Deported Mother has it Wrong

Saul Arellano is here in the United States without his mother. The United States gave Saul citizenship in violation of our Constitution because he was born here and this country is a sucker. Saul’s mother was a felony illegal immigrant who held up for a year in a church to avoid deportation. She was then captured and removed from our country but she left her little faux citizen kid behind. Elvira Arellano has been on a crusade against the laws of the United States and she has blamed the US for all her woes. This is like a bank robber blaming the police because he had to go to jail. Little Saul was used as a pawn by pro-anarchy groups desiring to ignore all the laws of the US with regard to immigration. They paraded the kid, who appeared as if he would rather be doing something else, around the Capitol to try and influence Speaker Pelosi to support the cause of the ILLEGALS. They claimed that if they did not receive support now, the Democrats would not get their (the Latino community) next November.

This means that even though there were no plans to revive the immigration amnesty bill, it will certainly rear its ugly head again. The Democrats would sell their mothers to Satan for votes (and many already have). As for Elvira, she was again playing on emotions by blaming the US for HER problems with obeying law:

“He is a boy who has been suffering because the U.S. government told his mother she couldn’t stay in their country anymore because she was undocumented,” she said. Yahoo News

Elvira, you are totally wrong on this one. Let me rephrase it so that it is correct. He is a boy who is suffering because his mother abandoned him. Here is a boy who had a mother that was told she had to leave because she broke the law and instead of taking her son, she left him here.

Now this is much more correct. Personally, the only way I want them to see each other is in Mexico. I don’t care if they ever see each other again if it means allowing here here. This is a shining example of how the immigration bill will allow amnesty. The bill will allow people like Elvira to stay here because she has a jackpot kid and they will not want t break them up. Screw them, if the parents do not want to separate then they should take the kids with them. A person should not be able to benefit from a crime, which is what all these ILLEGALS want to do.

Reform must start with a few simple tasks before we even consider what to do with those who are here ILLEGALLY. We must clearly define the 14th Amendment in the terms of the people who proposed it. It does no good to apply it in a fashion different than the specifically stated intents of the author. The American people are not being served if the Amendment is not being enforced the way it was stated when they ratified it. Anyone who is not born to citizens should not be citizens as the Amendment intended when it was authored. Additionally, since we cannot go around and revoke millions of citizenships of those who have already benefited from the stupidity of the SCOTUS, we should just do so when the parents of a kid born here are captured. We look and if the parents are ILLEGAL we revoke the kid’s citizenship and there will be no more crying about separating families by deporting parents. Then, they can all leave together. New births would NOT be made citizens.

Additionally, we need to build a wall (good fences make good neighbors) and we should heavily fine businesses that hire ILLEGALS and prevent such businesses from doing business with the government for a period of time. We need to deport those who are caught by refusing to allow them out until their deportation hearing. If they cannot prove they are legal they can stay in jail until the hearing and then be shipped home. Any ILLEGAL who commits a crime should receive a minimum of 5 years in jail regardless of the crime. It should be a mandatory 5 year sentence for committing a crime while ILLEGAL. We have such stuff with hate crimes and drug offenses so surely we can add the “while ILLEGAL” tag to the books.

Then, and only then will we consider what to do with those here. It will not involve paying fines or back taxes. There must be a sanction that cannot be waived or removed by the government for any reason for those here ILLEGALLY. People who came here and were working through the appropriate process will not be affected unless they break the law. This includes people who were here to marry service members who were killed in duty or families of those who serve honorably. Matter of fact, completion of Eight years of serve of two tours of combat should confer automatic citizenship for any immigrant who joins the service.

We might also consider conscripting the ILLEGALS we catch here. Force them to go to war for their transgression. They will be ineligible for citizenship because they are repaying a debt.

Elvira is not winning any friends. Those of us opposed to the open borders do not really care what grief SHE caused her family.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

14 Responses to “Deported Mother has it Wrong”

  1. Billy Joe says:

    The 14th amendment says, “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.”

    Historically, this has been interpreted as meaning anyone born in the US. so I’m not sure why you declare this to be a “violation of our Constitution” and call an American citizen (whether you like him or not) a “little faux citizen kid”.

    interesting factoid… I hear Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby.

  2. Big Dog says:

    I am aware of what the amendment says and I am also familiar with what the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. It means a person who has allegiance to the US, not just a physical presence here. The man who wrote the Amendment, Sen Jacob Howard, wrote this introductory clause to the amendment:

    [T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    Will not include foreigners, aliens, families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. This is what the man who wrote it intended it to be and this is how it was accepted and presented for ratification. [emphasis mine]

    This is what the US attorney said in 1862:

    The opinion of US Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862 said: “The Constitution does not make the citizen; it is in fact made by them.” If so, how then does an alien make a citizen of the United States?

    As for the courts historically ruling this to mean anyone born here, that is incorrect:

    By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence.

    The amendment was actually changed to its current form by a footnote in a ruling on another case.

    One must read what the authors and those who debated wrote in support of their amendments to understand what they were intended to do. It is clear that we are not doing what was intended.

    Federalist Blog

  3. Schatzee says:

    Exceptionally well said – it is a travesty of justice and a perversion of our Constitution that people believe crawling over the border and popping out a child creates a citizen.

  4. Billy Joe says:

    You know, BD, on the face of it, this is actually a decent rebuttal for once.

    What should we do with the precedent that has developed over the years allowing all babies born in the US to become citizens automatically?

    Should all such babies/Americans be stripped of their citizenship and forced to re-apply from their country of origin or should they be granted amnesty?

    I wonder what Our Lady of Concentration Camps, anchor baby Michelle Malkin, would think about going back to live in the Philippines – a country I don’t believe she has ever lived in – while waiting for her US citizenship to be approved? Would her children be considered American or would they need to go back with her?

    If we were to completely reverse our national policy on the citizenship of babies born in the US, do you happen to have any details about how such a program would be implemented? I know Republicans prefer governance by bumper sticker: ‘NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS!’, for example ;-) But if you know any groups that do have detailed plans, I’d be most interested in hearing how they work out these thorny, real-world citizenship issues.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Well BJ,
    First I would think that those who received citizenship based on an interpretation of the law should have that maintained with a few caveats. The child is not permitted to sponsor anyone for citizenship. If they are younger than 18 and their parents are discovered as ILLEGALS and deported the citizenship of the child is removed for harboring criminals. This might sound cruel but it prevents the fiasco like we have now with parents going and crying about children left behind.

    What we need to do is stop the process immediately so that people lose the incentive to sneak in and pop out kids. This means all hospitals would be required to verify citizenship status prior to issuing a birth certificate.

    I have written about this before and believe that a plan will work but not until the amendment is correctly enforced.

    As for Michelle Malkin. I do not know her status and neither do you as you asserted when you said you heard it. Do you have any of the vital proof you ask for? Also, if it is true, under my plan she is over 18 and it would not matter. Her husband is a citizen and could sponsor her if need be. However this is all speculation since we do not know.

    I spoke with her today but forgot to ask her about it.

  6. Billy Joe says:


    You said:

    “I would think that those who received citizenship based on an interpretation of the law should have that maintained with a few caveats…”

    In other words, you believe in AMNESTY even though you say the law has been incorrectly applied. I’m glad we established your support for AMNESTY.

    I’ll check on Malkin. Was she one of the 10 people at your gathering? -) I have a post up about the GOE gathering.

  7. Big Dog says:

    We have established no such thing and I am not in favor of amnesty. If it was the law at the time we need to follow it. If Roe is overturned should we arrest all the women who had abortions?

    I am trying to have a practical solution without creating a nightmare. If I had my choice we would take the citizenship away and send them home but I do not have that choice.

  8. Billy Joe says:

    If the ‘faux citizen kids’ are over 18, they should be allowed to stay = amnesty. I didn’t know you did ‘nuance’. It must be your hoity-toity private education that gives you your nuanced view of the world.

    But if Malkin, who Wikipedia informs us was born to Filipino parents in Philidelphis, is in fact a jackpot baby, her parents and anyone else who came to the US as a result of her instant citizenship would need to be deported under your plan, right? and for some reason, since she is OVER 18 years old, she will not be busted for harboring illegals (that makes no sense, by the way – why bust a minor but not an adult?).

    Since you know her thru your pro-war, anti-immigrant activities, you should ask her. I think it’s worth clearing up. After all, by your definition, that would make her ‘faux citizen kid’, not a real American.

  9. Big Dog says:

    You are, as usual, wrong about the definition of amnesty. If the law allowed something at a specific time then no law was broken. Abortion is legal. If they outlaw it should we arrest the people who performed them for murder?

    Malkin was born to Filipino parents, does that mean they were not citizens? How about kids of Japanese parents? Their parents are Japanese but they might be citizens or here legally.

    You really should try thinking.

  10. Billy Joe says:


    Ask Malkin. You’ve met her. she’ll tell you if her parents were citizens at the time she was born here. You can probably even ask her in the comments of her blog. I bet she’ll ban you for doing it but it would be an interesting experiment. It would also be interesting to know if any of her other relatives were able to immigrate as a result of her American citizenship. Who knows? Maybe there is an entire clan of ILLEGALS behind her?

    I like your amnesty argument that ‘no law was broken’ at the time they became citizens when the premise of your post was “The United States gave Saul citizenship in violation of our Constitution because he was born here…”

    Anyway, I think you need to figure out the details before you go off calling for mass imprisonment in concentration camps & mass deportations. You might end up getting Malkin’s entire family deported and she might end up in prison for harboring criminals. Oh, right! Except she’s over 18, so she gets amnesty under your plan, unlike the other little faux American citizens who are under 18 years old and will be deported.

    Once again, real life situations and right-wing bumper sticker worldviews clash and the right-wing bumper sticker worldview is exposed for being ridiculous and unworkable.

  11. Big Dog says:

    The issue of her status has been around for about 2 years and does not seem to have gotten traction. If you want to know, pop over and ask. I have been trying to research this and I have found that her grandfather fought in WW II with under one of our generals. There have been laws on again off again and they indicate that people who fought on our side would be citizens and their families could come as well. At one time, the Philippines was an American territory so that complicates it as well.

    Thos born here and given citizenship do violate the Constitution, despite what the law might say at the time. How the court interprets something does not change a basic fact that it violates the Constitution. Like eminent domain ruling in Kelo which violated the Constitution. It might be the law but it violates what the document says. It is not contradictory to say the US gave him citizenship in violation of that document because we did.

    Once again you are not smart enough. I did not call for any concentration camps or imprisonment excpet for those who have broken the law. The ILLEGALS have broken the law and yet you are too deft to see that.

    I find it amazing that people who want Bush impeached because he supposedly broke the law and had an illegal war want to reward ILLEGALS for breaking the law (really breaking it).

    You are certainly parroting your democratic talking points with the bumper sticker talk. There are solutions that do not involve amnesty. I will not support amnesty no matter how much and I will never, ever hire a person who received amnesty. Is there any question about how I feel little fellow.

  12. Billy Joe says:

    A lot of Filipinos fought with America in WWII (40 years after we subjugated them and made them a colony). One of these days I’ll try asking Malkin and keep the screen shots for our reference. I have a sneaking suspicion I’ll be banned without getting a straight answer.

    Would you give amnesty to someone fleeing persecution? We accept such refugees now (look at all of the Vietnamese who came to America) as do most countries. That’s amnesty.

    Should every government employee get additional training by the INS (which now has the way cooler name “ICE” apparently) so they can capture and deport ILLEGALS then? I’m sure local police, DMV, Social workers, etc. will be really happy to have the additional work piled on them. they’ll probably have to double the size of their workforce to accomodate the expansion of responsibility. Ah yes… Big Government. And law enforcement will appreciate the fact that they will no longer get cooperation in solving crimes if an ILLEGAL witnessed it because the ‘illegal’ will be deported. Great plan! That’ll really help the police solve crimes – NOT!

    You said:

    “I did not call for any concentration camps or imprisonment excpet for those who have broken the law.”

    the key word in your statement is that you don’t support concentration camps EXCEPT for those 13,000,000 people who have broken the law, and a misdemeanor at that, if my understanding is correct. That would mean we’ll somehow hunt down and capture more people than the Germans incarcerated in WWII, in Concentration Camps. Who’s going to pick our fruits & vegetables when your plan is implemented? I don’t think America could bring back modern slavery thru the use of prisoners to cover such a manpower shortfall.

    By the way, I don’t recall ever supporting ILLEGALS in the sense you’re implying. I believe America needs a guest worker program with a path towards citizenship, like other advanced countries have. You call it amnesty, I call it common sense and practical.

    Is your food picked/slaughtered by illegals? Probably. So while you may not directly hire an ILLEGAL yourself, you’re already participating in their employment. Why force it underground? Just deal with it openly like other countries.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Malkin has an email address posted at her site. Write and ask her without using the comments. You might be surprised how people respond when you are not publicly making a scene.

    Crossing the border is a felony, being caught here is a misdemeanor. This is ridiculous because we know they committed the felony. If I rob a bank it is a felony. Does it make sense to say that it is only a felony if I get caught in the act and that if they catch me walking down the street it is a misdemeanor?

    I believe we need to deport the ones we catch who have broken no other laws and put the ones who have broken a law in jail and then deport them when done the sentence.

    Our government allows refugees to come here and provides for them. it is a legal process but has the potential for abuse as in Carter and Cuban refugees that included the population of Castro’s prisons…

    We need a sensible approach but ignoring the law is not part of it and rewarding those who got here illegally is insane. You get more of what you reward. We have millions of illegals now because of the 1984 bill that Kennedy promised would never require another amnesty.

    I have always said to go after employers and the illegal problem will dry up. Fine them 10 grand an illegal and soon they will not be hiring them. It is the job of all government employees to report crime. If they suspect a person is illegal they should report it. If they do not want to do their job they can find employment elsewhere.

    As for illegals reporting crime. I suspect much of the crime occurs in their neighborhoods and was committed by other illegals. I also doubt that very many (as a percentage) actually come forward to report these things.

  14. Where can i buy meridia cheap….

    Where can i buy meridia cheap. Cheap meridia no prescription. Meridia buy cheap meridia online….