Mother Loses Child over Language Barrier

[daleduke17]

Doesn't the US Constitution afford its protections to everyone, no matter what their citizenship status?

IMO, the Preamble makes it sound like it is for citizens only:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Looking at the bold part, that would be for citizens only. Also, do you have any rights if you were to go to say Mexico or Cambodia?

[BroomJockey]

IMO, the Preamble makes it sound like it is for citizens only:

You may interpret it that way, but I was speaking specifically to how the US Judicial System has interpreted and applied it. And I know Miranda rights are applicable to non-citizens.

As for Mexico, they actually demarkate exactly what rights foreign nationals have in their constitution, so there isn't any case of ambiguity. Couldn't find anything about Cambodia.

[daleduke17]

As for Mexico, they actually demarkate exactly what rights foreign nationals have in their constitution, so there isn't any case of ambiguity.

That's actually quite interesting. Is it any less than a citizen of Mexico?

The Cambodia part was just the second of two random countries that came to mind.

[BroomJockey]

That's actually quite interesting. Is it any less than a citizen of Mexico?

Well, different. The one that really sprang to the front was you're not allowed to own beach-front property.

[daleduke17]

Well, different. The one that really sprang to the front was you're not allowed to own beach-front property.

HAHAHAHA! That's hilarious. It's like they said "I don't care if the dirty foreigners have right to due process, I don't want them owning beach front property."

Beach front property > Due Process

[Flyndaran]

She's here illegally. She has no rights.

Wait, so I can rape and murder illegals all I want? Sweet.
That crap is Bush talk. Human rights are for everyone not just those born here.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

[humorous] Well they've got lots of one, and very little of the other...[/humorous]

ZING!!

Joking aside though, it's not a matter of whether or not the child should be sent back, it's weather or not the child should have been taken in the first place. The reasons they gave are total bullshit, it's them that need sorting out. The deportation official's just doing their job the way they're supposed to.

P.S. There is no such thing as an un-abusable (don't think that's a word... meh) system. If we threw things out on those grounds we wouldn't have capitalism.

[lordlundar]

Well, different. The one that really sprang to the front was you're not allowed to own beach-front property.

same here in Canada. You can legally own any land up to a beach with a water body adjacent to it. The beach and water territory is Crown land.

[BroomJockey]

same here in Canada. You can legally own any land up to a beach with a water body adjacent to it. The beach and water territory is Crown land.

Uh, you missed the context. In Mexico, a Mexican citizen CAN own beach-front property. A foreign national can't. It's not "You don't own the beach," it's "you cannot own a house on the beach."

[daleduke17]

Wait, so I can rape and murder illegals all I want? Sweet.
That crap is Bush talk. Human rights are for everyone not just those born here.

You are a citizen of the USA. You would be bound by laws. So, no, you can't rape and murder all of the illegals you want.

And you'd probably run into a cop or two along the way. Wouldn't want you to possibly have to obey the orders of a cop.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, the child may have done nothing to warrent deportation...but she's done nothing to warrent her being torn as an unweaned infant from her mother, either.

This is appalling. Of course they should both be deported.

WTF is up with the idea that they won't let her translator help her? To me, this sounds like a bunch of vindictive, evil people trying to "teach a lesson" to an illegal.

I don't like it when people are over here illegally. They need to be treated like the nuisances they are and deported. However, what they are doing to this woman is cruel and unusual, and taking unfair advantage of her, most likely to satisfy someone's sense of "justice." This sucks.

[IDrinkaRum]

We might actually see more of this, maybe. (Not definitely, but maybe).

The reason being? The illegals figure that if they have children in America, the kids are automatically American citizens, no one would deprive the child of their parents, so the parents get to stay.

However, there might be some who see this as a lesson in the making:

You want your kids to be American citizens? Congrats! They are!

You, however, are still breaking the rules/law, so you do not get to stay here, but have to be deported.

Don't worry about your kids. They'll be raised as good Americans by Americans who are here legally (either other Hispanics with legit documentation/green cards or any other American Citizen).

If this happens enough, in theory, less and less illegal immigrants, especially women, will be coming over the border to have kids and to stay, thereby halving the illegal immigrant population by at least half.

(Did that make any sense? I'm typing this without the clarity of coffee).

[Savannah]

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.

But...but...breast feeding and constant carrying are good for babies. WTF is DHS thinking?

WTF is up with the idea that they won't let her translator help her?

Well, I can see being worried that the translator won't translate well enough. You wouldn't want someone getting the wrong medical information, which would be easy for someone who doesn't speak English too well to do given how complicated it often is. On the other hand, I talked to someone who did translation for a hospital and she said that she isn't great in Spanish and has to translate things very simply, so I can't really see how a relative would do much worse. (Except for the hospital trying to keep from being sued if something went wrong, I guess...)

[EricKei]

IMO, the Preamble makes it sound like it is for citizens only

Keep in mind that, back then, "citizen" was (virtually) a synonym for "landowner"...But that's another Fratch for another day.

As for my 2 cents...which I think may only be worth about 0.7 cents these days...As an illegal, she does not have the rights of a legal immigrant, but I see no reason why she should not be allowed to keep her child. Moreover, I can*not* comprehend why they did not allow the qualified translator to speak for her.

[jackfaire]

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!

Exactly no the law doesn't mean if someone has a kid here the kid stays it means the child is legally a US Citizen. It means he has the right to stay here not has to.

That law is specifically what makes those of us born here Citizens. If we did away with the law none of us would be legal US citizens. If anything we would need to refine the law.