Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Immigration activist arrested after year in church

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Immigration activist arrested after year in church

    Comments are welcome

    Link
    "You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful." -explaining why Reagan liked to have a jar of jelly beans on hand for important meetings

    CO for 1st S.INC Shock Security Troop

  • #2
    From the article:

    "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,"
    Says it pretty well. (Although I hope they make some arrangements for her son to be with her.)

    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.
    Now *that* makes me stop and think. I hope they've bumped up the screening procedures since then!
    "I am not an atomic playboy."
    Vice Admiral William P. Blandy

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't have much respect for anyone that resides in a church and thumbs their nose at our laws. And who made the church a refuge from laws? They're harboring a fugitive and should be dealt with accordingly.

      Send her back. She'll sneak back here in a couple of weeks and we can start the process all over again. She'll become the poster girl for immigrant rights, and the darling of the media.
      Love. Where does it come from?
      from The Thin Red Line

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dolley View Post
        I don't have much respect for anyone that resides in a church and thumbs their nose at our laws. And who made the church a refuge from laws? They're harboring a fugitive and should be dealt with accordingly.

        Send her back. She'll sneak back here in a couple of weeks and we can start the process all over again. She'll become the poster girl for immigrant rights, and the darling of the media.
        Amen. When are these churchgoers going to realize that we are commanded to obey laws.

        I really get PO'd at these parents. They come over here, deliberately have kids on this side of the border so they'll be American citizens and then whine and complain when they get seperated. The child's anguish is the mother's own fault. She should have been more responsible.

        And I get tired of the liberal rhetoric about seperating parents and children and how harmful it is. You know what? That's the penalty for breaking the law. If you commit a crime, having kids that you will be seperated from does not excuse you from the penalty of your actions. And any emotional trouble the kid suffers is entirely the fault of the offender, not the fault of the law enforcement. We don't pardon our own citizens on grounds that prison time will seperate them from their families. Why should illegal aliens get any special treatment?
        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, once again...here we are.

          Once again, someone is playing the part of the downtrodden minority just to scare up some tears.

          Once again, someone has come right and said that they should be entitled to all of America's rights and privileges but should not be subject to our laws.

          Once again, someone is tossing her brat kid at the TV cameras to justify her illegal actions.

          Once again, I think I'm going to puke.
          "Yellowstain!"

          Comment


          • #6
            I think we need to change or at least edit our immigration laws.
            "You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful." -explaining why Reagan liked to have a jar of jelly beans on hand for important meetings

            CO for 1st S.INC Shock Security Troop

            Comment


            • #7
              What is wrong with sending her kid(s) with her back to Mexico? Once they turn 18 they come back without Mom. It is not that we are deliberately trying to seperate a child and its mother. The way the immigration law reads now, illegal alien's children are NOT granted automatic citizenship if born here.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                O'Reilly was debating this last night and the resident liberal kept putting forth her viewpoint that American citizenship is a birthright to every person in the world.

                When are people going to realize we are a sovereign country. We are not under ANY obligation to accept ANYONE no matter how poor they are. As a sovereign country we can deny access to ANYONE who is not a citizen for ANY reason. That's our right. Doesn't matter if you are poor or persecuted. We don't have to take you in. Now, as it so happens we are a charitable country and we allow people in who are poor or persecuted and I think that's a good thing. But make no mistake, we are under no OBLIGATION to do so. We do so out of our own charity. The fact that we all started as immigrants makes no difference. Once the Declaration of Independence was ratified and our country recognized we became a soveriegn nation and at that point we were at liberty to control our borders from there on out. Period.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  What is wrong with sending her kid(s) with her back to Mexico? Once they turn 18 they come back without Mom. It is not that we are deliberately trying to seperate a child and its mother. The way the immigration law reads now, illegal alien's children are NOT granted automatic citizenship if born here.

                  Pruitt
                  Incorrect. We need to change the law to read that way. Currently anyone born within our borders is an US citizen.....

                  http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/FSM_HTM/...itizen_fsm.htm

                  U.S. citizens are:

                  individuals born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swain’s Island;
                  • foreign-born children, under age 18, residing in the U.S. with their birth or adoptive parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization; and
                  • individuals granted citizenship status by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).
                  No requirement that either parent be a US Citizen if the child is born within our borders.....
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I thought it was by law that we set citizenship requirements, not so, 14th amendment to the US constitution does it. So it would require another amendment to change it....

                    Link:

                    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment14/

                    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
                    The one exception would be children born to a diplomat, they are not subject to our Jurisdiction....
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sanctuary history and US law....

                      Link:

                      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...id=chix-sphere

                      Mosaic Refuge. The concept of sanctuary dates back to Mosaic law, which held that fugitives from the laws of man could take refuge at the altar of God, who, as the ultimate source of justice, would protect them if they were innocent. Christianity broadened the idea to include protection of the guilty. The Justinian Code of the Byzantine Empire, for example, denied church sanctuary primarily to criminals convicted of high treason or sacrilege. In medieval Europe, churches were allowed to protect convicted criminals—like Esmeralda, the condemned witch and murderess of Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame—on condition that they forfeit all their property and belongings to the state. The privilege of church sanctuary began to give way during the Protestant Reformation, and there has never been any legal precedent for it in U.S. jurisprudence.
                      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                      “To talk of many things:
                      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                      Of cabbages—and kings—
                      And why the sea is boiling hot—
                      And whether pigs have wings.”
                      ― Lewis Carroll

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Only in America.

                        Pity that expression isn't saying something positive eh.
                        Life is change. Built models for decades.
                        Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                        I didn't for a long time either.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          John,

                          I was under the opinion that they had changed the law. I could have mistaken a proposal for action. I still say they could send the kid home to Mexcio with the Mom. Where is it said in the constitution that citizen's parents have to stay here, or that US citizens have to stay in the US?

                          Pruitt
                          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                            John,

                            I was under the opinion that they had changed the law. I could have mistaken a proposal for action. I still say they could send the kid home to Mexcio with the Mom. Where is it said in the constitution that citizen's parents have to stay here, or that US citizens have to stay in the US?

                            Pruitt
                            I was also under the opinion that is was a simple law change, in my ignorance I had forgotten that it was in a constitutional admendment that the citizenship rules were set. Makes changing it very difficult.....

                            I'd say you can't deport a US citizen (the child) to a foreign country, just like the government can't make you or me leave the country.

                            We can see that the parents (illegal aliens) don't have the right to stay in the country, hence the deportation, which I support. The question is why did the parent wish that the child stay in this country?
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              John,

                              Since when is sending a child with its parents deportation? If the parents want the kid to stay in the US, let them put it up for adoption or have a legal resident/citizen appointed guardian. What the parents seem to want is to stay in the US, the kid is secondary to the issue.

                              Pruitt
                              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X