Audio: Elvira Arellano’s son — the Anne Frank of our time? Update: Chertoff’s blog debuts
posted at 9:04 am on September 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
From yesterday’s John Gibson radio show. All amnesty supporters violate Godwin’s law eventually. Some, like KP and that dopey priest who compared immigration enforcement to “ethnic cleansing,” are on their way there but haven’t yet reached their destination. Others, like Gibby’s pal Geraldo, have long since arrived. Besides, they’re running out of moral leaders to compare Elvira to; the victims of Nazi atrocities open up a whole new universe of queasy comparisons. So here’s unctuous open borders shill Javier Rodriguez casually comparing the Nuremberg laws to the suggestion that Arellano should have taken her kid home with her to Mexico instead of letting him be used as a prop for in some ghoul’s empowerment passion play. Click to listen. Exit question: Why won’t he deny that he’s going to try to register illegals to vote?
Update: Our fearless, amnesty-pushing secretary of DHS has himself a new blog, so if you’d like to thank him for deporting her after letting her make a mockery of America’s immigration law for more than a year, knock yourself out.
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:
Hold on while I puke.
Hold on while I puke…again.
amerpundit on September 14, 2007 at 9:14 AM
He’s an anchor baby. DEPORT HIM!
madmonkphotog on September 14, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Rhetorical, right?
yo on September 14, 2007 at 9:21 AM
He’s also a citizen, so they can’t.
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 9:21 AM
I wonder how many comments on the blog will be moderated out, that begin with “Secretary Jerkoff, …”
There’s at least one already.
Jaibones on September 14, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Why don’t they send him back to Mexico with his mom…???…Is that too simple…???
areseaoh on September 14, 2007 at 9:26 AM
It was yours, wasn’t it!
nailinmyeye on September 14, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Is the child an American citizen? I’ve only been following this story from the perimeter.
pullingmyhairout on September 14, 2007 at 9:30 AM
The way they are using this poor 8 year old.
Why hasn’t this been reported as child abuse?
Laz on September 14, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Yes, an anchor baby. But that’s besides the point in his case. He doesn’t want to be doing this. He just wants to be left alone, as he’s said in the past. The amnesty pimps are having him do all of this for their agenda.
amerpundit on September 14, 2007 at 9:39 AM
thanks for the link to chertoff.
20 pesos says my comment won’t get approved.
Love the Gibson audio clip where do these tools come from ?
Mojack420 on September 14, 2007 at 9:51 AM
I think Janet Reno showed us the best way to handle this.
Governement agents should take the child away at gunppoint and give him to Cuba.
There is a precedent.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 14, 2007 at 10:37 AM
That is so terribly sad. He’s an American citizen, whose mother is a illegal alien media whore. For those who say “deport him,” I ask, “Where?” He’s a citizen. It’s tragic. Maybe someone in the U.S. should adopt him. I wonder if he has any legal relatives that can take him in?
pullingmyhairout on September 14, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Everytime I read about these illegal/criminal alien pukes, I can feel my blood pressure skyrocketting. Deport the kid. He should be with his sorry-@ss mother anyway.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on September 14, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Yay Guardian! I just left this comment on the Chertoff blog for better or worse:
I don’t think it’s bigoted for Americans to have a voice as to what kind of immigrants we let into this country. It’s long past time for the real debate to get started. For example, would ordinary Americans prefer to see:
1. A hard-working lettuce picker with a fervent desire to assimilate into American culture and become a U.S. Citizen?
2. A hard-working lettuce picker that feigns the desire to assimilate, but secretly hopes that baseball and apple pie are eventually replaced with burkas and Sharia law?
3. A hard-working lettuce picker with a historical grievance against the United States and territorial claims against the same?
Notice that they’re all “hard-working”, but Americans only want to see 1’s ever, ever, gaining the right to vote. (Agreed?) I understand it may not be possible to identify 2’s until they’ve gone on the record so to speak, but right now we don’t have the same legal framework we do for expelling Communists or Soviet agents. It’s time we rectified that, and I don’t think it’s “bigoted” to want to do so. (Do you?) And really, 3’s should be self-explanatory.
For many of us ordinary Americans, the “hard-working” excuse doesn’t cut it anymore. What we want to know is, when these people get here, do they really want to play for our team (derisively called “Team America” by some) or someone else’s?
When it comes to the 15-20 million people that my co-workers and I talk about at the water cooler – whether illegal aliens or recent legal immigrants to U.S. shores – that’s pretty much what we’re asking each other. I’m in good company; many are immigrants on the track to U.S. citizenship and I’m happy and proud to be associated with them.
RD on September 14, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Actually, you make a very good point.
I would like to know how many of those backing Ms. Arellano’s use of her son (”Do not deport me and separate us”) were busy cheering when Elian Gonzalez was “reunited” with his father in Cuba after being removed from his blood relations in Miami at the point of an MP5 submachine gun.
Has anyone asked Mr. Rodriguez where he stood on that one?
(My guess is, patting Janet Reno on the back for her “open-mindedness” and “respect for Cuba’s sovereignty”, but that’s just a guess.)
cheers
eon
eon on September 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM
How do you deport a citizen? At best, social services can stick their nose in it & take him.
ackrite55 on September 14, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I want the US to declare war on illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. At the same time, I want the US to accomodate legal immigrants with open arms.
saiga on September 14, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Also, we MUSTeliminate the anchor baby situation. It was a law for a different time. Today, it is a loophole to expand the scope of illegal immigration.
Just because the Third World has begun to breed themselves out of standing room doesn’t mean we have to accept their overflow. We need good, smart, thinkers here, not millions of pseudo slave peasants.
saiga on September 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I maintain that there is no such thing as illegal immigration. Simply because these are not immigrants – they are illegal aliens.
If they were true immigrants then they would want to comply with the law of the land and come here legally – just like all the immigrants which are welome to our shores with open arms every year.
And, technically and legally, the BCIS has not approved their ‘immigrant’ status.
Unfortunately we have allowed the illegal alien advocates to muddy the waters by associating them with ‘immigrants’. We should always say illegal alien and never say ‘immigrant’ becaue it simply is not true.
CrazyFool on September 14, 2007 at 11:43 AM
The child IS a natural born American citizen. The citizenship of his parents is irrelevant. Under the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, he is entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.
Natural born United States citizens CANNOT be deported. Period.
As a minor child, his mother could have taken him with her, if she chose. She did not so choose.
His mother, who had him after her initial deportation order, has decided to use her son as a tool for her continued residence in this country.
It is the policy of the United States to allow parents to remain with their children (or the other way around), irrespective of citizenship. This is a good thing, because otherwise, the State would be taking children away from parents without reason or justification, even from citizens. And that would be intolerable.
There is a concept in the law called “natural rights.” A natural right is one that is inherent in being a human being. They correlate well with the biological nature of the human organism.
One of these is the biological imperative to reproduce — to have children. Whether she conceived her child as an “anchor baby” or out of maternal desire, makes no difference under the law, because as a human being, she is entitled to have children by right, and under the 14th Amendment, this child is a natural born US citizen.
Now, the child can leave the US with his mother, if that is what her mother decides. In this case she chooses otherwise. Now the question becomes, as a “humanitarian” gesture does the United States allow her to remain? Ans: No, she’s been forcibly removed. In fact, there is no requirement in law to grant legal residency to illegal aliens who have children born in the USA, and the government is under no obligation to “keep the family together.” It is a compassionate gesture.
Then what happens to the child? This is where children and family services and case law come into play. Possible scenario: relatives who are legally entitled to remain in this country, starting with the father, whomever he may be. If there are no relatives, the child can be placed in a foster home until he is 18. With the mother’s consent, the child cold be legally adopted, which would sever any parental rights (or responsibilities) with Elvira, and is not likely to happen.
Elvira has brought this on herself. The chain of events that has culminated in this issue was under her control. She is using her son as an emotional tool to pry legal residency for herself. She has ZERO rights to be in this country, even though her child *is* a US Citizen, as the government has decided to NOT grant her legal residency because of her child. I’m guessing that her belligerent attitude is responsible for all this.
Too f-ing bad for her and her son (who is certain to be traumatized). But this is all her fault.
georgej on September 14, 2007 at 11:46 AM
saiga writes: “Also, we MUSTeliminate the anchor baby situation. It was a law for a different time. Today, it is a loophole to expand the scope of illegal immigration.”
By “anchor baby situation,” I presume you to refer to illegal aliens having babies born in this country, who are automatically citizens, and thus tying their continued residency in the USA to the fact their children are citizens who cannot be deported.
Good luck with this. It will require an amendment to the Constitution or a treaty with Mexico. It cannot be done legislatively. And there are at least 2 US Supreme Court cases that specifically eviscerate the “under jurisdiction” clause in the 14th Amendment by establishing the legal presumption that, absent a consular treaty or similar, a child of non-US citizens born in the USA *is* under US jurisdiction, automatically.
Now if you can get the Mexican government to agree to a treaty that all their nationals who give birth to children in the United States, surrender their natural born citizenship rights under the 14th Amendment under treaty, and that Mexico retains jurisdiction over the children of their nationals born in the United States, then this issue is also solved. Even more good luck in that, too!
georgej on September 14, 2007 at 12:01 PM
JayHaw Phrenzie,
I’d settle for “take the kid away and give him to his father” now that his mother seems to have abandoned him. Anyone got a clue who that might be? Elvira? Bueller?
Because yeah, there’s a precedent.
Pablo on September 14, 2007 at 12:08 PM
And dude is using Blogger?!?
That’s it. We’re doomed. Though I like that nearly every comment on the 9/11 post mentions the border.
Pablo on September 14, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Pablo, I so wish you’d comment more often. Regards,
Entelechy on September 14, 2007 at 12:34 PM
georgej on September 14, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I have heard some interesting debate on this natural born citizen issue. Based on that debate, I believe the constitution could be changed on this. It was not on the original Costitution but added around 1850 to encourage settlement West.
saiga on September 14, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I just read today that being born in Switzerland does NOT make you an automatic citizen… No anchor babies for the Swiss!
Why doesn’t the rest of the world gang up on Swiss immigration laws? Brutal monsters…
Babs on September 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Lol, as fast as comments are put up on the Chertoff’s blog they are being deleted.
FireFly on September 14, 2007 at 2:46 PM
looks like this animal has something in common with Elvira.
another twice deported criminal alien
Perhaps he was just trying to work the anchor baby angel the only way he can .
Mojack420 on September 14, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Is not identity theft a felony? Mom is a felon regardless, she reentered the U.S. after being deported, that is a felony. Looks like 2 strikes, one more and she wins her citizenship.
oldernslower on September 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Here’s the very first comment deleted, for posterity:
RD on September 14, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Comment pages: