Posted on 11/22/2007 1:13:23 PM PST by Dubya
CLEVELAND — Sayda Umanzor was powerless to prevent her deportation, but the shy and illiterate mother from Honduras has had a forceful impact on how federal agents enforce U.S. immigration laws.
Umanzor, an illegal immigrant who garnered international attention when she was separated from her breastfeeding baby, left Wednesday on an early flight from Hopkins International Airport. She left the country with her husband, Marcus Antonio Bejarano, also an illegal immigrant from Honduras, and the couple's three young children, two of whom are U.S.-born citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Why didn't she take her baby with her?
Cons.
I’m holding my breath for a sob story for the illegals who have committed murder, rape and other various crimes here.
Illegal aliens are unfit parents.
From the Chronwatch comments:
_____________________________________________________________
“desperado wrote:
The solution to this problem lies in addressing the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called “anchor baby” issue. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal aliens. It was to grant citizenship to former slaves and children of former slaves. In fact, in 4 separate Supreme Court decisions up to 1982, the right of citizenship for children of illegal aliens was denied. It took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship. Congress has the power, but not the will, to fix this situation. The Amendment gives Congress the power to legislate how the provisions of the Amendment are to be applied. They could undo the misinterpretation, again, if they had the will. Unfortuneately, our present Congress is more interested in pandering for Hispanic votes than they are in doing what is best for the country. Being an American citizen used to mean something, as it should. It has become more the means to access the welfare state.
11/22/2007 4:16 AM CST”
____________________________________________________________
“The Amendment gives Congress the power to legislate how the provisions of the Amendment are to be applied. They could undo the misinterpretation, again, if they had the will.”
So it would NOT require a Constitutional Amendment to solve the “anchor baby” problem.
She had the help of "Julie Myers".Is Julie Myers from the Clinton or Bush administration?What a Mother. Leave an anchor baby. This mother is a POS. We don't need the likes of her in this country.
I don’t think she left the baby behind, they sent her home with an ankle bracelet and returned the child to her, probably until her case was finalized. Then the baby would have left with her and the rest of the family. They mention 3 kids, 2 of whom are citizens. Since she’d been here 5 years, it’s logical to assume the baby is one of the 2 kids born here.
The article is about child services taking a nursing baby away when the mother was arrested. I agree that is not good for the baby...but if the mother wasn’t illegal, she wouldn’t have that problem, then, would she?
Maybe she didn’t leave the baby behind. I don’t know but your count looks right. However, it wouldn’t surprise me to see her leave the child behind. Recall the Mexican who took refuge in the church left her child behind.
The key phrase in the 14th is; “and subject to the jurisdiction”. If someone is here illegally they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Simply being on US soil does not qualify. They are subject to US laws, not US jurisdiction.
The amendment does not need to be changed it just needs to be followed correctly.
Very good question. All this nonsense about “splitting up families” by enforcing immigration laws is just BS, the family members of deportees are not forced to stay here, they are more than welcome to leave with the deportee.
“Immigrant families?” The reporter must be kidding.
If they’re here illegally, they may be families, but they are NOT immigrant families!
Must not have been much, first I've heard about it and I could give a rat rear, hope her well where she's going and may she stay there forever.
true, that and the discussion on the floor when it was passed proves it was not to provide citizenship to illegals, but the sorry a== government never appealed the liberal courts ruling that stated other wise and jorge and the homeland security are happy about it.
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.