"Does a district judge have the power to order the INS around, contrary to clear US law?"

Forget the INS--that's not a problem. The judge can order her remanded to a halfway house or something and 9 months of probation.

If she's "serving a sentence" as a convicted criminal, the INS will leave her alone.

And anyway, on the national level, we've already decided that laws don't have to be enforced anymore. They're now strictly optional, and it's just a matter of blind luck as to whether you'll be prosecuted. The vagaries of huge bureaucracy, you know?

Maybe you'll be imprisoned for committing a crime, and maybe not. Or, even better, maybe you'll be imprisoned without having committed any crimes. Maybe not.

"I believe those people (remember flying to Italy guy?) should be locked up, if it is proven necessary. The TB virus just gets stronger when it is not completely defeated, and the HIV virus is just as dangerously mutable (although I am not aware that it has been proven in any way that it mutates in response to incomplete or half-assed drug treatments)."

There was a big clinical trial a few years ago that looked into the outcomes for HIV patients who took regular "medication holidays", which used to be common practice in some circles. The patients who took scheduled "breaks" from their meds did consistently worse--lower T cells, more opportunistic infections, higher mortality. That's the closest I could think of a formal study looking at "half-assed treatment."

Consistent HIV treatment for the mom increases the chance that the baby is born HIV-FREE. Not just under control (which is the best that the mother can hope for), but completely cured.

It's not just a matter of public health to ensure that the woman in question doesn't develop a resistant form of the virus, but to prevent introducing a brand-new HIV-infected person into the community.

It's a sad commentary on the state of medical care for the uninsured and immigration policy that she has to stay in jail to get treatment, but if I was in the judge's shoes it'd be a no-brainer.

And as for "kicking her out and letting her fend for herself"? I don't think I'd sleep too well after doing it.

Why else are we not handing her over to ICE to be put on a plane back to Cameroon this very moment? In this case to protect the unborn-anchor baby.

What is the cost of treating an AIDS patient? Do you think an illegal alien who cannot work here, probably does not have two dimes to rub together, and struggles to have a conversation above 4th grade English will actually make a contribution anywhere near equal to what they will pull out?

80% of the US population wants fewer illegals not more. Another 10% is unsure. That leaves there remaining 10% that is made up of the LaRaza racists, the US Chamber of Commerce and various leftists who cannot get into power without selling their souls for the Latino vote.

I still say deport them.

@Ghingis Can

Ghingis Can said, "It was nice of this judge to give us on more anchor baby so her mom can stick around and keep getting her health care gratis the US taxpayers."

A non-resident does not get special rights to stay in the country because they gave birth on U.S. soil. A citizen child cannot petition the government for family visas until they reach the age of 21.

-- ishobo

It's about protecting the "rights" of someone who hasn't been

BORN yet.

The next step is obvious.....we start locking up women who are

planning (Conspiring?) to have abortions.

While it's true that the anti-abortion movement frequently pulls stunts along the lines of what you describe, it's not clear that it necessarily follows in this case.

Anticipating that a pregnant woman who intends to carry her child to term will need, or should in any sane society have access to, perinatal care is not the same as granting some kind of protected status to the unborn fetus. It's just common sense.

Empathy, one might say.

Putting people in prison because our society has no functioning safety net for the destitute is the worst of horrible ideas.

I'm not saying it's not, but keep in mind that not so long ago it was quite common — they were called poorhouses.

If it is necessary for the judge to intercede at all in such a situation, it should be to get her some assistance from the local welfare office or the SS Administration.

Does a district judge have the power to order the INS around, contrary to clear US law? A judge could order the state to provide any care he wishes for the woman, but if the immigration officers aren't subject to that ruling, they'll ignore him, scoop her up, and send her packing.

Prison is a shitty, rotten, terrible place. The only people who belong there are people who've committed crimes against others.

Oh, you old softie.

I do believe that it's illegal to deport a U.S. citizen...

...which her child would be, if it were born on U.S. soil. I want to know how exactly that's going to work.

You only believe that because you have some crazy idea about citizenship in a free republic and inalienable rights and tired, poor, hungry huddled masses.

Where you got those notions is beyond me.

In point of fact, newly-born citizens are exiled all the time, under laws passed by stoutly pro-American legislators, who fear this country becoming a land of mere immigrants.

How does it work? It's very simple. They gather you up, and kick you out. And nobody complains because they either a) believe it's right, or b) don't believe it's possible and refuse to contemplate what's happening under their own noses.

Which is how it should be.

It ain't just an incoherent immigration system

It is the incoherent, insane, and inhumane American medical system.

I'm not going to argue that our medical health system isn't insane. It certainly is.

But in this case I think it's immigration that trumps all. The INS would never allow, no-how, no-way, a mother to stick around for an extra few weeks to give birth under American medical care.

From their point of view, it's not hard to understand — this poor Cameroonian woman is hardly in a unique position. The INS gets thousands of people, probably many thousands of people, petitioning them all the time in the most truly heinous circumstances. Many are probably worse than this woman's story. How can they grant her clemency and still turn away all those other people?

The answer is that American immigration law has to fundamentally change — and not just so that it becomes possible for poor women to seek medical asylum. The whole system is completely screwed up.

Ask anyone who's been through it, legitimately or otherwise.