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

Here’s the very first comment deleted, for posterity:

Close the border!!! Practice responsible immigration in the name of National Security.

By Guardian, At September 14, 2007 8:55 AM

another twice deported criminal alien

Adrian Arriano, 29, twice deported to his native Mexico, was arrested about 4:45 a.m. Monday, identified as a prowler who had tried moments earlier to break into a Newhall woman’s apartment.

Perhaps he was just trying to work the anchor baby angel the only way he can .

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.

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.

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.

Governement agents should take the child away at gunppoint and give him to Cuba.

There is a precedent.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

JayHaw Phrenzie on September 14, 2007 at 10:37 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

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.

amerpundit on September 14, 2007 at 9:39 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?

Governement agents should take the child away at gunppoint and give him to Cuba.

There is a precedent.

20 pesos says my comment won’t get approved.

Love the Gibson audio clip where do these tools come from ?

pullingmyhairout on September 14, 2007 at 9:30 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.

Jaibones on September 14, 2007 at 9:23 AM

It was yours, wasn’t it!