Elvira Arellano deported, Chicago pastor says

[kitkat1 5]

I've said that a court should consider all the circumstances, particularly her 8 yr. old son, as to whether to deport her or not. It's really pointless to carry this argument out any further than that.

I get your thinking Steve, but the bottom line is the law. And the law doesn't have exceptions for illegal immigrants simply because they gave birth to a child on US soil. (That's why the majority of illegal immigrants in Chicago do their best to stay under the radar and are hoping for immigration reform or a chance when their children are old enough to petition for them). You have to remember that she chose to put herself in the limelight and the ending was a clear, forgone conclusion. And since she is free to take her child to Mexico, there's not much left to discuss.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wasn't sure if anyone else had mentioned this.

H.R. 2182: For the relief of Elvira Arellano, Juan Carlos Arreguin, Martin Guerrero Barrios, Maria I....

HR 2182 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2182

For the relief of Elvira Arellano, Juan Carlos Arreguin, Martin Guerrero Barrios, Maria I. Benitez, Francisco J. Castro, Jaime Cruz, Martha Davalos, Herminion Davalos, Disifredo Adan Delvalle, Angel Espinoza, Veronica Lopez, Francisca Lino, Maria A. Martin, Juan Jose Mesa, Maria Natividad Loza, Blanca E. Nolte, Domenico Papaianni, Romina Perea, Juan Jose Rangel Sr., Dayron S. Rios Arenas, Araceli Contreras-Del Toro, Doris Oneida Ulloa, Bladimir I. Caballero, Arnulfo Alfaro, Consuelo and Juan Manuel Castellanos, Eliseo Pulido, Gilberto Romero, Maria Liliana Rua-Saenz, Aurelia and Tomas F. Martinez-Garcia, Flor Crisostomo; Fatuma Karuma, Stanislaw Rychtarczyk, Slobodan Radanovich, and Agustin Sanchez-Dominguez.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 3, 2007

Mr. RUSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Elvira Arellano, Juan Carlos Arreguin, Martin Guerrero Barrios, Maria I. Benitez, Francisco J. Castro, Jaime Cruz, Martha Davalos, Herminion Davalos, Disifredo Adan Delvalle, Angel Espinoza, Veronica Lopez, Francisca Lino, Maria A. Martin, Juan Jose Mesa, Maria Natividad Loza, Blanca E. Nolte, Domenico Papaianni, Romina Perea, Juan Jose Rangel Sr., Dayron S. Rios Arenas, Araceli Contreras-Del Toro, Doris Oneida Ulloa, Bladimir I. Caballero, Arnulfo Alfaro, Consuelo and Juan Manuel Castellanos, Eliseo Pulido, Gilberto Romero, Maria Liliana Rua-Saenz, Aurelia and Tomas F. Martinez-Garcia, Flor Crisostomo; Fatuma Karuma, Stanislaw Rychtarczyk, Slobodan Radanovich, and Agustin Sanchez-Dominguez.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (B) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the beneficiaries described in subsection shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.

(B) Adjustment of Status- If a beneficiary described in subsection enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection ©, he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

© Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees- Subsections (a) and (B) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number- Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to a beneficiary described in subsection , the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of the beneficiary's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of the beneficiary's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

(e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain Relatives- The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of any beneficiary described in subsection shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Beneficiaries- The beneficiaries described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Elvira Arellano.

(2) Juan Carlos Arreguin.

(3) Martin Guerrero Barrios.

(4) Maria I. Benitez.

(5) Francisco J. Castro.

(6) Jaime Cruz.

(7) Martha Davalos.

(8) Herminion Davalos.

(9) Disifredo Adan Delvalle.

(10) Angel Espinoza.

(11) Veronica Lopez.

(12) Francisca Lino.

(13) Maria A. Martin.

(14) Juan Jose Mesa.

(15) Maria Natividad Loza.

(16) Blanca E. Nolte.

(17) Domenico Papaianni.

(18) Romina Perea.

(19) Juan Jose Rangel Sr.

(20) Dayron S. Rios Arenas.

(21) Araceli Contreras-Del Toro.

(22) Doris Oneida Ulloa.

(23) Bladimir I. Caballero.

(24) Arnulfo Alfaro.

(25) Consuelo and Juan Manuel Castellanos.

(26) Eliseo Pulido.

(27) Gilberto Romero.

(28) Maria Liliana Rua-Saenz.

(29) Aurelia and Tomas F. Martinez-Garcia.

(30) Flor Crisostomo.

(31) Fatuma Karuma.

(32) Stanislaw Rychtarczyk.

(33) Slobodan Radanovich.

(34) Agustin Sanchez-Dominguez.

[lucyrich 20]

Is it possible that she could not take her son? OK, he's a USC so he does not need a visa to Mexico, but (I don't know the original story) - may be there was no permission from the father, or something else?

A US Citizen can only go to Mexico visa-free for a limited time as a tourist. A US citizen can't immigrate to Mexico to live and work permanently without going through the Mexican immigration process, which involves lots of paperwork and proving one's eligibility.

It's fairly easy to concoct a hypothetical scenario where a child would be ineligible to live in the country of his parent's citizenship. I doubt that's the case here, though, and I don't think such cases happen often.

I don't know much about this case, nor about Mexican citizenship laws, but it seems possible that the son might be a dual Mexican/US citizen, Mexican by parenthood, US by place of birth. Even if he's not a citizen, he may have some right to immigrate to Mexico because he's the child of a Mexican citizen.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

but why can;t she take her son with her? That I don't get....

Ding Ding Ding... That is the most obvious question! And nobody wants to answer it... She can take her illegal ####### and her American son back to Mexico. What's the problem? While she’s there, she should consider getting her paperwork together and file legitimately like everybody else! Hello!

We should start charging organizations, agencies, and individuals who illegally shelter and refuge illegal aliens a fine and charge them with domestic terrorism (jail time) IMO.

We have an out of control problem...

One more thing, we should stop granting citizenship to non-American parents simply because their children were born here in the states. That's ridiculous!!!

Edited August 21, 2007 by Sheriff Uling

[natty bumppo 297]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

[Dan J 277]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

Don't you love how the same people who are all against gay marriage to preserve "family" have no sympathy for a family being broken up due to immigration issues?

[natty bumppo 297]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

Don't you love how the same people who are all against gay marriage to preserve "family" have no sympathy for a family being broken up due to immigration issues?

The mom broke up the family.

She chose to leave the child behind. The guilt belongs to mom ... nobody else or any other entity ... but mom.

[Dan J 277]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

Don't you love how the same people who are all against gay marriage to preserve "family" have no sympathy for a family being broken up due to immigration issues?

The mom broke up the family.

She chose to leave the child behind. The guilt belongs to mom ... nobody else or any other entity ... but mom.

And you missed the point entirely.

[GaryC 7]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

Don't you love how the same people who are all against gay marriage to preserve "family" have no sympathy for a family being broken up due to immigration issues?

About as much sympathy as I have for a family broken up because the parents go to jail for breaking the law. It's tragic yes, but does not infer that a parent should be treated differently because they are a parent.

[GaryC 7]

I would like to remind everyone that this woman committed a felony. She was here illegally, was deported and came back. The second offence is a felony. She is lucky all she got was deported.

Immigration law contains both civil and criminal provisions. The removal of aliens,

however severe its consequences, has been “consistently classified as a civil rather than

a criminal procedure” by the courts.1 On the other hand, the Immigration and Nationality

Act (INA) contains several provisions that are unambiguously penal in nature, subjecting

offenders to imprisonment and/or fine under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

Certain immigration violations carry civil and criminal consequences. An alien who

enters or attempts to enter the United States without authorization is not only subject to

removal or exclusion but is also subject to criminal prosecution, with a first offense

subject to six months’ imprisonment (a misdemeanor) and any subsequent offense

punishable by up to two years’ incarceration (a felony).

In 2004, for example, the Border Patrol seized approximately 1.16 million aliens who

unlawfully entered or attempted to enter the United States from Mexico. Department of

Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, YEARBOOK OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS:

2004 (2005), at Table 38. Only about 16,000 aliens (mostly serial offenders) were convicted of

the crime of unlawful entry. Id. at Table 50.

5 See, e.g., United States v. Doyle, 181 F. 2d 479 (2nd Cir. 1950).

subject to six months’ imprisonment (a misdemeanor) and any subsequent offense

punishable by up to two years’ incarceration (a felony).2

Although an alien who unlawfully enters the United States is potentially subject to

removal and criminal prosecution, an alien found unlawfully present in the U.S. is

typically subject only to removal. Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an

alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing

the U.S. while a removal order was outstanding.3

The availability of both criminal sanctions and removal authority for immigration

violations does not mean that both tools will be used concomitantly, especially if one tool

can more easily be employed than the other. The vast majority of aliens apprehended by

the Border Patrol unlawfully entering the United States are either removed or (far more

often) permitted to voluntarily depart in lieu of removal without being criminally

prosecuted.4 This is largely because pursuing criminal charges in all cases would place a

heavy burden upon prosecutorial resources and detention facilities. Unlawful entry

prosecutions of aliens found in the interior of the U.S. are even rarer. Such cases are

difficult to prove, as the government must present affirmative evidence that an alien

unlawfully entered the U.S. It cannot base its case solely upon the inference that the

accused’s unauthorized presence in the U.S. was likely due to him unlawfully entering the

country;5 an inference that might not always be accurate (e.g., with respect to a lawfully

admitted alien who overstays his visa).

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2006,0509-crs.pdf

[natty bumppo 297]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

Don't you love how the same people who are all against gay marriage to preserve "family" have no sympathy for a family being broken up due to immigration issues?

The mom broke up the family.

She chose to leave the child behind. The guilt belongs to mom ... nobody else or any other entity ... but mom.

And you missed the point entirely.

so instead of reiterating your point into different words ... nice.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One more thing, we should stop granting citizenship to non-American parents simply because their children were born here in the states. That's ridiculous!!!

This is Off-Topic...but...

The citizenship clause (also known as the naturalization clause[1]) refers to a provision, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution at section one, clause 1. This clause represented Congress's reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all people born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined this principle in the Constitution in order to stop the Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional for want of congressional authority to pass such a law, or from a future Congress altering it by a bare majority vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

...

United States Supreme Court in 1857 that ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

...

Those were very good reasons to have that clause part of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Ban Hammer 14,283]

[GaryC 7]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

Don't you love how the same people who are all against gay marriage to preserve "family" have no sympathy for a family being broken up due to immigration issues?

The mom broke up the family.

She chose to leave the child behind. The guilt belongs to mom ... nobody else or any other entity ... but mom.

And you missed the point entirely.

Because you had no point. All you tried to do was make a link between people that don't like gay marriage and a felonious gate crasher having to make the choice between taking her child with her or leaving it behind. There is no linkage except in your own mind.

[Dan J 277]

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

Looks like mom abandoned her child.

Set him up with other care and walked away courtesy of her own law breaking activities. The choice to leave her son behind … well she did make that choice.

Don't you love how the same people who are all against gay marriage to preserve "family" have no sympathy for a family being broken up due to immigration issues?

The mom broke up the family.

She chose to leave the child behind. The guilt belongs to mom ... nobody else or any other entity ... but mom.

And you missed the point entirely.

Because you had no point. All you tried to do was make a link between people that don't like gay marriage and a felonious gate crasher having to make the choice between taking her child with her or leaving it behind. There is no linkage except in your own mind.

So I was too abstract for you then? There are many people who make the argument against gay marriage on the basis of preservation of family. But many of those same people are willing to throw away preservation of family when nationalism comes into play. Which makes the arguing for the preservation of family hypocritical if your willing to throw it away in a situation where a family was is seperated by a crime. When that crime isn't necessarily morally reprehensible. We are not talking about murder, violence, or theft.

If you are really are sympathetic, show it, instead of your nationalistic arrogance.