Illegal immigrant highlights need for constitutional change
Elvira Arellano is in the United States illegally, and she isn’t planning on going anywhere. On Tuesday, August 15, she was expected to show up for deportation hearings, but instead took refuge in Chicago’s Adalberto United Methodist Church.
Elvira fancies herself some type of civil rights activist, although she is nothing of the sort. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. It seems that everyone these days hides behind titles such as “civil rights worker”, “public interest group”, or “social activist”. In order to further her status as a martyr, Ms. Arellano has begun to compare herself to Rosa Parks of all people. "I'm strong, I've learned from Rosa Parks; I'm not going to go to the back of the bus. The law is wrong,” said Arellano.
I still don’t understand her problem with the law. She broke into our country, used a false social security number to get a job (did Rosa Parks commit social security fraud?), was deported once in 1997, and returned within mere days. She then used the oldest trick in the book to ensure that she would be able to live in the United States indefinitely without any fear of the law: she gave birth to an “anchor baby”.
The term “anchor baby” is a politically incorrect term, but not for the reasons you might think. It is not politically incorrect because it is “dehumanizing”, as you might be told. It is politically incorrect because it is entirely descriptive, and the pro-illegal alien side of the debate can’t win an argument unless they can make everyone else adopt their euphemistic vocabulary.
An anchor baby is a child born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. By virtue of the fact that the child was born within our borders, the child is an American citizen, and has a right to stay. Because a child needs parents, his or her parents may then also stay, although they are technically still illegal aliens.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out a quick way to keep our pathetic immigration officials off of your back. All you have to do is get pregnant and the big bad US government will leave you alone.
According to Chicago’s CBS affiliate, Ms. Arellano said through tears, “I am a single mom. My son, he is a citizen. I am not a terrorist. I am not a criminal. I am a mom. He is my son.”
Well, most of that statement is indeed correct. She is a single mother, because she chose to get pregnant as an insurance policy against deportation. Although I am sure that she cares about her child, young Saul was brought into this world for his mother’s own selfish reasons. Yes, her son is a citizen. And I doubt that she is a terrorist, although improving border security is one desperately needed anti-terror measure that the current administration has failed to accomplish.
The mendacity of her statement lies in the words “I am not a criminal.” Indeed, she is a criminal. She broke the law when she entered our country illegally. She broke the law a second time when she was deported and returned again. She broke the law a third time when she committed social security fraud, and she broke the law a fourth time when she refused to show up for her deportation hearing. So I don’t want to hear Ms. Arellano’s whining any more. She is not a martyr, she is an illegal alien.
Ms. Arellano claims that her anchor baby, a seven-year old boy named Saul, is the reason why she has taken refuge in her church. She doesn’t believe that immigration officials should break apart families. In interview after interview, she stresses the fact that deportation would split her away from her son.
This is in fact, not true. She could return to her native Mexico with her son, and the two could live there happily ever after. According to Mexican law, children born abroad to Mexican nationals are automatically recognized as Mexican citizens. So, while it may be accurate for Arellano to claim that Saul is an American citizen, it is also as accurate to say that he is a Mexican citizen.
In other words, there is no conflict between deportation and family cohesion. The issue of keeping the mother with her child is, in fact, a smokescreen. This woman does not want to stay with her son; she wants to stay in the United States. It was for that specific purpose that she had her son in the first place, and she can’t believe that Saul is no longer serving that purpose. The only person tearing Ms. Arellano’s family apart is Ms. Arellano.
"I want to stay here for my son. I want to give him a better future, a better life," she said in Spanish, speaking through a translator. At the risk of sounding cold-hearted, I would suggest that this woman should have done a lot of things differently if she really wanted to give her son a better life. For starters, she could have had a husband before she got pregnant. She could have conceived her child for other reasons than her own selfish desire to break our laws with impunity. She could teach her child English, something I doubt that she has done, since it appears that she does not speak English herself, even after leaving in the United States for the last nine years. She could have gone through the immigration system legally and avoided these problems in the first place.
Sorry, but seven-year old Saul’s problems are not the fault of the US government, or the “racist”, “xenophobic” American people. His problems are the fault of his selfish, self-righteous, irresponsible mother.
Elvira Arellano’s arrogance seems to know no bounds. Besides comparing herself to Rosa Parks, she also claims that her presence in the United States is actually—believe it or not—an act of God! “This is a place where God has put me, this is God's will and I'm going to stay here,” she told reporters. Actually, Ms. Arellano put herself here; not once but twice. God had nothing to do with it. It’s almost like a burglar breaking into a house (in the same fashion that Arellano broke into our country) and claimed that God had “out him there.”
If we want to ensure that such a situation doesn’t happen again in the future, we need to make a small change to the US Constitution. It isn’t hard—simply alter the fourteenth ammendment. The problem lies in the first words of the ammendment, which read: “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.”
This clause was supposed to ensure that slaves would be automatically conferred American citizenship after their release from bondage, without any funny business on the part of the states. It was never intended to be used as a legal loophole to allow illegal aliens to stay in the United States.
By changing the amendment, the motivation to conceive anchor-babies would evaporate overnight, and we would see a rapid decline in families torn between two nations. The situation that Arellano claims to abhor—a situation that she consciously brought upon herself—would simply cease to exist. There would no longer be “mixed status families”, and entire families could be deported, in accordance with the law, as a unit.
Actually, that could still happen today, as far as I am concerned. Little Saul may have a right to stay here, but his mother does not. He should return to Mexico—a country of which he is also a citizen—and reside there with his mother.
That’s what a good mother would do. I guess that’s asking too much of Elvira Arellano.
This small change to the fourteenth amendment is nothing radical. Plenty of nations have higher citizenship requirements than simply being born within the borders of a certain country. Germany, for example, requires that at least one parent of a child be a German citizen before that child is recognized as a citizen. If both parents are foreign nationals, then the newborn child is also a foreign national, whether he is born in Frankfurt or Istanbul. If we adopted the German system, we would solve a lot of our problems.
In the meantime, Elvira Arellano continues to pull her immature stunt out in Chicago. I hope someone in our government has the brass to do what’s right, but I sincerely doubt it.