Elvira Arellano: From Undocumented Immigrant to International Activist

She even ran for a seat in México’s Congress in 2009.

wrenchwench

ImmigrationJanuary 2014 • Views: 38,828

Elvira Arellano continues to organize and lobby for immigration reform.[Photo by Maria Ines Zamudio]

She crossed the border illegally, like thousands of Mexicans do every year, to find work. A decade later, she returned to her home country as the face of immigration reform.

Elvira Arellano received a deportation order in 2002 following a sweep at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, where she cleaned airplanes in 2002. But instead of leaving, she sought refuge inside a Chicago church in 2006, sparking a nationwide sanctuary movement. Arellano and her U.S.-born son, Saul, became iconic symbols for immigration reform. And in 2006, Time Magazine named her Person of the Year.

“I knew there was nothing I could legally do for my case, but politically we had a lot to gain,” Arellano told The Chicago Reporter during a recent interview in Mexico City, where she was taking part in a training for activists.

“I did as much as I could. I wanted other families to stand up and fight with us.”

[…]

She was eventually deported in 2007. She moved back to her hometown of San Miguel Curahuango Maravatio in the state of Michoacán. She hasn’t given up her activism work. Since returning to Mexico, she has continued to organize in support of immigration reform and to protect the rights of Central American immigrants traveling through Mexico.

Arellano morphed from a fearful undocumented immigrant to an international activist.

[…]

Read the whole article here: Elvira Arellano: From Undocumented Immigrant to International Activist

She went from shy and nervous to determined and frustrated. She keeps working to help others because she cares about people. She wants to return to the US. I hope she will be able to do that.

Jump to bottom

43 comments

Usually refered to as anyways Sat, Jan 18, 2014 5:55:06pm

Some Australian humour to entertain you on a Saturday night.

From the very talented Tim Minchin.
If I Didn’t Have You - Full Uncut Version

Youtube Video

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 6:03:34pm

I hope she returns to the USA as well - legally, via the process that all immigrants must follow to become US citizens. I will gladly welcome her and wish her happiness and success, culminating in that day when she has finally earned and is awarded American citizenship. Pain in the neck the process, I agree, but American citizenship is well worth the effort.

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 6:03:53pm

This is such a great story I had to promote it.

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 6:05:06pm

Especially since it seems to be pissing off the right people.

AlexRogan Sat, Jan 18, 2014 6:05:37pm

Get a load of this loser they quoted in the article:

Last summer, Arellano helped to gather more than 200 letters from U.S.-born children living in Mexico after their parents were deported. Six American children, including her son Saul who is now 15, delivered the letters to legislators in Washington, D.C. These children wanted to ask legislators to include their parents in the proposed immigration bill that was being discussed in the Senate.

Dave Gorak, executive director of the Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration, said Arellano broke the law by crossing the border illegally and her goal to reunite families is erroneous.

“There is nothing preventing these families from being together,” Gorak said. “The children can go back with the deportee.”
If Arellano ignored the laws, he said, why she should get to stay.

“She was here illegally. This is a criminal act and she is telling us, ‘to hell with our laws.’ She doesn’t belong here,” he said. “If you violate our laws, don’t come to us crying about your family being separated.”

Mr. Gorak, get fucked.

b_sharp Sat, Jan 18, 2014 6:18:34pm

re: #4 Charles Johnson

Especially since it seems to be pissing off the right people.

A worthwhile goal.

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 7:04:42pm

re: #4 Charles Johnson

Given the number of comments, the object of your post is apparently none other than me. But as for being “pissed off”, that I am not, not in the least.

I have to admire Miss Elvira Arellano for her passion and tenacity, and can not fault her for her desire to do SOMETHING to help better her son and her self, and, subsequently, others who find themselves in similar positions.

Not sure how many on this board can say that they have taken part in Naturalization Ceremonies. But I have, and one of the proudest days of my life was when my wife gave her oath of Naturalization and became a US citizen. All the paperwork and the interviews were burdensome enough to make you borderline pissed off most of the time, but in the end after a lengthy wait it was finally worth it.

Question I will raise is where do you draw a line? Would you have open borders where anyone can come to the US without restriction and utilize the resources of our system? Should we completely close off the country to immigration until the current immigration problem is solved.? Or, do we set some limits somewhere in between which will allow the country to afford the services it provides to its “citizens”, whatever the future holds for immigration reform. Any limits we set will have some on one side of the limit and some on the other, and both sides will have stories which result in questioning what the heck are we doing.

That is why I hope Ms Arellano is able to work the system legally to get her and her son living here in the US. All the more power to her as a result.

Uncle Obdicut Sat, Jan 18, 2014 7:07:00pm

re: #7 BrainSurfer

The legal system is a literal lottery. You can’t ‘work’ it. You just have to hope.

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 7:10:32pm

re: #8 Uncle Obdicut

The legal system is a literal lottery. You can’t ‘work’ it. You just have to hope.

Based on experience, I fully agree.

Uncle Obdicut Sat, Jan 18, 2014 7:30:18pm

re: #9 BrainSurfer

Based on experience, I fully agree.

Okay. So then telling her, or anyone, to just work the system is foolish.

wheat-dogghazi Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:07:09pm

One way to “work the system” is to enter the USA on a student visa, finish your program, get a job and temporary residency, and after a few years get permanent residency. You can also join the military. I think that’s a fast track way to get citizenship, but I’m not sure.

One of my Chinese students has done exactly that, joined the Army Reserve as a medic, after getting his master’s in biochem and working for a while as a low-level manager. HIs wife, also Chinese, is still in school in Texas, and I fully expect the two of them will eventually become American citizens, especially if a little Cheng comes along.

For campesinas like Arellano, that route is not often open to them. Going to college costs money, and most Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise, come to the States to MAKE money, in the hope their kids can go to college. They’re not criminals. Sure, they break immigration laws, but those are not capital crimes. In my book, separating families is a punishment that far exceeds the severity of the “crime.”

On the other hand, I don’t favor an open border. Some control over immigration is necessary. But some kind of work permit system might solve the problem. A permit would allow the holder to enter the USA for 30 days, and after he or she finds work, it could be renewed periodically. Dealing with Social Security and income taxes could create problems of their own, though.

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:12:57pm

re: #10 Uncle Obdicut

Okay. So then telling her, or anyone, to just work the system is foolish.

In our case, the system worked. Took long enough, though (the normal waiting period).

But, based on your perspective of the system being foolish, should I tell my wife’s relatives and my own friends throughout China and Asia to forget the US immigration system and just come to the US, one way or the other, and, simply overstay your visas, get married, have kids, and wait for immigration reform to occur? Then, instant citizenship. Certainly seems overall simpler than the process my wife went through.

Should we just say to hell with the immigration process and let anyone and everyone who want’s to come to the US do so without any limits whatsoever?

Uncle Obdicut Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:17:30pm

re: #12 BrainSurfer

In our case, the system worked. Took long enough, though (the normal waiting period).

You were lucky.

But, based on your perspective of the system being foolish, should I tell my wife’s relatives and my own friends throughout China and Asia to forget the US immigration system and just come to the US, one way or the other, and, simply overstay your visas, get married, have kids, and wait for immigration reform to occur?

I have encouraged a relative of mine to get the hell out of his Mexican-drug lord hellhole and come up to the US, yeah. Given that he had a significant chance of getting killed there, and since he’s an awesome guy and a really hard worker, he’ll make a good addition to the US, legal or not. Your recommendations would of course depend on stuff like that.

Should we just say to hell with the immigration process and let anyone and everyone who want’s to come to the US do so without any limits whatsoever?

No, but thankfully the choices aren’t “Our current system” and “Borders wide open”.

The thing to remember is that, ideally, we would take everyone, just the same way we accept everyone lucky enough to be born here as citizens.

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:26:45pm

re: #13 Uncle Obdicut

“No, but thankfully the choices aren’t “Our current system” and “Borders wide open”.”

What exactly are our choices? Amnesty sometime in the near future, then what, amnesty again in the not too distant future afterwards; and then amnesty again and again and again…..

If we have borders that are essentially borderless, which can be crossed without restriction, then your “borders wide open” is in fact a reality rather than an extreme option.

Where exactly will you draw the line, assuming you have the will to do so?

Uncle Obdicut Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:35:47pm

re: #14 BrainSurfer

“No, but thankfully the choices aren’t “Our current system” and “Borders wide open”.”

What exactly are our choices?

Literally infinite. One is, indeed, frequent amnesty for those who are well-intregrated into US society.

If we have borders that are essentially borderless, which can be crossed without restriction, then your “borders wide open” is in fact a reality rather than an extreme option.

But this isn’t the case. We don’t have borders that are essentially borderless or that can be crossed without restriction. Nor could we ever, even if we tried.

Where exactly will you draw the line, assuming you have the will to do so?

I have no idea what you mean by ‘will’, but I think a combination of the current lottery system, DREAM act stuff for children who grow up here ‘illegally’, and military and civilian service. Civilian service would go a great ways towards integration, too.

What’s your idea for how to handle it? And if you’re opposed to amnesty, then does that mean that you’d like Javier, a fifty-year old dude who’s lived in Queens for the past thirty-two years, way past his visa, is deacon at his church, holds down a steady job and is raising his grandkid, to be deported? What, in your ideal world, should happen to him?

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:47:06pm

On the Internet, everyone has a wife who’s a poster girl for legal immigration.

Amory Blaine Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:51:25pm

I think we need to increase our outdated immigrant quota.

Lidane Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:52:07pm

re: #12 BrainSurfer

Should we just say to hell with the immigration process and let anyone and everyone who want’s to come to the US do so without any limits whatsoever?

Maybe if we decided to reform our LEGAL immigration system so that the whole process is more streamlined and makes any sort of fucking sense, we wouldn’t have entire generations that fell through the cracks.

It’s not just about stopping illegal immigration. We need a rational legal immigration system too and we don’t have one.

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:54:32pm

Looking through the commenting history proves enlightening in this case.

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:56:02pm

re: #15 Uncle Obdicut

“Literally infinite. One is, indeed, frequent amnesty for those who are well-integrated into US society.

If we have borders that are essentially borderless, which can be crossed without restriction, then your “borders wide open” is in fact a reality rather than an extreme option.

But this isn’t the case. We don’t have borders that are essentially borderless or that can be crossed without restriction. Nor could we ever, even if we tried.

Where exactly will you draw the line, assuming you have the will to do so?

Your last paragraph shows the flaw in your thinking. Great in concept, but no different that what’s happening at present - anyone who wants to come to the USA illegally will try to cross the border. And Ms Arellano will try to help and support them in their journey through Mexico. Unfortunately those crossing the borders are not just the Javier types you mentioned above, but include cartel and gang members and other not-so-nice types who prefer not to put in 8-5 hour days at minimum wage.

Until we (I didn’t mean to pick on you specifically) have the will to really put great effort in minimizing, let alone stopping, illegal border crossings, then any movement towards immigration reform will be just feel good window dressing.

Your comment on the need for frequent amnesty simply confirms the never ending dilemma this country will have as long as border enforcement remains lackadaisical or minimalist.

Of course, the alternative is simply open borders - let everyone into the land of plenty.

Belafon Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:56:27pm

re: #12 BrainSurfer

Should we just say to hell with the immigration process and let anyone and everyone who want’s to come to the US do so without any limits whatsoever?

Try the flip side: Should we just say to hell with the immigration process, build a 100ft wall around the country, and throw out anyone we suspect of being here illegally?

Your extreme solution makes about as much sense as mine, and neither of them are what we are arguing for, contrary to what you might hear.

wheat-dogghazi Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:58:31pm

re: #18 Lidane

Maybe if we decided to reform our LEGAL immigration system so that the whole process is more streamlined and makes any sort of fucking sense, we wouldn’t have entire generations that fell through the cracks.

It’s not just about stopping illegal immigration. We need a rational legal immigration system too and we don’t have one.

I recall reading an article by an Aussie who described the process of getting citizenship in the States. He said it was one of the most confusing and aggravating things he’d ever done. If he weren’t married to an American, he said he would have chucked the whole idea entirely.

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 8:59:11pm

re: #21 Belafon

Try the flip side: Should we just say to hell with the immigration process, build a 100ft wall around the country, and throw out anyone we suspect of being here illegally?

Your extreme solution makes about as much sense as mine, and neither of them are what we are arguing for, contrary to what you might hear.

I admit that I have no easy solution. Do you? What exactly are you arguing for?

wheat-dogghazi Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:01:33pm

re: #20 BrainSurfer

Until we (I didn’t mean to pick on you specifically) have the will to really put great effort in minimizing, let alone stopping, illegal border crossings, then any movement towards immigration reform will be just feel good window dressing.

The way I hear it, we are already doing as much as we can to patrol the Mexican border. You make it sound like we are doing nothing at all. It’s a lot harder to enter the USA overland than it used to be.

Amory Blaine Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:05:24pm

George Bush crashed the economy and undocumented workers stopped coming. Maybe another republican in the White House …

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:12:04pm

re: #16 Charles Johnson

On the Internet, everyone has a wife who’s a poster girl for legal immigration.

My wife, had she any inclination to be part of this discussion directly, would give you an rather scorching no-bullshit earful in Chinese, as would be her comments on our immigration system. But she is indeed a naturalized citizen and proud of it, as am I. No bull shit here.

But then again, on the internet, everyone has a website that calls itself a no-bullshit detector.

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:14:04pm

re: #26 BrainSurfer

Wow, I guess you told me.

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:18:43pm

Of course, it’s kind of interesting to see your past comments — Rush Limbaugh fan, Sarah Palin fan, climate change denier, anti-choice, “black genocide” loon…

littlegreenfootballs.com

sagehen Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:18:54pm

re: #14 BrainSurfer

“No, but thankfully the choices aren’t “Our current system” and “Borders wide open”.”

What exactly are our choices? Amnesty sometime in the near future, then what, amnesty again in the not too distant future afterwards; and then amnesty again and again and again…..

If we have borders that are essentially borderless, which can be crossed without restriction, then your “borders wide open” is in fact a reality rather than an extreme option.

Where exactly will you draw the line, assuming you have the will to do so?

For starters, reconfigure the country-of-origin quotas to give a substantially higher allotment of green cards to people who can walk here — it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that northern Europeans just wave their hands and get in right away, while Mexicans have a 15-year waiting list to even have their applications processed.

The neighbours should also get preference just for the fact that they’re NEIGHBOURS. We share aquifers, wildlife drifts back and forth, we can smell each other’s industrial emissions. That has to count for something. Plus if the border crossing wasn’t such a life-threatening adventure, they’d go back and forth a couple times a year and let the spouses and kids stay home, instead of bringing everyone and scrambling desperately between picking seasons or when construction business slows down.

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:22:29pm

So yeah, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t take your statements about your “legal immigrant wife” at face value, because you fit the profile of a right wing liar to a T.

wheat-dogghazi Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:23:43pm

re: #29 sagehen

For starters, reconfigure the country-of-origin quotas to give a substantially higher allotment of green cards to people who can walk here — it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that northern Europeans just wave their hands and get in right away, while Mexicans have a 15-year waiting list to even have their applications processed.

Skin color. Just sayin’.

Lidane Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:29:25pm

re: #20 BrainSurfer

Until we (I didn’t mean to pick on you specifically) have the will to really put great effort in minimizing, let alone stopping, illegal border crossings, then any movement towards immigration reform will be just feel good window dressing.

Here’s a thought — we wouldn’t need to have frequent conversations about “amnesty” if we had a legal immigration system that was worth a damn.

Fix the legal immigration system from the ground up so that the whole process makes sense and that would make it easier to crackdown on illegal immigrants. The only window dressing is from the idiot teabagger nativists who think that rounding up and deporting millions of people is not only feasible, but that it counts as an immigration policy. The window dressing also comes from the dipshits who keep pushing the SECURE TEH BORDERZ FIRST canard rather than looking at the real problem — the clusterfuck that is our legal immigration system.

Ryan King Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:30:47pm

re: #22 wheat-dogghazi

I recall reading an article by an Aussie who described the process of getting citizenship in the States. He said it was one of the most confusing and aggravating things he’d ever done. If he weren’t married to an American, he said he would have chucked the whole idea entirely.

My sister married an Aussie. They tried to get here… but she moved to AU.

Lots of hoops to jump through.

Somehow making it harder for brown people to get through wouldn’t be an improvement.

BrainSurfer Sat, Jan 18, 2014 10:13:22pm

re: #30 Charles Johnson

Understand the profiling, but I can say that, having spent twenty five years in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe beginning some forty years ago, and now married for over 28 years to my wife who was born in Hong Kong, I have a rather different perspective on how I think America, let alone the world, should operate. “Right wing liar to a T”? … on the contrary…. I do not lie.

In Hong Kong, when the Chinese took over in 1997, the most critical point which the Hong Kong people insisted on keeping was the Rule of Law, where the Hong Kong judicial system would be left intact. Without the Rule of Law, then anything goes, depending on who is in charge - and the Hong Kong Chinese were greatly afraid of being controlled and dominated by the Beijing government. Hong Kong has been able to maintain its separate system of government, with a strong judicial system, and it has prospered.

(Yet here in the US, our politicians on both sides have moved more in the direction of ignore the rules of law, let’s do as we please, based on who is in power. And, while we are at it, let enrich ourselves to the max.)

Also, in Hong Kong, the government set up a system which allowed foreign labor to be imported to fill jobs which locals did not want to do, which for the most part were jobs such as “amah’s, or house maids”. All foreigners were brought in for set periods of time, under contract, at set rates of pay, with tax reporting requirements. This system worked extremely well.

So, based on my experience (and needles to say that of my Chinese wife), we are strong believers in “the rule of law”. We also both firmly believe that the US should move in the direction of guest workers, and implement a system for allowing workers (and their families) to come to the US, for set periods of time, at specific rates of pay, to fill jobs that need filling. This would certainly provide the process for both filling the need for workers in the USA where and when needed, and, provide opportunity and a path toward citizenship for those who want it.

I had better stop now before I start ranting about poverty levels and how well off American’s are in the world without realizing it.

And then again, everything I have said above must be true because it’s on the internet. But what the hell, your website does mostly work to sort out bull shit, right? Your detector probably hasn’t budged a millimeter thus far,

Charles Johnson Sat, Jan 18, 2014 10:26:02pm

re: #34 BrainSurfer

Your detector probably hasn’t budged a millimeter thus far

Nope.

wheat-dogghazi Sun, Jan 19, 2014 12:09:39am

re: #34 BrainSurfer

The “rule of law” in HK is under considerable influence to change, under pressure from the mainland. HKers are trying hard to remain democratic and as independent from Beijing as possible, but I am not confident how long they can hold out.

HK is prosperous, yes. It has a long tradition of commerce and finance, and that’s not likely to change. But Big China also has a lot of money, and political influence. People in HK are aware of their situation, and not all of them are as sanguine as you about the continued independence from Beijing.

Surely, your wife and you know this.

Wendell Zurkowitz (slave of the waffle light) Sun, Jan 19, 2014 1:05:14am

re: #12 BrainSurfer

In our case, the system worked. Took long enough, though (the normal waiting period).
…

Should we just say to hell with the immigration process and let anyone and everyone who want’s to come to the US do so without any limits whatsoever?

The point is that we need comprehensive Immigration reform, something that would cost a lot of money and step on a lot of established interests who benefit from cheap undocumented labor.

I also like to point out that establishing a national ID card for citizens (to vote) and legal residents (for obtaining a driver’s license, registering children in school, etc.) would solve a lot of problems, but nobody, either on the left or right would go for that.

gwangung Sun, Jan 19, 2014 1:41:59am

re: #34 BrainSurfer

Given that Chinese immigrants and Chinese Americans have been totally screwed over by immigration law and have continued to be totally screwed have and have been screwed over for the last 150 years, I think your perspective is totally misinformed, overly narrow and totally inapplicable to the current situation.

Uncle Obdicut Sun, Jan 19, 2014 3:53:59am

re: #20 BrainSurfer

Your last paragraph shows the flaw in your thinking. Great in concept, but no different that what’s happening at present - anyone who wants to come to the USA illegally will try to cross the border. And Ms Arellano will try to help and support them in their journey through Mexico. Unfortunately those crossing the borders are not just the Javier types you mentioned above, but include cartel and gang members and other not-so-nice types who prefer not to put in 8-5 hour days at minimum wage.

…And? I’m not recommending we give cartel gangsters amnesty.

I notice you were completely unable to answer my question of what should happen to Javier. Care to actually answer?

We also both firmly believe that the US should move in the direction of guest workers, and implement a system for allowing workers (and their families) to come to the US, for set periods of time, at specific rates of pay, to fill jobs that need filling.

If they’re good enough to live in the US with their families and work their jobs, why aren’t they good enough to be citizens.

Edit: Oh, I see.

Also, in Hong Kong, the government set up a system which allowed foreign labor to be imported to fill jobs which locals did not want to do, which for the most part were jobs such as “amah’s, or house maids”. All foreigners were brought in for set periods of time, under contract, at set rates of pay, with tax reporting requirements. This system worked extremely well.

You want an underclass of service workers. That’s shitty.

Uncle Obdicut Sun, Jan 19, 2014 4:08:57am

re: #34 BrainSurfer

Hong Kong is no longer independent, by the way. I don’t know why you think it is. The pro-Beijing party controls a majority of the legislature, the president, and new laws have been passed giving Beijing supremacy in all cases that Beijing declares touch on national security.

Bridgeghazi: Never Forget!!11!!!!11 Sun, Jan 19, 2014 9:31:44am

re: #14 BrainSurfer

For centuries it was done over and over. Many Europeans were here illegally for centuries so the government kept extending reforms over and over again to allow them to stay. Many white Americans are descendants of illegal immigrants.

And yes, among those illegal European immigrants were criminals and other “unsavory” people. We have a better handle on that now.

sagehen Sun, Jan 19, 2014 12:24:59pm

re: #41 Bridgeghazi: Never Forget!!11!!!!11

Not quite.

There was no immigration law at all, no rules whatsoever, for the first 100 years of this country’s existence. Hell, we used to *recruit* European immigrants by promising free land (back when “the frontier” was still east of the Mississippi.)

The first immigration law was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was just what it says on the tin. A few years after that there was a law forbidding prostitutes to immigrate. A more wide-ranging racist immigration policy didn’t start until the 1920’s — country of origin quotas were based on how many people of what origin had been here in 1890 (they specifically wanted to limit Jews and Italians).

Mexicans and other Central Americans also had free passage up until the Depression — then they got run out (whole trainloads and planeloads were forcibly deported). During WWII we again recruited them aggressively, to come here and do the jobs that all the draftees had used to do before being sent overseas… and in the 1950’s another round of deportations.

Bridgeghazi: Never Forget!!11!!!!11 Sun, Jan 19, 2014 4:34:30pm

re: #42 sagehen

I guess I should have been more specific, I was referring to The Naturalization Act of 1790. At first it was only a 2 year probation period for Europeans but soon it turned into 14 years, at which time they were at great risk of exploitation, which was bad. The government continued to make concessions to these immigrants, allowing them full citizenship over the years well before the 14 years were up, eventually, because of protesting and Public outcry it was changed to 4 years, but the government would still continue to loosen their rules and repeatedly give any European immigrants in the country amnesty.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Elvira Arellano: From Undocumented Immigrant to International Activist

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud