Chicagoist: The Unlikely Activist

guest

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:57:11 -0600

the law is fundamentally flawed? which law are you talking about. illegally sneaking across the border, the manufacturing and purchasing of fake government identifications, driving without valid drivers license, driving without insurance, identity theft, utilizing hospital services and not paying for said services. demanding little more in return than quiet anonymity? we saw millions of them marching in our streets demanding amnesty.we are america they told us. today we march tomorrow we vote. not exactly quiet anomymity. it seems odd to complain about them taking jobs? like construction jobs, what would your attitude be if they were taking your job.

SAMiller

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:14:26 -0600

And she has been deported! http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80

Kevin Robinson

Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:49:54 -0600

davey k: Nope. No criminal apologist here. I never felt like the "she's a felon" argument held much water. The only reason "these people" are felons or lawbreakers or whatever is because the law that they are supposed to respect is fundamentally flawed. It isn't like they came here to rape and rob banks. They're mowing lawns and washing dishes. As far as her being forced out of work, I was responding to fed up's comment that she "has raped the social services of this country and now wants more and more". Unless she hadn't been paying taxes all the time that she was working here, she wasn't taking anything she hadn't paid for, and in fact was paying into a system that she never anticipated collecting on. It just seems odd to me that Americans complain about a group of people that come here and work, contributing to society, and demanding little more in return that quiet anonymity and that they be left to go to shitty jobs in peace.

davey k

Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:38:14 -0600

Wow, Kevin...that's an, uh, interesting take - "was forced out of work." Can't get much more criminal apologist than that... Elvira is a shrewd person, setting herself up as some sort of martyr. But, cunning businesswoman that she is, she has no right to be making demands of the United States. That;s not my opinion. That is a fact.

guest

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:33:20 -0600

construction would'nt collapse, greedy contractors would'nt profit as much without them. these people are working construction because they work for less than half the wages than the people they have replaced. the unions have given up on the residential sector. and using these people have kept the prices of housing low? hell no. the prices have soared. these contractors under cut union contractors by a couple of hundred dollars, and that's enough for the builder to jump on. the builder has a lavish lifestyle to maintain. i imagine the same thing is going on in those other industries too. profits would collapse.

lacamila

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:15:22 -0600

Darlin', without the labor of poor and uneducated people, the construction, hotel, and restaurant industries would collapse. How many college graduates do you know who want to work as janitors or dishwashers? When was the last time you scrubbed a toilet that wasn't in your own home? (Or do you have a poor uneducated person scrub your toilets for you?) And Elvira's kid isn't keeping her here. The incredibly overburdened, understaffed, disorganized bureaucracy that handles deportations is the reason she's still here. There are plenty of people who don't have US-born children who have been waiting for years to be deported. The system is broken!

guest

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:05:58 -0600

I can't wait for the Playboy spread. *please oh please oh please*

guest

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:47:25 -0600

Why the hell would a country want to import poor uneducated people. This country has more than enough poor and uneducated. Even Mexico won't except people like that. No country would. Ask Elvira and others like her if having an anchor baby means nothing. Of course she can still be deported, but the only reason she's still in this country since her 2002 arrest and deportation order is because of her's.

lacamila

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:22:37 -0600

I'm so sick of people complaining about how unfair illegal immigrants are to LEGAL immigrants. Legal immigrants are for the most part relatively educated and wealthy. In order to get a visa to work in the US, you have to have a college education or tons of money. There's no such work visa for a poor, uneducated person to come here to do manual labor (with the very limited exception of the extremely complicated seasonal worker visa). A poor, uneducated person can't just go to the US Consulate and apply for a "work visa". There's no such thing for blue-collar workers. And the term "anchor baby" means NOTHING. She can still be deported - the kid's US citizenship doesn't help her one bit until he turns 21. 21 years is an eternity. Our immigration laws are racist and elitist.

guest

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:50:34 -0600

i read the story about her in the daily herald,how she and her friend pass the time figuring out the casting for the eventual movie about her story.she knows she needs a dramatic confrontation with authorities scene for for a successful movie. i imagine she and her friend have probably scipted the scene, chaos all around the composed heroine, clutching her bible to her breast. as she's led away by a half dozen officers dressed in full riot gear.she knows her days of doing the dirty jobs americans won't do are over. regardless the outcome, she'll sell her story for the movie. probably get a reality based television show for a few weeks.and then she'll be placed as a figurehead on the board of directors of some taxpayer funded hispanic organization, like la raza perhaps. when she cashes in, it will no longer matter to her what side of the border she's on.

guest

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:49:18 -0600

It's too bad she's here illegally and has that kid, cause otherwise I would *love* to give it to her..

fed up

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:21:28 -0600

She has been convicted of stealing another persons social security number. I believe her second conviction for identity theft.Its not harsh its the truth she is a thief. She was equal under the law and has been convicted and now she wants to be special. She wasnt forced out of work she lied and stole to get a job she didnt deserve and wasnt qualified for. Kevin I am all for immigration we are all immigrants but a lawful orderly process not sneak across the border and take someone elses ID get knocked up Daddy nowhere in sight get convicted and expect others to feel sorry for you.NO! Follow the law.

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:36:49 -0600

fed up: That's a little harsh, don't you think? While it's true that her status in this country is illegal, isn't one of the principal rights of America equal treatment under the law? As for her "raping" the social services of this country, she was employed and self-sufficient until she was forced out of work, and therefore paying into that social service system thorough payroll deductions, just like the rest of us. And not enjoying tax benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit.

fed up

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:14:12 -0600

She is a convicted felon who has no respect for the law. She is an ID thief. I wonder who paid the bill when her son was born (The american taxpayer) who pays to send her son to school, This women has raped the social services of this country and now wants more and more. listened to her on the news today all this time saying she wants to be here but hasnt put much effort into learning the language. Arrest her sne d her back to mexico. Improve your country dont drag down another.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:17:51 -0600

this girl is a total loser. millions of mexicans sneak into this country and live for many years without being caught. this moron was caught twice in five years. trying to work at a major airport with false credentials. how stupid was that? she's not the face of the immigrant movement. she's the face of the anchor baby debacle.

Spook

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:13:24 -0600

Guest 23 Yes I know about the stolen election, I hinted at such in my last post. But NAFTA is not going to be rewriting or repealed. Do you really think Americans are gonna rally around this?- with every thing else we are not dealing with? And we are not going to let them in. Actually immigration did a big raid in Logan Square yesterday that some how managed not to make the news. I think these raids will increase with the blessing of most US citizen to equal, one hand a wave or terror on immigrants, on the other a distraction for the rest of us. And if you look at some of the crack pots who are responding purely focused on that stupid silly woman,you can see what the mood is gonna be like in America. The only real option is that Mexicans are honestly gonna have to start a social movement, like the ones recently witnessed in Eastern Europe or in South America

Lintilla

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:48:18 -0600

SAMiller has it right. The kid doesn't have to stay here... And as unfortunate as it might be, the law is the law. Arellano is perfectly free to complain -- from Mexico -- but ultimately this is a decision for Americans to make (and I'm not one of them, so I don't feel entitled to be part of that decision!) I do hope that the laws are changed, but until then, breaking them is not the way to go.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:11:32 -0600

#23: Your version of recent Mexican History is extremely misinformed. The disparity between standards of living between the U.S. and Mexico has NOT increased post-NAFTA, it has decreased substantially and Mexico has undergone an economic boom. Mexico has benefitted IMMENSELY from NAFTA, which is why they want more, not less globilization, and they'd gladly ship every poor obrero or ranchero off to the U.S. if they could because the expat Mexican has proven to be a prodigeous sender of money home to his/her impoverished relatives. This lessens the demand for employment within Mexico, and the remittances reduce the demand for social services. The combination of the two lessens the likelihood of the kind of social uprising happening that could bring the economic good times to an end, and that is viewed as a very good thing by the Mexicans who are doing well there and have no intention of relocating to the U.S. In fact, probably the ONLY thing that is agreed upon by the rich, the poor, the government, and even the church, is that immigration to the U.S. is good for Mexico.

Navin

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:54:25 -0600

Good posts 15/23, I'm glad to see somebody at least address some of the realities of the situation. Face it the U.S. is addicted to dirt cheap labor and people don't want to jeopardize that, so you get second class citizen proposals like 'guest worker programs' and b.s. phrases like 'jobs american's won't do'. Americans didn't work on farms? My mother and grandfather did, although they probably wouldn't have if they weren't paid enough to survive on. A mostly legal populace mean less workers to pay crumbs to and exploit and we can't have that. Anyway, Elvira that year holed up in that church with nothing to do would have been a great time to work on that Ingles and help your credibility a bit.

timocity

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:05:52 -0600

This women is not only not here legally, she is a SLUG. She spent a year holed up in a church and did nothing to improve her lot in life. Did she learn English so that she could be a better spokesperson for her cause in America? No. she did nothing that would make her case seem more sympathetic. It is easy to understand why Mexico does not want her back, she will just be a burden on their system when she returns. It is cases like this that stink up the entire fake "no one is illegal" movement. Spend as much money as it takes to round them up and ship them back, widen the Rio Grande to double the width of the Panama Canal, start charging ships to pass through and have the Coast Guard patrol it. Lots of new jobs (construction and operations), lots of new federal revenue, and if someone gets across they are a really strong swimmer and employable as life guards or at water parks.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:04:22 -0600

Spook - they did elect a populist, the former mayor of Mexico City (who, incidently, made Mexico City a significantly better place to live), but the election was stolen by a right-wing who is close with the Bush family, as was his predecessor, Vicente Fox. Bush was so happy that the election was stolen, he called the guy within minutes of him being declared the "winner," even though the results were to be challenged, and non-partisan election watchers were crying foul over ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. (by the way, I'm guest 15) I didn't say it was all wine and roses, but back in the middle of the 20th century, the economic disparity between the US and Mexico was not what it is today. When Mexico City hosted the Olympics, the country was just outside of being considered 1st World. Now its in a solid 3rd world country. Mexico's economy started slowing in the 70's, and ground to a halt by the end of the 70's, leading to the first wave of illegal immigration (the Reagan Amnesty), then came NAFTA, and illegal immigration exploded. People lost their land, lost their livelihoods, and it resonated across the entire rural economy. At the same time, the tiny elite that controls over 85% of the wealth in Mexico became even richer as they acquired the land. Its the same kind of thing that went down here during the dust bowl years. Small farmers couldn't compete (though, during those years, it was due to environmental catastrophe, not bad economics), lost their farms, and moved en masse to California, where they weren't welcomed by the average folks (Okie's anyone?), but big agribusiness loved them, because they worked CHEAP. The best term for what's going on now isn't even immigration (whether legal or illegal), its a Great Migration, a massive population shift, if you will. Either rewrite/repeal NAFTA and work with the Mexican government to fix the underlying structural problems in the Mexican economy, or let them in. Those are the only real world options.

Spook

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:42:26 -0600

yea Kevin, that's just what I meant, congrats. Guest 19 Are you kidding me? The US can't even improve the US and do you see what's going on in Iraq? Come on! If you think the US is gonna "work to improve Mexico", you got another thing comming and look at the type of leadership in Mexico we support. The reality is that Mexicans sneaking across the boarder are part of the problem, and folks on this side are getting less tolerant and don't think there won't be a back lash,( and you know we got lots of nut cases) especially as we start getting more paranoid about our unsure footing in the world, which is coming. The reality is Mexicans need to get real patriotic real soon and fight for their Country( like those teachers who went on strike in Oaxaca) instead of running from it. It’s not just about a "job" or "leaving poverty". It’s about electing some one like Chavez who will represent the interests of the masses as opposed to the elite

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:56:15 -0600

"This women just seems manipulative and dishonest." Have you seen the history on this woman? Even if she was legal, she's a criminal. Telling he to stay in Mexico is like telling an AD/HD kid to stay in the corner. Then she steals SSN identification to work at O'Hare. That isn't her son. That's the meal ticket she bore to stay over here. Agitator.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:53:55 -0600

Is she going to lobby in English or Spanish? The least she could've done with her time in the house that early 20th century legal immigrant hands built was learn the language. Would Rosa Parks' cause be worth more than a grain of salt is she spoke Swahili?

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:34:52 -0600

Until the US works to improve Mexico, a works to implement a rational immigration policy, more and more of this will happen. Sending her back to Mexico isn't the solution and neither is locking her up in jail. For every person we lock up and deport, there are many many more people swarming in. Agree with her or not, immigration problems need to be dealt with. In the meantime, more and more people are going to illegaly enter the country.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:30:22 -0600

#15's take on Mexico's economic history is amazing, and wrong. Yes, American agribusiness has depressed the price of corn in Mexico and hurt a lot of farmers, but to say that Mexico was all wine and roses ... er, or tequila and cactus, I suppose ... is outrageous. Mexico has a long history of severe economic recession that goes back almost to its founding, and it has constantly had corrupt governments with no ability to do anything about it. Illegal immigration across the US-Mexican border predates NAFTA by many, many years. If you'll remember, Reagan granted amnesty to millions a decade and a half before NAFTA.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:26:38 -0600

I find it interesting that so many people here are united in their opinion of this woman ... and that I'm with you. She is a cold manipulator who doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself, including her son. Living in a church of the abused kindess of others can't be a better environment for the kid than simply going back to Mexico. Ferdy's right in that he'd wind up living in poverty, but I think that's just as much a factor of him mother's willingness to spend a year sitting on her ass waiting for handouts than it is the economic factors of Mexico.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:20:54 -0600

ICE, take her away!

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:08:26 -0600

Mexico didn't become such a shitbox until NAFTA was passed and millions of people lost their work when companies like monsanto started dumping cheap corn into their economy. As a result, farmers in mexico couldn't compete, lost their land and went looking for jobs. When the farmers left, local communities lost their central economic driver, causing truckers to lose their jobs, and local businesses to close. People went looking for jobs. More and more people went looking for jobs, having heard that NAFTA was going to bring all these great manufacturing jobs south of the border. But then all the manufacturing jobs went to China. And the mexicans still didn't have work. So, they went where there was work. You want to fix mexico's problems, the best place to start is by repealing NAFTA and/or demanding that the US government stop giving out huge subsidies to massive agribusinesses that keep american farm products cheaper than the stuff grown in countries like mexico. Either that, or wait for enough people to cross the border from mexico that our economies equalize, which means that wages will fall further here, and unemployment rates will fall in mexico, as the population has declined. Globalization allows products and capital to move with little regulation between countries, but people (labor) are locked into their countries. After all, you don't want people crossing the borders in search of a better wage. You want to keep them in their dirt poor country so they can make a dirt poor wage producing shit for rich folk in the US, Australia, Japan, and Western Europe. Oh, wages rising, like they are in China? Get a new trade agreement and move somewhere else. Vietnam's popular these days.

Dan Boland

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:40:15 -0600

Spook, I completely disagree with your assessment of Cindy Sheehan, but that's for another thread.

Fancypants1

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:37:37 -0600

as the first-generation son of hispanic immigrants, i have to say i'm pretty ashamed this woman is choosing to be the face of the immigration reform movement. I can't wait until she gets arrested the second she steps outside.

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:30:37 -0600

...to bring freedom and justice to Mexico, just like Rosa Parks did Rosa Parks brought freedom and justice to Mexico? I had no idea....

JuliaPorter

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:08:48 -0600

Cindy Sheehan is a great parallel. I am 100% behind immigration reform, but every time I see Elvira Arellano's smug face, my blood pressure rises thirty points. She serves as a lightning rod for the anti-reform movement by publicly representing every negative attribute they like to crow about in the media. I would hope for her to be arrested in DC, so the movement could go forward without her, but I have a feeling it would only bring her more publicity.

Spook

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:07:59 -0600

Boland Cindy Sheehan was an excellent person to be the spokes person for the anti war movement. She lost her son and was not afraid to speak up and fight. She was failed by cowardly liberals who feel more at home in country clubs and black tie cocktail parties that speaking truth to power Elvira Arellano should take a page from Cindy Sheean's play book and go back to Mexico and fight her corrupt and repressive government( along with the other brave activist- in poverty) to bring freedom and justice to Mexico, just like Rosa Parks did

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:51:01 -0600

Um, isn't using falsified information - especially something as important as a Social Security number - a CRIME? She has now commited several by my count. A majority of US citizens say they are for legal immigation reform, for people wanting to earn a better way of life, for people who want to escape a horrid homeland. What we are not for, however, are peole who repeated commit crimes and act as though they have a right already to stay here. Poor Rosa Parks.

Ferdy

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:50:33 -0600

And live in poverty.

SAMiller

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:31:53 -0600

This woman needs to get it through her head: no one is trying to separate you from your son. He can got back to Mexico with you.

Dan Boland

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:22:42 -0600

One large and often overlooked factor in the illegal immigration debate is that legal immigration is fraught with red tape and bureaucratic inefficiency. To me, it's a pretty close analogy with music piracy that flourished with Napster -- the major labels ignored channels that made buying music easier, so people stole it instead. Piracy is down because they finally got their heads out of their butts (and instead gave Apple keys to the castle, but that's another story altogether) and made legal music downloads easier. The same kinds of changes need to happen with immigration, but 9/11 will be the excuse for why that will never happen. All that being said, this woman is no better for the immigration debate than Cindy Sheehan was for the anti-war debate -- a polarizing figure who makes it easy to ignore the real questions that need to be asked.

Tankboy

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:50:32 -0600

I can't believe I agree with Spook, but I do, especially about the Rosa Parks thing. Last time I checked Rosa Parks was a member of the civil rights movement long before she became one of its most recognizable faces, and her action on that bus was thought out ahead of time. Arellano displays none of that forward thinking; she only displays a selfish desire to stay here illegally, and will try and corral whatever political capital she can to do so. The immigration movement would be doing itself a huge favor by disavowing her and continuing to fight for legislation to reform the laws. They'll get a lot farther that way than by employing the image of a woman twice arrested and now uses her son to stay in the United States.

Ward Up

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:49:56 -0600

Yeah, what's she been up to in that church all this time? When we had detention in grade school, we had to clean the church pews and confession booths...until Dennis Sheehy used the floor of the confession booths as his personal Porta-Pottie. I agree with the above posts.

Spook

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:17:47 -0600

This women just seems manipulative and dishonest. Like when she compared her self to Rosa Parks, when it’s clear she took no time to learn about Rosa Parks. When Martin Luther King compared his actions to Gandhi, he respected Gandhi’s culture enough to learn about it first. I mean she certainly had alot of time too. And I’ve never heard her say that she wasn’t the best face of the movement, what she did say yesterday was that She doesn’t “loose any sleep” over stealing another person's identity. And lets remember that at her last press conference, she called on Sen's Durban and OBama to issue her,” her own personal amnesty”, which put OBama and Durbin in the awkward position of saying if they did that for one person they would have to do it for every one. What she did was sorta like Rosa Parks saying “ Hey just let Me ride in the front of the bus and every thing will be cool” She also says "If this government would separate me from my son..," No they are not saying that at all. My question is, what has she been doing all that time in that Church? Certainly not working at being a better spokesperson for her movement. She sounds nothing but arrogant I agree with yesterday’s sumtimes editorial that it’s time for her to go home and stop using her son as a pawn.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:10:48 -0600

I hope they arrest her - ASAP. Sticking her nose up at the very country she has taken advantage of... Shitting all over the people that come here LEGALLY and follow the process to become LEGAL citizens. By virtue of having a child with no intention of becoming a legal citizen, she showed carelessness for said child. She broke the law, and should pay for it. Period.

guest

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:08:34 -0600

Mexico could sure use a few unlikely activists to help many more people live a better life. It's great she wants to improve the country she's living in, but she ran away from one that needed lots more improving and then broke several laws to come to another. Capital doesn't "flow freely and easily across borders" unless it follows the laws. If a shipment of toys with lead paint arrive, that unlawful shipment gets turned away, no?