Posted on 08/20/2007 8:52:38 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
Deported: Church Sanctuary-Seeking Immigration Activist Sent Back to Mexico
LOS ANGELES (AP) - An illegal immigrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born son has been deported to Mexico, the church's pastor said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The father is listed as unknown. It would just mean fathers who are citizens would be filled in.
In addition keep in mind she could just marry a US citizen to avoid the whole felon excludability thing.
Results after my vote (with the majority in each instance):
Should Elvira Arellano have been arrested for breaking U.S. immigration law?
Yes (9723 responses)
91.4%
No (911 responses)
8.6%
* 10634 total responses
* (Results not scientific)
*
Should a church building provide sanctuary from the law?
Yes (1936 responses)
18.4%
No (8587 responses)
81.6%
* 10523 total responses
* (Results not scientific)
*
Arellano’s 8-year-old son is a U.S. citizen. Should that make a difference in how her deportation case is handled?
Yes (2697 responses)
25.5%
No (7861 responses)
74.5%
* 10558 total responses
* (Results not scientific)
*
Regardless of your personal feelings, do you think Arellano’s case will generate so much sympathy and passion among her supporters that she’ll become the Rosa Parks of the immigrant rights movement?
Yes (1916 responses)
18.2%
No (8639 responses)
81.8%
* 10555 total responses
* (Results not scientific)
Children Services in California should take a GOOD LOOK over this case in regards with “I am the legal guardian” self appointed female who thinks she just jumped in the eye of the mainstream media storm by holding on the child. She is no legal guardian. The child should be removed and placed in the custody of the Children Services. They know better what is in the best interest of the child. And then the “mom” will have a change of heart and stop being the pawn of all these activist organizations, claim her child and be the real loving mom she should be. In Mexico, please!
I wonder if she is waving the Mexican flag while they are deporting her?
Were there any pictures of her actually getting arrested? That’s what I wanna see.
WHAT A GOOD RESOLVE: form a new branch of Children Services to deal only with these anchor babies after their parents abandon them while going back South. Let the States handle this part, and I guarantee when the taxpayers will see the bill the Congress will be forced to change the law regardind the gift of “US Citizenship by birth”.
Get outta here!...and don’t let the door hit you in the a@% on the way out!
We are looking at, let’s see, twenty million of these anchor babies under the age of 18? (1986 Amnesty cutoff)...
Get outta here!...and don’t let the door hit you in the a@% on the way out!
"VIVA MEXICO!": When anti-illegal immigration protesters rallied in front of the Mexican Consulate in Santa Ana, students on recess across the street at the Elementary Arts Academy, climbed their playground equipment and chanted "Viva Mexico!"
May Day 2007
Same reason W. Sutton robbed banks.
Poor Elvira. Not getting much sympathy is she?
I bet Bush tries to pardon her...watch
This is the law on anchor babies:
“The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”
“These babies, under current interpretation of U.S. law, automatically become U.S. citizens and most qualify immediately for a variety of benefits, including Medicaid. Over time, they can open the door to citizenship to other family members.”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=law+for+anchor+babies+
Notice this -which is happening full force:
“Over time, they can open the door to citizenship to other family members.”
She’s been deported to Tijuana - she’ll be back in a minute!
My question is - why didn’t they deport her deep into Mexico - so that it would take her a lot of work to get back?
ccording to other posts on this subject, I beleive this “law” was put into effect to cover the offspring of former slaves, not illegal aliens.
That’s true - but - they have obviously used this law for their own use - please see the link I provided and check this one out also:
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005jun22.html
Previous link all about anchor babies and what citizens are doing to change the law - a Constitutional Amendment:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=law+for+anchor+babies+constitutional+amendment+
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.