ICE refuses a 4-year-old US citizen unrestricted re-entry to US

Where is the man with no name (Clint Eastwood) when you need him. Still, I feel infinitely safer now. Hope the Tea Party is happy now, one lump or two?

The headline is wrong. No US citizen was denied entry. ICE didn't exclude this child, her parents opted to send her back to Guatemala ("The father chose to send her back with her grandfather") with abuelito rather than travel down to Dulles and pick her up. But the real question is, why haven't they arrested the parents yet? How can this be racial profiling? What does the Guatemalan "race" look like. These people have no respect for the rule of law. And whoever wrote this article has no respect for the truth.

Picking up the child at Dulles was not an option. As for the "rule of law," let's begin with asking the federal government to uphold the Constitution.

The headline is exactly right. In order to exercise the right of citizenship, under the 14th amendment and jus soli, this child would have had to submit to going into a filthy detention center. I hope you never had to submit to showing your papers, perhaps when you visit another country not impressed with your American passport.

I appreciate your support on this, Robert. "ICE deports U.S. citizen, 4 year old girl" was literally what happened. I thought the headline I chose reflected the story more honestly.

The headline is wrong. She was not refused admittance, her father declined her entrance, according to the story, Perhaps you know more about this and the story is in error. The detention center isn't filthy, and in fact she would have been turned over to her parents, had they come to pick her up. I have been "showing" my papers when entering other countries my entire life, from the age of 4. Neither I nor my parents have ever entered any country illegally. It's called "sovereignty." I still want to know why they haven't arrested the parents yet. Birthright citizenship is a suicide pace and should be changed by Constitutional amendment. It just allows these parasites to enter our country and take advantage. No border > no sovereignty > no country.

Apparently you consider an immigration detention facility to be an appropriate placement for a U.S. citizen upon reentering the country. You have a right to your opinion. But I don't share it.

This is a very interesting and unusual turn in the US immigration system.It is simply a shame that the Obama abminstration has no alternatives to this madness. He promised the Latino voters to do something about this. Since then It has become worse betraying voters. Rated up!

What an outstanding commentary! Thank you for this statement, vauldine.

The article title is BS. "Because both parents are undocumented, the agent stated that they must either leave Emily in a children's detention center in Virginia or send her back with her grandfather to Guatemala." She's not even an anchor baby. She's flat out illegal.

Who are you? Thoreauhd or laLydia? Both comments are from Virginia, Minnesota. Why not write something yourself instead of this nasty attacks?

I don't intend to mislead with the title. I've changed the original title:
"ICE refuses citizen, 4-year-old girl, entrance to US"

to

"ICE refuses a 4-year-old US citizen unrestricted re-entry to US"

I hope this headline is an accurate synopsis of the event.

I HAVE READ YOUR REPORTS MANY TIME THERE IS A VERY GOOD POINT IN YOUR REPORTS I LIKE IT VERY MUCH PLEAS BECOME MY FAN

Thanks for raising this important and controversial issue, BE. Reading your report reminded me of a similar and celebrated case of a Filipino family in Japan. Despite protests from various humanitarian organizations, the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the undocumented couple be deported to the Philippines leaving their teen daughter--who was born, raised and educated in Japan--in the welfare custody. The parents were given the choice to bring with them their daughter or she remain in Japan. The daughter didn't even know how to speak Tagalog. She is Japanese in breeding. Sadly she were separated from her parents who had lived in Japan for nearly 20 years using fake passports. Rated up!

Your helpful comment demonstrates that immigration law problems are not restricted to the U.S.. It's sadly unfortunate that children get caught in the badly broken systems through no fault of their own. We must address the issue of migration. Thanks so much, Gino, for sharing that story.

Thank you for the report Billie.

This little girl is a U.S. citizen "period." The option to stay at a detention center was wrong. A detention center by nature is incarceration. If they had suggested foster care that would have been different.

I don't think we have heard the end of this case because immigration lawyers might sue the U.S. government for denying her rights to remain in this country by being placed in a social services agency, not a jail. This could become a landmark case that defines further, based on the constitution 9th Amendment Sec. 1, the rights of individuals born in the U.S..

Thanks, Dava. I particularly appreciate your comment because I respect your judgement and have felt uneasy since this post attracted some harsh comments.

I, too, think this case is extraordinary. I'm puzzled as to why the U.S. mainstream media is not covering it.

I think MSM has so many huge stories--not that this one is not--to cover right now that immigration is on the back burner. Even my story about temporary restraining order on the Wisconsin law didnt get much interest, although I believe this is a defining moment for labor in America.

You are so correct in that. I also thought that the decision of the Wisconsin judge was highly significant. The world is focused on Japan and its survival, and that is compelling.

There should always be room for compassion and good sense rather than strict rules

Instead of criticising the government for giving the family 2 choices, someone should be criticising these parents for making such an extremely POOR choice in sending their 4 year old out of the country with her semi-illegal grandfather. They used this child's citizenship to guarantee grandfather's re-entry and it back-fired. Shame on them. Shame on them a second time for sending her back to Guatemala and not having the courage to go and get her! The poor child was used at birth as an anchor baby and is now being used as a passport. I feel the people commenting here care more about the child than the parents do!

This sounds like the New York Times story that blamed an 11-year-old girl's parents for the fact that she was gang raped by 18 men.

I observe many conjectures in your comment, unless you are personally acquainted with the child's family.

An immigration lawyer says that your conception of "anchor babies" is a myth: http://www.scottimmigration.net/AnchorBaby.pdf

Thanks, however, for your interest in the report, lafitte.

Thanks for the information..... Rated up!!!!

Dava,
You are completely correct. It was outrageous how this little terrified USC girl was treated my our government. It's the same type of attitude that hate- mongers use to denigrate "anchor babies." you can bet this only happened because Emily's parents were undocumented.
Our firm will do everything to correct this terrible injustice.

Thank you for your commitment to civil rights for U.S. citizens Sperlinglaw. We need law firms like yours who support the Constitution and the American people.

Wishing you the best as you right this wrong. Thank you for your comment.

I agree BorderExplorer, and everytime I hear the term "anchor baby," it transports me back in time and place to a world filled with intolerance, ignorance and hate. I take that back - I'm still here!

The only thing I can agree with about the parents perhaps making a bad choice is sending the poor little girl out of the country if they knew that the grandfather's papers were not in order - they should have anticipated some type of problem and arranged to have someone waiting for her at the airport to pick her up. I can't imagine how scared that poor girl was being separated from her grandfather like that and not having access to her parents or anyone she knows for that matter. Other than that, the girl is a citizen of the United States and should never have been detained upon re-entry especially if she was positively identified from documentation - although if they did let the girl go, she would have been alone in Washington and not New York since the plane was diverted. Didn't the parents go to the airport and realize by the flickering signs posted everywhere that the flight had been diverted to Washington, D.C. from New York? Weren't they paying attention to any of that the day of their daughter's return? When I heard of this report I was simply flabbergasted. My questions are, however, why was the plane diverted from New York to Washington, D.C.? Did the parents ever arrange to have anyone to pick them up as originally planned at the New York airport? Does ICE have a directive in place or instructions on what to do in these situations as I am sure it is not the first time something like this has happened, not to mention, Federal employees have manuals for everything? If they do, what are those directives or instructions? If they don't, who made the decision? If they do have instructions, what are they and did they follow them? I have to say for the record that if that was my child and I was undocumented, I would have risked the deportation just to see that my child was safe and with me but I guess I can't really judge anyone since I don't know what their alternatives are to living here undocumented - it could be so horrible that it is worth doing exactly what they did by choosing not to risk getting deported so they opted to send their kid back to Guatemala, thinking they would try and bring her back some other way.

John, the specifics of this individual case will eventually come to light. In the meanwhile, let us patiently reserve judgement.

Living here on the border, I've learned that there can be a great deal of latitude allowed agents in how they handle cases. There is not the uniformity and/or consistency one might expect.

Certainly we as a nation ought to keep the best interest of the child primary. I know that that's your value, John. I appreciate your views on my posts.

I am betting there were individuals or organizations who, if given the chance, would have taken this child in. They could have even posted a bond. I remember what happened when my wife, born in Johannesburg, got expedited citizenship so she could travel with to countries that would not accept SA passports. My parents had to agree to take care of her. Immigration would not even accept the word, in writing, of the Associated Press. She got her citizenship and passport in six weeks as I recall. Of course one of the reasons was that Immigration was told she would not be living in the U.S. in the immediate future. Of course she as white as they come, Swedish/Dutch.