Finally: Illegal who lived in church for a year to avoid deportation arrested; Update: Deported
posted at 7:16 pm on August 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A year and a day after my first post about her, after various sick-making child-exploitation photo ops involving her young son at the White House and before the Mexican legislature, Chertoff finally decided to do his job. Sort of:
An immigration activist who sought refuge inside a Chicago church for a year was arrested in Los Angeles this afternoon after taking her campaign on the road.
Elvira Arellano was arrested about 4:15 p.m. Chicago time by law-enforcement officials after leaving Our Lady Queen of Angels Church in downtown Los Angeles, said Emma Lozano, an adviser who was there during the arrest.
After talking to news media inside the church, Arellano and her supporters got into their van to head north to San Jose, where she was scheduled to speak at another church, Lozano said. Moments after they entered the van, an unmarked vehicle stopped them.
The driver of Arellano’s van, Roberto Lopez, poked his head out because he wanted to see why they were being blocked. Several other unmarked vehicles surrounded their van.
Why do I say “sort of”? Because the church she’s been living in for the past year is in Chicago, not L.A. She left the building a few days ago for the coast, ostensibly to attend an immigration rally there (which she ended up not attending), and the feds evidently just … let her go, without interfering. As it turns out, she’d already lined up a new church to give her sanctuary in L.A. (“sanctuary” being an archaic common law concept that doesn’t exist under American law and would be grossly unconstitutional if it did, of course). I wonder if the feds got caught flat-footed on her new plans and swooped in when they did to avoid having to arrest her inside the church.
Exit question: Why now? Exit answer, as provided by Kaus: To make sure the ballyhooed immigration crackdown gets the worst press possible.
Update: Amazing how efficiently the immigration system works when it wants to. Your anti-assimilationist quote of the day:
“From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want,” she said in Spanish. “I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight.”
Meanwhile, an interesting backlash among illegals:
By Sunday afternoon, [Spanish-language radio host Javier] Salas was already on radio talking about the arrest, and callers were weighing in too.
Callers were “saying that she was traveling to Los Angeles and around the United States, she would provoke [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and the anti-immigrant groups,” he said. “There would be checkpoints everywhere.”
Salas questioned why it appeared that mainstream media make Arellano out to be the face of undocumented immigrants, while her actions have exacerbated the animosity toward them.
“She wasn’t down to earth,” he said, adding that Arellano acted entitled to rights “when there’s thousands and thousands of people in the same situation.”
“She made everything worse,” Salas said. “She’s not a face of the immigrants. My family without papers, she doesn’t represent them.”
She’s in Tijuana now so it’ll be easy to slip back in, but once she does the media’s going to cover it and that’s not the type of case study on border enforcement that the “undocumented community” is keen to have. I’m sure most of them are begging her to stay put, but her son’s here and she wanted to attend a vigil in D.C. on September 12 so who knows if she’ll listen?
What a moment if she turns up there next month to laugh in Chertoff’s face. Viva el crackdown!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Yeah that is the whole deal with the Swiss guard.
I know, it is largely symbolic but it is there for defence none the less. Besides I think Italy might want to help out with defending it, for what ever that is worth. ha ha
TheSitRep on August 19, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Here, here! If the illegals fought for the rights of their heritage in their own country. A prosperous Mexico is a prosperous US is a prospersous and POWERFUL North America. Funny they have no desire to change their own country only entitle themselves to ours.
frreal on August 19, 2007 at 11:46 PM
So you agree the Luxembourg is a country correct? (Maybe a piss ant country, but a country non the less). Thank You
Now that we agree on that…
Pissing off God knows how many Catholics, all over the world, and also liberations in the US, when you try to remove the tax exempt status of a religion, and when the US government takes military/police action against the inter workings of a religion/country (piss ant or not) is not a good political move.
But you go ahead and try to do it. I wish you the best of luck.
You are killing me.
Oh and BTW
For the record I never called Catholic churches “embassies” I said it was the best analogy I could come up with.
F15Mech on August 19, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Anybody catch the black activist Friday night. He had Susan Estrich completely flummoxed. It was beautiful!
TheBigOldDog on August 19, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Heh Heh Well I never! Hugh! Care to define flummoxed?
sonnyspats1 on August 19, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Now days statehood is probably defined more as a matter of consensus by other states rather than definition.
There are no clear and fast rules for things as imperfect as matters of state or even geographical boundaries. All of these type notions are products of opinion and or consensus.
But I am pretty sure that a church that harbours and abets a felon is out of line.
Ask any Rastafarian you meet. Just because your religion condones something does not make it legal. I think back in 1848 the Mormon church had to abandon polygamy in order to gain statehood.
There are exceptions, like Amish being exempt from social security draft, and selective service. American Indians although not a religion are exempt from certain laws.
TheSitRep on August 19, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Sorry, F15Mech. I think the sovereignty of the US sits far above any religion. For me, there is no question about that. It is not even open to debate. Religions are allowed in the US only so long as they abide by the rules. I don’t care who they are. If any church takes in a fugitive, the people in that church become criminals. Period. The church loses its religious status. It is now harboring a fugitive.
To me, it’s that simple.
I was happy about the raid on the Branch Davidians and I wanted the church in Chicago raided and closed. Churches are given a huge amount of leeway in our society and they must adhere to the highest of standards. Harboring fugitives is too much. Period.
progressoverpeace on August 20, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Islam should be banned.
a church should lose tax exempt status
people should look both ways before crossing the street.
I think a lot of stuff should be, but it aint gonna be.
I think we use should where we should have said “I wish”
TheSitRep on August 20, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Now that is an argument I can get my head around and agree with you 100%
I disagree with the Catholic Church’s position about the whole illegal immigration mess. I think it is wrong and does not acknowledge the difference between the borders. In the long term I think the Catholic churches pro illegal position will harm them in the US.
F15Mech on August 20, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Short answer: Of course.
As a Christian, I am also outraged and agree in principle, since (IMHO) this kind of civil disobedience is nowhere sanctioned in Scripture.
However, how will our woefully incompetent government differentiate between a church that has crossed the line and one that has not?
Just a thought.
infidel4life on August 20, 2007 at 12:11 AM
BTW, Ms. Arellano looks the part of the perfect leftist stooge.
Pathetic.
infidel4life on August 20, 2007 at 12:15 AM
JWS, shut your ignorant, bigoted mouth…
Theworldisnotenough on August 19, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Yawn…
JWS on August 20, 2007 at 12:17 AM
If the church talks to the media about how they are harboring a fugitive because they disagree with the US law that that person is accused of breaking … that’s a pretty easy one.
progressoverpeace on August 20, 2007 at 12:18 AM
That church ought to consider themselves lucky. One day on TV, I watched the feds burn a church down with women and children inside. In the U.S. I might add.
TheSitRep on August 20, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Agreed, but once the precedent is established, how do we prevent anti-church government zealots from going overboard into actual persecution?
infidel4life on August 20, 2007 at 12:41 AM
One word, “Whore-aldo.”
America1st on August 20, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Because those groups also tend to be tax-exempt and their status is as vulnerable as the churches’. I’m totally secular. I don’t believe in organized religion, however, I do recognize that the raising of children is somethign that mankind worked on for many millenia and organized religion has formed the basis for much of the upbringing that produced such wonderful societies. I appreciate the importance of traditional ideas and values, and I can’t stand the anti-religious idiots. I think there are a lot of people like me.
Trusting the courts is the sore spot for me. I have no idea what can be done about that. In the Judiciary, I do very much appreciate Bush’s important contributions – since I’ve been bashing him a lot.
progressoverpeace on August 20, 2007 at 1:00 AM
WOW, in all honestly I understand what you are saying however you are missing a few key things IMO.
I agree that the sovereignty of the US is very important.
I love the US and will do anything to protect it. (I did not just choose “F15Mech” as a handle out of the wild blue yonder).
Damn if only our founding fathers had thought about “freedom of religion”, since they never thought about that religion has to much leeway in the United States…
I think my head just exploded, what are the rules and who exactly sets the rules? You really need to study US history.
I think that is my favorite comment from you…
Did it ever occur to you that what a church says and what a church member thinks might be 2 separate things?
Is it perhaps possible that I could disagree with my ex-church and have a brother studying (10+ years) to become a priest is the same church and yet we still think the same thing?
Of course not, you think that anyone that goes to church is part of the sheeple.
You don’t know that religion may have been one of the major reasons that the US colonies were initially started, or why the Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria sailed from Europe.
Until you understand what grasp religion plays on a culture, be it Catholism, Lutheranism, Wician, Islamic, Ignostic etc, you will never know how to deal with religion.
You only choice will be to say ban them all or only “pick” the ones the does not interfere with the government.
F15Mech on August 20, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Well thanks. I spit my half of my chick beer out when I read that.
I normally get in some time on the heavy bag, jumping rope, running the hills or the beach, and/or skateboarding.
Last week the only weights I lifted were heaping plates of food and 12 oz bottles of Bass Ale. My gut needed a break.
The Race Card on August 20, 2007 at 1:21 AM
The kid’s gonna stay and be used as a political pawn. Arellano claims she is keeping him (Saul) to get treatment for his ADHD.
ADHD?!?! Unfrigginbelievable.
From cbs2.com:
The Race Card on August 20, 2007 at 1:27 AM
Allahpundit has already noted some relevant information
about this woman before here:
A.)
Just think if the Mel Martinez (R-FL) – Graham-Amnesty (R-SC)— Chuck Hagel (R-NE)—Ted Kennedy—John McCain—Trent Lott—Democrat Party Shamnesty bill had actually passed, then this criminal would have received the gift of USA citizenship as a reward for her illegal criminal behavior.
B.) Notice that she was deported in 1997. Then she returned illegally to the USA within a matter of days.
Unbelievable. That is a sad statement as to how easy it is to cross illegally our open and porous borders. And yet Bush is so quick to criticize Pakistan about its porous borders with Afghanistan? Bush cannot even control USA’s borders, nor does he really want to.
C.) She was convicted 5 years later for Social Security number fraud in 2002.
Social Security fraud is a very serious crime that takes a huge toll on its victims (USA citizens).
Apparently, Graham-Amnesty, Chuck Hagel, John Kyl (R-AZ), Trent Lott (R-MS), and the rest of the “Grand Compromisers” (referring to the original Sham-nesty bill) have no problem at all with rewarding illegal aliens who are involved with document fraud, SSN theft, SSN fraud, or identity theft or fraud with the gift of USA citizenship.
The above senators may indeed have such a “low view” of the necessary qualities for being entitled to USA citizenship, but I and millions of others do not share the senators’ perspective here. USA citizenship is a privilege. USA citizenship is a honor, not a piece of trash to be thrown to whatever direction. USA citizenship is a privilege to be respected and honored, and it should never be “cheapened or watered down” by unconstitutional US Senators who want to reward illegal aliens who break our laws.
And it is always wrong to reward illegal behavior by illegal aliens with the gift of USA citizenship. Even if the illegal behavior is non-violent (say, SSN fraud) it is still wrong to reward illegal behavior with USA citizenship. The fact that Graham-amnesty, John Kyl of Arizona, Chuck Hagel, and the Democrats believe otherwise only serves as additional reasons why all of them should be kicked out of office in the very near future.
D.) As a Christian, I am embarrassed that this criminal who was caught engaging in SSN fraud should find “sanctuary” in a so-called, professing Christian church.
As a Christian, I am so thankful for the separation of Church and State. But today I wish there was no separation between Church and State, so that this false church could be quickly prosecuted for false advertising under the “Truth in Advertising” Law. This church claims to be “Christian,” yet Biblical commands are violated when a so-called “Christian” church protects criminals from prosecution from the State.
How in the world is it “Christian” to encourage law-lessness? How in the world is it “Christian” to encourage Social Security Number fraud? How in the world is it “Christian” to encourage and reward criminal behavior? If the State were involved in the Church, then the State could easily prosecute this false “so-called Christian” church under the “Truth in Advertising” Law, because this church falsely advertises to the general public as a “Christian church”, when in reality it is far from being a Christian church. How can one claim to be a Christian church when you flagrantly disobey the Bible? How can one claim to be a Christian church when the pastor encourages Social Security number fraud?
This is wrong.
ColtsFan on August 20, 2007 at 1:30 AM
It could be worse: President Hillary Clinton and First
LadyGentleman Bill Clinton. :: shudder ::Mallard T. Drake on August 20, 2007 at 1:42 AM
The Race Card on August 20, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Heh heh heh like drinking light beer is really going to help, no the solution is not to drink light beer, but to drink fewer of higher quality beers. Try going with a single pint of something like Stone Smoked Porter Or Arrogant Bastard, or maybe a couple 12oz Moretti La Rossa’s.
doriangrey on August 20, 2007 at 2:03 AM
I like turtles.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 20, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Hasta la vista, babee.
SilverStar830 on August 20, 2007 at 3:37 AM
I guess this arrest means all of us will not be able to find lettuce at the market. Oh well, I’m not much of a lettuce eater anyway. I feel for the vegans. They may have to start eating meat now that another lettuce picker is gone.
Helloyawl on August 20, 2007 at 3:44 AM
^ Clean-up on aisle 5! Some damn troll pooped on the floor.
SilverStar830 on August 20, 2007 at 4:17 AM
This criminal AND illegal alien has been living in this church here in Chicago for about a year now, advocating it being a santuary and generally thumbing her nose at the system, while using her old 8-year old son as a combination crutch and shield in the process. She was arrested once before for being here illegally, got booted back to Mexico, came back anyway and was living in the church the whole time literally daring Immigration to come in and get her, which they wisely did not. I think they knew that sooner or later, she was going to slip up and this weekend, that is exactly what happened, and I applaud the authorities for being patient this whole time. I now hope they throw her in jail for a long time, then ship her back to Mexico and never allow her to return to this country again. As for her son that she used this whole time, either put him up for adoption here, or send him back to whatever relatives he may have in Mexico. But as far as Arellano goes, she dared the authorities to come and get her, and I think she got the shock of her life when they did. She now can deal with it, whether she likes it or not.
pilamaye on August 20, 2007 at 6:27 AM
Ha, the St. Cindy of the immigration debate gets busted. They will never deport, but if they did, allow me this one fantasy.
The Hollywood left goes bonkers with outrage, Sean Penn, Geraldo, and Matt Damon go to Mexico to find her and smuggle her back. Then they all get busted and sentanced to 20 years for being coyotes. hahahahahahaha
Ahh, if only it would happen that way.
conservnut on August 20, 2007 at 6:45 AM
Don’t wanna go over old ground again, but this is NOT the authorities stepping-up to the plate. This is an attempt by the Bush admin. and Jerkoff to arouse liberal and MSM ire at those of us who insist our immigration laws be enforced. Only the most high-profile, teary-eyed enforcement will be on view.
JiangxiDad on August 20, 2007 at 7:53 AM
I’m actually amazed that Chertoff and the DHS actually busted this criminal alien but I’m glad they didn’t raid the church to do it. We don’t need to give the left that kind of ammo to use against us right now. I would however have liked to see everyone with her arrested for harboring since they were outside the grounds of the church at the time.
Buzzy on August 20, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Good visible first step.
apostle53 on August 20, 2007 at 8:20 AM
Well I’m sure she can find some kind of work in Tiajuana (wink). That scumbag race baiting “Reverend” Slim Coleman (a Coleman of Coleman camping equip) is a rich white who acts poor. He was real active with the Alderman in Uptown here (displacement of the poor, blah, blah,blah)…a Jewish woman who was a member of the Black Panther party, and she still holds that office today, Helen Shiller(46th ward “I”). That area where the “church” is is in a Yuppie struggle right now…so who shows up? Slim Coleman to help lead the fight against Whitey. If I remember correctly, his current wife Emma Lazano’s first husband Rudy was a latino hate Whitey leader who was gunned down by some gangbangers here some years ago.
LtE126 on August 20, 2007 at 8:30 AM
Mahoney gave sanctuary to child molesters for decades, why not offer sanctuary to an illegal immigrant.
The church should stick there nose in the bible, and stay out of government. They don’t have the best track record for helping the least (the children) among us, with their programs.
right2bright on August 20, 2007 at 8:35 AM
I think you miss the point. JWS is right on the money, and while you provide obvious examples of full engagement, who – exactly – is “the black community? Talk about stereotypes.
Nothing JWS said is bigoted. Just replace “black” with white, and then tell us the last time you used that phrase and in what context? There is no “black community” any more than there is a “female community”.
Some time yesterday I was looking at a photo from a protest some women engaged in, condemning the offensive lyrics, images and stereotypes that spew from the rap music industry, and it was being sold to me as “black women” vs. “black rappers”. I kept thinking that without the hispanic and white punks who buy this trash and the white music industry leaders who promote and profit from it, (c)rap would barely be on the radar. Sure, the great majority of rappers are black, but the issue isn’t nesessarily a racial one.
RWS seems to be saying that public policy issues shouldn’t be broken down into special interest groups on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. (Sound familiar? This is an odd thing, since the Federal government spends half of its time regulating businesses against this possibility, and the other half doing the same thing themselves.)
He’s right.
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 8:40 AM
“…laugh in Chertoff’s face” Maybe, or will it just be used as an example of why enforcement is too difficult???
jeanie on August 20, 2007 at 8:45 AM
Was she given a choice as to whether to take her beloved
pawnson?Valiant on August 20, 2007 at 8:46 AM
With the aid of Bush and Chertoff she will be back very soon with full legal status. She will become the poster child of how it’s done. Go back to Mexico, get papers and come back legally. I’ll bet anything she’s at the US embassy getting all her documents in order for her grand re-entry.
roninacreage on August 20, 2007 at 8:52 AM
Ron, I am no lawyer, but she has been ordered deported by a Federal immigration judge. Can she still legally immigrate? I somehow doubt it…
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 8:57 AM
PS I doubt it because she defied the deportation order.
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 8:58 AM
I’m not positive, but once you’re deported and caught sneaking back in, I think you’re banned for life. Even when her anchor baby grows up, he will not be able to help her get back in… until the amnesty crowed get that law changed.
Paul the American on August 20, 2007 at 9:05 AM
There is a third choice: Go to your country, Mexico, and work to change the political system of Mexico, to improve the quality of life for Mexicans. However, that takes real work and bravery. Sitting on your butt in a church for a year, not so much.
Blake on August 20, 2007 at 9:12 AM
There’s one thing I never understood about this story. Since there are millions of illegals going about their business freely in the US, why did this woman think she had to hide in a church?
Deportation hearings don’t really matter, especially if you have no other arrest record. You don’t have to show up. Nobody comes looking for you.
Was this woman just dumb?
JiangxiDad on August 20, 2007 at 9:19 AM
“I can’t believe I voted for Bush. Twice. I might sit this one out. I don’t trust anyone anymore, Fred included. Been stabbed in the back too many times. RW Wacko on August 19, 2007 at 7:30 PM”………
My very sentiments. I have lost faith in the Republican party because of Bush. I see no one addressing this problem from within the Party. Fred may be able to appear as if he’s captaining an aircraft carrier, but I’m not so sure he can. Mitt looks like he should be doing soap commercials, Giuliani’s checking his flight number unsure of which baggage to claim and Huckaby seems to have a problem I can’t even explain.
I’d commit suicide before voting Democratic and I know third parties are a waste of time (I voted Perot once). So I and many like me feel way up sh!t creek.
Damn Bush.
Ernest on August 20, 2007 at 9:23 AM
I err on the side of cynicism on this. Understanding the actors in this political theatre, we have yet to suffer the slow drama that will be played out. Stick your fingers down your throats, and re-train your gag reflexes, because this isn’t going to be very palatable.
captivated_dem on August 20, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Exactly. They’re yanking Lily Alan’s chain wrt her visa now – obviously not the same as deporting Arellano, but sure to get the left leaning twenty-something crowd fired up and calling their Congressional reps about fixing our unfair system. This is deliberate.
Laura on August 20, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Paul the American wrote:
oh, I get it. Trespassing into and leeching off America is legal the first time, but the second time… uh oh, watch out!
Illegals, if you are here… don’t EVER leave!!!
flipflopper on August 20, 2007 at 9:31 AM
But that’s the whole point, isn’t it? That deporting illegals is a waste of time and money, and we shouldn’t bother doing it. It’s the ultimate straw man.
Laura on August 20, 2007 at 9:33 AM
“Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
In other words . . . the church must stay out of the state’s business. Should they violate the laws of the state then they make themselves vulnerable to the consequences and become nothing more than another political entity.
rplat on August 20, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Get to the back of the line lady! Geraldo can join you.
csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Here is another vocal group. This is more in line with what Salas had to say.
sonnyspats1 on August 20, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Laura, you have a pretty strong conspiracy meme going here. I could never give Michael Jerkoff that much credit. It seems more like they weren’t going to bust down the doors to that fake church, and were just waiting for this nitwit to overplay her hand.
She did.
Now she’s in Tijuana, where I hope she finds appropriate work and lives a long and happy life.
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Secure the border FIRST, yeah. But I’m not really sure there is a functioning line.
How many people should the US be allowing in permanently each year,if any? From where?
I understand we don’t address those kind of questions because most of our pols. want open borders, and because we are already overrun with illegals. Obviously it’s up to the citizens to impose some rationality here.
Frankly, I think we’d probably be allowing many many people from Mexico to immigrate here legally if we had a properly functioning system. Now that would be a line.
JiangxiDad on August 20, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Sorry if this has been said before, but if she gets back into this country, she should also be charged with child neglect.
I can’t imagine ever being separated from my children. This is a completely selfish woman to leave her son behind. Child services should be taking that child.
Who is taking care of her in Mexico?
moonsbreath on August 20, 2007 at 9:47 AM
I disagree. The WH offensive on immigration was stronger than on any other issue. And it isn’t over.
I wonder what they’ll say about it at the upcoming North American Union summit in Montebello, Canada.
JiangxiDad on August 20, 2007 at 9:49 AM
You know, I actually thought Arellano had a pretty good case for staying. I have even started taking the Methodist pastor seriously for the church where she sought sanctuary. The pastor cited the reason to provide sanctuary was because the deportation order would have separated a mother from her son.
Then I learned that Arellano’s deportation order was issued in 1997. She stalled, she bailed, she skipped everything she had to in order to stay in the United States IN ORDER TO HAVE A CHILD. Her son was conceived AFTER her deportation order.
Needless to say, I don’t know why it took so long for this important fact to become the side story, but I only picked up on it last week.
gabriel sutherland on August 20, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Thinking about her child, who’s to say she really had him here? Where’s the proof? More importantly, where’s the father?
moonsbreath on August 20, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Thank God she was forced to stop hiding out in a church. Good riddance.
congsan on August 20, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Oh, I almost forgot to decry anchor babies.
Nuff Said.
congsan on August 20, 2007 at 10:01 AM
About dam* time!
Ex-tex on August 20, 2007 at 10:04 AM
“She stalled, she bailed, she skipped everything she had to in order to stay in the United States IN ORDER TO HAVE A CHILD. Her son was conceived AFTER her deportation order.”
The reason why “she stalled, she bailed, …in order to have a child” is because she wanted to secure USA citizenship with an Anchor baby. By the way, does anyone know about her child’s father? Sadly, the system of illegal immigration and “anchor babies” encourage a lot of father-less homes. The children are the ones who suffer.
ColtsFan on August 20, 2007 at 10:08 AM
The concern I have about the way this was handled is that it appears that ICE respected the claims of “sanctuary”, waiting until she had left the church before arresting her. Hopefully this does not become viewed as a precedent.
DaMav on August 20, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Dear Elvira,
I don’t blame you for wanting to live in America rather than Mexico. It only proves you’re sane. The little I’ve seen of Mexico….. it’s a pit. Just go smell the streets in Mexicali. Whew. I have no respect for you if you haven’t at least tried to make changes there. Just birthing an anchor baby in the US is an attempt at an illegal and easy way out. If you had been involved in throwing Molotov cocktails at Vicente Fox and were hiding from the Federales, I’d say you’d earned a stay. But as far as I can see your just another freeloader who slipped in illegally and undoubtedly accessed our social services and broke our laws and now feel America owes you something. (tell me Elvira, did you ever drive a car here uninsured? I had a young Mexican lady smash into the back of my car last year at my expense. ) All we owe you and all those like you is a free ride to the border and a promise of jail time if you again return illegally.
Get some guts. Mexico isn’t bad real estate. Give it a cleaning from the top down, tell the drug cartels to suck hemp, and you’ve got a jewel worth fighting for. Would it be tough?…. you bet, but I think you’d be surprised at the amount of sympathy and support you’d have from Americans if you were fighting the good fight for Mexico. Remember, that’s how this country was born.
Ernest on August 20, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Doth Geraldo protest too much?
Has anyone checked HIS paper?
Ernest on August 20, 2007 at 10:34 AM
What’s funny is that this anchor baby rule can be overturned by passing a law through Congress. It’s not a Constitutional issue at all. hey could even make it retroactive if they wanted to (say, to the time cities began creating sanctuary cities to defy Federal law…about 2002).
Miss_Anthrope on August 20, 2007 at 10:58 AM
She could join these tribes…or the democratic party tribe. Either way she gets in free.
right2bright on August 20, 2007 at 10:59 AM
She was going to San Jose to speak to people there. Have you heard her talk? SHE CAN’T!!
Speak? Oh! My bad! Maybe somebody has a leash on her? I.E., prepared statements, English lessons?
DfDeportation on August 20, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Good Riddance and Good-Bye
Wade on August 20, 2007 at 11:15 AM
The ’saga’ contiues. She’ll be back for another round soon enough.
countywolf on August 20, 2007 at 11:22 AM
What a great mom. Leaving her Jackpot Baby in the US. Unfortunately the church stopped listening years ago when they became illegal baby hugging hippies
400lb Gorilla on August 20, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Tijuana it usually takes me only 15 minutes to get over the border into Sand Diego. Be it only takes her 5.
Probably on her way to her next demonstration now.
400lb Gorilla on August 20, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Jaibones, I don’t think it’s a conspiracy; they’re being quite open about it, check the Kaus link for plenty of this kind of thing:
Laura on August 20, 2007 at 11:29 AM
It’s the typical, liberal, uneconomic, non-numerical, non-linguistic training I see everywhere.
You can thank your local schools & their unions/govt’s for that. It’s like a toilet flush…it goes further down the pipes with each generation. Explains why home-schooling is on the rise.
Anyone who’s actually been trained to read, write, & cipher, then builds upon that foundation solid business experiences and/or training, can see through this crap.
As my momma always said, “Don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out.”
Miss_Anthrope on August 20, 2007 at 11:45 AM
This is not the way to handle dissention – you can disagree with Geraldo but calling him an illegal alien on a fellow Foxcontributors website is pushing the fine line – Michelle doesnt need to give Geraldo any ammunition
EricPWJohnson on August 20, 2007 at 12:02 PM
The big difference is that Elvira was deported the first time making it a big deal when she snuck back in. When the Border Patrol catches mexicans at the border they volunteer to return to mexico and avoid formal deportation. That is why many of them can try dozens of times before they finally make it.
Paul the American on August 20, 2007 at 12:25 PM
If she tries to come back again and tries to take up sanctuary somewhere, this time the authorities should break down the doors within the first five minutes, take her into custody and throw her in jail for the next 15 years; then deport her right back to Mexico and tell her next time, it’ll be 30 years.
pilamaye on August 20, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Here is information I received from Rightmarch.com
this quote shows the original intent was to protect emancipated slaves after the Civil War, not to give citizenship to illegals:
I am sick of this phoney broad. She acts like the United States owns her son, not her. No one could keep my kids away from me.
Message to Elvirus: You own your kid. We do not own your kid. The only thing keeping him here is you.
You cannot steal my nation, even by making your own flesh and blood a pawn.
I would never steal Mexico. Mexico runs on bribes and corruption. The law there is a joke. America is better because we own this land, we write our own laws, and therefore we follow them. Stop trying to ruin my nation by breaking our laws.
entagor on August 20, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I should have said to Elvirus:
Stop trying to Break my nation by Ruining our Law
entagor on August 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Look what sitting this one out almost did to us in 06! What will happen if you “sit this one out” is you’ll not only get an amnesty deal with Hillary’s “Dream Act” thrown in, but you’ll get the Fairness Doctrine so you won’t even hear about the next secret bill they want to pass behind your back. Please don’t sit this out. I’m begging you!!!!
foxforce91 on August 20, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Our local news here in Southern California are bending over backwards(as they always are for the liberals) in potraying this criminal as a “victim”.
kevcad on August 20, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Think first, post second. When a child is born here in the U.S., the government makes a note of it.
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Criminalize Social Security fraud, and only criminals will be frauds! Oh the humanity!
calbear on August 20, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Agreed; good call, Eric.
Ernesto, I believe Mr. Rivera was born and raised here. Grip.
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Laura, I might have been attributing Dad’s comment to you. I actually agree with what the government ninnies said, but I believe that they are referring to the employer raids. Sure, if they started doing mass deportations of workers and migrants, we would quickly have a problem with our 96% employment economy.
But that’s not what they are doing, and deporting criminal aliens and forcing state and local cops to determine residency status to “raise the ire of liberals” certainly won’t sway public sentiment in any way, except maybe to make immigration conservatives of both parties very, very happy.
You can count the fans of Elvira Arellano on your toes.
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Caller to a radio show: “She made everything worse.”
Yep. Not only for those of us who expect enforcement, by being defiantly in “sanctuary,” but for her fellow illegals.
Of course, I don’t really give a rats-ass about the “feelings” of the illegals. They shouldn’t be in the USA in the first place.
georgej on August 20, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Exactly my point…thanks for giving the details (didn’t have it handy when I posted).
Miss_Anthrope on August 20, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I’d like to find that out for sure. We still have unemployed people, and it’s not all making beds and washing dishes. Illegals are electricians, carpenters, painters… all kinds of construction jobs, basically, and getting paid $15-$25 an hour for it. There are a LOT of unemployed young black men who could be recruited for those jobs; they’re good jobs which lead to a solidly middle-class lifestyle. About 60% of African Americans are in the middle class or higher, so we could easily have programs aimed at lifting that ~40% up, instead of ceding those jobs to foreigners.
Laura on August 20, 2007 at 2:19 PM
To: Miss_Anthrope on August 20, 2007 at 10:58 AM and entagor on August 20, 2007 at 12:33 PM.
Sorry, there are at least 2 US Supreme Court decisions that strictly construct the 14th Amendment to apply to the children of illegal aliens as being “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” by default. Regardless of the status of the parents, such children *ARE* native born United States Citizens.
This cannot be overturned by a simple act of Congress or an executive decision to change enforcement policy. The comments made by Senator Jacob Howard back in 1866 are null and void.
The only children born in America who are not considered US citizens are the children of diplomats, where by treaty, they are considered the citizens of their parent’s country.
While it is possible, I suppose, for the USSC to overturn their earlier decisions, it is not likely to happen. The only way to change the situation is to amend the Constitution to disallow citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
Unfortunately, the chances of that happening in today’s climate are “slim” and “none,” and Slim in on a bus to Topeka.
georgej on August 20, 2007 at 2:27 PM
So, I guess you don’t believe the 96% number? I, too, would like to find out how this really works, and get illegals out of these higher paying jobs in order to get a clearer picture, but I have no doubt that changes in resident alien or immigration status will need to be made.
My biggest problem with illegals is that they’re illegal. I like immigration, but I want immigrants to be known, and measured, and to come from a wider international pool than just Mexico and Guatemala, and to be limited to people who wish to become citizens and permanent residents of the U.S.
Jaibones on August 20, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Point well-taken, georgej…we were talking theoretically, while in reality it’s a third rail.
Too bad…I’d like to see someone in Congress press this issue. USSC might actually turn over those decisions at this time.
Miss_Anthrope on August 20, 2007 at 2:33 PM
The Spanish word for “illegal” is “ilegal.”
Go figure.
drjohn on August 20, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »