Mother Loses Child over Language Barrier

[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]

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]

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]

She's here illegally. She has no rights.

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

[daleduke17]

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.

[Pedersen]

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.

[DesignFox]

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!

[Boozy]

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.

[Slytovhand]

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!

[Nyoibo]

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.

[daleduke17]

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?

[violetyoshi]

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

[BlaqueKatt]

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......

[daleduke17]

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.

[DesignFox]

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*