About time ...

[XtremeJibber2001]

See the quote in bold, as HS would see they "just don't get it".

Immigration activist arrested after year in church

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- An illegal immigrant who stayed in an Illinois church for a year to avoid separation from her 8-year-old son, a U.S. citizen, was arrested Sunday and was being processed for deportation.

Elvira Arellano and her son Saul attend a press conference at a Chicago church on Wednesday.

Elvira Arellano, who arrived in Los Angeles on Saturday after leaving her sanctuary to campaign for immigration reform, was arrested around 1:30 p.m. outside Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church where she had been speaking to reporters, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist, the Chicago, Illinois, church.

Arellano was "being processed for removal to Mexico based upon a deportation order originally issued by a federal immigration judge in 1997," U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a news release.

Immigration activists promised protests and vigils to support her.

"We are sad, but at the same time we are angry," said Javier Rodriguez, a Chicago immigration activist who worked with her. "How dare they arrest this woman?"

Anti-illegal immigrant groups said the arrest was long overdue.

"Just because the woman has gone public and made an issue of the fact that she is defying law doesn't mean the government doesn't have to do its job," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration.

Arellano, 32, has become a symbol of the struggles of illegal immigrant parents and a source of controversy. She had said Saturday she was not afraid of being taken into custody by immigration agents.

"From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want," she said in Spanish. "I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight."

At an afternoon news conference in Los Angeles, Arellano's son, Saul, hid behind Coleman's wife, Emma Lozano, and wiped away tears. Lozano said she is the boy's legal guardian.

"He's taking it better than we thought he would," said Lozano, the head of an immigration rights group in Chicago.

Arellano came to Washington state illegally in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last August.

She sought refuge at the storefront church on Chicago's West Side August 15, 2006. She had not left the church property until deciding to be driven to Los Angeles, Coleman said.

As news of her arrest spread Sunday, members of the Chicago church began arriving to pray.

"People will be sad about what happened to Elvira," said Catherine Archibald, a member of the congregation and a friend of Elvira's. "But I think it is very important now that we mobilize and push even harder."

[Dr. NO]

Funny, throughout the entire article she is called an illegal immigrant yet they say she must not be deported.

[XtremeJibber2001]

mmmhmmm

How dare they enforce the law. Damn it we're Mexicans, we're above all that!

The best part is .. she's been in our country for nearly 10 years and still can't speak English!

[danny p]

seems to me the real problem is that if an illegal immigrant gives birth to a child on u.s. soil, the child is automatically a U.S. citizen (which is prob. the case in this story). That law needs to be changed, so situations like this don't arise, imho.

[XtremeJibber2001]

seems to me the real problem is that if an illegal immigrant gives birth to a child on u.s. soil, the child is automatically a U.S. citizen (which is prob. the case in this story). That law needs to be changed, so situations like this don't arise, imho.

I agree, but that's probably easier said then done. I say the mother put the child at risk coming to this country so undoubtedly when she is deported, unless the child is of legal age, he should also have to leave. After he/she leaves, he'll still have US citizenship and can return at any time.

People like this woman hiding out publicly for a year need to be deported immediately. Heck, look at what happened in Trenton because some illegals weren't deported ... all illegals aren't like this, but a large enough percentage are.

[Bubba]

Interesting question...

The mother was here illegally but the child was born here and is constitutionally a US citizen. The child, theoretically, cannot be deported even while the mother can be. In this case, however, the mother was already under a deportation order when the child was born (and possibly conceived) so does that change the child's status as a citizen under the constitution? I don't think so.

Of course, for those who support having arrested this woman, I would ask how many families with citizen children you'd like to deport, and how? Get those freight cars ready folks. Just because we'll look suspiciously like the Nazis moving Jews to the camps shouldn't worry you. We need to get rid of these people!

[XtremeJibber2001]

Interesting question...

The mother was here illegally but the child was born here and is constitutionally a US citizen. The child, theoretically, cannot be deported even while the mother can be. In this case, however, the mother was already under a deportation order when the child was born (and possibly conceived) so does that change the child's status as a citizen under the constitution? I don't think so.

Of course, for those who support having arrested this woman, I would ask how many families with citizen children you'd like to deport, and how? Get those freight cars ready folks. Just because we'll look suspiciously like the Nazis moving Jews to the camps shouldn't worry you. We need to get rid of these people!

I agree with your first point.

As for your second point, we've went over this before. I'm not advocating a mass deportation, I'm just saying when illegals are picked up that the law is enforced and they're deported (although this doesn't do much good considering our border is wide open!).

To simply answer your question, all of them.

As for looking like Nazi's moving Jews to camps to be shot, tortured, and/or gassed ... this is probably the worst analogy in the history of Bubba. You can't possibly say sending Jews to death simply because of their religion is by any means similar to deporting someone due to their own negligence in breaking our laws.

edit: Kind of curious what your attachment to illegal aliens is and why you favor not enforcing the law.

[Bubba]

Interesting question...

The mother was here illegally but the child was born here and is constitutionally a US citizen. The child, theoretically, cannot be deported even while the mother can be. In this case, however, the mother was already under a deportation order when the child was born (and possibly conceived) so does that change the child's status as a citizen under the constitution? I don't think so.

Of course, for those who support having arrested this woman, I would ask how many families with citizen children you'd like to deport, and how? Get those freight cars ready folks. Just because we'll look suspiciously like the Nazis moving Jews to the camps shouldn't worry you. We need to get rid of these people!

I agree with your first point.

As for your second point, we've went over this before. I'm not advocating a mass deportation, I'm just saying when illegals are picked up that the law is enforced and they're deported (although this doesn't do much good considering our border is wide open!).

To simply answer your question, all of them.

As for looking like Nazi's moving Jews to camps to be shot, tortured, and/or gassed ... this is probably the worst analogy in the history of Bubba. You can't possibly say sending Jews to death simply because of their religion is by any means similar to deporting someone due to their own negligence in breaking our laws.

edit: Kind of curious what your attachment to illegal aliens is and why you favor not enforcing the law.

I wasn't drawing an analogy in substance, merely in appearance.

As for my "attachment" to illegal aliens, my argument is not with sealing the borders nor with having some form of ID that can't be forged, nor is it with having employer verification procedures using those IDs. My argument is simply that you cannot deport the 12 - 20 million people already here and we need to allow them a path to legality and to citizenship. You and others have argued against that, yet have no solution other than mass arrest and mass deportation or, alternatively, saying you're against mass deportation yet want to continue treating all those that are here as illegal aliens and, thus, criminals when caught. That makes no sense.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I wasn't drawing an analogy in substance, merely in appearance.

As for my "attachment" to illegal aliens, my argument is not with sealing the borders nor with having some form of ID that can't be forged, nor is it with having employer verification procedures using those IDs. My argument is simply that you cannot deport the 12 - 20 million people already here and we need to allow them a path to legality and to citizenship. You and others have argued against that, yet have no solution other than mass arrest and mass deportation or, alternatively, saying you're against mass deportation yet want to continue treating all those that are here as illegal aliens and, thus, criminals when caught. That makes no sense.

Very few will think we're Nazi's for enforcing the law, besides you and illegals.

1 - We need to seal the border.
2 - We need a path to citizenship for illegals.
3 - Until that path is made public and signed into law and the border sealed, the current laws must be enforced.

Charging someone as a criminal when they're a criminal makes perfect sense, unless you're advocating changing the law?

[danny p]

Charging someone as a criminal when they're a criminal makes perfect sense, unless you're advocating changing the law?

As much as I'm unsure how to handle the situation being discussed, this is an absolute. If I broke the law today, I would expect to pay the price. If it's a law, it must be enforced, morally right or wrong.

[Bubba]

I wasn't drawing an analogy in substance, merely in appearance.

As for my "attachment" to illegal aliens, my argument is not with sealing the borders nor with having some form of ID that can't be forged, nor is it with having employer verification procedures using those IDs. My argument is simply that you cannot deport the 12 - 20 million people already here and we need to allow them a path to legality and to citizenship. You and others have argued against that, yet have no solution other than mass arrest and mass deportation or, alternatively, saying you're against mass deportation yet want to continue treating all those that are here as illegal aliens and, thus, criminals when caught. That makes no sense.

Very few will think we're Nazi's for enforcing the law, besides you and illegals.

1 - We need to seal the border.
2 - We need a path to citizenship for illegals.
3 - Until that path is made public and signed into law and the border sealed, the current laws must be enforced.

Charging someone as a criminal when they're a criminal makes perfect sense, unless you're advocating changing the law?

I didn't say we'd be thought of as the Nazis, just that if you're in favor of deporting 12 - 20 million people in freight cars, we'd end up looking damn similar.

Charging someone under today's laws makes sense. Hope you don't get caught smoking pot. (Our drug laws are another set of imbecilic statutes that are totally unenforceable en masse and need to be changed.) Yes, I'm in favor of changing the law(s).

You were arguing against the proposed immigration reform law recently, weren't you? How does that comport with your 1 - 3 above?

[XtremeJibber2001]

I wasn't drawing an analogy in substance, merely in appearance.

As for my "attachment" to illegal aliens, my argument is not with sealing the borders nor with having some form of ID that can't be forged, nor is it with having employer verification procedures using those IDs. My argument is simply that you cannot deport the 12 - 20 million people already here and we need to allow them a path to legality and to citizenship. You and others have argued against that, yet have no solution other than mass arrest and mass deportation or, alternatively, saying you're against mass deportation yet want to continue treating all those that are here as illegal aliens and, thus, criminals when caught. That makes no sense.

Very few will think we're Nazi's for enforcing the law, besides you and illegals.

1 - We need to seal the border.
2 - We need a path to citizenship for illegals.
3 - Until that path is made public and signed into law and the border sealed, the current laws must be enforced.

Charging someone as a criminal when they're a criminal makes perfect sense, unless you're advocating changing the law?

I didn't say we'd be thought of as the Nazis, just that if you're in favor of deporting 12 - 20 million people in freight cars, we'd end up looking damn similar.

Charging someone under today's laws makes sense. Hope you don't get caught smoking pot. (Our drug laws are another set of imbecilic statutes that are totally unenforceable en masse and need to be changed.) Yes, I'm in favor of changing the law(s).

You were arguing against the proposed immigration reform law recently, weren't you? How does that comport with your 1 - 3 above?

No, we wouldn't look similar at the least, except to you and a few million illegals. We're enforcing our current laws, not organizing a mass killing of people solely based on their religion.

Yes it does make sense, I'm glad you agree. I hope I don't either, I think the laws need to be changed too, but that doesn't put me above the law ... no matter what my situation is or whom depends on my income.

There are many laws I'd like to change

Yes, I did argue against the proposed reform because I don't agree with the route they were going (apparently so did quite a few others). Sealing the border, changing current laws, and offering a path to citizenship should all be dealt with individually. Seal the border first. Offer a path to citizenship and then finally change the laws .. the last two could probably be coupled together. I think a bill to fully seal the border will pass congress much more easily than a "path to citizenship" bill. At least when they're debating the subject, at least our borders will be sealed.

[Bubba]

...No, we wouldn't look similar at the least, except to you and a few million illegals. We're enforcing our current laws, not organizing a mass killing of people solely based on their religion.

Really? Moving thousands upon thousands of people in freight cars that, out of necessity, would have to be sealed shut? OK....we wouldn't look the same. Never mind, I was wrong.

...
Yes, I did argue against the proposed reform because I don't agree with the route they were going (apparently so did quite a few others). Sealing the border, changing current laws, and offering a path to citizenship should all be dealt with individually. Seal the border first. Offer a path to citizenship and then finally change the laws .. the last two could probably be coupled together. I think a bill to fully seal the border will pass congress much more easily than a "path to citizenship" bill. At least when they're debating the subject, at least our borders will be sealed.

So, you would support the same thing as the proposed law would have done but you would want to see it done in separate laws? OK...the proposed law said the path to citizenship piece woudn't have become effective until the borders had been sealed. Opponents (Dobbs, etc.) didn't argue against that, they argued against any path to legality, calling it amnesty. You (and Dr. NO) did the same, saying a path to legal status and citizenship was amnesty no matter what you called it. I'm sitting here trying to figure out your position but it keeps moving faster than dogs at Bad Newz Kennels when they see Michael Vick coming.

[XtremeJibber2001]

...No, we wouldn't look similar at the least, except to you and a few million illegals. We're enforcing our current laws, not organizing a mass killing of people solely based on their religion.

Really? Moving thousands upon thousands of people in freight cars that, out of necessity, would have to be sealed shut? OK....we wouldn't look the same. Never mind, I was wrong.

When did I say anything about freight cars? How are illegals deported today? I'd imagine we'd maintain the same tactic for our continual quest to remove illegal aliens from our country.

...
Yes, I did argue against the proposed reform because I don't agree with the route they were going (apparently so did quite a few others). Sealing the border, changing current laws, and offering a path to citizenship should all be dealt with individually. Seal the border first. Offer a path to citizenship and then finally change the laws .. the last two could probably be coupled together. I think a bill to fully seal the border will pass congress much more easily than a "path to citizenship" bill. At least when they're debating the subject, at least our borders will be sealed.

So, you would support the same thing as the proposed law would have done but you would want to see it done in separate laws? OK...the proposed law said the path to citizenship piece woudn't have become effective until the borders had been sealed. Opponents (Dobbs, etc.) didn't argue against that, they argued against any path to legality, calling it amnesty. You (and Dr. NO) did the same, saying a path to legal status and citizenship was amnesty no matter what you called it. I'm sitting here trying to figure out your position but it keeps moving faster than dogs at Bad Newz Kennels when they see Michael Vick coming.

No, the way in which citizenship is obtained was not realistic. No illegal in their right-mind is going to leave the US to go to their home country in order to obtain US citizenship.

My views are always in flux. Mass deportation isn't realistic in the least. Neither is asking illegals to leave for their home country prior to citizenship. Fining the illegals and increasing their income tax to account for prior loss and some other actions are realistic. Sealing the border is also realistic ... heck we could use the increase in income tax (only on illegals) to fund "The Wall".

[Bubba]

When did I say anything about freight cars? How are illegals deported today? I'd imagine we'd maintain the same tactic for our continual quest to remove illegal aliens from our country.

They're deported pretty much one at a time. Of course, that would not be practical if we have to move millions, hence the freight car analogy. Got a better way?

...
My views are always in flux...

Enough so that you could fuel a flux capacitor.

Maybe you should post your fluxing views less and think more?