Regarding today's column on Elvira Arellano, eader George P. writes to challenge me on this passage:

She violated immigration laws to come here, work hard and build a better life, folks. That doesn't make her a "criminal."

George asks:

Since when does willful violation of the law NOT make one a criminal?  What is a criminal in your mind, if not a law-breaker?

My answer is that, in common usage, we tend to call someone a "criminal" who violates laws in ways that harm individuals or particular businesses, usually repeatedly.

Most of us don't use the term to describe those arrested for drunk driving, for instance (though drunk drivers kill). Or flagrant violators of municipal zoning or fire codes. I've never heard anyone refer to someone convicted of using illegal drugs as "a criminal."

Part of it has to do with the severity of the violation of the law, part of it with the intent (or lack thereof) to do harm, part of it with the threat of the crime posed to others.

"I've never heard anyone refer to someone convicted of using illegal drugs as "a criminal."

"Most of us don't use the term to describe those arrested for drunk driving, for instance"

Seriously? Maybe it's just my daily toiling in the fields of the criminal justice system, but I hear drug users and drunk drivers referred to as "criminals" all the time. I expect MADD and SADD and all those other "ADDs" use the term. Not to mention the legislators who have made those crimes felonies, including making some DUIs punishable by up to 30 years in the penitentiary. Sounds like a crime to me.

While we are talking semantics, I have to admit that I was very confused by your headline (I'm not sure if you're responsible for the headlines on your blog). Shouldn't it be "Why not all law-breakers are 'criminals'" instead of the way you have it? This headline led me to believe that you believe that *no one* who breaks the law is a criminal. I'm sure that was not your intent.

That said, I agree with your point. However, anyone that wants to call Ms. Arellano a "criminal" would probably be able to justifiably twist your definition to his own satisfaction.

ZORN -- Good point! I fixed the headline. I hope. (Originally it said --Why all lawbreakers are not "criminals"

I've gotta disagree with you about drunk drivers. One of my co-workers had a family member killed by a drunk driver. She refers to him as a murderer (he's serving a long prison sentence for the crime). It kind of surprised me the first time she said it, but I can't find any flaw in her logic.

Wasn't this woman convicted of Social Security fraud and deported once before? If so, than she is a criminal, despite your twisted rhetoric/headline!

I think your definition is a little too flexible when it doesn't need to be, even if your goal is to avoid labelling illegal immigrants as criminal. Legally, we identify criminals as those who commit crimes / punishable offenses. Those offenses are generally violations of the criminal or penal codes.

Another good benchmark is the standard of proof. Violators of local ordinances probably don't warrant being labeled criminals, but they aren't subjected to convictions based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think it all depends on what you intend to say when you use it. Technical definitions do not always handle every situation and common usage should be considered. You can use the word "epithet" as "A term used to characterize a person or thing" or "An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase". Common usage recognizes it as a "term of abuse or slur" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).

I usually make the following distinction. "Law-breaker" relates more to the act of violating a law (an individual's action), whereas "criminal" seems to relate more to an individual's character. I have also heard the argument that "criminal" is more often used in cases where harm is done to a person or property, as EZ stated.

I suppose it's technically OK to treat both "law-breaker" and "criminal" equally.

EZ,

Good to have you back. If only I cared about this story as much as so many -- man, that's a lotta comments -- do. But for some reason this story just does not stir my blood to any measurable degree.

-- SCAM

She IS a criminal. She and the other 11,000,000 illegals need to be sent home RIGHT NOW. Our resources are stretched thin enough just caring for our legal citizens. I am sick and tired of the sense of entitlement that these people display. How arrogant of them to come here illegally, refuse to learn our language, and expect hardworking citizens to support them! Only in America can criminals get away with such outrageous behavior because they know nothing will happen to them. I will even go so far as to say that children born to illegals should NOT be considered American citizens and should be sent back with their parents to wherever they came from. We should stop trying to be politically correct and take back our country before it's too late.

Sorry Eric,
Gotta disagree with you on this one. I had my SSN stolen by an illegal. I was and is no joke.
I had to get an accountant to straighten things out with the IRS, I had problems the one time in 30 years I lost a job and needed unemployment and since they still haven't arrested or deported this guy I can never be sure what he will try next.
The office of Unemployment know who he is, they even know where he lives but they won't do a thing about getting him arrested or deported.

Merriam Webster online defines "criminal" as a person who commits a crime, which is in turn defined as:

"an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law"

or a criminal is:

"someone who commits an act. . .that is forbidden. . .by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law"

Now, EZ, your definition is "someone. . .who violates laws in ways that harm individuals or particular businesses, usually repeatedly".

While I think that your construction opens you up for accusations of being unduly sympathetic to criminals, my biggest problem is "usually". With that construction (which comes across as a weasal word--either multiplicity is a requirement or it isn't), if that it has no basis in reality. Someone who murders one person IS a criminal, whether they ever do it again or not. Same with a bank robber, a mugger, a rapist.

Further, you lump together civil violations (e.g., building code) with criminal violations. If you want a principaled distinction, it should be based on what the punishment is--if one serves prison time, then you're a criminal; if not, then just a lawbreaker (or something). But even that distinction doesn't really work for most illegal immigrants--who generally just get deported with no prison time. But, if one buys into some of the hyperbole around this particular case (I've heard implications that it's akin to a death sentence for her son), then I would have to come down on the side of deportation=prison and therefore she's a criminal.

The women in question used fake documentation (a fake Social security card) to gain employment. That in itself under the Social Security Act 208 states as follows, A person who:

(C) knowingly alters a social security card issued by the Commissioner of Social Security, buys or sells a card that is, or purports to be, a card so issued, counterfeits a social security card, or possesses a social security card or counterfeit social security card with intent to sell or alter it; or
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States;
shall be guilty of a FELONY and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

So she is a criminal. I don't understand why anyone is questioning whether she is or not. It's in our laws.

The crazy thing is, if we as American citizens did this and were caought we would be charged with crimes and put in jail. Insanity rules

To Devin Chesney (Original Arellano thread):

First off, my apology for incorrectly spelling your name.

Secondly, no need for you to apologize because your comments were nowhere close to being over my head.

Thirdly, your comparison of "the interpretation and understanding of the concept of law that are identical" in the deportation of illegal immigrants and returning runaway slaves to their owners is trifling.

Fourthly, in what world does agreeing that Ms. Arellano should be deported somehow translates to assuming that "our laws are just simply because they exist" and not an assertion that controlled legal immigration be upheld and promulgated.

And finally, if your're bothered by criticism of your views, keep them to yourself.

Zorn, I may have posted the wrong portion of the law.

Here is the part that relates to the women in question. A person who:

(A) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive, uses a social security account number, assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security (in the exercise of the Commissioner’s authority under section 405 (c)(2) of this title to establish and maintain records) on the basis of false information furnished to the Commissioner of Social Security by him or by any other person; or
(B) with intent to deceive, falsely represents a number to be the social security account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to another person, when in fact such number is not the social security account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to such other person;

shall be guilty of a FELONY and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Sorry about that.

Make America safe: Deport Elvira Arellano, the Islamo-fascist evildoer, at the place and time of our choosing--in violation of United Nations Security Counsel Resolution 1441; fails to prove she isn't harboring weapons of mass destruction; linked to Al Qaeda by CIA intelligence; trying to buy yellow cake, purified U3O8(s), and high-grade aluminum tubes from South Africa to enrich uranium for nuclear-grade weapons material; history of torture, crimes against humanity, gassing her own people. Time's up. No more talk. Time for regime change: Liberate the oppressed. Let bad, bad Elvira escape Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, Illinois, then hunt her down and smoke her out of her hole, justice be done. Illegally wiretap and eavesdrop; follow paper and e-money trails; freeze assets; seize medical records and summer library reading lists; indict for sedition, inciting rebellion and insurrection, dividing the nation--Arellano is American domestic-enemy number one, bottle of baby lotion in her purse. Detain her indefinitely, interrogate her, try her before a military tribunal without due process. If not with us, who love freedom and democracy, you're against us: We make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them.

Two observations/questions for Mr. Zorn:

Why do you support the $10 hour living wage requirement for big box retailers, yet at the same time support allowing the labor market to be flooded with illegals, driving down wages in low-skill jobs across the board?

I think you do a big disservice to perpetuate an idea that illegal drug use is a not a crime. It's true for many people, as well as celebrities, politicians and judges, using a little hasn't had a negative effect on THEIR lives, but for others it turns into an alternate, extremely unhappy universe. I wish you would reconsider making light of something that has a devastating effect on so many people and their families.

I am a little confused by the semantics. If someone breaks the law and is arrested, why are they referred to as havinng a criminal record? So, the record is criminal, but they are not? Where would you draw the line and how would you judge what is "harm"? Would intent be a qualifier? Intent is a justifiable offense legally and is considered criminal.

If I may be fascetious, this subject is a little subjective, don't you think?

I ask myself, does it even serve a purpose to comment on your hateful column? No, i imagine, it does not. People in this country and a majority of your readers seem to be fine with hurrying ICE along to capture what you all deem a "criminal" simply because you lack the ability to perceive yourself in her shoes.
Elvira, and many like her have been welcomed to this country, for their cheap labor to be exploited and for their taxable wages. In the midst of such madness that this country has thrown all over the world, it seems the monster has turned on itself and is now shoo-ing away the very people that made it.
For those that honestly believe (Zorn and your supporters) that a 7 year old son should be separated from his mother, i don't challenge you to consider yourself or your sons and daughters in that position. but rather to understand how unjust and irrational that really is.
We will stand here until they come.

Whenever I hear people huffing and puffing about "the rule of law," with respect to immigration or any other topic, I think back to the Clinton impeachment. Doesn't put me in a receptive frame of mind.

Do you write these columns just to get a rise out of folks or do you truly believe this drivel?? Perhaps you should spend time in the real world and not what you can see from your office. As a long time Federal Law Enforcement Officer I can't imagine an educated individual who has real life experience being so naive to simplify it has you and many others have tried to do. What you are doing by your statements is professing that if we don't call people criminals then we lessen the seriousness of what they have done and sooner or later the "crime",(the word from which criminal comes) they have been convicted of will become acceptable behavior. I expect that kind of absurdity to be spouted from the mouth of a college professor who lives their life from books and from behind ivy covered walls You won't hear that ridiculousness from those who toil in the real world...

ZORN REPLY -- What I'm saying GMZ, is that it needlessly inflames the situation to call someone who is in this country illegally a "criminal.' This equates her with an evildoer, a thug, a burglar, a stick-up artist. And, that, sir, is worse than drivel.

"Most of us don't use the term to describe those arrested for drunk driving, for instance (though drunk drivers kill). Or flagrant violators of municipal zoning or fire codes."

I strongly disagree, Eric. Maybe if we did use the term in these cases, people would better see the seriousness of the violation.

If people realized, for example, that talking on their cell phone while driving made them a criminal, perhaps a few less would do it.

OK, so I agree that "most of us don't use the term," but I am arguing that we should.

Your definition refers to repeated law violations. "She has twice entered the country illegally (and) has been convicted of carrying a false Social Security card". I count three violations. How many does it take to meet your definition. BTW, failure to appear at INS makes her a fugitive which carries it's own criminal penalties.

When casting slings and arrows at G.W., we refer to the USA as a nation of laws and he shouldn'tbe above that. Isn't it hypocritical to say Arellanos shouldn't be held to the laws of our nation?

And there is certainly no point in referring to someone as a criminal simply for violating an immoral law like one telling a human where they can and cannot live.

Sane American wrote:

"That in itself under the Social Security Act 208 states as follows, A person who:

(A) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive, uses a social security account number, assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security (in the exercise of the Commissioner’s authority under section 405 (c)(2) of this title to establish and maintain records) on the basis of false information furnished to the Commissioner of Social Security by him or by any other person; or
(B) with intent to deceive, falsely represents a number to be the social security account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to another person, when in fact such number is not the social security account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to such other person;

shall be guilty of a FELONY and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

Finally, someone who brought up a subject that I don't understand hasn't warranted more discussions.

As a former identity left victim, I hold the protection of my identity very important. Apparently, a lot of people have no idea how devasting finding out someone used your SS# and created total havoc on your credit report is for a person.

Curious isn't it why there aren't a million+ people in this country screaming to the government about convicting the many millions of people that have commited this felony? Can you imagine how enforcing our current laws would change the attitudes of those who the media so generously shares with us that "they (illegal immigrants) just don't care". I'm using that based on various news articles I have read that have verbatim quoted people saying that they will continue to cross our borders illegally.

Is deporting this woman really the right thing to do? Seriously, think about. Isn't she just going to come back again, like so many others have and continue to get away with it? Why shouldn't she be punished to the full extent of the law for what she has blantly done wrong? I ponder which is the lesser of two evils: spend American money to deport her and other law breakers or spend American money to keep them in our jails for the crimes they have committed.

Why is that the Latino people seem to be the only group of immigrants that insist on changing this country to suit their needs including speaking their language. Has anyone seen any other language as a whole printed on every document, grocery label, billboard, you name it other than Spanish in the past decade? Why do we have to press 2 for English now when calling customer service numbers? How many legal American people that have not mastered the Spanish language have been turned down jobs in this country because we are not bilingual? I'm one of them.

I'd really like to know how whatever laws are passed on the immigration issue are going to be enforced. If 11+ million undocumented immigrants primarily Latino, won't obey the laws now, what makes anyone think they will later? Furthermore, they continue to make no effort to learn our language and assimilate without losing their cultural identities. Prime example is Miss Elvira Arellano.

Better yet, many of these people are not very well educated and from what I've seen, have no intention of changing. Let's say for a moment that a good number do want to become citizens and realize they have to learn English. Who's going to foot the bill for teaching all these people?

Are our schools not already suffering from not having enough room for kids and not enough teachers that are proficient in Spanish? Don't the parents of ELL (English Language Learners) kids think it would be such a joy to help their kids with their homework done in English? Wouldn't it take such a huge strain off our teachers if they didn't have to spend so much time with these kids, when so many others need help they're not receiving? Are we not struggling to pass our high school students with the aptitude tests which measures how well they can even read, write, and do some basic math? Are they really prepared for the working world?

How is the government realistically going to get back all the money that the illegals have not paid in income taxes or collect the fines that maybe imposed?
When are better systems going to be put in place that verifies what is being reported on the I9 and W4 forms when people apply for a job with a stolen SS#? How are SS#'s being duplicated or made up in the first place? Are they using #'s from deceased Americans? Was not the social security number created to soley identify a single American citizen never to be used again?

I agree, between the weathly Mexican investors and the immigrants from Mexico and beyond who are needed in some types of jobs in this country, they have made their contributions.

I'm also not unsympathetic to those immigrants from countries that are here to have a better life. I applaud and respect those who have worked hard to become and earn there American citizenship,legally.

However, I don't see how this country is going to see this through in a timely, fair, and just manner. It's too out of control, and has been for a very long time.

Finally, I really wish my three years of Spanish classes (in the late 80's)between high school and college and refreshers later was enough for me to amply communicate with my "neighbors". Maybe then I could I press "1".

God Bless the USA and for the privilege of being able to speak my peace.

Posted by: Joseph J. Finn

"And there is certainly no point in referring to someone as a criminal simply for violating an immoral law like one telling a human where they can and cannot live."

JJF! You can't be serious! if I own a piece of property, you better believe I get to say who can and who cannot live on that property. And if they defy my order, well, you see where this is going.

Back to the main point. People do seem to SREEEAAAMMMM that this woman is a criminal. I take it as a measure of their frustration. There is some hateful language, too, which indicates frustration and more than a little, what?, racism? stupidity?

As polarizing or inflammatory as the word is, I will have to say that this woman is a criminal. Even if the SSN is fictional and no actual person was harmed, I look at the willfulness of her actions and label her a criminal.

Consider someone with a long list of driving infractions, not even DUI, but speeding, no insurance, no registration. And then for the umpteenth time he gets caught driving on a suspended license. You would have to say, OK, this guy is a criminal based on repeat violations of the law. No one was killed, but we are going to throw you in jail to see if some respect for the law sinks into your head.

People are calling Arellano a criminal because of the apparent multiplicty and willfulness of her actions, but mainly because they don't like her. She rubs them the wrong way.

Don't be arrogant, sweetheart, people hate that.

Has anyone found out anything on the other persistent question in these threads? Where is the father of the child? Why hasn't he come forward in all of this?

You continually ignore the fact that she did not just enter the country illegally. She entered illegally once, was deported, thereby knowing what she had done was in violation of the law. In spite of knowing that she entered illegally again which in and of itself is a felony. Once here she obtained a false SS# which she was to use to further her crime. That is a felony crime for which she was convicted. There were numerous other forms filled out regarding a myriad of job applications, benifet applications and the like where she perpetuated the fraud of having a false SS#. Stop making this out like she is just a poor innocent worker who did nothing wrong. She did commmit numerous crimes which are on the books, like it or not it is the law as it stands and she has to take responsiblity for her actions. Understand this there is no way she would be eligible to "earn a path to citizenship" under the Senate bill or any of the most lenient proposals tossed about by liberal immigration advocates because she has re-entered illegaly after having been deported and since her reentry she has a felony conviction. In words Elvira would understand, since in nine years she has made no attempt to learn English, hace es la vida, such is life....

ZORN REPLY -- I still say "criminal" puts her into a category into which she doesn't belong. Yes, she used a false SS#, but there's no indication that she used it in a way that harmed the real owner of that number, if any, or that she used to for any other purpose than to get a job.

Why do people keep suggesting that someone wants to separate this woman from her son? I have not seen that idea fostered by anyone!

She is the boy's mother and is responsible for his livelihooduntil he becomes an adult. He is not the responsibility of the U.S. government!

The only way that the two would be separated is if she chooses to go to jail rather than be deported. If she staes her desire is not to be separated from her son, then the logical choice would be for her to go back to her home country. What she wants is to stay here and NOT go to jail, but the government is telling her that is NOT one of her choices.

Now if she is betting on the fact that women are not separated from their children to go to jail, then she will lose. It happens everyday, sad as it is. Again, what is it about illegal aliens that make them above the laws that American citizens have to follow?

If some does something that I don't agree with, or breaks a law that I do agee with, then that person is *clearly* a criminal. Example: drunk drivers.

However, if a person does something I do not object to, or breaks a law I don't agree with, then that person is not a criminal. Example: A women refusing to view a video of her rape at a trial, even though she must for the trial to have integrity. Or a teenager getting caught with a small amount of pot he was going to sell to one of his buddies.

It's all about *my* belief system. Not anyone else's, and certainly not precedent.

Slightly off topic but Prof. Steinberg dumped on you today: "The TV cameras camped out as if Alberto Gonzales was on his way with leg irons. Prof. Zorn, my usually temperate colleague over at the Tribune, was in a swoon, imagining the "ugly" scene of her arrest -- the "screams, shouts and tears." He called such a drama "inevitable." Twice."

Chill Neil, chill!

There's more than 12 million of them in the United States, they cause economic and social havoc, they frighten and confuse the elderly, and they should be locked up. That's right, I'm talking about jaywalkers and speeders. What part of illegal don't they understand?

It's my understanding that if you return to this country illegally after being deported, you are committing a felony (probably for violating a court order in my lay opinion). If committing a felony doesn't make you a criminal, what does?

I find an interesting dichotomy between people's informal use of the word "criminal" and what our legal system would label them. In our country most people who have ever committed a felony are , for practical purposes criminals. They will likely be denied jobs because of their criminal history, and I believe in some states they can no longer vote in local elections!

Yet many crimes that constitute a felony would make people hesitant to call them criminals: drug possession (when not coupled with any other crimes), aggravated assault (one bar fight makes you a criminal?), manslaughter (this could include the accidental running over of a pedestrian). These people would normally not be labelled criminals by most of us (at least not for life), but they would receive the same treatment in society as murderers and rapists in regard to their livelihood. So does this mean we should all be tougher on people who commit these crimes, or should manslaughter be a misdemeanor?

I think the problem is that our legal system fails to adequately take into account the intent of the crime, mostly because that is so subjective and difficult to judge. As with most issues there is no easy answer....

Wow! What a can of worms, huh? It would be nice to see Congress addressing this issue, so there is less contention over it...

Dear Zorn and readers:

Accept my apologies for all my misspellings in my post. I wrote my post very late last night and tried to proof before I sent. I'm very conscientious of my abiliablity to communicate in writing properly. Thanks again for listening.

I don't understand the purpose of getting mired in an exercise in semantics. Let's ignore the effects of the arbitrary social stigma of deeming the "illegal" immigrants as criminals and look instead to the effects of their actions. People like Ali, and Marv Keller, whom have indicated that they went through the arduous process of attaining legal status, should not be made to feel that all of their efforts were done in vain, simply because some people took an easy route into the country, aided by those already here.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Smerta, who wrote a couple of well-reasoned analyses on this issue in the last Zorn-blog, that boiled this issue down to a matter of fairness, not whether someone should ignore a law or be deemed a criminal.

Mr. Smerta made several analogies that this is similar to why people get outraged when people cut in line, or do their children's homework, or don't pay income taxes. This acts make other people feel upset that they are following the rules and keeping order and shouldn't be punished because others feel as though they don't have to. The people in India, and Pakistan, and Ireland, and Romania who decide to go through the right process are actually being punished for going through the process. I do agree that the process should be made easier and quicker for people to gain entry, but just imagine how you would feel if you waited 3 years for your visa and you constantly read about people streaming in here illegally and then protesting to stay when they are caught. You would be outraged!

I agree with Mr. Smerta and others who feel we should punish those who don't follow the process, who cut in line, and those who help them. This is the reward those who follow the rules should receive.

I think the people who should be out in mass protesting and voicing their disgust should be those who took the legal route and who rightfully enjoy their rewards of legal status and, hopefully for them and us, citizenship.

I echo Mr. Smerta's sentiments in thanking people like Mr. Ali, Mr. Keller, and others, for respecting order and the rule of law.

Zorn:

Whether you want to believe she is a criminal, she is and that isn't going away. Sympathize with her plight all you want it is a mess of her own making and sugar coating it because she got away with it for nine years doesn't diminish her responsibility. She has used numerous false identies and who can say she has provided the truth to this point. No one is to blame for her predicament other than her, to quote Sir Walter Scott, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive." Put the responsibility of her situation squarely where it belongs, on her shoulders, no one eles's. This blaming others and not taking personal responsibilty is getting old to most sensible Americans........

There seems to be little doubt that technically calling her a criminal is accurate. But given the way that all natural languages, including English, it can be both accurat and misleading at the same time. I think that is the issue that EZ is trying to get at.
Some people do call illegal drug users criminals. Others do not. In general what divides the two groups is their attitude towards the natute of drug use as a crime.
English is a loose language which allows for some people to use criminal to mean anyone who commits a crime as a criminal (although by that standard it would not surprise me if the majority of all Americans were criminals) and others to use criminal to mean only those who commit certain kinds of crimes, or for whom the commission of crimes seems integral to their character.
Where the choice of language use becomes misleading is when one uses the fact that someone is a criminal in the broad sense to draw conclusions that would only apply if that person is a criminal in the narrow sense.
So for example, it is laughable that she is a criminal like bin Laden as one poster suggested, or that people should sleep safer knowing she is gone as another suggested, or even that her willingness to break immigration laws shows a willingness to break all other laws. None of these things follow without confusing the two sorts of criminals. In fact illegal immigrants are likely to be less willing to break unrelated other minor laws since the penalties for them getting caught are so much higher. (Although they also will be more likely to flee to avoid higher consequences as in the case reported by another poster for the same reason).
It is unclear what would happen to a US citizen who broke the law in the way that she did, because it is unclear why any would. Obviously a US citizen can't break the law by immigrating illegally. And why would someone who could pay soc sec through a number that would increase their future payments instead use a number which would not increase their future payments? This is because the crimes involved are not the kind that we normally thinking of as having criminal intent. They are parts of our chaotic immigration system. Although there may be reasons why a chaotic system is better than any of the alternatives.
Massachusetts at one point was issuing soc sec like numbers to illegals so that they could pay into the system, but I think had to stop when a furor was raised. If the concern in this case was really that she was hurting people with her use of the soc sec number, then this is quite a good solution. But I doubt that is really the major concern in people's attitudes. I notice that some people are willing to assign her felonies on actions that currently are not. This indicates an excuse rather than a reason.

"ZORN REPLY -- I still say "criminal" puts her into a category into which she doesn't belong. Yes, she used a false SS#, but there's no indication that she used it in a way that harmed the real owner of that number, if any, or that she used to for any other purpose than to get a job."

There is no way to use a social security number that does NOT harm the real owner of that number. A good friend of mine gets letters from the IRS every year telling him that he has to pay an additional couple thousand in taxes for his job at Whole Foods Market in Texas. The problem is that said friend has never worked at Whole Foods or even been in Texas. Now you tell me how you go about proving to the IRS that you don't work in Texas when your social security number says you do. Apparently a year-round, full-time job in Chicago isn't sufficient proof. Every year this costs hours of time calling the IRS, writing letters, etc. So far he's been able to avoid hiring a lawyer, thankfully. But anyway, I'm sure this other person is "only" using his number for the purpose of getting a job, but it certainly does harm the real owner.

Nobody has EVER said that Ms Arellano should be separated from her son. NO ONE!

The fact that her son is a US citizen is irrelevant when considering that he is a MINOR who depends totally on his parent.

Now, Ms Arellano has THREE or 4 choices.

1. Take your son with you when you are deported. His is not being deported; he is just accompanying his mother through HER deportation process back to Mexico. Once he becomes an adult, he can renew his passport, cross the border, get a job, go to school, get financial aid, buy a house, get married, even sponsor his mother in becoming a LEGAL resident alien or commit a crime and go to jail. The decision as a citizen is all his.

2. If she desires to have her son grow up in the US she can leave her US born son with family or friends who are US citizens or legal residents. Why? Because if her friends or family members are illegal and they get caught and deported then we'll see this situation again.

3. If Ms Arellano is hell bent on having her US born son stay in America then she give her son over to state of Illinois as ward and he'll be placed in a foster home until he is either adopted out or emancipated at age 18.

4. Lastly, Ms. Arellano can track down the father to her son and have him to raise his son in the US. If he is illegal too, then revisit options 1, 2 or 3.

Deportations do not separate families...the ILLEGALS HAVE CREATED THEIR OWN FAMILY CRISIS when they knowingly have a child on US soil. If they know the consequences then they shall suffer from them.

I repeat...NOBODY HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT SHE SEPARATE HERSELF FROM HER SON. The only one making this noise is Ms Arellano. If she really cared about the welfare of her child, she'd bring her child back to Mexico with her.

ALSO, illegals talk about them not being criminal or lawbreakers. Since 9:01 AM tuesday August 15, Ms. Arellano has been a fugitive.....A LAWBREAKER.

If she had any ounce of dignity, if she possessed a drop of integrity and found some courage and wanted to teach her son a real life lesson, SHE END THIS FIASCO and turn herself in to FACE REALITY.

I can not believe that you have actuall fallen for the "she is not a criminal" PC crap.
Exactlly how many laws does this criminal have to, not only break, but knowingly break, for you to see that she is indeed a criminal. Plus, if we let her continue to get away with crime after crime after crime, do you really expect her to ever respect this country or its laws? She is not only a criminal, but a repeat offender.
Maybe you are right, she shouldn't be labled a criminal, I think fugitive criminal describes this media hound much better.

I just wanted to reprimand you for supporting that identity thief in that Chicago church. As one who has had his life ripped away from him because an illegal immigrant stole his identity, I just wanted to let you know that her crimes do affect other US citizens. I am asking you to please do the proper thing, and have the Social Security Administration contact the proper owner of the SSN that she illegally used, so they may press charges.

What she did (stealing and falsely using an SSN) is a felony in the US. It is punishable by 10 years and $250,000. I guess that makes your clergy an accessory to the fact, with similar punishment pending.

My only hope is that God finds salvation for you, your clergy, and her for so adversly affecting the life of another human being just for some minor political gain.

Since American criminals come back to a society that labels them as such, I will advocate that those released from prison take someone else's name and ssn and begin to work. I wonder will it them be considered "criminal"?

I just read you column of Aug. 20, 2006. I agree “anchor baby” is a “charged word” but are not most words? She is a “politician”, or she is a “stay at home mom”. I do not think you could write with out using charged words. One of the problems is the news tries not to use them. If the person is a “Mad bomber” do not call him a “freedom fighter. As to the word criminal, if you make to much nose at 1 AM you are a criminal. It is not the same as the person who robes a bank. That does not make it OK to make nose at 1 Am and you are still a criminal.
Should we cut Ms Arellano a break Maybe yes, maybe no, we frequently give criminals a break. They are still criminals.

I would like to ask you a question; about the “immigration supporters not helping the cause” that you might use in your column. I was one of the over 400,000 people that marched in support of changing the Immigration laws. I do not speak Spanish. Almost 100% of the day was in Spanish. Based on what I have read in the Chicago Tribune over 90% of Spanish speakers in the USA can use / understand English. Why are “they” (note a changed word) cutting out all of use that don’t speak Spanish.

According to Congresswoman Judy Biggert, under current immigration laws, it is a "civil offense" to stay in this country illegally (after a legal visa expired), but a "criminal offense" to enter this country illegally. Elvira Arellano had been arrested before for entering this country illegally and crossed the border illegally again, according to a news report, so she is a repeat offender. She may not be a "criminal" in the sense we often think of common criminals, but what offends me as a LEGAL immigrant is that she and many other illegal immigrants claim they are "NOT criminals" and are behaving as if our government were harassing innocent people. They may not be common criminals, but they certainly are law-breakers, not innocent law-abiding people.

Criminals are people who break our laws. Period.

Instead of calling illegal aliens criminals, we might call them rapacious invaders.

In my personal experience with many illegal aliens who hold well paid jobs, and also wtih H1B visa holders who have overstayed their visas, few of these invaders have any interest in making this country their permanent home. They are in America to loot and pillage. They are here to send home America's wealth--to grab all the goodies they can get their hands on before they go home.

Our jobs and our livelihood are their get-rich-quick scheme. They consider themselves cleverer than us, superior to us and more worthy of possessing our wealth than us because they are able to take it away from us and we do not have the will to stop them. Might makes right in the eyes of people who view the laws of the USA, their host nation, with complete contempt.

Think about Rome with the barbarians at the city walls the next time you think of refering to illegal aliens as immigrants. And remember that those who refuse to remember history are condemned to repeat it.

The real issue with those who refuse to accept that justice is blind and must be applied equally to all is the lack of ethics among you. I suggest to you that if this weren't a woman with a child and a sad story to tell, you'd consign her to the category of being just another illegal immigrant. If we are actually talking about crime in the legal sense and not personal definition, then you'd have to agree that she is a criminal. She was convicted of the use of forged documents for personal gain and repeatedly violating our borders, all punishable under federal statute. There can be no eqivocating here if we are remain a nation of laws, and not of personal opinion or special interest rule.

Our legal system does not recognize "anchor babies" as a mitigating factor in decisons for deportation. Legal residents with work visas often have children while in this country, and more often than not, they depart with their American children without a fuss. They do not lose responsibility for their children just because they return home to their homelands. Their progeny are welcomed to this country as citizens when the come of age, as Solomon will someday be.

While the terms "anchor baby", "illegal immigrants", and even "criminal" are unpleasant to many of you, they are meant to be. Those who would use a child as a pawn in their scheme to stay in this country lack an ethhical upbringing and the term "anchor baby" reflects back on their poor character. The child itself is incapable of understanding the meaning, and thusly invulnerable to their impact. Words as labels have been used as social means of controlling actions since time immemorial. Anyone who has take a basic sociology course knows this. Those who would mitigate their impact deprive society of means of contolling anti-social behavior.