Thread: Immigration activist to seek order barring removal

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/arellano22.html


Immigration activist to seek order barring removal

August 22, 2006

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS


The attorney for an immigration activist who has taken refuge in a church in hopes of stopping the government from sending her back to Mexico said Tuesday that he will ask a judge to block her deportation.

Attorney Joseph Mathews said he planned to request a temporary injunction Wednesday in the case of 31-year-old Elvira Arellano, who was arrested four years ago after entering the country illegally.

Mathews said in a telephone interview he would ask the court to declare that deporting Arellano would effectively lead to the deportation of her 7-year-old son, Saul, and thus violate his rights as an American citizen.

Arellano was scheduled to surrender to authorities on Aug. 15 but sought sanctuary in a church instead.

She and her supporters say only a court order can stop the government from forcibly removing her from the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago's heavily Puerto Rican Humboldt Park neighborhood.

Federal officials have said that there is nothing to prevent them from going into the church and bringing the woman out. But thus far they have shown no inclination to do that.

Arellano was first arrested in 1997, shortly after crossing into the United States. She was sent back to Mexico but returned within days.

In 2002, Arellano was arrested again and convicted of working at O'Hare International Airport as a cleaning woman under a false Social Security number. Later, she emerged as a vocal proponent of immigration reform.

She has said she wants to live in the United States to provide a better life for her son.

Mathews said in a telephone interview he would ask the court to declare that deporting Arellano would effectively lead to the deportation of her 7-year-old son, Saul, and thus violate his rights as an American citizen.

That judge better not fall for this crap. If the judge rules in the criminals favor, every illegal in the country will attempt to use this as case law, to stay in this country. That judge better not pull such a foolish stunt. This is pretty serious. He is a minor child, he doesn't have the right to choose, where he lives.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Mathews said in a telephone interview he would ask the court to declare that deporting Arellano would effectively lead to the deportation of her 7-year-old son, Saul, and thus violate his rights as an American citizen.

That judge better not fall for this crap. If the judge rules in the criminals favor, every illegal in the country will attempt to use this as case law, to stay in this country. That judge better not pull such a foolish stunt. This is pretty serious. He is a minor child, he doesn't have the right to choose, where he lives.

Dixie

She can take her son with her. If she leaves him behind, who is separating families?

Originally Posted by opinion

Originally Posted by Dixie

Mathews said in a telephone interview he would ask the court to declare that deporting Arellano would effectively lead to the deportation of her 7-year-old son, Saul, and thus violate his rights as an American citizen.

That judge better not fall for this crap. If the judge rules in the criminals favor, every illegal in the country will attempt to use this as case law, to stay in this country. That judge better not pull such a foolish stunt. This is pretty serious. He is a minor child, he doesn't have the right to choose, where he lives.

Dixie

She can take her son with her. If she leaves him behind, who is separating families?

Exactly. This is two seperate issues that the lawyer is trying to mix. The lady needs to be deported. Period. What happens to her son is up to her. Not the government.

I'm with you guys!

What the heck is an "Immigration activist" anyway? Is that the same thing as a criminal?

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I know, by now we all know what the first part of the 14th Amendment says. I wonder if perhaps the Amendment needs to be ... amended. Perhaps it should say something like:

All persons born of American citizens 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any American citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any American citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I figure if it's going to be used against us because of how it's worded, then perhaps we should make it specific.

Another waste of taxpayer money on illegals and leave it to lawyers to find a way to make a buck.

EXAMPLES of Things that Might Show a Lack of Good Moral Character to become a US citizen
1• Any crime against a person with intent to harm
2• Any crime against property or the Government that involves
“fraud” or evil intent
3• Two or more crimes for which the aggregate sentence was 5
years or more
4• Violating any controlled substance law of the United States, any
state, or any foreign country
5• Habitual drunkenness or drunk driving
6• Illegal gambling
7• Prostitution
8• Polygamy (marriage to more than one person at the same time)
9• Lying to gain immigration benefits
10• Failing to pay court-ordered child support or alimony payments
11• Confinement in jail, prison, or similar institution for which the
total confinement was 180 days or more during the past 5
years (or 3 years if you are applying based on your marriage to
a United States citizen)
12• Failing to complete any probation, parole, or suspended
sentence before you apply for naturalization
13• If you have recently been ordered deported or removed, you
are not eligible for citizenship. If you are in removal
proceedings, you may not apply for citizenship until the
proceedings are complete and you have been allowed to
remain in the country as a Permanent Resident.
14• Terrorist acts
15• Persecution of anyone because of race, religion, national origin,
political opinion, or social group





#13 is confusing to me. First it says that if you have recently been ordered deported or removed, you are not eligible for citizenship. Then says if you are in removal proceedings, you may not apply for citizenship until the proceedings are complete and you have been allowed to remain in the country as a permanent Resident.

Who understands this? The way I understand it there is a contradiction.

And I smell that this is going to be the end result with the activist woman in the church?