Authorities Want Illegal Immigrant Father Deported
July 2nd, 2008 by Ned Holstein, MD, MSThe media frequently devotes much attention to mothers who are separated from their children by deportation actions. The treatment is usually highly sympathetic to the mothers. When fathers are deported away from their children, little attention is paid. Even when the media covers the issue, there is little handwringing, as evidenced in a recent straight-facts story from the Los Angeles Times--Custody case of Long Beach boy complicates deportation of illegal immigrant (6/30/08).
The story details the case of Michael Campo, a 10-year-old Los Angeles boy whose father Carlos Alvarado is an illegal immigrant. Alvarado is fighting deportation proceedings, saying that he should be allowed to stay in the U.S. because of his son. According to the Times:
Alvarado sneaked across the Mexican border in 1991. He and Marla Campo met about five years later and she gave birth to Michael in October 1997. After a few years, the couple separated. In 2003, Campo disappeared with Michael. Alvarado called police, who tracked her down...the couple returned to court and the judge gave the parents joint legal custody...Michael spends every weekend with his father. Alvarado pays child support and pays for Michael's health insurance.
Alvarado's trial in immigration court took place in June 2005. The judge ruled that he could stay in the U.S...The government attorney appealed the case, saying in court papers that 'this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S.'"
Read the full article here. A few points:
1) The government attorney's argument in favor of deporting the father--"this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S."--is ludicrous. Forcing Carlos Alvarado to move back to Mexico will drive a huge wedge between him and his son, and the relationship might be lost altogether. Consider:
Carlos Alvarado will be unable to visit his son in the United States
Alvarado is dependent upon the child being sent by the custodial mom to visit him in Mexico. She may not do this--she already kept the child away from his father in the past, and may well do so again. Though the exes are getting along well right now, that could change. We also can't help noticing that the mother gave the child her last name, not his father's. Moreover she is already saying she doesn’t feel safe sending him to a border town in Mexico.
Carlos Alvarado will have far less income available to him to spend on visiting his son, communicating with him, buying him gifts, etc.
2) There are many exceptions made in immigration cases. The most notable one is for women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act provides allegedly battered immigrant women a way to become US residents. For example, women in deportation proceedings can claim domestic violence and get a "cancellation of removal" and obtain residency.
We have mixed emotions about this VAWA provision. We certainly favor aiding battered women, but we know from family court how frequently false claims are made in order to gain advantages. Regardless, if we can make an exception to immigration laws for allegedly battered wives, we should also be able to make exceptions to protect a 10-year-old boy from losing his father.
3) Let's look at it from another angle. First, let's disregard the human factor. Second, let's assume that illegal immigrants really are harmful to the US--a debatable assertion, but let's use it for the purposes of this argument. Looking at this case only in light of dollars and cents, the father still should be allowed to stay in the US. Why? Consider:
a) The boy is a U.S. citizen--whatever problems he encounters or creates, the US will have to deal with them. The boy is far less likely to become involved in crime or drugs, drop out of school or become a burden to society if he has a dad in his life than if he doesn't. All of those cost the taxpayer money--allowing Alvarado to stay would probably save taxpayers money in the long run.
b) The father pays child support and also pays for the boy's health insurance. If he's deported, both will cease, and the taxpayers will likely end up footing the bill.
4) If Alvarado is deported, he might also face child support enforcement action. He would have to get a downward modification of his child support based on his new, lower earnings in Mexico, which isn't easy to do for anybody, much less a low-income man living in Mexico. Arrearages will mount. Even if he finds legal ways to return to the US to see his child, marry, or work, he will be subject to arrest for child support arrearages. It is even possible that an extradition treaty with Mexico exists such that he will be arrested and brought to the US for child support arrearages.
Any way you look at this, everyone is better off if this hardworking and devoted dad is allowed to stay in the US -- the child, the mom, the dad, his employer, and the US taxpayer.
"));
19 queries. 0.383 seconds.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Sorry, having an achor baby in my opinion is not an excuse for immediately giving people citizenship. It's simply another loophole in our weak enforcement of the occupation of the US by illegals. Already anchor babies get free education (parents do not pay taxes to support schools or hospitals), free social security and welfare (parents do not pay into SS, but the kid can withdraw from it), and free medical care (medicaid).
This is ridiculous and must stop or the US is done for. Ignoring the word in "illegal" in "illegal immigration" does not make it right.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I think he ought to go back home and reapply. Hopefully the court order will help him ascertain his entry. But practically speaking, the govt officials letting people in don't give a damn about the case (and surprisingly enough - abscence of one) of the person entering the US. Its pretty much a lottery. People who think that homeland security is keeping them safe are living an illusion. Its no better than it was before.
That said, he definitely should respect the immigration laws and correct his mistake. Hopefully he makes it back and gets to be with his kid.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
He definitely does not deserve a citizenship, but I don't think that is what is being argued over here. So Mike lordi, chill - its a different issue. If the US immigration policies were fair, things would have been much different. The protectionist immigration policies have as much to be blamed as the open borders.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I sense a combo coming up. Deport him. Hit him for child support and let it stack up. Extradite him back into the US for his failure to pay. Keep him in the States until he pays it off. Deport him.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
If I was a foreign resident and had a child in say, Mexico, and I was deported I would take my child with me even if he or she were a Mexican citzen. This kid is an Anchor Baby.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Deport his ass! If he didn't want to be seperated from his son, then; he should have thought about that before he came into this country illegally and impregnated someone. Too bad his anchor baby son gets to stay here because of a a couple of bad rulings by liberal judges.
We need to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically to repeal birthright citizenship. Not that it is constitutional in the first place, since illegals aren't in this country legally; and therefore aren't "under the control of the U.S. Government".
I would love to see this father and his son together.... IN MEXICO!
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
If the pork-o-crats can seperate large numbers of males, from any male influence/father figure at all, then over time,a state of matriarchal chaos will eventually erupt, and these same pork-o-crats, can feed off the mayhem, chaos and violence, by createing more bloated buerocratic pork agencies.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
In as much as I have sympathy for this guy for trying to do the right thing for his kids, our concern still has to be American fathers, just like in Mexico the concern has to be Mexican fathers and so forth. I do agree though that it looks like this guy's going to be the next ping-pong ball because geniuses in the CSE can't comprehend earning differences in the two countries.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
It is indeed amazing how conservative political views and beliefs (we hate illegal immigrants and legal immigrants from certain countries) can trump one of the stated goals of the MRM: that fatherhood is more important than anything else. Come on guys - you have to be consistent if you ever want to be taken seriously.
Carlos Alvarado is like hundreds of thousands of other illegal immigrants - responsible, hardworking, honest and family oriented. Maybe he is that way because of fear of deportation - no one really knows. The bottom line however is that he has stepped up to the plate and done the right thing.
What I find ironic is that some here are calling for strict, no areas of gray permissible, enforcement of immigration laws - yet in other matters everyone wants all areas of gray to be considered and the benefit of the doubt be given to a man. You make excuses for men (presumably legal citizens, such as the Asian guy that was labeled as a potential sexual predator by a University) but when there is one guy that is obviously a stand up guy, you want him hung by the bollocks, no matter the harm to someone else.
Extradition from Mexico for child support would not happen as there is no treaty governing that with any country.
Doc
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
You guys are doing yourselves no favors talking about "anchor babies". It is obviously a derogatory term, and sounds pretty close to several others I can think of, none of them pleasant.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The people who used the term "anchor baby" should be ashamed of yourselves. You make the rest of us look bad.
For the record, if any of you called my Son that was born in Taiwan but is an American citizen an anchor baby, I would forget you were a Father for a few moments.
You judge, assume and point fingers at others thinking you know anything about their lives so easily, but are enraged when it is done to you.
Hypocritical if you ask me.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
It is indeed amazing how conservative political views and beliefs (we hate illegal immigrants and legal immigrants from certain countries)
Who hates legal immigrants from certain countries? I can assure you not me. It's amazing how liberals insist on repeatedly trying to change the debate by attempting to blur the obviously black and white line in between legal and illegal immigration.
can trump one of the stated goals of the MRM: that fatherhood is more important than anything else.
Not to me. Individual rights are more important than anything else. All I want is equal rights and responsibilities for men under the law. No more, no less.
The people who used the term "anchor baby" should be ashamed of yourselves.
Well considering the Mexican hate group: The National Council of La Raza has a section of their page dedicated to "Anchor Baby Power" and praises the power of Anchor Babies I suppose that the term isn't that derogatory. But even if it is, so what. Unlike some of the hand wringing liberal apologists here I don't care if someone finds what I say offensive. If they're easily offended then that's their problem not mine.
You judge, assume and point fingers at others thinking you know anything about their lives so easily, but are enraged when it is done to you. Hypocritical if you ask me.
First of all no one asked you. Second of all I don't care if someone wags their finger at me; I have no problem telling them where to go and then moving on with my life.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 am
@Mike Hunter
Come at me with your hate and bigotry all you want, I live with the ignorance in my face every day.
The only thing that saddens me about close minded people is that one of the biggest hurdles for our cause (equal rights for men in case you forgot) is separatist like yourself.
I wouldn't throw the label "liberal" around until you understand what it means. People who generally like to reform current conditions/systems are called liberal. Politicians like to call us left wing. Traditionally, the word liberal means to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others.
To bad people think this is a bad word. In actuality, it is turning into a hate word used by ignorant people who spread hate. I was called a "liberal faggot" by one of our local skinheads (Sharks faction) and I didn't even say a word to provoke that attack.
I believe in change and reform of current political positions, like child support and equality of everyone (not just men).
A little more "liberal" in you would be preferred if you ask me.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 am
I would like to ad:
The terms anchor baby and jackpot baby have been characterized in the San Diego Union-Tribune as "pejorative”, in the New York Times as "derogatory", and in the Chicago Tribune as dehumanizing. I personally agree with these three world famous newspapers.
With your way of thinking Mr. Mike Hunter, we all must be wrong thinking the term anchor baby is bad.
Doing some research on an immigrant having a baby in the US for residence purposes might help your hate/separatist agenda. You will be "pleasantly" surprised that it is not as easy as some might fantasize about.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
The term anchor baby is a term that is used to describe the loophole used by illegal immigrants (based on an old loophole regarding babies of slaves who were born here automatically being citizens). Illegals come over the border, drop a kid out who is automaticlaly a citizen based on this horrendous loophole and then the child has to be supported by social welfare programs paid for by american taxpayers, of which nothing is paid by the parents as they are not citizens.
Now, do some research into the failures of schools, hospitals and other types of things in the communities in border towns due to this problem. Think about how much you pay toward these programs to support your children, and the money you pay toward your hospital bills. You don't get mad? Sad. How about all the americans without health insurance struggling to pay their medical bills? Most illegals do not pay their bills (true stats, look them up) causing hospitals to go under. Their kids bills are paid for by medicaid, paid for by YOU, the taxpayer. This is fair?
I'm all for coming here and bettering yourself, but to talk about this rationally the US MUST separate the illegal immigration/immigration issues and discuss them separately. This is the land of opportunity, but you MUST follow the right procedure to come here. Period.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
@mike lordi
What border towns are you referring to? You have names of these so-called border towns that their schools are suffering because of illegal immigrants? Give me names and I will give you any statistic you want.
The schools in the Portland metro area in the beautiful state of Oregon are currently the most behind in all the schools in America. Last I checked the map, neither has a Mexican border cities in them.
I can assure you that the poor education in our country is not due because of illegal immigrants. To think such nonsense is pure ignorance.
As for my taxes paying for it, education taxes comes mostly out of home taxes and your work tax goes right into the American war machine.
You should practice what you preach before telling everyone to go do their own research.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Edd,
Thank you for proving my point. Most illegals don't own property (they rent, usually with multiple families in single dwelling homes) and therefore their kids go to schools on other residents dimes.
Here's some quotes for you:
Senator Jeff Sessions, (R-AL). From a panel discussion on immigration reform, June 2006; "And finally, the numbers put out by Robert Rector, the architect of welfare reform that has worked so well, his numbers say that the low-skill workers that are coming in, the parents that they’re able to bring in automatically – elderly parents who will draw on the healthcare system – in the second 10 years of the 20 years that he attempted to estimate, could cost the United States as much as $50 billion a year in welfare and those kind of programs."
Source : Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), “The High Costs of Cheap Labor,“ August 2004, California alone has estimated that the net cost to the state of providing government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion during a single fiscal year. “The fact that states must bear the cost of federal failure turns illegal immigration, in effect, into one of the largest unfunded federal mandates." The report is provided here.
Source: In 2004, the Federation for American Immigration Reform determined: "The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants cost states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion. In 2002, about $1.4 billion of the cost for their education was paid with federal funds, leaving the states to pay somewhere in the area of $27.2 billion annually. Frighteningly, this amount doesn't include "ancillary expenses" such as special programs for non-English speaking students, representing an "additional expense of $290 to $879 per pupil depending on the size of the class," or the supplemental feeding programs instituted because over 74 percent of illegal Mexican immigrants and their children are living in or near poverty.” The report is provided here
Average annual cost per-pupil for public education K-12 is $8,745. The cost of educating the children of illegal aliens is estimated to be $36 billion annual. Illegal aliens impose an additional cost amounting to $900 per American child. Immigration (legal and illegal) is responsible for virtually all the recent growth in school-age population.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Come at me with your hate and bigotry all you want, I live with the ignorance in my face every day.
Typical open borders move; when you can't rationally win a argument, because you're advocating an indefensible position just call the other person a bigot and hope to shut down the debate. You can chant bigot over and over again if you want but that doesn't change the facts.
People who generally like to reform current conditions/systems are called liberal
Not when speaking about generally held political views. There's reform for the better and reform for the worse. Liberals advocate the ladder.
I was called a "liberal faggot" by one of our local skinheads (Sharks faction) and I didn't even say a word to provoke that attack.
Who cares and what does that have to do with this post? If you're going to turn into a whiny bed wetter every time someone throws an insult at you; then you need to grow a pair of balls. Or at least have the common decency not to whine about it here.
"With your way of thinking Mr. Mike Hunter, we all must be wrong thinking the term anchor baby is bad."
Correct you are wrong.
For the record I'd be all for open immigration if we didn't live in a welfare state. But since we do and that's not going to change any time soon; the only way to protect hardworking law abiding citizens from being robbed blind via wealth transfers, is to prevent illegal immigration.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
@mike lordi
I was talking about education. What the hell are you talking about? You change the subject again when you cannot answer my questions?
You still have not provided a shred of evidence to support your outlandish claim that "America's education is poor due to illegal immigrants". Thank you though for providing quotes that has nothing to do with my previous post.
Let me know when you want to respond "on topic" and answer some of my questions instead of going off in the deep end.
@Mike Hunter
Assume much? A bigots main trait.
Here is what I mean. My wife got a good laugh when she read that you thought I was for open borders since she knows I am an activist against The North American Union act and currently fighting against the progress of the Trans-Texas Corridor. Bigots would be more fun to debate if they had any sort of reasoning.
Liberals reform for the better. Only people who hate others for simple things (like skin color) think liberal changes are for the worse.
The whole point to your response to me is trying to prove that your hate speech is acceptable. It is not. But yet you persist in spreading your prejudice/racist remarks and try to justify them by blaming others.
The more you type the more your bigotry shines like a beacon and many people can see this very clearly.
Anymore assumptions? Or can we move on now?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Edd,
You're the one who took the topic wrong. Here is what I said:
"the child has to be supported by social welfare programs paid for by american taxpayers, of which nothing is paid by the parents as they are not citizens.
Now, do some research into the failures of schools, hospitals and other types of things in the communities in border towns due to this problem."
So I was talking about financial failure of taxpayer supported things and you went off about the grades??? YOU were wrong and I stand by my points as I stated the stats and research to back it up
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
@Edd,
PLease point out where I made "outlandish claim that "America's education is poor due to illegal immigrants".
I did no such thing. I was speaking of the financial collapse of schools, hospitals and other taxpayer supported things that fail due to the overload of illegal immigrants who do not contribute into the programs, but whose anchor babies take from the programs
July 4th, 2008 at 1:44 am
@mike lordi
You ever going to answer any of my questions?
Ever?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Doc, you don't give a hoot about men's rights, or how screwed up family law and child support obligations are. This guy is clearly a deadbeat in the making, and your only real concern is in getting a cut for collecting child support, so let's cage this in those terms. Screw dad, screw common sense, base his child support payments on what his ex claims he makes, wash our hand of the civil issue, then hand him off to immigration and let them process him according to policy. Then we can send Doc the bounty hunter down to ol Mexico to drag his butt back to court and explain why he hasn't paid his child support. Happens to plenty of men here, so I don't see any reason to hold a national border as any more valid of an excuse than disability, layoff, or lack of access to legal counsel.
In a more serious note:
This man was here illegally. I feel for him and his kid, but he was here illegally, and THEN fathered a child, fully cognizant of his status and vulnerability to deportation. This man created a child that he does not have the means to support. I hold him accountable for this situation, and do not feel compelled to grant special priviledges or exceptions over people who ARE following the law (screwed up as it is at times). I hold his mother equally responsible. Unless she was raped, she deliberately chose to have a child with someone who cannot legally support him. The two of them should make a decision as to which parent is better equipped to be a single parent for the immediate future, and determine the residence of this child.
I know we don't hold women to this standard, but when men commit crimes and go to prison, they're not part of their child's life, and their children suffer in the same way. The way to avoid that - DON"T COMMIT CRIMES! Your children will suffer from your absence. No one would do any more than go "awwww" if I robbed a store to feed my kids, I'D STILL GO TO PRISON!
So long as we're talking "fairness" - Mexico does not tolerate illegal immigrants, or people working in their country without a visa. Their law is considerably stricter, and is far worse than a bus ticket to the border. They have a policy of shooting (fatally, with live bullets), people who cross THEIR southern border. Since Mexico, it's government and it's own citizens regard THOSE people as undeserving of life and liberty, they have no room to complain at the very humane treatment and consideration THEIR citizens receive here in this country.
I would say that he should be deported, without a support order so long as he is not in this country. If he gets a job in his native country and sends money home, good for him. If Mom chooses to remain here as a single mom, or decides to emigrate to Mexico, that's her choice, she's a grown woman capable of intelligent decisions, and hopefully can find a workable solution for all involved.
If these three people were the only three people who were "stuck" in a bad situation due to immigration policy, I'd say sure. Fine him for breaking the law, let him get back to whatever he does, and see him in five years if he decides to apply for naturalization. Unfortunately, there's 12 MILLION people here illegally, most of them from Mexico. It is too big of a problem to sweep under the rug, and doing so will render the law completely uninforcable. It will insult everyone who's patiently gone through the process for a visa, or to legally emigrate here. It will insult everyone who's ever paid their taxes, registered their dog, car, boat, kids, etc, and followed the rules.
back to putting it in Doc's terms - It would be as big of an insult as everyone who's paid their just and due support obligations on time, only to see the court waive the arrearages and future obligations of every genuine deadbeat who's been capable of paying.
When it comes to "anchor babies", the abuse of this has become so acute that I think the only thing to do is grant the child citizenship, and deport mom. If she decides to take her child with her, that's her decision, but she's here illegally. The ability to gestate and nurse a child should not give one sex an advantage in residency over the other. We should not encourage adults to use their children to avoid or thwart the law.
That's like letting a female pedophile off the hook by saying "we can't imprison her, she's a mommy and her child will suffer!". Oh, and we'll make the victim pay child support, since it's all about the baby, now.
If Mexico was so concerned about it's citizens, then it could spend it's national oil revenue on supporting them, as a suggestion. As a nation, it's not. We are enabling a corrupt government by relieving the pressure caused by it's inactions and inability to consider their citizen's welfare and act in their citizen's interests.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:08 am
The laws regarding citizenship though incredibly restrictive, do allow foreigners to come in. So Doc, its not all black and white. Eg. If a father comes illegally into the country to take his child back (what was that cuban boy's case) - I would support his effort. If a man comes into the country and then becomes a father, his motives are definitely open to doubt. Had he offered to move with his family back to whereever he came from - there would not be an issue. He is not completely a "stand up" guy. And this thread just proves that MRAs are just not looking out for nilly-willy privilege by virtue of being male - that is unlike the feminists - who seek privilege simply and always based on being female (and implied victim).
July 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
@Edd
I have answered your questions. YOU TOOK MY POST WRONG and posted irrelevant answers to me and asked me to address something that had nothing to do with what I said, a common tactic when someone is wrong and simply tries to change the topic. It's ok Edd, most liberals do that when faced with simple facts and figures they didn't realize, or want to see.
Here's my "answers" to you, if this doesn't do it, please let me know what you want and I'll show you the facts....oph, and I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said Americas education problem is due to immigrants, something I never said
mike lordi Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
You're the one who took the topic wrong. Here is what I said:
"the child has to be supported by social welfare programs paid for by american taxpayers, of which nothing is paid by the parents as they are not citizens.
Now, do some research into the failures of schools, hospitals and other types of things in the communities in border towns due to this problem."
So I was talking about financial failure of taxpayer supported things and you went off about the grades??? YOU were wrong and I stand by my points as I stated the stats and research to back it up
# mike lordi Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
@Edd,
PLease point out where I made "outlandish claim that "America's education is poor due to illegal immigrants".
I did no such thing. I was speaking of the financial collapse of schools, hospitals and other taxpayer supported things that fail due to the overload of illegal immigrants who do not contribute into the programs, but whose anchor babies take from the programs
July 4th, 2008 at 11:50 am
The biggest supporters of non border-enforcement are republicans. Who are the prime beneficiaries of a massive, ultra-cheap labor pool with no rights or bargaining power in the marketplace? Roll over, Edd, cuz that's who you're in bed with, albeit for very different reasons.
The only way to really get a leg up and make a decent wage as a contractor around here is to start supervising large crews of illegals. No business can get by without using them these days because all of their competitors are. The money illegals get paid is a joke. They literally sleep eight or ten to a motel room. I'd feel like a frigging yard boss on a slave plantation if I took the job so I just wouldn't do it.
You are in favor of exploiting third world labor for the benefit of a few elites at the top. Also of subsidizing the corruption of the Mexican elite by taking care of their problems for them. Mexico will never change because it will never have to. You've got a gall calling other people bigots. It's like saying someone's anti-black for not supporting slavery.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
"My wife got a good laugh when she read that you thought I was for open borders..."
If you're pro-illegal immigration you are for open borders.
"Bigots would be more fun to debate if they had any sort of reasoning."
The only one without "[sic] any sort of reasoning" is you. You're entire argument is that I'm a bigot; which you have no proof of, and is irrelevent even if it's true. Whether my argument that illegal immigration is right or wrong has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Each argument deserves to be analyzed to be based on it's own merits.
You haven't proven that I'm a bigot; even though I wouldn't care if that's what you thought. But you have proven that you're a pc robot.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Doc: "Extradition from Mexico for child support would not happen as there is no treaty governing that with any country."
Wrong. We have a criminal extradition treaty with Mexico so long as no capital punishment is involved. Civil non-payment is routinely morphed into a criminal offense of contempt of court, which could result in extradition. Having lived on the border for most of my life, I do have a little knowledge of the subject. I have also seen the school system and hospital under stress in Brownsville, Harlingen, McAlllen, Laredo, ad infinitum for those of you who think there are no problems on the border! It's very close to being a warzone at the present.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
What a mess, and some of these posts are an embarrassment. I just want to address one thing Glenn wrote:
"Regardless, if we can make an exception to immigration laws for allegedly battered wives, we should also be able to make exceptions to protect a 10-year-old boy from losing his father."
Sorry Glenn, but the VAWA provisions for immigrant battered spouses are the law, not "exceptions" to the law. And amazingly, the immigration portion of the VAWA is written in a very gender-neutral way, and applied in a gender-neutral way as far as I can tell.
There have been a number of immigrant men who have been able to use these same provisions to escape from an abusive wife without losing their immigration status. If only the rest of VAWA were written and applied this way!
July 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Normally, I am in lock-step agreement with Glenn on issues he raises. Not so in this case. The old adage "two wrongs don't make a right" apply here: just because some (women) get unfair relief from deportation doesn't make it a viable excuse. And this is just one more way to encourage "anchor children" being used to short-circuit our immigration laws. Finally, Let's not ignore the accountability of the father, who should have known something like this was a possibility, especially bringing so much attention to himself by getting involved in the US legal system.
While depriving any child of their parent is a bad thing, there are greater issues that need be considered in this case.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:27 am
JD Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
You guys are doing yourselves no favors talking about "anchor babies". It is obviously a derogatory term, and sounds pretty close to several others I can think of, none of them pleasant.
=====
I am sick of PC. Does loophole baby sound more appetizing to your palate?
b
July 17th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Furthermore I am tired or the twisted argument that people who are against illegal immigration are anti-immigration, this in not the case! The media has warped the minds of people who believe this tripe.
b
August 14th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Alvarado sneaked across the Mexican border in 1991 - this says it all. He sneaked into the US. He broke the law and the fact that his son is in the US has nothing to do with the fact that this man is a criminal.
To reward this man for illegally entering the US is wrong. It is a crime to "sneak" into the U.S. and the fact that this man having a child in the US doesn't change a thing. He is a criminal and should be treated as such.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Very sad....just for the record, everyone pay taxes if you live in the US. One way or the other.I'm sure there is a lot more behind Alvarado's story that nobody knows...a human story,and as far as i'm concern unless you are a native-american, WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS! Check your family history and most likely your family comes from somewhere else. There is no difference between an immigrant from France or Ireland or Mexico right? Well...when it comes to latin americans things are a little diferent here, but we are not going to discuss that. we should be greatfull that we live in this great country and that we don't have to leave our families and friends behind and go to a place you now for a fact you are not welcome (otherwise you wouldn't have to cross the borders illegally) just to make a better life for your self and your family even when it means total separation, fear, persecution, underpay, abuse, language barrier, etc, etc, etc.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Weren't we all orginally 'illegal' immigrants? The U.S. is made up of people from other countries hoping to come here and live a better life. Sooner or later, latino immigrants will settle into our country. Remember what happened with the Irish immigrants back in the 1800s? No one wanted them here and a 100 years later, they are now apart of the "melting pot" we call United States of America.
Also, I'm a U.S. citizen born here by an American father and a Canadian mother and have a daughter by a refugee from Cambodia. He is now facing deportation and yes, it is going to be tough since I'm getting childsupport from him. I'm as of now, dependent on him and welfare(yes, I'm on welfare) to help me work and go to college. Now my "anchor baby" of a daughter is going have to grow up without her father in her life. Is that fair?