006 at 5:51 PM

…somebody in the gub’mint needs to grow some calcium between their butt and the base of their skull…snatch Mom, reunite her with Junior, and send them back for a looooong lobbying session in Mexico City…City of a Million Bribes….

We have money here…so, we’re fair game for anyone with enough of a sob-story to come up and, harp-seal-like, flash their watery eyes at us and look all vulnerable.

…what saps they must think we are…what saps, indeed, we must be.

Emigration isn’t a birthright…not into my country, it isn’t.

Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 6:01 PM

Based on my reading and research of the 14th Amendment or the anchor baby law, children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens of this country. Here is an excerpt of a pretty good read on the subject.

Citizenship Clause

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.

The Citizenship Clause did not originate with John Bingham, but instead was inserted while the bill was under consideration in the Senate by Sen. Jacob Howard. It was intended to establish who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States. The clause itself is straightforward and came with ample documentary construction over how “subject to the jurisdiction” was to be construed. Sen. Howard introduced the clause this way:

[T]his 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.

You can find the page here

It’s clear that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so they should not be considered citizens. If a family from abroad comes to the U.S. on vacation and the wife happens to give birth while here in this country, that doesn’t make that baby a U.S. citizen. Thus children of illegal aliens should not be considered U.S. citizens. From what I have seen, there is no need to change the Constitution; rather we need to interpret correctly.

voiceofreason on November 13, 2006 at 9:54 PM

Sorry I messed up the link. Here it is…

Here’s another good one on the subject…

voiceofreason on November 13, 2006 at 10:05 PM

Sorry I messed up the link. Here it is…Guide to 14th Amendment

Here’s another good one on the subject…Birthright

Three times a charm;-)

voiceofreason on November 13, 2006 at 10:05 PM

voiceofreason on November 13, 2006 at 10:08 PM

Not much point arguing this. The kids mom will be legal as soon as President Jorge Arbusto can shove the amnesty through congress and down our throats. I’m more curious what state we’re going to cede back to mexico..I mean, we’re legalizing most of their population to come here and vote in a few months..so I’m sure they’re going to say..hmm, wonder what else we can get from America..I know, let’s demand territory..my bet is Texas. We can sh*tcan a bunch of conservative voters that way…

austinnelly on November 14, 2006 at 12:09 AM

We need a definative Supreme Court decision on this to make the ‘anchor baby’ plague go away. If it doesn’t go away, America As We Know It doesn’t have much time left

Even those of you who are screaming at Bush know he was good for two superb Supreme Court appointments

Janos Hunyadi on November 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM

The USSC is not going to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to say the children of aliens born on American soil are not citizens. And the chances of a constitutional amendment passing is zero. That leaves enforcement of our immigration laws which is never going to happen. There’s always a pattern — they pass these laws, say everything is going to be okay, flood the country with more cheap illegal labor, then demand another amnesty bill.

EF on November 14, 2006 at 3:09 AM

Kind of a broad generalization there. My relatives had babies in this country that became Americans. They are now all working, taxpaying Americans. Some of them even vote Republican.

Slublog on November 13, 2006 at 5:35 PM

Did they also march on US soil while waving the flag of the nation they came from? Did they demand that America become bilingual? Did they declare parts of the United States belonged to the country of their origin?

Apples, and oranges.

DannoJyd on November 14, 2006 at 11:04 AM

Even those of you who are screaming at Bush know he was good for two superb Supreme Court appointments

Janos Hunyadi on November 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM

Excuse me, but wasn’t Bush forced to change one of those nominations because his nominee was terrible? IMHO, Bush needs to be steered yet again, but this time on the Illegal Alien Amnesty issue.

DannoJyd on November 14, 2006 at 11:08 AM

Sublog
Kind of a broad generalization there. My relatives had babies in this country that became Americans. They are now all working, taxpaying Americans. Some of them even vote Republican.

So your relatives are criminals?

Did you relatives pay the hospital bill or let the taxpayers pick up the tab?

Wow, and you are proud of your relatives?

ScottyDog on November 14, 2006 at 3:00 PM

The 14th amendment was never meant for anchor babies. Send all anchor babies home along with their illegal parents.

Altura Ct. on November 14, 2006 at 6:37 PM