Immigration activist defying ruling (federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed on her behalf)

AP on Yahoo ^ | 9/30/06 | Sophia Tareen - ap

[NormsRevenge]

CHICAGO - An immigration activist who took refuge in a church after the government ordered her deported to Mexico said Saturday she will remain holed up there, even though a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed on her behalf.

The lawsuit against the government had contended that deporting Arellano would effectively deport her son Saul, who is a U.S. citizen, and would violate his rights. U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve ruled Friday that although the 7-year-old would face hardships, they weren't of constitutional magnitude.

Arellano, 31, and her son have been living at the Adalberto United Methodist Church since mid-August.

"I want to stay here with my son," Arellano said in Spanish to reporters at the church. "I'm not just fighting for my situation. ... You can't separate families."

The Rev. Walter L. Coleman, the Adalberto pastor who sued in August on the woman's behalf, said he and Arellano are in contact with other families in similar situations and are considering filing a class-action lawsuit, he said.

Coleman said he is not concerned that federal officials will enter the church to remove Arellano.

"We fear God more than we fear Homeland Security," he said.

Arellano was to surrender to federal authorities for deportation Aug. 15 but instead sought refuge in the small church, in a heavily Puerto Rican neighborhood.

She first was arrested in 1997 soon after crossing into the United States and was sent back to Mexico.

She returned and was arrested again in 2002 and convicted of working as a cleaning woman at O'Hare International Airport under a false Social Security number.

[NormsRevenge]

Elvira Arellano, who took sanctuary at Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago August 15, 2006 holds her son Saulito Arellano as she discusses the status of her attempt to avoid deportation Saturday, Sept. 30, 2006 before evening services at the church. A federal judge dismissed her lawsuit against the government Friday ruling that deporting her would not violate the constitutional rights of her 7-year old son, an American citizen. Arellano took refuge at the church which granted her sanctuary, in lieu of appearing at the immigration office for deportation as directed by federal authorities. (AP Photo/M Spencer Green)

[NurdlyPeon]

Well, looks like the anchor is being weighed.

[rawcatslyentist]

Time to drop the anchor on the anchor baby scam!

Ifn yer parents dont speak English, and they came here just to hatch you, you aren't a citizen, you're a welfare scam!

[montag813]

ruling that deporting her would not violate the constitutional rights of her 7-year old son, an American citizen.

Her son is NOT an American citizen. The 14th Amendment is crystal clear on this matter...

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.

"Anchor babies" are not subject to jurisdiction as their mother is a citizen of a foreign nation, and moreover is within the United States illegally. If the Ambassador of Mexico's wife has a child in NYU hospital the child is a Mexican citizen. This woman's son, Saulito, is a Mexican citizen. Deport them now.

[montag813]

"We fear God more than we fear Homeland Security," he said.

I fear religious authorities who cynically use their position to violate the law. Their church is not diplomatic territory. Federal agents must this moment enter the church, remove the two Mexicans, and return them to their native land.

[montag813]

She first was arrested in 1997 soon after crossing into the United States and was sent back to Mexico. She returned and was arrested again in 2002 and convicted of working as a cleaning woman at O'Hare International Airport under a false Social Security number.

If she stays that is 3 felonies. Does Illinois have a "3 strikes" law?

[NurdlyPeon]

A good day to be a Republican, a small step in right direction, and a reason to smile.

[jwparkerjr]

At the risk of nitpicking, let me point out the headline and article are misleading. The judge did not dismiss a lawsuit on her behalf. The lawsuit, on her behalf, was dismissed by the judge.

[NewRomeTacitus]

Federal agents must this moment enter the church, remove the two Mexicans, and return them to their native land.

Surely you're not expecting the United State's Attorney General to uphold the law here? They might water down his drinks the next time he vacations at Cancun. They may go as far as making snide remarks about turning on a "homey".

[raybbr]

Ifn yer parents dont speak English, and they came here just to hatch you, you aren't a citizen, you're a welfare scam!

Nah! You are just a "new American".

THE "NEW AMERICAN"..........<

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[raybbr]

I wonder what prison the boy's father is in?

[upier]

This may be the perfect time to file a lawsuit that states that her child is not a citizen and therefore she can be deported. We shouldn't miss this chance. Any lawyers out there that know the best way to approach this?

[gubamyster]

ping

[A CA Guy]

[azhenfud]

"Coleman said he is not concerned that federal officials will enter the church to remove Arellano."

No, but feds should cut all services into the church and prohibit anyone's entry who'd be carrying any food or supplies for the criminal.