What the hell happened to this country?

[Original_MudButt]

Seriously? The wife of the most wanted man in mexico waltzes into a hospital in Ca., squirts out twins then waltzes back without so much as a wink from the U.S. Govt.?? We have a $5m bounty out for this scumbag and his wife can come and go as she pleases?


Why do our weak-kneed politicians kowtow to the lowest lifeforms from mexico?







LOS ANGELES - The young wife of Mexico's most wanted drug lord has given birth to twin girls at a hospital in northern Los Angeles County, according to a newspaper report.
Emma Coronel, the 22-year-old wife of Joaquin Guzman, crossed the border in mid-July and delivered her daughters at Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster on Aug. 15, the Los Angeles Times reported on its website Monday (http://lat.ms/nyfqmn).
Coronel, a former beauty queen who holds U.S. citizenship, returned to Mexico after they were born.
Birth certificates listed Coronel as the mother of the girls, but the spaces for the father's name are blank. U.S. law enforcement officials, who tracked her movements even before she traveled to Lancaster, told the Times that Coronel was not arrested because there are no charges against her.
Coronel is believed to be the third or fourth wife of Guzman, the 54-year-old multibillionaire head of Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking gang, the Sinaloa cartel. The couple married the day she turned 18 at a lavish wedding in the highlands of central Mexico in 2007.
U.S. authorities have placed a $5-million bounty on Guzman head and allege that he and the Sinaloa cartel control the majority of cocaine and marijuana trafficking into the U.S. from Mexico and Colombia.
Guzman reached a new level of fame — or infamy — two years ago when he made Forbes magazine's list of the 67 "World's Most Powerful People." At No. 41, he was just below Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei while topping Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — No. 67 — and France's Nicolas Sarkozy — No. 56.


http://www.startribune.com/nation/130612368.html

 

[scottmcneal]

NOW NOW, he has rights here.We don't want to step on his do we?

 

[CherBear]

Are you suggesting we capture a women with whom we have no charges against, then use her to as a hostage of sorts so we can capture her husband?
What country do you live in again?

 

[Boatwrench]

She is a US citizen and is afforded protections and rights under the US Constitution. She also has no charges in the US pending, what could you legally hold her on?


I'm no lawyer but does aiding and abetting apply here?

 

[hubs97xj]

While she no doubt could have provided useful information on her husband’s whereabouts, drug agents have said the problem with apprehending Guzman has less to do with finding him and more with how Mexican troops can seize him.

^From an LA Times article linked in the link above.

Throw in the fact that the woman and kids hold US citizenship, and the hostage angle looks pretty ugly, and probably still wouldn't be affective. He'd just order another 17 year old model and go about his life, I suspect.

 

[Original_MudButt]

No I didn't suggest we hold her hostage. And yes I'm aware she is a U.S. citizen. Although judging by her choices in life, I certainly wouldn't call her an American

How about we bar her from ever entering the country for aiding and abetting the most wanted scumbag in mexico?

At least there would be 2(3?) less spawn that can lay claim to the U.S for the sole purpose of using and abusing the system.

 

[ocean_jet]

He'd just order another 17 year old model and go about his life, I suspect.

Heck... this one is an aging 22 and her body has been ravaged by delivering twins...


He's probably browsing the catalog already.

 

[Boatwrench]

At least there would be 2(3?) less spawn that can lay claim to the U.S for the sole purpose of using and abusing the system.

Simas Kudirka was a Lithuanian seaman that attempted defection in 1970 seeking political asylum in the United States. Kudirka was denied asylum and returned to the Soviets, charged with treason, and sentenced to ten years of hard labor. It was later discovered and verified that his mother had been born in Brooklyn and gone to Lithuania at a young age, which meant she was a U. S. citizen. As a result, Kudirka was declared a U. S. citizen and in 1974 released by the Soviets.

So the children would be US citizens no matter where they were born. If this woman was smart she'd apply for SSN for the children for having an absentee father. But she has already demonstrated she is no brain trust.

 

[xcm]

legalize. this country hasnt changed under my watch, it's been at least PRETTY 'TARDED as far back as i can remember... anyone remember prohibition?

 

[ocean_jet]

If this woman was smart she'd apply for SSN for the children for having an absentee father.

LOL

Sorry for laughing. That's messed up on a few levels... the least of which is she would probably get it.

 

[Darky]

legalize. this country hasnt changed under my watch, it's been at least PRETTY 'TARDED as far back as i can remember... anyone remember prohibition?

Marijuana and cocaine?

 

[WB9YZU]

legalize. this country hasnt changed under my watch, it's been at least PRETTY 'TARDED as far back as i can remember... anyone remember prohibition?

So... since you claim to be the responsible party, we'll just blame YOU

Mudbutt, yup, pretty lousy, but them's the rules. US citizens who are not themselves criminals, can come and go as they please. She probably felt she got better care here than in Mexico, and her parents probably felt safer visiting her here

-Ron

 

[Matthew Currie]

I can see why something like this can be very maddening. But I think what we have to remember is that anywhere, anytime there's a right or a privilege, or a restriction or a law, someone somewhere will abuse it. We can always point to some excess and say "aint that awful," and sure enough it is, but we need to be a little cautious about jumping to conclusions about what we should change to prevent it.

My general rule of thumb is that whenever someone looks at a thing like this and says "there oughtta be a law," it's almost certain that there ought not to be.

 

[xcm]

I can see why something like this can be very maddening. But I think what we have to remember is that anywhere, anytime there's a right or a privilege, or a restriction or a law, someone somewhere will abuse it. We can always point to some excess and say "aint that awful," and sure enough it is, but we need to be a little cautious about jumping to conclusions about what we should change to prevent it.

My general rule of thumb is that whenever someone looks at a thing like this and says "there oughtta be a law," it's almost certain that there ought not to be.

well said!

 

[5-90]

Simas Kudirka was a Lithuanian seaman that attempted defection in 1970 seeking political asylum in the United States. Kudirka was denied asylum and returned to the Soviets, charged with treason, and sentenced to ten years of hard labor. It was later discovered and verified that his mother had been born in Brooklyn and gone to Lithuania at a young age, which meant she was a U. S. citizen. As a result, Kudirka was declared a U. S. citizen and in 1974 released by the Soviets.

So the children would be US citizens no matter where they were born. If this woman was smart she'd apply for SSN for the children for having an absentee father. But she has already demonstrated she is no brain trust.

Being born here does not automatically make you a citizen, under a strict constructive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your parents also have to be either citizens or legal resident aliens, in order to be properly granted citizenship.

A comparison I've made before - if my wife and I were to travel to England while she was expecting, for whatever reason, and she happened to deliver there; the kid would still be a United States citizen - we would have to be "legal resident aliens," at least, for British citizenship to apply.

Same with most other countries.

This is a grey area, simply because Mum is a citizen, but Pop is not. Throw in the fact that Pop is a known and wanted criminal by at least two nations, and I would have a difficult time justifying US citizenship for the kids as "anchor babies" in the first place (and you know that's why he did it. As US citizens, it becomes more difficult for Mexico to do anything with them than it would be had they been born in Mexico. Hmm...)

 

[Darky]

Wrong.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Under a strict interpretation, it says that all persons born here are citizens.

This is the problem with human nature and why legalese was invented. The intent was to make it so no one could come up with crazy reasons for why blacks weren't citizens. Thus, it was written quite plainly and simply. But, human nature means we seek out loopholes and ways to get more than intended out of everything, so now we have people running across the border, giving birth here, and now they can't be kicked out because their kids are citizens. Legalese was invented so that things could be written in such a way as to interpreted and reinterpreted endlessly, changing and shifting with each hearing.

 

[5-90]

Wrong.

Under a strict interpretation, it says that all persons born here are citizens.

This is the problem with human nature and why legalese was invented. The intent was to make it so no one could come up with crazy reasons for why blacks weren't citizens. Thus, it was written quite plainly and simply. But, human nature means we seek out loopholes and ways to get more than intended out of everything, so now we have people running across the border, giving birth here, and now they can't be kicked out because their kids are citizens. Legalese was invented so that things could be written in such a way as to interpreted and reinterpreted endlessly, changing and shifting with each hearing.

Second clause - "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..." - is the key. If you are here illegally, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law, apart from being subject to deportation & repatriation.

If your parents are not here legally, neither are you. Ergo, "anchor babies" is a gross misinterpretation of the law.

As far as making Blacks citizens after manumission & the Civil War - while they may not have wanted to be here, they were brought here legally, and were therefore "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" given the state of law at the time. (A dark period in our history, and one I'm glad is over. And has been for 136 years, if my count is correct. Civil War ended in 1865, right?)

(Slavery is deplorable, but it's also a necessary stage in any pre-industrial economic system. It is the provision of cheap labour until such time as machinery can be produced to do the same work - for rather less than it would cost to keep a slave. Slavery is not economically feasible, nor is it economically sustainable. However, it's going to happen until such time as it becomes impractical, for that given economy. But, that's neither here nor there, at the moment.)

 

[Boatwrench]

uh Jon...you know how I hate two dimensional comms...but I think we are talking apples and oranges...my response was to OP that the babies weren't born here as anchor babies, but that they are US citizens by virtue of Mom being a citizen....

 

[hubs97xj]

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Mom holds US citizenship, so the children were born US citizens. I do not see a gray area in this instance (edit- admittedly, lawyers might, assuming there's money to be made). Boatwrench is spot-on.

 

[Darky]

Second clause - "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..." - is the key. If you are here illegally, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law, apart from being subject to deportation & repatriation.

If your parents are not here legally, neither are you. Ergo, "anchor babies" is a gross misinterpretation of the law.

As far as making Blacks citizens after manumission & the Civil War - while they may not have wanted to be here, they were brought here legally, and were therefore "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" given the state of law at the time. (A dark period in our history, and one I'm glad is over. And has been for 136 years, if my count is correct. Civil War ended in 1865, right?)

(Slavery is deplorable, but it's also a necessary stage in any pre-industrial economic system. It is the provision of cheap labour until such time as machinery can be produced to do the same work - for rather less than it would cost to keep a slave. Slavery is not economically feasible, nor is it economically sustainable. However, it's going to happen until such time as it becomes impractical, for that given economy. But, that's neither here nor there, at the moment.)

The child's citizenship is not dependent on the parent, unless it's born elsewhere. The child is likely considered to be subject to our jurisdiction by being born here. It doesn't say you are a citizen if you are born here and your parents are subject. It says if you are born and and are subject. I know we would love to interpret it to be different, but current practice combined with the wording that is not dependent on parental status is fairly clear. Like I said, it was written at a different time to fix a different problem, but people have found a way to apply it to something it wasn't intended for.

And as Boatwrench and hubs have said, in this scenario, being born in the US to an American mother with the father being undeclared, the child is indeed a citizen.