Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mother Loses Child over Language Barrier

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mother Loses Child over Language Barrier

    To the Mods: I didn't know where to post this at first. It sounds like a Social Woes type of thread but it does involve the courts of Mississippi and pending legislature in Mexico so I put it here. Feel free to move it if necessary.

    Also-- I put the link in here because the opening of the article brings up a question that would definitely lead into Fratching territory. "Can the U.S. government take a woman's baby from her because she doesn't speak English?" Times Magazine
    -----

    The story:

    From what I gather, Cirila Baltazar Cruz is an illegal immigrant that came from the mountainous region of Oaxaca. She came to the U.S. to send money back home to fend for her children and family. She speaks neither English nor Spanish and when she found herself pregnant, she did what she normally did back at home; took care of herself, lived life and went to the hospital at long last to give birth to her kid.

    In her culture, cribs are not used and neither is baby formula. Babies are breast fed until they can eat solids and are kept with the mom in a shawl-like slingshot shaped papoose. These are some of the reasons why the DHS has deemed Ms. Cruz unfit to be a mother. Another reason given is that, in a case of emergency, Ms. Cruz would be unable to call the police for help. (Which, really, I find quite stupid considering she DID contact the police for help finding a hospital to give birth in.)

    According to the article, and Mississippi Immigrants' Rights Alliance (MIRA) the problems arose when she finally reached the hospital she'd been looking for. Despite the fact that Ms. Cruz had a relative with her that could translate the indigenous Chatino into English, the hospital refused to let said relative do any translating. Instead, a translator from state services was provided... one of Puerto Rican descent.

    Now, to any of you that don't know a lick of Spanish, or those who do but are not aware, there are many different dialects of Spanish. Although, in general, peoples of different Spanish speaking countries can understand one another, there are key differences that can throw a quite significant wrench into the conversation. Puerto Rican Spanish is different from Cuban Spanish and that's different from Mexican Spanish etc... and this is not even touching on the main difference between Hispanic Spanish and Castellano Spanish from Spain (The grandfather language).

    When I first came into the US I was often caught up speaking in Spanish to Mexican kids and I'd be confused as all hell every now and then. The language barrier is no different than we, as Americans go up to a native Brit and ask for a cigarette. The person either knows what you're talking about or not and it takes a little bit of figuring out that, no, he's not asking you if you mean that you intend to blow a homosexual but you're just asking for a ciggie.

    So, not only this woman not speak English, her Spanish is limited to that of Mexico (and terribly broken at that) and her translator is affluent in Puerto Rican Spanish only. The one person who can definitely help her is not being allowed to do at all and now she's not only being accused of being an unfit mother but of prostitution as well.

    For all we know, she could have meant to say 'The baby's father was the boyfriend I was living with but we are no longer together.' and her translator got 'The baby's father is the man whom I traded sex to live in his home.' and later told DHS 'She traded sex for rent and she doesn't know the name of the father.'

    Anyhow, here's the link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...918941,00.html

    Should Ms. Cruz be allowed to get her baby back before she's sent back to Mexico or not?

  • #2
    Originally posted by AnqeIicDemise View Post
    Should Ms. Cruz be allowed to get her baby back before she's sent back to Mexico or not?
    While I find the back story interesting, it wasn't really needed to answer this question. The answer is no, in my opinion. If they are deporting Ms. Cruz, they will have to do so without her baby. Her baby is an American citizen born on American soil, and has done nothing to warrant exile.

    I suspect that if her parental rights had not been severed, the mother wouldn't be facing deportation.
    Last edited by Boozy; 09-02-2009, 11:49 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      A bit off-topic, but in regards to the language thing: a LOT of languages have different dialects IIRC. French spoken in Canada is a little different to French spoken in France, French-French is different to Belgian french, which is different to Swiss French etc.
      Even English gets the same thing as some people have pointed out.

      Comment


      • #4
        I may sound heartless, but hey, guess what? If you aren't here legally, these are the problems you face.

        Because the law says that this child is an American Citizen (fucked up as I think that is) she remains here. The mother is not an American Citizen, she goes home.

        I think probably the best middle ground would be to deport both mother and child back to Mexico. One less illegal here in the states, one less child dependent on our system (although, it sounded like the child was already fostered or adopted- at least that is a good thing if she can't stay with Mom)

        This whole thing really doesn't have anything to do with Mom not speaking English. It's mostly all about her illegal status, and the fact that if you drop a kid over here, the kid is an American Citizen merely for being born here.

        The problems I see with this situation are far beyond this mother wanting her baby. (free care in the hospital wouldn't be available to someone like me who has lived in this country her whole life, works legally and pays taxes for instance...)

        *sigh*

        On the one hand, I have sympathy for this woman. On the other hand, it really irks me that we can't even afford to take care of our own people and all this money and care and time and effort is being spent on someone who isn't even a legal U.S. Citizen. *headdesk*
        "Children are our future" -LaceNeilSinger
        "And that future is fucked...with a capital F" -AmethystHunter

        Comment


        • #5
          Get rid of the anchor child bullshit, send both back to their "home" country (or country of legal residence). The US would then have a bit more money without trying to subsidize the illegals in the nation.

          The US has approximately 12 million illegal immigrants. If that was a state, it would be the 7th most populated state in the nation.

          Set a deadline and enforce it. If you're here illegally after that date and you get found? You get sent home on the next flight out. No ifs, ands or buts.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by AnqeIicDemise View Post

            In her culture, cribs are not used and neither is baby formula. Babies are breast fed until they can eat solids and are kept with the mom in a shawl-like slingshot shaped papoose. These are some of the reasons why the DHS has deemed Ms. Cruz unfit to be a mother

            guess I was an unfit mother then

            It's called "attachement parenting"-there are books written on it-maybe DHS should read them......
            Registered rider scenic shore 150 charity ride

            Comment


            • #7
              This is just so full of fail on the part of the hospital. Let the person who knows the damn language do the translation!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by violetyoshi View Post
                This is just so full of fail on the part of the hospital. Let the person who knows the damn language do the translation!
                As long as some of the words being translated are "As soon as you are discharged, you will be put on a plane back to Mexico."

                Fair compromise?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BlaqueKatt View Post
                  guess I was an unfit mother then

                  It's called "attachement parenting"-there are books written on it-maybe DHS should read them......
                  For shame that you would suggest that, that would mean they actually know something about what they deal with.
                  I am a sexy shoeless god of war!
                  Minus the sexy and I'm wearing shoes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What a silly system you have over there to say that if a child is born in your nation, it automatically becomes a citizen!

                    I mean, what if a tourist was travelling the country and just happens to drop a child in the middle of the visit? Does that mean that mother and father aren't allowed to take the child away to home??

                    No, if the mother (and I guess only parent) leaves, so does the child! Simple!
                    ZOE: Preacher, don't the Bible got some pretty specific things to say about killing?

                    SHEPHERD BOOK: Quite specific. It is, however, Somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Slytovhand View Post
                      Does that mean that mother and father aren't allowed to take the child away to home??
                      No. The parents must usually "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States" for their offspring born in the US to be considered American.

                      Even if they do have such a residence, parents are of course permitted to make decisions for their minor children. For example, a mother visiting the US from Canada who gives birth will be allowed to return home with their child. The child born on American soil will have dual American-Canadian citizenship.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yea, Slyt, I agree that it's completely silly.

                        I guess that would mean that if I chose to have kids, I should go drop it across the border just so it can say it's a citizen of both two countries. I mean, fucking really?

                        Do other countries do that shit? o_O

                        I see no reason to deny this woman her child. Ship 'em both out!
                        "Children are our future" -LaceNeilSinger
                        "And that future is fucked...with a capital F" -AmethystHunter

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Slytovhand View Post
                          What a silly system you have over there to say that if a child is born in your nation, it automatically becomes a citizen!
                          Actually, Slyt, it's not too abnormal. I know for a fact that Turkey does it, and I'm fairly sure that Greece does something similar. In fact, so far as I know, most nations do the same: If a child is born on the soil of that nation it is considered a citizen of that nation.

                          How I know about Turkey and Greece: A friend of mine had to go back to Greece to do his two year military stint before he could legally claim his inheritance since he'd been born there.

                          For Turkey: My dad was stationed in Ankara, Turkey, but (at the time) there was no actual Air Force base there. As such, there was no American soil for me to be born on, and therefore Turkey considers me a Turkish male who has not done his two year stint. I can never go visit unless I want to take a two year detour. They will see my passport, and give me a two year tour of duty. And I've heard of people who have that happen when they visit in their 60's.

                          Check your laws in Australia, you'll find similar, I think.

                          The particulars of this though, are where the problem comes from: The woman is no longer legally considered the child's mother. As a result, she would be unable to remove the child from this country. In fact, without the child's custodian's permission, she wouldn't be able to take the child to dinner.

                          If she were still (legally) the child's mother, she could do anything short of child abuse and take the child wherever.

                          As for this case, I'm thinking that the mother got screwed, and quite unfairly. Her rights, based on what we know, were inadequately protected by the legal system, and her case should be revisited.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pedersen View Post
                            As for this case, I'm thinking that the mother got screwed, and quite unfairly. Her rights, based on what we know, were inadequately protected by the legal system, and her case should be revisited.
                            She's here illegally. She has no rights.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by daleduke17 View Post
                              She's here illegally. She has no rights.
                              Doesn't the US Constitution afford its protections to everyone, no matter what their citizenship status?
                              Any comment I make should not be taken as an absolute, unless I say it should be. Even this one.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X