Carla Salazar of the Associated Press offers a Topsy-Turvy World article called "Peruvian child becomes symbol of US undocumented" [1] about the seven-year-old girl who revealed to Michelle Obama that her mother was here illegally, causing Michelle Obama to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. The article contains this:

Daisy [the girl who spoke to Michelle Obama], meanwhile, has become a celebrity in Peru... "I'm really proud that a young girl of Peruvian origin is highlighting the enormous problem with Latin American immigration in the United States," President Alan Garcia told reporters last week... He said it would be scandalous if her parents were deported... "Do you know how much President Obama and Mrs. Michelle Obama would stand to lose?" he said. Garcia called the Arizona law a "completely irrational response" to the illegal-immigration question, and said he would express his thoughts on the matter to President Obama during his visit to Washington.

Massive illegal immigration has caused an "enormous problem" for U.S. citizens, but Garcia doesn't, of course, mean it in that sense. He means it from the stance of our immigration laws getting in the way of those like the girl's family; he thinks we should loosen our immigration laws in order to make it easier for more Peruvians to move here, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, there are many U.S. political leaders who'd give more weight to his opinion than to what most Americans want.

And, if Salazar is to be believed about Daisy's celebrity status, is it a good thing that a country thinks they have some sort of right to move to the U.S. at will? Most Americans would think that Peru has a right to enact and enforce their own laws, but some or many Peruvians aren't willing to return the favor. From a sociological perspective, is that a good thing? Should we take steps to encourage them to think they have a right to move here at will, or should we work to disabuse them from that notion?

Note also this:

These are tense times for people like Daisy's mother, a maid who arrived in the United States with her carpenter husband when she was two months pregnant with Daisy... While Daisy has automatic U.S. citizenship and lives full time with her parents, her 9-year-old sister, July, has not been so lucky. July was left behind with her grandparents when her parents moved to the United States to escape poverty.

Does that sound like something that should be encouraged from a public policy perspective? It's probably a good situation for the ruling elite of Peru: send their poor to the U.S. and have them send remittances home. But, for the people of Peru and of the U.S., it's not a good situation at all.

Despite that, Carla Salazar is promoting the bad situation in her heavily-biased article which includes things like this:

Daisy's parents are fearful of U.S. anti-immigrant sentiment, which for many Latin Americans is epitomized by an Arizona law taking effect in July that gives police the right to demand ID papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

It goes without saying that there isn't overall "anti-immigrant sentiment" so much as opposition to massive illegal immigration and those leaders - such as Barack Obama, Peru's president, and the Associated Press - who support bad policies.

[1] news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/
ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_peru_girl_immigration