Is Elvira Arellano more like Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks?
posted at 4:20 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Tough call. I think she’s more like a combination of Moses, Lincoln, and MLK, but if you want to go whole hog and make the Jesus comparison, I won’t be mad at you. After all, that’s what KP would do.
Your quote of the day, from the “sacred, magical” Chicago Sun-Times newsroom: “I believe a lot of people don’t like Arellano simply because they find her ‘uppity.’”
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: 1 2 Next »
I really must protest any New Testament comparisons. This is America … any references to Christianity shall be considered “Anti-American Agitation.”
OhEssYouCowboys on August 21, 2007 at 4:31 PM
She’s more Rosa Parks, only her the crackers on her bus were made from the body of Christ, not stuffed with white bread, canned beer, and Missippi-style hate.
Oh. And while we’re on the subject, meet the new Frederick Douglass. Or Martin Luther King, if you prefer.
Jeff G on August 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Neither, she’s more like a crook who finally got caught…
Jonas Parker on August 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Virgin(?) Mary
tommylotto on August 21, 2007 at 4:33 PM
All the media spin aside
We have an 8 year old American Citizen, whats my feelings on that –
I’m uncomfortable sending any Citizen against his/her will out of the country based upon an administrative matter.
Its difficult I see the arguments on both sides but as ME, King Eric, Lord of my tiny keyboard relm, I reluctantly but FIRMLY feel the child is the overwhelming concern and would fine the mother but let her stay
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 4:33 PM
There. That’s better.
Trooper on August 21, 2007 at 4:33 PM
None of the above.
amerpundit on August 21, 2007 at 4:33 PM
IMHO, not that many people cared too much until the Mexican flags came out, LaRaza started making noise and the marches occurred.This women is not doing well for her “cause”, the backlash from hard-working ,law-abiding Americans of any race will be inevitable. Marketing the fact that she flouts our laws will come to no good.
bbz123 on August 21, 2007 at 4:34 PM
More like Rosie O’Donnell. No, not like that. I do think she’s kinda cute.
MadisonConservative on August 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I fully understand where you’re coming from. However, she’s not just an illegal alien. She was convicted of Social Security fraud. If one of our citizens was convicted of the same thing, they’d find themselves in jail – child or not. We’ve simply put her back in her home country.
amerpundit on August 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I think of Elvira Arellano as a criminal who flaunts her will to continue in criminal acts. She got caught using stolen social security numbers. That in itself is reason alone to deport her in my opinion. Identity theft is a serious crime.
Guardian on August 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM
How about Jane Fonda with salsa?
Both think they have the right to demand something from a country that doesn’t want them or need their blather.
Leaving your child behind, and that gets blamed on the USA?
So when does she pose laughing at a Venezuelan anti-aircraft installation?
Hening on August 21, 2007 at 4:36 PM
what about JEEEEE-BUS!!!!!!!!
Defector01 on August 21, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Actually, ‘uppity’ isn’t such a bad description.
She is presumptuous because of her assertion that she should be allowed to stay here…she is arrogant in that she thinks she is more important than the law of the land…and she puts on airs of superiority to those that had to wait in line to immigrate legally.
James on August 21, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Or Alabama-style hate. You choose.
Jeff G on August 21, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I thought you were going to ease up on KP, Allah?
Troy Rasmussen on August 21, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Yeah, I’m weaning my way off it. Baby steps.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Mr. Brown, in a word, “YES!”
Jonas Parker on August 21, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I like her fine. I just don’t like criminals from foreign countries in my homeland.
There’s not one matter of law stopping her from bringing her son to her homeland with her, not one damn thing. She could use that international celebrity status she’s cultivated in America to bring changes to her own country since she’s so concerned about her countrymen.
She can parade around her 8-year old, who started to tour the circuit when he was 7-years old, to tug at the hearts and minds of Mexicans, in Mexico. Maybe they could get a TV show, the boy could host. He could have a side-kick, like a big bumble bee or something. In the mean time, whilke she’s making life more bearable for Mexicans, in Mexico, she can wait in line and immigrate to the USA legally, and I would be fine with that.
SilverStar830 on August 21, 2007 at 4:44 PM
How long was she in this country?
And she STILL didn’t learn English?
Yeah, honey. That’s really like, one of the top ten issues (of a much longer list), as to why many Americans have reservations about immigration.
Vyce on August 21, 2007 at 4:44 PM
More like Cindy Sheehan. You know, the son and all.
Absolute Moral Authority.
swami on August 21, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Here’s a must-watch video clip from Glenn Beck last night… spot on.
MT on August 21, 2007 at 4:44 PM
“Immigration rights movement”… hmmm… immigration rights… hmmm is there such a thing as immigration rights?
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Trick question! The real answer is option C. Speedy Gonzales.
RightWinged on August 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM
AP,
about KP, I saw her on Fox Sunday pitted against Michael Reagan. She mauled him. Then last night on OR she had the same demeanor. Angry of the angry left. Is it possible she is abandoning the DLC for the Kos crowd.
That’s how it appeared to me.
swami on August 21, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Funny, I thought she was more like Bonnie of Bonnie and Clyde fame.
Both of them riding off into the sunset after commiting a series of robberies and murders and other miscellaneous crimes, flouting the law constantly.
I submit, of course, that Arellano did not actually commit any true robberies or murders, but I’d say she pulled off a pretty good heist of the public treasury.
Perhaps the MSM should call her Robin Hood.
Of course, if conservatives were smart we’d inform the NAACP that these folks are taking the jobs of poor black Americans while simultaneously alledging theiy’re fellow freedom fighters against white tyranny or whatever BS line they’re running these days.
BKennedy on August 21, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Yep!
BobH on August 21, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I’ve heard people refer to this scumbag all day long as the immigration activist’s Cindy Sheehan. I wonder if it the spread of her message to the United States will be hampered by the fact that she CAN’t SPEAK ENGLISH!? Ironic?
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Well, King Eric, then you are saying everyone who can cross the border and drop a kid, has the right to stay? That’s a lot of illegal aliens getting a pass. Also, what if she doesn’t pay her fine. Are you going to jail her? Isn’t that cruel, too? And why does everyone assume Mexico is a fate worse than death. Do you realize that most of these illegal aliens prefer to live in Mexico and want to return there someday after they suck us dry?
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
ameripundit
thats some right wing dissinformation - most US attorneys understand that putting a false social security number on an application for employment is different than submitting a false social security number to get federal funds
Yes fine her heck send her to prison for 6 months – but the welfare of an American Citizen who is a child takes priority over whether we want a pound of flesh
Wouldn’t you agree?
All the more reason for a fence to stop this kind of tying of the hands of the justice system, but we cannot send American Children into exile – I’ll never be a party to that
everyone has a limit that one is mine
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM
She committed a crime, just like MLK and Tubman and Parks. They should be punished for their crimes.
congsan on August 21, 2007 at 4:54 PM
No.
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 4:55 PM
“I believe a lot of people don’t like Arellano simply because they find her ‘uppity.’”
I don’t like her because she think she has a right to come to the US.
She’s been in the US basically since 1997 and still doesn’t speak english? Oh yeah … she’s the type of immigrant we want! Break the law, get booted out, sneak in again, drop an anchor kid and can’t speak english yet sit there and demand non-existant rights. Jeeesh
darwin on August 21, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I’m sure we can find a nice legal immigrant family to put him/her in.
Mom should of thought about that before she crossed the border to give birth.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 21, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Blake I apreciate your response consider my 4.53 post as a response to you as well.
But let me repeat, the kid, who is an American Citizen, has the right to live here and should not be forced (and I understand where you are coming from and I’m not HAPPY about it either) to live in another country
We have to ask ourselves is this we are the champions of freedon but we force children into exile?
Build the wall, stop this now
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Yet more reason to finally end the farce of anchor-babies.
She’s a criminal, and the fact that she got knocked up and dropped a sprog on US soil shouldn’t mean a damn thing. Her kid’s birthplace should be geographic trivia, not a golden entitlement ticket.
Kick her and her progeny back to the Tienda she came from…
Ochlan on August 21, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Considering that there’s a theory that claims the whole bus thing was a set up, I say Rosa!
ackrite55 on August 21, 2007 at 4:59 PM
It was her choice to drop an anchor kid and no one is stopping the boy from joining her in Mexico. I think she left him not only so she can use the tired old “family separation” line, but because she thinks she’ll be back in the US soon.
darwin on August 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM
He’s not being forced to live in another country. His mother is being forced to live in her own country.
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 5:01 PM
It’s not an anchor, it’s an adoption waiting to happen. Kid, Legal… he/she can stay. Mom, illegal… have a nice trip back to the Tijuana Donkey Show.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 21, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Eric, I understand what you are saying and sympathize with the argument but have to disagree. We need to be firm about the law. We cannot waiver and provide special rights to a few. We must have a system of equal rights for all or else the entire system of law becomes meaningless. What will happen if we allow this repeat criminal offender legal citizenship? By law, we would have to allow ever mother of an anchor baby legal citizenship. As a result of this kind hearted but foolish action busting babies out on the US side of the border will become all that much more popular and in the end we will have only made the problem much worse. This mother has a choice. She can take her baby with her or leave him here. Or perhaps if she likes, she can try to go break into some other country and see how well she fairs there. Those are her only choices and we cannot cave into her unlawful special demands.
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Well, I would always take my child with me, wherever I go. Can’t help but wonder why she left him behind.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Mexico is “home”. I just can’t imagine what life must be like there to cause people to leave their homes and undergo severe hardship to get here illegally, sometimes putting their families and children through that same hardship, unless conditions there were really intoerable. I feel badly for these illegals, but there MUST be border security. Our government is doing all of us a disservice by not figuring out a way to allow into this country those who are needed to work while keeping the border secure.
reine.de.tout on August 21, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Yea, St. Cindy sounds pretty good – with maybe a little Cynthia McKinney attitude thrown in.
eeyore on August 21, 2007 at 5:05 PM
If Mom was incarcerated US Citizen, thereby separated from her child, would we allow her out of jail because of that?
Kid was not deported. Mom was given option, as she should have been.
Minor’s “rights” are different than adults. When he assumes his majority, he can re-gain his full rights.
As you know, if this was one case, we wouldn’t be here.
JiangxiDad on August 21, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Reine, I agree…life must be damned hard down there to make such risks seem worthwhile.
Wouldn’t you say that such people fit the profile of _refugees_ rather than immigrants? Why not treat them as such? Over time, perhaps they will become educated to the point of understanding what it is to be an American, and then, they can get in line to immigrate.
Ochlan on August 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM
This woman is a common criminal, nothing more.
I don’t know why anyone would want to elevate her status by comparing her to real people who underwent legitimate struggles.
PBoilermaker on August 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM
There must be more than that … our schools are overrun, ER’s are maxed, hospitals are closing, US citizens are being killed. ALL incentive for them to come here and stay must be taken away. No schools … no nothing except medical care in life and death situations. NO more anchor babies.
darwin on August 21, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Rosie or Elvira? ;-)
Mazztek on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Let’s say I’m retired and living on social security. And let’s say that an illegal steals my social security number and uses it to work. For every $2 the illegal earns, I get paid $1 less in benefits while they’re working under my number (because the SSA assumes I’m working). For example, if the illegal is making $30,000.00 / year, I lose $15,000.00 / year in benefits.
And you think it’s not too big a deal for the poor victim, who worked hard all their life, is old, and has their benefits taken away because of an identity thief? Typical liberal – side with the criminal, not the victim. And if you’re going to make some excuse because of the thief’s son, don’t bother. The victim took care of his/her own family. He/she shouldn’t have to take care of some illegal’s family, too.
jaime on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Your statements are well grounded – however in the end we as citizens, conservatives must answer the question at the end of the day
“Do we let American Children be forced into exile”
JiangxiDad
Your logic is unassailable you are correct in your facts
However I cannot let American Children who need their parents to survive to be forced to leave our shores
I’m focused on this sending American Children into exile
I have my limit and thats it this tacit erasing of the 14th amendment albeit temporarily for minors cannot go on
Build the fence
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
If by common criminal, you mean committed the same crime as millions of others, you’re right.
If you mean like a pickpocket or thief or robber, I disagree.
I think most people want those kind of criminals locked up. I just want this lady to go home.
JiangxiDad on August 21, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Actually I can live with that. I can live with a lot including ultimate citizenship for most of those here illegally, if….
WE BUILD THE FENCE
JiangxiDad on August 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM
That says it all right there. This shameful lady is not the type of person we want to welcome into our community. I would love to see people try to argue that darwin’s description copied above is the type of person we are just aching to let into our country. The bottom line is she is not and she should never be. We don’t need her and we don’t want her. That brings us back to the crux of our immigration policy debate. Who is going to ultimately be the one to dictate United States immigration law? The citizens of the United States? Or Foreigners? The fact that that is even debated is amazing to me.
If I never heard or saw a story about this woman before in my life and someone gave me a brief description of her:
-Can’t speak English
-Gave birth to a fatherless child
-Gave the American citizens the finger by ignoring their country’s laws multiple times
-Willing to leave her child behind as she is forced home
From this description alone I would fight to never have this woman considered for citizenship even if she was attempting to come legally.
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM
She used a fake social security number to get a job, and didn’t pay taxes. She was ordered deported. In 1997 she was deported, and returned withing a week. A deportation order was issued, and she skipped it.
Her son is 7 or 8. She was originally deported in 1997, and returned the same year. Her son was born here. She made the decision to have a child while being here illegally, knowingly breaking our laws.
Her stupidity isn’t my problem, or the problem of any other American taxpayers. If she was an American, she would be in prison, separated from her child.
We’ve executed people here, who have children. I know of one on death row right now.
Can the same argument be applied to the rest of the kids family? His aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, et all, should have the right to be here. I mean, he’s a citizen.
How about he goes and lives with his father?
amerpundit on August 21, 2007 at 5:20 PM
No They DO want to return to Mexico,I know a lot of them and that’s what they do.They take most of they’re money and send it home to buy little ranches to retire in,and support they’re families there.They visit at least 2 times a year and then jump back over here.Anchor babies are just for the benes they suck off of us.English? that’s for chumps,to speak to them I have to learn they’re lingo(I won’t call that mishmash proper Spanish)
Bob
Bobnormal on August 21, 2007 at 5:20 PM
The only reason I don’t like her.
JiangxiDad on August 21, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Yeah, that’s a right intelligent thing to do there.
Let’s equate circumventing a sovereign nation’s immigration laws and illegally using someone elses Social Security Number ( ie: IDENTITY THEFT ) with refusing to take a seat at the back end of the bus.
I swear, how does anyone become so utterly void of common sense? Born that way? Practice? I’m stumped.
SilverStar830 on August 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM
With all do respect EricPWJohnson, we are not forcing the kid into exile. He is welcome to join his mom anytime he wants. If he’s here its by choice.
I think our nation’s law enforcement focus should be on how best to deal with this overall problem (ie how not to make it worse – which doing as you suggest would do). Why would we choose to make the problem worse by turning our back on the laws? That is how we developed this problem in the first place.
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Its more than irritating but in the end I have an 8 year old American Citizen to think about – he’s my priority not her
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
She didn’t only break our immigration laws. She didn’t only commit social security fraud. She didn’t only take sanctuary in a church, so agents couldn’t get her. She didn’t only exploit her son by sending him to the White House gates. She took it a step further, and gave the American system the finger by taking her show on the road.
Even fellow illegals didn’t like her over-bearing sense of automatic entitlement.
amerpundit on August 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Great points amerpundit
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
She can always reenter the country, this time the right way.
Kini on August 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Do you have similar sympathies for those American citizens convicted of identity theft or social security fraud? Are you all conflicted over their broken families?
Please help me understand. Actually…don’t.
The Race Card on August 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
So, you’re equating a hard-working American’s struggle for not being whipped or forced to sit at the back of the bus, to an illegal alien’s demands that she be welcomed with open arms, after she violated immigration laws and committed Social Security fraud. I’d like to point out that we’re not forcing only certain people to follow immigration laws.
amerpundit on August 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
What about amerpundit’s great points about the same situation applying to legal citizens who go to jail but have children. Should we change the law so that anyone who commits crimes will not go to jail if they have children? If not, why not? It seems to me to be the same argument you are making. Afterall we have 8 year old legal citizens to be concerned about right?
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Your words ring true but in the end I feel we are forcing the child to leave our shores or then we are at least depriving him of his only parent
And his crime was?
I have my limit, I pay my taxes, I follow the law, but I’m at my waters edge, my concern for this child outweighs the ramifications – its true what you say but I feel as a country this is a cornerstone that we not exile our citizens
He’s 8 a child, and an American
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Agree, it’s an awful problem. Until we fix it (change the law of citizenship, build a fence, etc.) we better be the compassionate people we’re accustomed to being.
There is a comparison to be made here with the “innocent” fetus about to be aborted by the mother. Do we have a stake in preserving the rights of that life?
Chertoff knew full well what the effect of this particular deportation would be. In the meantime, I think we ought to figure out a way for US citizens to sue their government for the deleterious effects of unenforced border and immigration laws. Our public citizens should be personally liable for their dereliction of duty.
JiangxiDad on August 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Its late, I’m in the Middle east (no I’m not in the service or with the government)
I had said sure fine her, heck jail her but in the end let her stay to take care of our American
Nite, thanks for the conversation
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM
JiangxiDad on August 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Amen
Goodnight
EricPWJohnson on August 21, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Eric, I understand this, but please explain to me why this is different then ANY legal citizen who commits a crime? Are you willing to turn your back on all crimal law breaking so long as they have children?
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Right back at you Eric. Have a good night. I’m sure we’ll be back at this topic on a later date. Just a hunch.
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:33 PM
The father is unknown to all but her and the son she abuses by using him as a tool of deception and unwarranted self-entitlement.
The problem is, she refuses identify who the father is and has finally convinced her son that he doesn’t have a father. Apparently, he’s just a sperm donor.
SilverStar830 on August 21, 2007 at 5:33 PM
You’ve exposed yourself as a special kind of genius.
The Race Card on August 21, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Kenneth Foster. He has three young girls, I’d say about 8+ years. He’ll be executed on August 30. He was convicted of being a party to murder. In 9 days his children will lose their father forever. They don’t have a choice to go with him.
amerpundit on August 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM
There is another video where she gives the REASON she left her son behind. She wants him to have better (and free) health care
Dems want to open the nation’s borders AND its wallets to pay for their grand schemes
William Amos on August 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM
How interesting. Quite an admirable lady huh. She just exemplifies the type of people we want to invite into our country doesn’t she.
In the end what drives me nuts is the fact that bad leadership gave birth to this woman’s cause.
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM
These are all problems of her doing. Secondly, are you saying that just because the child was born here that we must do everything we can to ensure he’s raised here? That’s ridiculous.
The second we bend we’ll have illegal mothers crawling out of the woodwork with one, two, three, four or more children demanding their “rights” because their children were born here. What a joke.
This kid may technically be an American by virtue of his place of birth, but his mother is raising him to be Mexican and showing him all you have to do is claim “victimhood” to get what you want. She doesn’t even speak english and has been here for ten damn years.
Enough is enough.
darwin on August 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I’ll go with Tokyo Rose or Typhoid Mary.
TheSitRep on August 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Comes off as pulling her pig tails or bitter about something. Not saying that to be mean.
Dash on August 21, 2007 at 5:38 PM
No way! Did she really say?
Zetterson on August 21, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Um .. what kind of woman would put her child in such a position to make such a choice? That’s not to say the kid was given a choice, anyway.
Who cares why they’re doing it, it’s still illegal.
Rosa just wanted a seat on a bus that she paid to board. Elvira is upset that the bus driver won’t give her his wallet.
yo on August 21, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Where republicans loose the immigration debate amoung hispanics isnt over Illegal Immigration. Most new immigrants here are against new immigrants coming and taking their jobs
They loose it over the dems smearing repubicans with racists brushes. They paint any immigrant reform as “racist” and play the fear card to get hispanics to vote for them
Why I find it utterly hypocritical of dems to complain about “Fear” politics when they are past masters of that game
William Amos on August 21, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Video I linked to yesterday
Wants her son to have good healthcare
William Amos on August 21, 2007 at 5:44 PM
You can get good healthcare in Mexico. Why else do so many Americans cross the border to visit Mexican doctors and pharmacies?
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM
That is crap. WE are not responsible for the actions of the mother. WE are not responsible for her son because she CHOSE to break the law. And if you think for one minute that she did not have that kid just to use him as an anchor, well you’re just not paying attention to how she is using him now. ADHD is a very treatable condition and the meds are readily available in Mexico. What is not readily available in Mexico is a bleeding heart society that gives out welfare and medical benefits to scumbags who enter their country illegally and violate their laws.
csdeven on August 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM
No, they are not refugees. They are victims of their own elected but corrupt government. Their situation could change drastically if the Mexican gov’t were not so corrupt. This is a different situation entirely than that of someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who would be murdered for her beliefs. Actually, in my mind they are not “immigrants” either; I think of an “immigrant” as being person who enters this country through LEGAL means. We must have border security; we must make provisions for legal entry of those who are needed to work here (and I believe we do need some workers as our “baby boomers” retire), and I repeat again because it is the most important aspect: We must have border security. None of this means I have no compassion or sympathy for Mexicans, Haitians, Cubans, etc., wanting to enter our country for a better life. But it must be done through LEGAL means and in a way that ensures our security.
reine.de.tout on August 21, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Huh? An illegal immigrant vs U.S. citizens? And even a comparison to a run away slave??
~~Head splitting dissonance and tortured logic~~
As the black man undercover stated so eloquently: Buuullshtt!
locomotivebreath1901 on August 21, 2007 at 6:08 PM
IF he even has ADHD. I would not be surprised to learn that his ADHD is just a convenient pity tag.
Elvira left her son here because she is confident she will be back. And she will. Her hair will be shorter and lighter, and maybe she’ll let her eyebrows grow in. But she will be back—illegally—within three months. You heard it here.
IrishEi on August 21, 2007 at 6:08 PM
OCHLAN – I’m looking at these two comments you posted within 10 minutes of each other – seems to me to be a major disconnect between the tone of your first one and the tone of your second one. What’s the deal?
reine.de.tout on August 21, 2007 at 6:10 PM
This “better way of life” rationale has quickly become to mean the lazy mans way out. Instead of trying to fix problems in their own home countries, people decide to come here … legally or illegally.
We can’t absorb everyone. We must limit immigration to people that will benefit the U.S., not the other way around.
darwin on August 21, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Isn’t it interesting that she has MONEY to live on for the last year, and money to travel around on?
Money for her kid to fly to both Mexico and DC?
And just WHO were the two ladies standing with her, the black lady and white lady? (who seemed to be prompting her…)…
Theres much more to the background of this story than the MSM is reporting…
Romeo13 on August 21, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Sir, you wound me. WOUND me, I say.
MadisonConservative on August 21, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Maybe more like Jorge Arbusto in drag?
Buzzy on August 21, 2007 at 6:26 PM
que lastima, my heart bleeds.
Jeff on August 21, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I say Paris Hilton–she’s an attention whore and repeat offender who finally had to face the consequences of her own actions.
ReubenJCogburn on August 21, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Cindy Sheehan?
Kevin M on August 21, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Well, yes I agree with you. You completed my thought, thanks.
reine.de.tout on August 21, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Elvira Arellano and the government of Mexico are the bad guys here not the USA. The government of Mexico has so little regard for it’s own citizens that they are fleeing Mexico by the millions, yet Elvira and her supporters say nothing about fixing Mexico. Instead of staying in Mexico and fighting for her rights as a legal citizen of that country Elvira decided she would illegally enter the USA and demand her rights as an illegal alien here. Elvira decided to disregard the laws of the USA, not only by entering this country illegally, twice, but also by using falsified Social Security documents. Elvira decided while living here illegally, to have a child. Elvira decided to leave her child behind in the USA.
When anyone, illegal alien or not, disregards the laws and makes bad decisions over and over again there will be consequences that are often painful. Elvira made these decisions and can not blame anyone other than herself.
coldshot on August 21, 2007 at 6:41 PM
I largely agree, but be reasonable. If you’re a peasant in Mexico with few if any prospects to get a job and support your family, you’re not in much of a position to fix your country.
Thanks to the nanny state and limited resources, we can’t take everyone in- true enough. However, can you really say with 100% certainty that you wouldn’t try to come to the US illegally if given the choice between a life of poverty in Mexico with few prospects and a chance to earn many times what you could at home? I couldn’t. Few of us honestly could without walking in their shoes for a few years.
I can’t really blame most of those who come illegally; however the law needs to be enforced- it’s law for good reason. We need to control who’s coming in and how many, and make sure that immigration US serves the interests of the US, not Mexico or any other country.
Hollowpoint on August 21, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »