Where Is The Father Of Elvira Arellano's "Citizen Child"?
Print Friendly and PDF

One question keeps rolling over in my mind: Where is the father of Saul Arellano?

Maybe I have too much time on my hands. Or perhaps immigration is too much with me.

Whichever is the case, I am obsessed with the mystery that surrounds "Señor X".

We know only that Elvira Arellano refuses to identify him. But by keeping mum, Arellano prompts a host of theories…none of them flattering.

Among the reasons why "Señor X" hasn't surfaced might be:

  • The age-old problem in these nasty unwed parental matters—he may be married. Since Elvira has no affection for him, her already questionable image would further suffer if she revealed that her former lover is a married man.

  • Or perhaps Arellano, during her illegal stay in Oregon where Saul was born, had a string of paramours and she therefore cannot with any certainty identify his father. 

  • Maybe Arellano paid "Señor X" to have sex with her for the express purpose of conceiving an anchor baby—improbable but not impossible given what we know about the value of a U.S. citizen child and about her (lack of) character.

  • Or possibly "Señor X" has been bought off by the deep pockets open borders fanatics in exchange for keeping quiet—again far-fetched but not out of the question.

Since Elvira is not the only person in the loop who knows who Saul's father is, the total silence from all parties is deafening.

Among those who might identify "Señor X" are the people who introduced him to Arellano or those who worked with them. Also included might be eyewitnesses like her neighbors and friends or tavern keepers who served them.

Of course, "Señor X" himself could come forward and own up to his responsibilities as a father.

But since he hasn't done that over the course of Saul's eight-year life, "Señor X" is unlikely to have a change of heart now.

More speculation:

  • "Señor X" might be persuaded by money. Assuming that Arellano parties with men in her same socio-economic strata and further assuming that he has no emotional ties to her whatsoever, "Señor X" could be influenced to sell his story to the gossip rags. Their tawdry tale might command a fee in the low five-figures. A semi-graphic account of their trysts might garner an even larger sum, e.g., "My Smoking Hot Days and Sex-Filled Nights with Elvira Arellano"

  • Maybe "Señor X" doesn't want to give up his cult status as that rarest of species—an illegal alien who really is "in the shadows."

  • But the most logical reason that "Señor X" has not come forward is that he too is an illegal alien (and possibly a fugitive) who fears deportation. I don't understand why deportation would keep him from talking since he could do exactly what Elvira and millions of others have done—return to the U.S. at his convenience to continue his life as an illegal alien.

Turning serious, this is all ugly business. And one of the most disgraceful things is hearing the delusional Arellano refer to herself as a "mother." Technically, she's correct—but only in the strictly biological sense.  

As a twenty-year veteran teacher in the Lodi Unified School District, I see daily examples of the startling behavioral differences between loving and nurturing mothers and clueless women who have borne children.

California has about 10 million kids under 18 who must—someway, somehow—be reared into productive citizens. To give you an idea of the magnitude of that challenge, California has more children than the total population of all but seven states—Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York and Texas.

According to a new report from the advocacy organization Children Now, 51 percent of California's child population is from "immigrant families." [Children in Immigrant Families: A California Data Brief August 2007] Of that number, 85 percent of them are, like Saul, American citizens. That's a sobering and infuriating statistic about the impact of the misconstrued anchor baby interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Problems abound. The report found that:

  • Nearly 60 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds in immigrant households do not attend preschool, compared to about half of children in non-immigrant households.

  • Children in immigrant families are three times as likely not to have health insurance than their non-immigrant peers.

  • 39 percent of immigrant households are low-income (earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level), compared to 25 percent of non-immigrant households.

Corey Newhouse, [email] Children Now's senior policy associate and the report's author, said:

"Learning English and access to health care are absolutely critical to immigrant children's lifetime success. We should ensure that children have an opportunity to learn English beginning in preschool and provide health insurance to all children now. These preventative measures will save taxpayers a great deal of money over the long term."

Children Now's president, Ted Lempert, added:

"It becomes exponentially more difficult and expensive to make up lost preventative health and formative education ground later in a child's life. Addressing these issues early in a child's life is the key to success."

(General contact information for Children Now is here.)

The pay now or pay later argument regarding special programs for alien children is one I've heard for two decades. As far as I can tell, we're doing both with little to show for it.

Throughout California, pre- and after-school programs as well as English language and special intervention classes are commonly offered. But the results in too many cases are poor. The high school dropout rate for first and second generation Hispanics is the highest in the nation. And only 13 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics have college degrees.

But the real question is: why should we have to pay for anything?

The hundreds of thousands of anchor babies like "Little Saulito" are born each year. (Edwin S. Rubenstein estimates 338,000; I put the total as high as 500,000.) They are citizens by accident. They shouldn't be in the U.S. and taxpayers should not be underwriting their education or any other of their societal needs.

Unless Arellano lands the "peace and justice" ambassadorship she covets, she and Saul will be Mexico's headache.

And that's how it should be.

Let Mexico deal with its children and, for that matter, their dysfunctional mothers.

Take it from someone on the front line: we have our hands full with our own kids.

Joe Guzzardi [e-mail him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor. In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has been writing a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive to VDARE.COM.

Print Friendly and PDF