Just because a person in pregnant does not provide amnesty from the law. Yes, they were trying to provide a better life for themselves and their famillies; bottom line is they broke the law and were being treated like prisoners. As long you are feeling sorry for them, who do you think is paying for the medical treatment that they are recieving? Who do you think would be supporting them after they have the children. you and I. Quite frankly I am tired of supporting irresponsibility and ignorance. In my opinion they should have put em on a buss and dropped them at the border.

Any law enforcement system has to have limits to the way they can treat prisoners, and making a profit on their prisons will always take precedence over humane treatment for the GEO Group. Not giving a pregnant woman extra nourishment, extra pillows, and frog-marching her through a public hospital in shackles is over the top and completely unreasonable - it's not like she was going to knock out the guard and run away. I personally am happy to take all the money for the war in Iraq and put it towards education and health care for anyone who chooses to live here and pay their taxes, which the vast majority of even "illegal" immigrants do. Our country shames itself and we do ourselves no service when we act out of anger, revenge or selfishness, or a displaced fear which makes us xenophobic.

yes thats true but it also puts a lot of stress on a mother to be and the unborn baby doesnt get the proper stuff that it needs u would feel the same way if you knew whhat it was like to have an unborn baby in ur belly its ur responsibility to make sure your baby comes out healthy. how would u feel if you had a baby that was aabused by not getting the right foods my boyfriend would not be very happy
i no that if i known that i was going to get pregnant i wouldnt have acted like a normal teen ager

i wonder how would u sing if u were in there shoe.?

One thing is for sure: Nobody escapes God's justice and you the one without a heart will suffer the most! Your ancessors broke the law same way, that's why you were born here. They didn't get in trouble because there was no Bush administartion. Remember, you'll burn in hell for eternity!

We also have several laws in this country protecting even prisoners, as they are still people. Especially these women who, as far as I know, aren't murderers or drug traffickers, are entitled to proper medical care, food and shouldn't be degraded/dehumanized by authorities. Both the Constitution and several international laws should protect these people.

You might be paying taxes, but ask yourself if they're really being used to take care of these people...obviously not efficiently if people are falling ill in such huge numbers (like the food poisoning problem in August 2007).

Please do all your homework, and think of people as PEOPLE, not just "illegals" like the media and ICE would have you believe. A person can do something illegal, but a person is never illegal. Regardless, not protecting their rights, means yours and mine are next to go...

i think women that go to prison is there wrong doing. but when they'er pregnant women that are going to have a baby, that baby and the mother should be treated a lot better. whats going to happen the guards kills the baby because she went in there pregnant? i think who was the one complaining needs to look in side her cold ice heart and realize that a baby had nothing to do with the crime the mother had did. the baby should be cared for and loved, the guards in prison are beating these women and getting away with it. you have no feelings towards a prisoner for what she did but for a newborn to be place in punishment for what the mother did is wrong. your money is going to a good cause, i know that you don't care about the prisoners but when there is a child, i know you do then.

they were immigrants not illegal immigrants the NDC was the criminals
ps you need to talk what you KNOW!!!!!!!!!!

The anti-immigrant response is consistent with the frustrations of the mainstream working class. That is consistent with the mood of the undereducated Anglo citizen/taxpayer - weary of the deterioration of his/her quality of life - ready to scapegoat the "foreign-other" for his and the nation's economic woes. His righteous indignation is validated by the common presupposition that birthright confers exclusive first-tier privilege and that that privilege is in no way pegged to a moral obligation to share our relative abundance with ethnic, law breaking "invaders" who are in large part the source of what is wrong with America today. What is more, anti-immigrant backlash empowers politicians who pander to the misdirected xenophobes. For example, Tom Tancredo (r-Colorado) and Duncan Hunter (r-California) have made populist careers out of scapegoating immigrant laborers similar to those who have been freely filtering through Ellis Island and crossing our southern border for more than a century.

Today's growing "round-em-up, ship-em-out" mentality reeks of bigotry. The sentiment seems to be, "by golly we were the ones who were born Americans and that means that maintenance of our ordained lifestyles depend on protection of our neighborhoods and jobs from the clutches of foreigners." it is as if "we-were-here-first" or "we-were-born-here" status confers some kind of spatial privilege.

Thus, the typical, hateful anti-immigrant response is becoming a rally-cry for a beleaguered working and middle class that see their shares of the American dream as if under siege. Meanwhile it is more the negative effects of globalization than the illegal aliens that snatch away our once exclusive wealth. I suggest that economic and other self interest underpins an anti-immigrant scapegoating that seems quite similar to the traditional episodes of bigotry that have followed periods of large scale immigration, e.g., the then mainstream but now denounced backlash against the potato-famine Irish immigrants, the turn of the 19th/20th century Chinese laborers, and southern and eastern European refugees (largely Jews and Italians) during the periods surrounding WWI & WWII. All these were thought to be problematic to the American way and therefore the solution was to exclude them from America.

Currently, economic and refugee immigrants who are held pending exclusion in the northwest detention center serve as sitting-duck scapegoats for the economic, social, and political frustrations that many of us increasingly feel. But history reminds us that scapegoating is nothing new. The Irish were popularly believed to threaten American Christianity with their catholic heresy. The Chinese laborers were widely believed to steal Anglo jobs after the railroads were completed and the gold rush had wound down. And southern and eastern Europeans were stereotyped as lazy, unscrupulous, dirty, and prone to crime. However, in retrospect most of us believe that those backlashes were wrongfully racially motivated. The people and politicians who are most vocal about "illegal" are not simply offended because foreign-born individuals are crossing the border unlawfully. They are offended because those individuals don't look, speak, dress, act, or live exactly like them. Anti-immigrant backlash and scapegoating are certainly not a new story. We should learn from our past xenophobic mistakes.

Disguising scapegoating as a simple matter of rule of law:

The issue is much more complex than just "well, they are here illegally, that is wrong, therefore they are criminals and should be excluded from American soil." the rule of law argument, that is, they broke the law to get here and therefore they are criminal by definition is quite selfish, chauvinistic--even nativist--yet is commonly invoked by people who have either never experienced the pervasive struggle that takes place permanently in the lives of most of the individuals in the wide world outside of us territory or by those who don't care.

Racism, ethnic chauvinism, nativism, anti-immigrant rhetoric--all the same animal. Furthmore, any marker will work for a bigot, skin color, language, religion, country of origin, immigration status. When the world is increasing polarized into an exclusive duality of the lopsided accumulation of wealth by a relative few elites and the mass dispossession of the common citizen, it is now widely perceived to be in the best self interest of the frustrated Anglo worker and member of the middle class to assert 1) which group he/she belong to; privileged citizen or non-privileged non-citizen, and 2) to do what ever it takes to protect the disappearing privileged lifestyle one has had.