Video: Michelle & Co discuss the Arellano case on The Factor
posted at 9:07 pm on August 20, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
The dearly deported Elvira Arellano was in this country illegally, and she used a fraudulent Social Security number to obtain a job at O’Hare airport, where she washed airplanes. But Kirsten Powers doesn’t see any problems with this. She said repeatedly during tonight’s segment on The Factor that being able to come to the US is a “human right” in the context that freedom of movement is a human right. By that logic, the entire world ought to be made US citizens by fiat. Why not, if we’re going to just let them all violate our sovereignty and traipse across the borders without any semblance of order or any attempt to keep foreign criminals, terrorists and the like out of our country? This point of view makes hash of any attempt to secure the nation from any threat whatsoever, be it terrorism, narcotrafficking, human smuggling, whatever. If you live in Laredo, TX or any of the other US cities under constant threat from Mexico’s drug wars, your right to live in peace in your own country is of no concern. If you work in an industry in which illegals depress wages by working for less than you can afford to, and upon which they pay little or no taxes, your right to work in your own country for a fair wage is of no concern. If you live in a city or state where social services are being pillaged by illegal aliens and their children at your expense, tough. And don’t you dare complain about any of this, or you’ll get called a “nativist” or worse. Your emphasis on having an orderly system of migration is an unhealthy obsession. Your attempts to impose order on chaos are either misguided or racist.
If you’re a legal immigrant who waited your turn, paid the fees and live by the law now that you’re here, you’re a sucker. The respect that you pay to US law and sovereignty is not appreciated in the least.
And Powers is one of the reasonable Democrats. Let that sink in. And then watch tonight’s Factor segment with Michelle, Kirsten and Bill. The boss and Bill make all the right points, but they fall on deaf ears.
Fraudulent use of a SSN is a crime. Elvira Arellano broke US law to get here twice, and had a sensitive job that ought to have required a thorough background check that would have found her out. Since she had that job, presumably someone else who lives in this country legally couldn’t have that job. That’s three crimes en route to a job that she should not have held in a post 9-11 world. Then, when deported Sunday night, Arellano chose politics over her son and left him here in the US with strangers, while once again slamming the US (which is far more welcoming of immigrants than Mexico is or ever will be) on her way out. This is a hero? According to reasonable Democrat Kirsten Powers, yes. One who ought to be allowed to live in the US regardless of her crimes or her attitude of entitlement toward a country of which she is not a citizen or legal resident, and against which she committed fraud.
If you peel the skin off this thinking, the law is meaningless and US citizenship is worthless, not something to be striven for or sought through effort. It’s just a human right to grant to any would-be identity thief on the planet, no matter what effect that has on US security, sovereignty or economics. In a world run along this kind of thinking, there is no reason whatsoever to obey the laws. Manufacture SSNs to your heart’s content, no matter whose identity you steal or what effect your actions have on the integrity of the American legal system. Don’t concern yourself about that. Just get what’s yours as a “human right.” If you’re a photogenic person with a sob story, all the better. You’ll make a great prop.
Update (AP): What Powers is saying isn’t even left-wing; it’s simply insane. It amounts to a United States without borders, an idea you’d be hard-pressed to find a single prominent Senate Democrat willing to agree with publicly, I suspect.
I don’t know if she’s sincerely drifted left in her thinking, if she’s feigning it as part of the center’s grand pander to the nutroots, or if she was always this nutty and I just didn’t see it, but I’ve misjudged her significantly enough that I think it warrants some sort of formal acknowledgment. Sorry for the error and for having wasted your time.
Update (BP): Sevenload did something strange to the video. I’m in the process of fixing it.
Update (BP): Video fixed.
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
Exactly. If millions of advisors to the Democratic Party streamed through America’s borders then Powers would find herself hard hit and facing a reduction in wages if not outright unemployment.
The difference is that while environmentalism (ie. global warming) is an imaginary problem that supposedly threatens apocalypse to the whole world immigration is an actual issue that has cost lives and jobs to Americans. The “northern half” are geogrpahically isolated. This issue is not “often geographic” but completely so. If the INS supplied boats to Mexicans to sail exclusively to the northernmost states I daresay you’d develop a political interest in the matter.
aengus on August 21, 2007 at 12:52 AM
For a liberal you almost sounded sane for a second. Then the “racist” and “desperate” and “ad hominem” comments.
I suppose you haven’t been keeping up with the discussion dedalus and I have been having on this thread. If you think we’re wrong, join the discussion. If you can’t find any counter arguments, well, typical liberal.
jaime on August 21, 2007 at 12:56 AM
I’ve never much cared for KP’s take on very much of anything, ever. Sure, she’s easy on the eyes, but she’s still a lefty. There isn’t really much of anything she’s ever espoused that ever struck me as level headed and even keeled. Nothing I can think of off the top of my head anyway during the AP+KP 4ever phase of Hot Air.
For a very short while though, she did seem to be wavering, and it almost seemed that the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde thing would sucumb to rational thought. But it didn’t take long for that hope to be dashed.
Leftys/Progressives are emo’s. They don’t think things through or use much more than a sembelance of foresight. They just knee-jerk react most of the time to the emotional aspect of things. That’s how we end up with assanine laws by “progressive” liberal state and federal legislatards.
SilverStar830 on August 21, 2007 at 12:59 AM
“Compassion taking the place of rational thought”
Exactly, Michelle. And that’s the central dividing line of our age – in war, economics, border security, education, media, you name it…
Those who choose “compassion” (which, as we on the rational side can see, is nothing but a code word for something far different and darker) at the expense of rational thought end up with the same guilty, distraught, uncomfortable look on their faces that poor Kirsten has throughout this video clip. So sad.
Halley on August 21, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Freudian?
Christoph on August 21, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Dude I think constant ideological b-slaps to the face over her stance on Hilary’s “authenticity” vs. Rudy’s has backed her into an ideological corner. Her opening commnets on immigration were not this blatantly pro-illegal alien and anti-border. Too much pride to be bent to the will of Allahpundit. You can see in her face she does not even believe what she is saying… Anyway that’s my take.
I’d bet you a six pack she doesn’t lean back to the standard Democrat/Liberal line until after you start lacing her about Hilary. Honey Allahpindit not vinegar…
Theworldisnotenough on August 21, 2007 at 1:45 AM
People are complicated, so who knows how it’ll all end up. I love that line from an old Saturday Night Live skit, “Women. Can’t live with them, can’t club them!”
Who can figure ‘em out? Hang in there AP, there’s a nice conservative woman out there for you!
Ordinary1 on August 21, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Over the top are you kidding? It has been the ideological equivalent of Bruce Lee vs. anybody.
As far as Kirsten towing the line for votes, being pro-illegal does not help. One, the middle watches Bill O’Reily too. And the last thing Democrats want is to be labeled the party of the illegal alien. No one breathed a bigger sigh of relief when Shamnesty died than Nancy Pelosi. Two, Democratic pundits taking the pro-illegal stance on MSM cable news does Fred’s work for him. They practically create a void for a cultural and pro American bulwark to fill. “I’m tired of apologizing for being the United State of America.” You’ll be hearing more and more of that the closer we get to the primaries. Oh another side effect is it will strengthen the bad taste that Rudy’s immigration history leaves in the mouth of the base. Kirsten makes it look like she and Guiliani could share a glass of wine and swap stories about their poor, immigrant friends just “coming to work”
Theworldisnotenough on August 21, 2007 at 2:06 AM
Ms. Powers was transparently insincere.
Her position was wholly political posturing; for the Latino vote and attempting to co-opt the “Christian” ethic of sanctuary.
I sincerely doubt she honestly believes what she says here.
Democrats don’t have core values, they jockey for political gain.
mylegsareswollen on August 21, 2007 at 2:06 AM
“They” got to her.
Black Adam on August 21, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Don’t feel all lonesome, AP. It happens to the best of us, all of the time.
hillbillyjim on August 21, 2007 at 2:56 AM
Live, love, learn, and learn to live, love and learn…
hillbillyjim on August 21, 2007 at 2:57 AM
If I’m not mistaken, KP is female. I know I’m not mistaken because she makes me feel like I’m carrying a fine Cuban.
Making a woman who is so sizzling hot she can light a man’s cigar at a distance feel more admirable than she is really is human.
It just proves you’re really a 14-year old boy at heart. As if freaky deaky robots didn’t!
Christoph on August 21, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Oh, KP – how very sad – stuck on stupido!
T J Green on August 21, 2007 at 3:29 AM
KP’s stance makes sense for her politically as a Clinton gal. The separation of mother and child probably does not focus group well, therefore the position is the correct one as long as it is limited to illegal alien parents being deported and being forced to leave their citizen children behind in order for them to live a better life with rainbows, unicorns and government entitlements. Ask her if illegal aliens that have defied deportation orders should be deported, and I am sure she would agree that they should be deported. Add the children to the equation and you will get an entirely opposite answer. Her position falls apart because she has to apply the logic to the broader topic of illegal immigration because of the venue in which she expressed her opinion. Does anyone think that Hillary, articulating the same views, would be pressed by Oprah or Larry King on the same inconsistencies? No, they would both feel that it was the right thing to do as well.
rw on August 21, 2007 at 4:13 AM
So that means she is publicly anti abortion, Bryan?
peacenprosperity on August 21, 2007 at 6:01 AM
According to the Mexican Government, “the American Immigration Services violated the Convention of Vienna on Consular Relations and because of the speed of Arellano’s deportation prevented the consulate to offer consecrated attendance and consular protection in Convention of Vienna Consular Relations.” In other words, Ms. Arellano wasn’t granted her right to counsel granted to her by the Convention of Vienna.
Even though she was scheduled to appear before immigration authorities in August, she decided to take refuge in the Humboldt Park church.
The US Government s to blame because Mexico can’t take of their own people? Is this what KP,Geraldo, and the other “Pro-Immigration Reformists” are trying to tell us?
kiakjones on August 21, 2007 at 6:05 AM
Why is it no on talks of what is actually going on? It is a disapora of the native people of mexico and central America. Those of european ancestry in those countries are forcing, through thier economic policies and corruption, the native peoples to flee for survival. If George Bush and the leftists in this country were so compassionate they would be standing up for the downtrodden and demanding these countries look after thier own
peacenprosperity on August 21, 2007 at 6:08 AM
This whole fiasco was mishandled in its entirety, allowing her to become some sort of poster child for criminal aliens was a mistake which will have lasting effects upon future cases and not for the better.
On another note, this selective enforcement policy is a joke. You either enforce the laws nation wide or you toss them out and start from scratch but all this sanctuary city BS has to go.
Viper1 on August 21, 2007 at 6:33 AM
And the joke is on the American citizen.
peacenprosperity on August 21, 2007 at 7:04 AM
Negative…the kid is an unemancipated minor and does not have the same rights and responsibilities as an adult does concerning the ability to function in American society. He is dependent upon an adult for everything. We make this legal distinction for the welfare of all minors…for example, you would be hard pressed to be a 13 year old demanding ‘your right as an American citizen’ to enter a bar.
Under the current anchor baby mentality (which ignores the ‘…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause), he should be able to either stay by himself and grow up as an orphan in foster care or go where his mother is required by law to go and return to the USA upon becoming an adult with the rights of full citizenship.
James on August 21, 2007 at 8:00 AM
so what will Kristen do if her identity is stolen? Will she just smile as her credit rating is destroyed? Will she sigh in relief knowing that another illegal alien has found freedom? What will she feel if “Jose Powers” Gets a bit drunk one night and runs over a pregnant woman when his car jumps the curb? Will she be alright with that?
How will she feel when her beloved democrats are taxing 75% of her earnings just to bolster up the nanny state because of the strain on our welfare system from millions of non tax paying criminals that are recieving welfare? Couple that with Hillary care and I am sure Kristen will be extremely happy.
And you can substitute the name of any democrat in the place of Kristen.
Wyrd on August 21, 2007 at 8:03 AM
For the life of me I can’t understand why liberals who are always screaming “separation of church and state” when it comes to school prayer, the 10 Commandments posted in a courtroom, or any display of Jesus in the public square, will now justify the church’s subversion of the law in providing “sanctuary” to an illegal alien for a year…
I’m just as religious as the next person so I can somewhat sympathize with KP’s bleeding heart, but, quite honestly, this is the worst I’ve ever heard her on an issue. I generally like her but Elvira Arellano entered this country illegally twice plus used a bad social security number.
I can’t sympathize with that.
C-Hayes on August 21, 2007 at 8:06 AM
There is a reason she is a democrat. Like an onion you peel back enough layers you will find the smell.
Wade on August 21, 2007 at 8:42 AM
Strange for Kirsten to have such a warped and abnormal view of U.S. immigration law; however, according to her website,
Since most of those associated with the Clinton’s administration were unfamiliar with U.S. law, her view is actually quite understandable…
IntheNet on August 21, 2007 at 8:45 AM
I’m not surprised that she said it so much as I am surprised she didn’t try to spin it like she usually does.
KP has some great ideas and insight from time to time. But we shouldn’t be lulled into forgetting which side of the fence she is really on.
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 9:03 AM
On a seperate note on part of Bill’s Monday night show:
Bill, there are lots of ways to prove your points. Bringing in an “entertainment reporter” from Parade Magazine though? Seriously? C’mon now!
jambus59 on August 21, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Kirsten is one of those people who view law as general guidlines to follow, not as specific rules requiring enforcement.
It is not the law she is against. In context of enforcement of the law, it is forcing people to do things against their will that she can’t accept.
All I can say to Kirsten is, grow up.
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Kirsten tried to claim the high moral ground by claiming to be “on the side of the churches.” Since churches are supposed to teach and obey the Bible by definition, then we should see what the Bible teaches about obeying the law. Here are two passages which directly address the subject:
By offering “sanctuary” in opposition to the law, these churches are also violating God’s commandments as given in the Bible. Because they have violated God’s commands in this regard, the Bible says they deserve whatever condemnation they receive.
That’s certainly not the moral high ground. Kirsten–as most Democrats do–has once again allowed her heart to ride roughshod over her head.
EWTHeckman on August 21, 2007 at 9:23 AM
why is it so important what KP thinks? What she said was incorrect. We have laws in the US. It doesn’t matter if you are liberal or conservative, we all follow the same laws in this country. Arellano broke the law, PERIOD. There is no discussion there. Nothing has changed because KP ignored US law.
I think if she wasn’t cute, no one would care what she said. She’d be dismissed immediately. What is this really about?
flipflopper on August 21, 2007 at 9:34 AM
I’m not suggesting giving her a pass, I suggest a bit of sympathy. As I said while it may very well be necessary, it’s not a welcome task to have to turn away “your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” is it? However obnoxious or ignorant they may be.
As for “speaking up for the American citizenry, just as you reserve sympathy for who you feel truly deserve it, I reserve my disdain for who I feel deserve it. If they were rounding up gang members and drunk drivers and booting them out on their collective arses thats fine, I’ll lead the charge. But this is who they deport?
Show me the National guard rounding up MS-13 members en masse, loading them in catapults and launching them back to wherever they came from. Show me our politicians saying their host governments better take them back, give them a trial and incarcerate them. Not boot some moonbat mom.
Dash on August 21, 2007 at 9:36 AM
crr6: Look at this way. Right of center folks do not place as much emphasis on environmentalism because they do not think many companies would literally trash the environment for profit. However, when it does occur, rather than the theoretical view during debate that it may occur, right of center folks get pissed at the corporations and support fines and fees to force the corporation to clean up their mess they created.
Now look at illegal immigration. Left of center folks do not place as much emphasis on enforcement of the law, but when an illegal immigrant repeatedly violates the law, commits violent crime, and becomes a threat to the community, perhaps it is time to get pissed at the government and force them to enforce the law and deport these threatening people.
peacenprosperity: I think you’re pretty close in your analysis of European immigrants to Latin America forcing out the native bloodlines.
The Christian view here is not about obeying the law, but about supporting the family structure. Rev. Coleman repeatedly stated that the religious view was rooted in the opposition the Church(Methodist) maintains to separating mother from child. Coleman weaves around the issue of the child following the mother when she is deported. He doesn’t address it directly.
gabriel sutherland on August 21, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Ramzi Yousef was originally detained in 1992 when he entered the United States at JFK airport. He was booked by INS and ordered to show up the next day for an immigration hearing.
Yousef never showed up for the hearing. The next we heard from him he was fleeing the United States after trying to blow up World Trade Center tower 1 and topple it over into tower 2. Yousef was not stopped from boarding the departing flight.
Ramzi Yousef is one of the co-authors of the Al Qaida manual.
Entering the United States, be it legally or illegally is an incredibly serious matter. Our lives potentially depend on taking this as a serious matter.
gabriel sutherland on August 21, 2007 at 9:59 AM
That’s funny. I don’t think Kirsten was being reasonable at all.
eclark1849 on August 21, 2007 at 10:08 AM
An adult version of Elian Gonzalez.
Let’s get back to the basics. Did Ms. Arellano conceive her son in the U.S., or did she infiltrate our boarder for the purpose of giving birth to her son to take advantage of his ‘birthright’?
If the latter is the case both are illegal migrants and should be deported, if the former occurred she must face the consequences of her actions prior to becoming a mother.
The facts of freedom are being colored by emotion. Sovereignty is not an emotional state it is the state of being capable of enforcing ones independence. We can not remain independent if we condone illegal actions, we are legitimizing anarchy.
Because words have meaning let’s stay focused. Those that enter our country illegally should not be classified as illegal immigrants they are simply migrants. Immigrants are legal guests of a country that have been granted legal permission to emigrate to another country by their home country, while a migrant is in transient from their home country to the country that invited them permission to visit.
MSGTAS on August 21, 2007 at 10:19 AM
CAST YOUR VOTE
Chicago Tribune Poll
Should Elvira Arellano have been arrested for breaking U.S. immigration law?
Yes (21061 responses)
91.4%
No (1971 responses)
8.6%
Should a church building provide sanctuary from the law?
Yes (4058 responses)
17.8%
No (18788 responses)
82.2%
Arellano’s 8-year-old son is a U.S. citizen. Should that make a difference in how her deportation case is handled?
Yes (5479 responses)
23.9%
No (17448 responses)
76.1%
Regardless of your personal feelings, do you think Arellano’s case will generate so much sympathy and passion among her supporters that she’ll become the Rosa Parks of the immigrant rights movement?
Yes (3666 responses)
16.0%
No (19261 responses)
84.0%
CAST YOUR VOTE
LA Times poll
What do you think of the case of Elvira Arellano? The illegal immigrant from Mexico was deported late Sunday. Should she have been deported?
70.3%
Yes. She broke the law.
22.0%
No. She should not be separated from her son.
7.7%
Doesn’t matter. This feels like a publicity stunt.
1942 total responses
Share This
DfDeportation on August 21, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Interesting about the LA Times poll compared to the ChiTrib. I was expecting the LA Times poll to have a clear majority opposing deportation.
I voted in the ChiTrib poll about 24 hours ago. The results appear the same now as they did then.
I wonder what the Univision news outlets are polling?
gabriel sutherland on August 21, 2007 at 10:36 AM
crr6 on August 21, 2007
You’re right, you are insulated, and extremely off-base to even suggest people are racist because they don’t want illegals living in their community.
I’ve lived in my community for over 20-years. Within the past 7 years, I no longer feel safe in going to get gas for my car. Day laborers are hanging out all over the gas station and harrass customers. A man tried to block my way into a fast food restuarant, he appeared drunk and was giggling and speaking Spanish. I was able to get around him, but I will never feel safe going into a store on that road again.
I can’t help that the illegals also brought along gangs. Shops that had been here for over 20 years closed due to the robberies and violence. Crime in my area has tripled. That’s nothing to sneeze at.
Other shops have opened in their place and they are for Spanish speaking only customers, even their signs are in Spanish. I don’t speak Spanish.
I live in a middle-class neighborhood that is zoned “single family.” Unfortunately, my subdivision let the homeowner’s association run out and now we have multi-families living in homes zoned for single. We can’t get the county out to enforce the zoning laws. There is a home in our neighborhood that is running a illegal auto shop from his garage. Good luck getting anyone to come and investigate. And yes, he’s Spanish.
Schools are overcrowded with illegals. Trailers surround brand new schools. My sister knows two teachers in my county and the county is overwhelmed due to the law of “no child left behind.” A lot of illegals live in hotels hince, they’re not paying for their child’s education, I am.
When my daughter was in school, our county had one of the state’s best educational systems. It is now over-burdened with illegals and gang activities. The county is having a hard time keeping good teachers because of this.
I have seen my community go from a nice, safe area to live in, to one that resembles Mexico. I never wanted to live in Mexico.
moonsbreath on August 21, 2007 at 10:53 AM
I have two questions:
1. Where’s the father of Elvira’s son?
2. Where’s the proof her son was born in the US?
moonsbreath on August 21, 2007 at 10:56 AM
She left the young boy with the priest….niiiiiice.
Alden Pyle on August 21, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Kirsten’s constant repeating, “well I think it is” when told it is not a human right of every person in the world to be a US citizen reminds me of my 2 year old who keeps telling me he wants M&M’s instead of vegetables at dinner.
Regardless of the logic, health and common sense facing them, they repeat their mantra because they want an Oompah Loompah, and they want an Oompah Loompah, NOW!. **Stomps**
Alden Pyle on August 21, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I’d rather see Glenn Beck come over to FOX and Greta’s contract not be renewed. Hannity & Colmes, O’Reilly, and Geraldo are also getting stale.
Michelle, Glenn and Dennis are deserving of more airtime…
eanax on August 21, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Eh Kirsten is just guilty of thinking too much with her heart. I still classify her as moderate, especially when you look at the typical liberal lately. On this issue she’s just way more towards the hippie side *shrug*
Dash on August 21, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Hey cool, I’ve wanted to be an American for years now!
Aylios on August 21, 2007 at 12:19 PM
By worse, do you mean, say, like Hotair constantly poking fun at, and marginalizing Tancredo?
I agree.
bucktowndusty on August 21, 2007 at 12:30 PM
There’s one thing I agree with KP on and that is that rather than targeting someone who hasn’t committed any crimes other than her immigration crimes, why on earth aren’t the authorities deporting the gazillion murderers, rapists, child-molesters, murderous drunk drivers that are here illegally?
That way people like KP wouldn’t be coming down on the side of the illegal alien. It beats me why the authorities target such ambivalent targets like this woman when there are about 700000 violent criminals to kick out. Why not start with those and thus avoid the flak from the left?
Aylios on August 21, 2007 at 12:30 PM
I too live up north in a staunchly Blue State where there are plenty of liberals around me.
I also do not want to be casting stones or throwing “ad hominem” arguments around that are not logically relevant to the key issue. Like you, I am also concerned about “the tone” of the debate, and I want to remain focused on the issue and the principles involved, instead of demonizing or engaging in unfair, hurtful sterotypes.
But I have found that even in my Bluest of Blue States, that lifelong Democrat Liberals become “conservative” on illegal immigration when they realize that America is at a crossroads in the history of our country.
Will America be a Sanctuary Nation or a Sovereign Nation? That is the question that Americans are asking right now.
And the lifelong Democrat Liberals that I know personally are disgusted at their party and the Bush machine GOP for choosing Sanctuary Nation as the solution. Personally, I feel that Democrat Presidential candidate John Edwards is right about “Two Americas”. He is right, but he defined it poorly. There are indeed “Two Americas”:
the “America” populated by those (Bush, Ted Kennedy, John Kyl (R-SC), John McCain, Graham-Amnesty, liberal Democrats, Mel Martinez (R-FL)), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) who are not directly affected by the negative consequences of illegal immigration
and the “other America” populated by the far majority of us who see and experience the everyday consequences of living in a Sanctuary Nation that rewards people with the gift of USA citizenship for breaking our laws.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Your good point was the reason why Michelle Malkin started the “Deport Them Now” campaign.”
But since we have no exterior border security and no effective interior border enforcement, I do not think MM intended “Deport Them Now” to be the final answer to a complex problem. It is a very good start, though, because after all, the Feds are not getting the job done currently.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 12:50 PM
An excellent summation of where Kirsten’s “reasoning” would take us. In some places, we’re already there. I grew up in Salem, Oregon, moved away for a couple of decades and am now working there. It’s an eye-opener to check out the places I once knew; the phrase that comes to mind is, “Welcome to Tijuana.” The houses in my old neighborhood are all run down, the cars people are driving are all run down, there are clusters of shabbily-dressed Hispanic men standing around all over the place looking like they’ve nothing to do but look for trouble, and the new pastime at the big shopping mall is, “Spot the White Folk.”
What was astonishing about listening to Kirsten was the realization that she wasn’t giving even a moment’s thought to the conseqences of her “It’s-a-human-right-to-come-to-America” stance. It was 100% pure, unadulterated liberal emotionalism trying to pass for argument and until now I thought she was better than that.
Spurius Ligustinus on August 21, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Maybe KP does not live in “the America that sees and experiences daily the negative consequences of illegal immigration.
I am convinced that an “apartheid-like” Two Americas is occuring in the United States. I mention “apartheid” not because I am trying to be rude or “playing the race card.” I mention it only because “the other America” does not live and really see the daily negative consequences of illegal immigration. The kids of “the other America” do not go to overcrowded school districts where school administrators are forced to spend scare economic funds on foreign language translators instead of more college-prepatory, advanced classes. Parents of the “other America” do not experience first-hand declining home values. Parents of the “other America” do not worry about local hospital clinics closing down due to no revenue coming in.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 1:11 PM
She was first ordered deported in 1997. Her kid is 8 years old. There is no reason he should be a citizen.
peacenprosperity on August 21, 2007 at 1:23 PM
The anchor babies is nothing more than a left wing liberal ruling out of a left leaning Supreme Court. How can you be under the jurisdiction of a government agency when your here illegally and not in jail?
oldernslower on August 21, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Don’t be too hard on her, I think we saw Kirsten throw herself on the hand grenade for her party. She looked very pained as the words were coming out of her mouth. It may be a turning point in her life.
peacenprosperity on August 21, 2007 at 1:33 PM
That Blonde woman is DENSE. (kinda hot though :)
Seriously though, how can you sit there and say that it’s about compassion etc, and advocate for people having the “right” to go wherever they want, whenever they want, and not understand how absolutely outlandish you’re being?? Sure. I have the “right” to just jump on a plane and go to Somalia, or China, or Iran, or Russia, or any number of places, without documentation, without any type of monitoring… Hooo boy. Bill must only have her on the show to prove how out of touch some of the open borders advocates really are. She obviously isn’t intelligent enough to actually be reasoned with.
On another note, ALLAH YOU HAVE TO MAKE THESE AVAILABLE FOR MY IPOD!!!!! I like to share these with people and miss being able to do so.
KMC1 on August 21, 2007 at 2:03 PM
The ending comment by Kirsten was amazing and sad.
Perhaps she will reconsider and correct that statement.
Its one thing to want to change a law because you believe in broader immigration, etc….its quite another to state a nation has no right to control immigration. Simply amazing.
Of course no doubt they still beleive in universal healthcare, universal welfare, etc, etc
MarkB on August 21, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Religion is becoming the left’s latest cudgel in one-worldism. Compassionate Christians would welcome these people, they tell us, and sovereignty be damned. Jesus loved everybody and so should we. If we all love each other we don’t need pesky borders. Kirsten and people who agree with her are the equivalent of those who wanted us to unilaterally give up the bomb back in the ’60s. They didn’t understand that the other side was not filled with love but, rather, wanted to kill us.
rivlax on August 21, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Illegal aliens that have committed no other crime than cross the boarder have caused the quality of life in California to plummet. So nice that people feel sympathy for them but they don’t have to pay thousands of dollars each year in taxes to support them. They don’t have to pay skyrocketing insurance premiums and see another hospital ER or entire hospital closed. They don’t have to watch their state go into the brink of receivership to pay for housing, schools, and the incarceration of illegal aliens. The best thing about the demonstrations May 1, 2006 was that it showed how much better life was without illegal aliens. There was no gridlock. The streets were not crowded with the great unwashed. There was parking. It was heaven.
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM
DEPORT THEM ALL
ELIMINATE ANCHOR BABIES.
IF THEY WANT TO COME HERE, THEY MUST DO IT RIGHT.
STOP ALL THE ILLEGAL ENABLERS.
MAKE SURE THIS CRIME DOES NOT PAY.
saiga on August 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I find this incredible, if true.
I saw this via http://www.outragedpatriots.com/
this morning.
From: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/153645.html
—————-
“While an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person’s ongoing presence in the United States in and of itself is not a crime, unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country,” McAnany wrote.
McAnany cited a 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision and a 1979 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which separated the act of entering the country from the act of being in the country.
“Entry is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity,” the Supreme Court ruling said.
——————-
I find this appalling. This ruling implies that if a foreigner invades our country, he becomes legally present after a few days or a few miles?????
fred5678 on August 21, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Check out the Newt video on the FOX site. He thinks immigration is the top subject with a vast majority of the public and the politicians are completely out of touch with the public. He wants an emergency session of congress to change the law on illegal immigrant felons.
saiga on August 21, 2007 at 4:00 PM
No. From what I understand (and I base it on the news story not the full legal arguments) you cannot deny probation to a defendant based on the fact that he is here illegally because there has not been a determination that he was here illegally. That is, there had never been a deportation hearing to legally determine his status and order him deported.
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Am I misunderstanding what the judge said?
Re-entry after deportation is a felony, but I understand the judge as saying that the mere presence after first entry is not a crime.
“While Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally,” Judge Patrick McAnany wrote for the court majority.
fred5678 on August 21, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Analogize it to a criminal conviction. The guy gets his day in court for the prosecution to prove or the defendant to prove that he broke the law. Here, they are entitled to a deportation hearing before you can legally say they are here illegally.
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Here, they are entitled to a deportation hearing before you can legally say they are here illegally — and use it to deny them probation.
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 4:23 PM
She should have been jailed the second time. “She’ll be a martyr” – good, let her be also a deterrent.
Steven
LSBeene on August 21, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Hoping that KP was not a run-of-the-mill, crazed liberal was wishful thinking. She did not mis-speak, she sincerely stated her opinion. Still, I’m a sucker for a pretty woman.
tgillian on August 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM
These are the quotes, that do not mention deportation, that trouble me:
“While Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally,” Judge Patrick McAnany wrote for the court majority.
and
“McAnany cited a 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision and a 1979 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which separated the act of entering the country from the act of being in the country.”
These statements tell me that mere presence after the first illegal entry, is, in and of itself, not illegal.
i.e., ‘entry’ is a separate act from ‘presence.’
The former being illegal, while the second is not.
fred5678 on August 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I thought KP was something unique, a rational liberal. It seems that she has backslid rather badly. Her position on this one was totally irrational.
duff65 on August 21, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Expel the illegals and their anchor babies.
End birthright citizenship for children born here to illegals.
Retroactively strip all anchor children of their citizenship back to 15 years ago. (I’d prefer all the way back to 1986)
Imprison and seize the assets of anyone that aides, abets or employs them.
This problem is a national emergency that represents a clear and present danger, it should be treated as such.
cmdrsubfleet on August 21, 2007 at 6:46 PM
There is NO such thing as a rational liberal! The only difference between liberals, is what, and how many issues function as emotional triggers for them.
Liberalism is truly a mental illness, I call it arrested adolescence.
cmdrsubfleet on August 21, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Any chance KP will offer her address? I presume entry into her house so I can crash on her couch is a “human right” since owning and controlling property is bad. And freely moving around is good.
I may bring some friends with me… you know, whoever needs someplace warm to sleep. She wouldn’t be so cruel as to leave me outside would she? I’m sure out of simple human compassion she doesn’t even lock her doors. I can’t imagine she’d call the police to have me thrown out (thereby violating my rights)…
Oh, and no checking who I am, when I show up, when I leave, or stopping me from returning based on previous behavior. That wouldn’t be compassionate and I think would violate some of my “human rights”.
This is correct isn’t it? Or is there some detail I’m missing whereby her house isn’t free entry/exit with no controls, but the country has to be?
gekkobear on August 21, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Eventually, that may happen. We let in about what? One million legal immigrants a year? What other country is so generous as to allow a million immigrants a year? What? None, you say?
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 7:05 PM
KP seems to be developing her views on the fly. She’s very likely adopting many opinions it’ll be difficult for her to contradict later, unless she develops the capacity for candid acknowledgement and renunciation that, as you’ve just shown, you’ve already acquired. You made your apology so well, you almost persuaded me you needed to make it at all. But it’s scarcely your fault, if an initially promising young woman develops her politics on the set and happens to do it badly.
Kralizec on August 21, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Any chance KP will offer her address? I presume entry into her house so I can crash on her couch is a “human right” since owning and controlling property is bad. And freely moving around is good.
gekkobear on August 21, 2007 at 6:53 PM
You do well to point out that everyone draws the line somewhere, gekkobear. A woman who too-casually accords a right of entry to passersby is known variously as “fun,” “easy,” or “pregnant.”
Kralizec on August 21, 2007 at 8:31 PM
If I’d used the handy Preview button, I’d have realized I’d forgotten to block-quote gekkobear’s remark in my previous comment.
Kralizec on August 21, 2007 at 8:34 PM
These churches behaving criminally under the guise of compassion (are they offering sanctuary to American citizens unable to pay their misdemeanor fines? They are in fact walking over the bodies of needy citizen minorities, unemployed, homeless, and handicapped in order to dance to the latest trend – they aren’t christians, they’re charletans) should have their tax-free status revoked. This is a purely political act on their parts and they should have the conviction that anyone else does to pay their own way. It isn’t compassion if you’re doing it with other people’s money.
Shay on August 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I remain pessimistic about illegal immigration (and people like KP to understand it) as long as our state, county, and local law enforcement organizations have trained only a grand total of 416 (sic!) police officers using an 11 year old law, which provides free immigration status investigation training. And no department used it for the first 7 years!!
See the sad, short list of concerned parties:
http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm
Surprise – 4 southern Calif. counties have been trained – I wonder how many total officers??
Note that 400+ officers helped arrest over 22,000 illegals.
Now to train the rest of the 1,000,000 police officers.
fred5678 on August 21, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Michelle, classy and logical as ever. Kirsten seems to have misunderstood what the church’s purpose is. It isn’t to usurp gov’t laws on a criminal. She clearly is out of her league. Those churches involved should be cited and fined and put on notice that if they do this again and take this stance towards our nation of laws, they risk losing tax exempt status.
Render to caesar what is caesar’s, and to the Lord what is the Lord’s.
Highrise on August 22, 2007 at 3:08 AM
fred5678 on August 21, 2007 at 8:47 PM
What is sad is the fact that ICE thinks street cops need to be trained to arrest illegals in the first place.
As a retired LE, we all know how to arrest Illegals and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who is Illegal.
The problem is that the Departments order their officers not to get involved with Illegals.30 years ago we arrested them all the time and they were deported with no Court Hearing.
ScottyDog on August 22, 2007 at 11:50 AM
I agree with Kiersten that freedom is an inherent human right. That’s a great thing in which to believe; it, after all, is how our country got founded.
That’s where my agreement with KP on this case stops, though. When freedom is denied you, is it better to run away from it and let someone else be trampled, or is it better to stand your ground and fight for your right? If it’s so much better here, why doesn’t Ms. Arellano fight for the same rights and conditions in her own country? Our founders 230 years ago would have expected and demanded nothing less of her, and they would have little respect for her running away from her problems at home to give us some problems of our own.
That, I’m sorry, KP, is the moral high ground in this argument. Martin Luther King took the moral high ground in his manner of demonstrating. Elvira Arellano is no Martin Luther King, as her record of fraud clearly demonstrates.
flutejpl on August 22, 2007 at 12:54 PM
The “Christian” thing to do, Kirstin, is to OBEY the laws. To paraphrase Paul’s response in his letter to the Romans, Chapter 13, “Be subject to the rulers over you. There is no authority accept by God’s permission. If you obey you have no fear of them. If you disobey, you get what you pay for”. Simple. Obey the laws you get the benefits. You disobey, you pay. She broke the laws and is paying. She chose. She lost. No, there is no “right” to come here. If someone “wants” to come here, there is a legal way to do it. Countless people have. And many of them make us native-born Americans look, well, really bad. They came here and actually blossomed into successful entrepreneurs. Yikes.
Roger Brown on August 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Allah, don’t feel too bad about Powers. A lot of the pretty ones don’t give a damn about what they say. They only care about the impression that it makes on the person they are talking to at the time (he said, from sad experience.)
WasatchMan on August 22, 2007 at 4:38 PM
We have to end the anchor baby policy and the Cuban “toe touching land” buffoonery. Why don’t we all write our reps again? This is getting ridiculous.
sinsing on August 22, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Well, I certainly agree Powers is cute, but on this show she proved that she is also a complete airhead. Gosh, I’m even beginning to believe that Michael Savage, who is quite a bit too authoritarian for me, might be right about something for once: liberalism is indeed a mental disease!
Henry Bowman on August 22, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Her SSN is not “fake” – it is SOMEBODY ELSE’S. If this doesn’t matter, then give her yours, Kirsten.
I think she would be surprised when Evil E begins driving her car and living in her home.
Time to say what is at the heart of it all. “Sanctuary” sounds like a wonderful idea for a few escaping tyranny, toucher and death.
But where is the “revolution”? 12 million sounds like an army that should be able to make some changes in Mexico.
They don’t even try.
Agrippa2k on August 24, 2007 at 2:45 PM
She should never have abandoned her child. Whether he was a U.S. citizen or a French citizen. Doesn’t matter! Hasn’t she ever heard of a U.S. citizen going to Mexico? The only reason she abandoned him was to make a political statement. There would be no repercussion for a U.S. citizen in Mexico or any other country. Of course, if he did not have a passport when he left the U.S., with the new law, he would not be able to return to the U.S. ;)
Neocon Peg on August 25, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2