Guatemalan Woman Attempts to Secure US Anchor Baby

I just saw a report on ABC about a woman who claims that the US government stole her child.  She entered the country illegally, which is a felony and an insult to the national sovereignty of this country, and when she was caught, she was deemed to be an unfit mother for smuggling her child across international boundaries. In his 2008 decision, terminating Encarnacion's parental rights, Circuit Court Judge David C. Dally wrote that the biological mother's "lifestyle, that of smuggling herself into a country illegally and committing crimes in this country is not a lifestyle that can provide stability for a child...A child cannot be educated in this way, always in hiding or on the run."

Her son was taken away from her and has been adopted out to a family that has had him for 5 years.  Now this illegal immigrant, Encarnacion Bail Romero, is trying to get her son back.  She's trying to play the 'broken family' card to get sympathy from the American public.  She's trying to get us to overlook the fact that she's a convicted felon who disregarded the sovereignty of our nation by ignoring our legal immigration procedures.  She wants to use our own court system against us.

This excerpt from the article sums up my opinion fairly well:

"When parents break the law, they undertake a certain amount of risk that there are going to be consequences," said Daniel Stein of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. 

"Anyone can feel for the torment that this poor woman is going through, recognizing that she doesn't have the educational and the language capabilities to fully defend and vindicate her rights," said Stein. 

"Nevertheless, she knew she came to this country illegally, she knew she broke the law," he told ABC News.

This illegal immigrant will get no sympathy from me.  If she didn't want her family to be broken, she shouldn't have broken federal laws.  We have borders for a reason.  We have immigration procedures for a reason.   It's too late.  The ship has already sailed. If this kid (formerly called Carlos and now named Jamison) has been adopted out and with a new family for 5 years, she should let the boy enjoy his life, because she would be a stranger to him. What she wants to do would totally destroy this kid's life, because he would be emotionally scarred forever.  I can't imagine why she would imagine that fighting for custody of the kid would be in his best interest, since he doesn't even know her and doesn't speak Spanish (the biological mother speaks no English), unless of course she's looking for an anchor that she can use to stay in the United States herself.

Original Story on ABC: "Adoption Battle Over 5-Year Old Boy Pits Missouri Couple Vs. Illegal Immigrant"

Just Another Day in New York City

Just another day in New York City's Astor Place, right?

Wait?  Is that a guy with a bra on his head?

Why yes, yes it is.

This guy slowly took off his clothing while doing a very unusual dance that resembled a combination of a swimming, robot, and peek-a-boo dance.  I'm not sure why he needed to have a bra on his head to do it, but nothing about the whole routine made sense anyway.  He had a little guitar looking instrument with him, but never played it.  I only watched for about a minute, before going about my business.

As entertaining as this is, it's a shame that he's on the street and isn't receiving the mental care that he really needs.  Given how much we pay in taxes every year, you'd think the government would be able to take care of the people in our society who really need it.  No one can tell me that they think this guy is just playing and should get a job, or that he isn't suffering while we make light of his situation.  I really wish our government did more for people like him.

Citibank Protects Big Business First, Bank Customer Second

Today, I opened up my Citibank account online to do a transfer and I noticed I had a message.  I opened it up and saw that it was a message telling me that Citibank had recently discovered that my debit card had been compromised and they had put a block on my card, for my own protection.

My immediate response was suspicion and confusion, because I had just used my card to purchase an Amazon Instant Video rental and the message was dated yesterday.  If my card was blocked, how was I able to make a purchase with it?

I didn't trust the message.  I wasn't sure (and really I'm still not sure because I forgot to ask) if those messages only come from bank employees, or if they can be spoofed somehow.  I used the Live Chat feature to connect with an online representative who immediately told me to call a phone number, which I thought was a little silly. What's the point of having a Live Chat if you can't get anything done through it?  Maybe it's just for asking basic questions.

Anyway, the first guy I talked to asked me questions about my account, which was normal.  Then he started asking questions that seemed a little unnecessary.  When he asked me for the security code on the back of my debit card, I started questioning the whole phone call and wondering if I'd accidentally gone to a fishing site and screwed myself.  So, I politely declined to answer any more questions, hung up, double checked everything and called back using their regular number.

The second time I called, the guy that answered had a thick Indian accent, which, oddly enough was completely reassuring.  I was in familiar territory again.

Jokes aside, the guy basically told me I needed a new card and arranged to have it shipped overnight to the nearest branch.  That's cool.  I get that.

The thing about the whole process that upsets me is why it happened.  More specifically, the fact that I don't know why it happened!  When I asked the first guy I talked to for details, to explain to me why my card was blocked, he said that a retailer had alerted Citibank that they might have been compromised and it immediately flags any Citibank cards that might have been used not only at that retailer, but anywhere in that area.  That could have been a diversion though, because when I asked specifically who was compromised, he refused to tell me the name of the company.  When I asked him why, he said it was to protect the business.

Now, I'm not opposed to forgiving a business that might have had their online storefront hacked, or accepting that once in a while a brick & mortar might have had a bad employee.  I appreciate the fact that the business took the time to notify the bank.  However, I feel that as a customer I should have the right to know what business it was, so that I can make my own decision about whether or not I feel comfortable shopping there again.

It's my money.  It's my card.  It's my discretion.  The bank shouldn't protect businesses.  It should protect its consumers by letting them know that it may be unsafe to shop at certain stores.

I can guess that the reason Citibank won't release that information is because they have an agreement with businesses that if they guarantee anonymity, the businesses will guarantee reporting of potential fraud or theft of credit card information.

So, I don't know that I can really blame Citibank.  The only entity I can blame is Congress, because if my theory is right, then the fault lies with a lack of appropriate legislation to require reporting and require informing customers of where their account information was compromised.

It should be the customer first, all the time.  I shouldn't have to keep getting my account compromised until I can guess which company is at fault based on my shopping history.  Having my debit card locked is a big issue.  What if it were a day when automatic payments for bills were supposed to be withdrawn?  Those would have all been declined, and I would have been up shit creek, and Citibank would have apologized but said they did it for my own good.  As it is, I'm almost going to miss a good sale on a camera bag I need.  Thankfully, they ship the new card overnight (which means Saturday, since it's late in the evening already).

Well, at least there's no debit card fee yet.  I wonder how Hitler would react to this?