Immigration Activist to Leave Sanctuary

[Miranda&James 8]

She should be trying to lobby and demonstrate in Mexico since this is their mess / fault.

Fake SS # noted

Agreed. She broke the law, flaunted her breaking of the law, and now wants to be a martyr for it. Assuming she knew the law before she bore her son here then she and she herself put him at risk of separation from her.

[Fandango 1,439]

Immigration activist? What we have here is a convict and a fugitive. I surely hope they arrest her arrogant azz.

Took the words right outta my mouth, Big Dog!

[kitkat1 5]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/510904,...07.article#VOTE

CAST YOUR VOTE

When Elvira Arellano leaves the church she has been hiding in, what should authorities do?

They should do nothing.

They should arrest her right away.

They should let her make her case in Washington, and then arrest her.

POLL RESULTS ::

When Elvira Arellano leaves the church she has been hiding in, what should authorities do?

They should do nothing.

20% 105 votes

They should arrest her right away.

65% 341 votes

They should let her make her case in Washington, and then arrest her.

14% 76 votes

Total Votes: 522

[JoeMama 0]

Add my vote to the 65%...it's now 342 votes to arrest her right away

[Fandango 1,439]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/510904,...07.article#VOTE

CAST YOUR VOTE

When Elvira Arellano leaves the church she has been hiding in, what should authorities do?

They should do nothing.

They should arrest her right away.

They should let her make her case in Washington, and then arrest her.

POLL RESULTS ::

When Elvira Arellano leaves the church she has been hiding in, what should authorities do?

They should do nothing.

20% 105 votes

They should arrest her right away.

65% 341 votes

They should let her make her case in Washington, and then arrest her.

14% 76 votes

Total Votes: 522

With my vote, it's now at 368 for lockin her up

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/510904,...07.article#VOTE

CAST YOUR VOTE

When Elvira Arellano leaves the church she has been hiding in, what should authorities do?

They should do nothing.

They should arrest her right away.

They should let her make her case in Washington, and then arrest her.

POLL RESULTS ::

When Elvira Arellano leaves the church she has been hiding in, what should authorities do?

They should do nothing.

20% 105 votes

They should arrest her right away.

65% 341 votes

They should let her make her case in Washington, and then arrest her.

14% 76 votes

Total Votes: 522

With my vote, it's now at 368 for lockin her up

369 with my vote

[keltic 1]

404

[bszoom42 0]

413 now.

I have noticed that most of the people that have gone through the lenghty process legally have little to no sympathy for those who do not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They should do nothing.

14% 136 votes

They should arrest her right away.

72% 665 votes

They should let her make her case in Washington, and then arrest her.

13% 121 votes

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

They should stop giving legal status to children whose parents are in US illegally.

fyi, they will need to change the constitution for that.

Daniel

:energetic:

Not so... I have read a few interesting articles on how the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted and thus the false precedent has been set. It needs to be challenged through the courts in order to be rectified.

Check out this article I found that might explain the mis-step a bit better:

SHOULD ANCHOR BABIES GET AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP?

By Jack Ward

February 4, 2006

NewsWithViews.com

Whenever immigration is discussed, advocates of immigration (legal and illegal) make the claim that immigrants actually aid the US economy. While that claim can be debated, nobody can claim that "anchor babies" provide a boost to the US economy. Anchor babies are babies of immigrants that are born in the US. Based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, these babies are granted immediate US citizenship.

Some parents come legally as temporary visitors but others enter illegally. In either case anchor babies are granted immediate US citizenship. Immigration officials seldom initiate deportation proceedings against illegal aliens with anchor babies, so they simply remain here illegally. After all what heartless bureaucrat would deport illegal immigrant parents and separate them from their newborn?

Since anchor babies are considered citizens they instantly qualify for public welfare which means they gain access to free medical care, schools, housing, food stamps, and all the other benefits of our welfare state. While the anchor babies do not provide immediate citizenship to the alien family, they do provide an anchor for that family - hence the name anchor baby.

Granting automatic birthright citizenship is a huge magnet that attracts immigrants from all over the world. It is estimated that roughly 10 percent of births in the United States are babies born to immigrants. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 requires that hospitals and doctors treat the uninsured mother and baby without reimbursement. That means the taxpayers pick up the tab. California is even more generous. So it's no surprise that 60% of babies born in LA community hospitals are born to illegal immigrants.

How did all this nonsense get started?

In post Civil War America, politicians wanted to amend the Constitution to address injustices to the black slaves. The 14th Amendment was intended to provide citizenship to those that had endured slavery. The Amendment states in part, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." Unfortunately too many self serving politicians and advocates for illegal immigrants ignore an important phrase in the Amendment. That phrase is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

To understand the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment we need to understand what the co-author of the amendment wrote about the Amendment. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard wrote, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Senator Howard wrote the addition phrase specifically because he wanted to make it clear that the simple accident of birth in the US is not sufficient to justify citizenship.

The US Supreme Court recognized this when they ruled in 1873 that the phrase (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) excluded "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." Since the court recognized that the children of foreign citizens and diplomats should not be granted US citizenship, why should anyone think that the children of those that enter the US illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government? The simple answer is no thinking person would. The anchor baby parents are neither US citizens, subject to US jurisdiction, nor do they owe any allegiance to the US. Federal immigration laws require aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign government and to support the US Constitution to become citizens. The parents of anchor babies never fulfilled this obligation and were never "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Both the author of the 14th Amendment and the US Supreme Court recognized that an alien mother and her baby are subject to the jurisdiction of their native country - not the US. The 14th Amendment wasn't created to provide an end run for aliens to defy US immigration laws. But politicians have subverted the Constitution and allowed citizenship to any child born in the US. This misinterpretation is not accidental - it is intentional. An error of this magnitude could not be accidental.

Several members of Congress have recognized that the 14th Amendment has been misapplied and was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to anchor babies. But when the issue is addressed, advocates for illegal immigrants will claim that they are racists and want to punish the children.

The anchor babies have become the justification for the entire extended alien family to stay in the US. This insanity will continue until the Congress has the intestinal fortitude to clarify the ignored phrase and deny citizenship to those that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the US.

© 2006 Jack Ward - All Rights Reserved

Jack Ward was born and raised in the conservative Midwest and for the last 40 years he has lived in the Socialist/Progressive/Liberal (pick one) Santa Cruz Ca. For the last 10 year Jack has written several hundred opinion pieces in local newspapers to the consternation of leftwing local activists.

Here's another one:

Anchor babies and the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCS�1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b ) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

For more information, see:

* The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans, by P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, February 1, 2005

* Illegal Aliens and American Medicine, by Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 - Spring 2005

* Track 'anchor babies', by Al Knight, Denver Post, September 11, 2002.

* Change U.S. law on anchor babies, by Al Knight, Denver Post, June 22, 2005.

* The Mexican Fifth Column by Tom DeWeese, January 27, 2003.

* Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens, by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

* The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion, by Tom DeWeese, American policy Center.

* Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance, by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, December 17, 2005.

* Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11 - Testimony of Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Oversight Hearing on �Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty� - U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims

I take no responsibility for any of the external links posted above - they were just part of the article. Reader discretion is advised.

Edited August 15, 2007 by WifeOHunkyJohn

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

709 out of 980 pick B.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm sure you are all having a better day gloating over the idea that she should be arrested for her evil ways...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'm sure you are all having a better day gloating over the idea that she should be arrested for her evil ways...

Not evil, just Illegal.

[Peikko 1,575]

Nul point for recognising the signs of irony!

What I was trying to convey is, how morally superior it seems to make some people feel to jump on a 'hatred' band wagon.

It's one thing to want immigration reform, to want to curb the influx of illegal aliens etc, it's quite another to gang up and vilify an individual. However, rock on!

[kitkat1 5]

I'm sure you are all having a better day gloating over the idea that she should be arrested for her evil ways...

Not really. I'm generally quite sympathetic to illegals. But I'm not sympathetic towards someone who has not only broken the law what, three times. but someone who is using her child as a shield in her battle (not to mention making false claims that the US will force him to return to Mexico).