« More on the vaycay question | Main | The Reverse Psychology Of Yesteryear »
August 20, 2007
Illegal Immigration
by Stephen of the Thinkery
Elvira Arellano was just deported from the United States after more than a year of living in a Chicago church. I wrote about this some time ago, and was surprised even then that she had lasted so long with no more "protection" than a tradition that exists more in vampire fiction than reality. Ms. Arellano was arrested in LA after leaving the church to travel the country speaking about her issue and lobbying members of Congress to reform our immigration laws. Apparently the concept of "sanctuary" is stronger than I thought.
The important part of this story, as Atrios notes, is that there is now an 8-year-old American citizen who is without his mother. The US government, of course, has no ability - yet, at least - to deport an American citizen because of the misdemeanor committed by their relative.
This is Saul Arellano:
Saul Arellano is 8 years old, and he is an American citizen. You can call him "anchor baby" if you want, or any other pejorative you can think of that will help to dehumanize him and separate him from the rest of this nation's citizens. But he is, as I said and cannot say enough, an American citizen, due all the rights and privileges that status carries.
Is there any other misdemeanor in our legal system that can deprive an 8-year-old boy of his mother? Should the US Government really be able to separate a child from his mother over this?
Is this who we really want to be?
August 20, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
If I wanted to discredit Ezra I couldn't have done a better job than he's done himself. First, unlike what's implied above, she's a convicted criminal (using a false SSN) who was ordered deported and refused to go. In the parlance, she's a fugitive illegal alien.
Even a biased report paints a much different picture that Ezra's trying to paint above (tinyurl.com/27lwuq):
It’s not the first time Arellano was deported. She came to Washington state illegally in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport. She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and convicted of working under a false Social Security number.
As for the case of Saul, who's ultimately responsible? NAFTA? The Illuminati? No: Elvira Arellano herself. Perhaps Ezra should stop treating her like she's a mentally retarded person without free will and instead appreciate her culpability in this matter.
That said, Ezra - as well as the Dem candidates and as many leaders as possible - are free to join in her struggle:
somosunpueblo.com/Unify_and_Focus.html
We have taught that our people did not come here because of the American Dream but because of what the American nightmare did to our countries of origin. We have asserted that our demand to be here and to be fully enfranchised here is a right not a privilige and a destiny of our people to transform this nation.
There's much more Ezra can sign on to at that link.
Posted by: TLB | Aug 20, 2007 3:25:53 PM
My bad: after posting I realized this isn't from Ezra but from the "Thinkery".
Posted by: TLB | Aug 20, 2007 3:26:53 PM
Is this who we really want to be?
No.
I wish the imigration bill had passed. Ms. Arellano would have then been on the track to citizenship.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 3:28:59 PM
Perhaps [Stephen] should stop treating her like she's a mentally retarded person without free will and instead appreciate her culpability in this matter.
The post isn't about the mother, really; it's about the damn kid. The whole point was that he is being punished for the culpability of another.
Posted by: Jason G. | Aug 20, 2007 3:34:18 PM
Another point is that Ms Arellano could have and should have arranged to have her son in Mexico with her.
Posted by: The Traveler | Aug 20, 2007 3:39:32 PM
The mother put the child in this position. If she wants him to be with her, she can take him with her. If she wants him to stay, he can stay. We didn't separate them; she chose to separate them by leaving him behind when she was deported. I don't really have a problem with people trying to immigrate, and I'm not going to hate her for trying to do so illegally, but if you get caught you get caught.
Posted by: T | Aug 20, 2007 3:42:49 PM
The Traveler is correct. Nothing the U.S. did deprives Saul of his mother. She can take him with her to Mexico. While I believe the U.S. is a much better place to live than Mexico-- and apparently many Mexicans feel the same way-- it's not like Mexico is Iraq. The Arellanos aren't refugees from some war-torn land. If Mrs. Arellano wants to split her family up, that's her decision and Americans bear no responsibility for that beyond our nation's crime of being a too-tolerant host these last ten years.
Posted by: Rev Transit | Aug 20, 2007 3:45:29 PM
TLB--Taking the job of cleaning planes? Taking it from whom? Are you that obtuse that you don't get why so many large companies turn a blind eye to hiring illegal workers in the first place--they will do the jobs Americans won't, and they'll do them for very little money?
As to the fake Social Security number, yes, that's a crime. It also means the social security deducted from Ms. Arellano's paycheck went into the system from which you will undoubtedly drawing retirement money one day, and from which Ms. Arellano will not. It's probably the number of someone who died years ago. That's how desperate some people are to work and better themselves: they will, over and over throughout the day, march into the airplanes used by middle and upper class Americans, collect all the cookie wrappers and dirty diapers and used barf-bags and wadded-up Wall Street Journals, and vacuum the crumbs from the carpet; what's more, they'll do it for paltry wages that get even skimpier after taxes and social security are deducted--monies and benefits they'll never see.
Immigration reform must start at the top, not at the bottom, where the only ones hurt are the least powerful. If we're serious about documenting everyone, let's do so, by all means. Yes, let's weed out the undesirable characters--criminals, terrorists, those who do nothing positive and only seek to foment trouble--and return them to their home countries, wherever those may be. But before we demonize and dehumanize a child and a mother who's only trying to make a better life for him, let's rightly demonize the hotel chains, day-labor agencies, construction corporations, defense contractors (Boeing, anyone?) and nanny-hiring politicians who hire them at sub-market rates. Then we can turn our attention to those who are here for universally-agreed good reasons and help them to be part of the country and its economy for real.
Xenophobia and racism are terribly unsexy, by the way. I highly recommend reading some of the poetry of Federico García Lorca so you can see what you're missing.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 20, 2007 3:52:37 PM
You can support some degree of immigration restriction without demonizing or dehumanizing anyone.
Posted by: T | Aug 20, 2007 4:07:03 PM
before we demonize and dehumanize a child and a mother who's only trying to make a better life for him, let's rightly demonize the hotel chains, day-labor agencies, construction corporations, defense contractors (Boeing, anyone?) and nanny-hiring politicians who hire them at sub-market rates.
Is this fair? What is the complaint exactly?
Surely it's better for the immigrants that these American companies are offering them jobs. Obviously, the immigrants have made the judgment that the jobs are better than whatever alternatives they have.
Now, maybe the companies should be paying them the going rate - but is it really reasonable to ask companies to hire illegal immigrants at market rates? No company is going to do this, since the lower wages are the reason they're hiring illegal immigrants in the first place.
Posted by: Jason G. | Aug 20, 2007 4:11:04 PM
Jason G., I can translate this comment into a different language, if you like! (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
What I'm saying is this: reform must start with penalizing those companies who hire illegal workers, regardless of the pay (and it's almost inevitably sub-market) and deporting serious criminals. Document everyone, offering a path to citizenship--a realistic one, I mean, not a fiscally impossible one--to those who are working here in order to forge better lives and futures for their families. Everyone benefits when everyone is out of the shadows, working as part of the economy.
But the big forces who are doing all this illegal hiring don't want this, you see. For reasons that should be obvious.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 20, 2007 4:21:29 PM
But the big forces who are doing all this illegal hiring don't want this, you see. For reasons that should be obvious.
Is that true across the board, though? Doesn't big business by and large support the "Amnesty" bill or whatever you want to call it?
I mean, sure, now they can get away with paying not only sub-market wages but actually less than the minimum wages, but on the other hand their workers can be deported and they can face sanctions. If we open up the flow of labor across the border, they can still pay slightly lower wages, without the hassle from the feds (not to mention legal fees). (It's also worth keeping in mind that not all immigrants are poor or desperate - doctors, professors, etc. come here from other countries as well.)
I guess it's weird to me to sympathize with and support immigrants who come to this country for a job (and I do sympathize with and support them), but at the same time lambaste the employer for hiring them. It strikes me as analogous to supporting a woman's right to be a sex worker/prostitute, but not supporting the right of the "john" to pay her for sex.
Posted by: Jason G. | Aug 20, 2007 4:30:28 PM
Jason, I don't think it's necessary to lambaste the employers who hire illegals, but I agree with litbrit that they are the engine of illegal immigration, and any effort at controlling illegal immigration must focus on that. Employers will hire only legals when there are high enough penalties and effective ways to enforce them. That will do more than anything else to control illegal immigration. Maybe you agree with that too.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 4:56:24 PM
I believe that many misdeamenor crimes carry the possibility of a jail sentence. For any of these, a woman could be seperated from her child, without the possibility of bringing the child with her.
And of course people can be seperated from their children without even any crime being commited at all, such as frequently happens in divorce and custody disputes.
The proposition that having a child renders one immune from any governmental action that would cause seperation from that child does not seem to me to be at all within our legal or cultural traditions.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Aug 20, 2007 5:00:15 PM
Jason, the analogy isn't a great one. We can sympathize with prostitutes while still believing their trade should be illegal and that they and the johns should face the legal ramifications. Frankly, I don't care about prostitution, but I do care about illegal immigration.
I sympathize with immigrants and would support more widespread legal immigration, especially it that immigration were more diverse with respect to nation of origin. But the law needs to be enforced here and the place to start is with Americans.
Illegal immigrants should be deported when found, of course, but the vast majority of employers hire their workers legally. The minority who knowingly violate the law should face the consequences. If the market for illegal employment dried up, then illegal immigration will become less rewarding, too.
An increase of legal immigration depends politically IMO on the enforcement of the law. Only then will a majority trust the government to do what it's supposed to do.
Posted by: Rev Transit | Aug 20, 2007 5:00:52 PM
That will do more than anything else to control illegal immigration
I definitely agree with that, but the sentiment (regarding businesses who hire immigrants) is one that I often hear from people who are generally not opposed to illegal immigration (at least not in the same sense that people like Tancredo, etc. are).
I mean, no one really supports illegal immigration, but generally people fall into one of two categories in their opposition to it: (1) they want to end illegal immigration via enforcement (a fence or whatever), or (2) they want to end illegal immigration by essentially legalizing it.
Of course some people have a view that falls between this, but generally we tend to view immigration either as something that needs to be strictly limited and generally criminalized or as something that needs to be opened up and legitimized.
Someone who takes the former view would naturally take offense at companies who hired illegal immigrants. But why would someone who takes the latter view have a problem with it?
My personal view is that immigrants who want to come here to work should be allowed to. Subject to background checks and the like, but otherwise, come on in. Given that this is my view, why should I be angry with an employer who hires immigrants?
Posted by: Jason G. | Aug 20, 2007 5:06:05 PM
Jason, the analogy isn't a great one. We can sympathize with prostitutes while still believing their trade should be illegal and that they and the johns should face the legal ramifications.
Sure, but I was talking about someone who simultaneously supported a prostitute's legal right to do what she does, but opposing the john's legal right to purchase her services.
Posted by: Jason G. | Aug 20, 2007 5:19:22 PM
Rev Transit regarding businesses who hire them: The minority who knowingly violate the law should face the consequences.
I've heard that said for the past 40 years. It'll never happen, because elected politicians cater to those businesses. Never.
Which means demand will always drive illegal immigration. Always.
That will change when enough Americans stand up and insist on law enforcement. But they won't. Because most are more concerned with demonizing the Mexicans and keeping them out, blaming them for the problems, alone.
Sure, go after the poorest of the poor. It's the American way. But let's skip the pretense that most Americans are only concerned with upholding the law. If they did, some business owners would be in jail.
Nudge-nudge-wink-wink law enforcement is really about xenophobia, racism, fear and ignorance. There oughta be laws against all that, too.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Aug 20, 2007 5:42:25 PM
returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.
taking the job of cleaning planes? Taking it from whom? Are you that obtuse that you don't get why so many large companies turn a blind eye to hiring illegal workers in the first place
litbrit, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. "Taking" in the sentence above clearly means "accepting a job" or "agreeing to work". It has nothing to do with the "theytookourjobs" mindset that you are trying to read into it.
Posted by: Jason | Aug 20, 2007 6:02:10 PM
If that child is a pawn, it is because his mother made him one. Leaving him behind helps her get her name in the newspapers. It's a cynical move made by someone more intent on making a political statement than caring for her child.
There are a number of countries where being forced to go live there would be a terrible fate -- Darfur, for example, or Iraq, or any number of other dysfunctional states. In that case, one might well be justified in leaving one's child in America.
Having to go live in Mexico is hardly a death sentence.
Posted by: Fiat Lux | Aug 20, 2007 6:15:45 PM
Jason, I think you need to work on your tongue-in-cheek-appreciation skills and learn to recognize when someone with forty times your IQ is simply taking advantage of a fortuitously employed synonym to underscore and undermine a classic xenophobic talking point.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 20, 2007 7:05:32 PM
It may not be a death sentence, but certainly for a woman to leave friends and family behind, and risk death crossing a dangerous river, and an even more dangerous desert, her survival chances at home had to look rather bleak.
What everyone is forgetting is that the 8 yr old is a citizen, and, as such, should have some right to have his guardian with him. This woman didn't commit a "crime" as we have come to know the term, rather, she committed a civil infraction. We have all kinds of legal tools at our disposal to deal with said infraction. Probation, fines, even incarceration for a brief period. But wholesale deportation of those without documents amounts to a war of attrition, and we won't make a dent in the problem. Instead, we will break up a handful of families, and cause hardship on those unable to fight back. It is myopic at best.
Posted by: Mack | Aug 20, 2007 7:14:07 PM
Jason,
Your the one who needs to learn how to read, Took it from whom clearly means that in order for her to get a job someone had to hire her, that is what took it from meant, she is saying it takes two to tango, the illegal and the compnay that hires them.
Posted by: Eric K | Aug 20, 2007 7:18:23 PM
"...does not seem to me to be at all within our legal or cultural traditions."
Dave Justus, that's the problem with the whole immigration reform debate, apparently there are many people who don't think our legal or cultural traditions should apply to them. What's amusing is American politicians are astonished that, against all reason, the American public gets pissed off at the idea that the law shouldn't apply to everyone (when it was reported that the amnesty bill would give amnesty for back taxes, I knew it was doomed-- whose brainstorm was that?).
Oh and Mack, using a fake Social Security number to get a job is a felony-- look at an I-9 form, says so right on the document.
Posted by: beowulf | Aug 20, 2007 7:28:58 PM
EricK, get back to me when you are able to form a coherent English sentence.
litbrit, 40 times, huh? :) You so smart. Me so dumb. Though you clearly have no idea what the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" means.
How would you have liked the person that wrote the cbs2chicago article to have written that "she was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport." so that not a trace of the classic xenophobia remains?
Posted by: Jason | Aug 20, 2007 7:36:48 PM
