Here it is again in verbatim:
-------
Friday, February 26, 2010 3:02:47 PM · 1,425 of 1,909
Red Steel to parsifal; DJ MacWoW
The comment comes from an INS case that is unsupportable by any Supreme Court precedence. It's a comment out of the blue, which I suspect, was spoken by the alien's lawyer to elicit emotional appeal to get the case reopened and that a liberal judge felt pity who placed it in his opinion. Furthermore, the Indiana court never said categorically that Wong Ark or Barack Obama are natural born citizens.
Here is my last post to you below as it seems things need to be repeated to you over and over again:
------------
Friday, February 26, 2010 2:20:21 AM · 1,250 of 1,408
Red Steel to parsifal; BP2; DoctorBulldog; mojitojoe; Fred Nerks; bgill
Which says "...see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)"
http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156
These Indiana judges concluded by using an INS deportation case to quote in their dismissal which was accepted as fact by the sitting circuit Judge Cudahy, appointed by Jimmy Carter, that is irrelevant to his deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer of the illegal alien.
You've got to be kidding me Parsy if you think this Indiana court case, you love to post, could really stand up to any scrutiny. These guys threw ink to paper just to sweep this case under the rug. If I can shoot holes in it from the early hours in the morning think of what a good team would do with it. It is pure folly barely worth the paper it's written on.
Give me as minute.
parsy
I hate to seem dumb, but I am missing the relevancy of Diaz. It looks like the Indiana court was just piling on the Birthers by giving them one last kick in the pants in case the door didn’t hit them in *ss on the way out — to wit, and saying in effect “Dumb *sses! Even an illegal mexican who fathers kids here and is on his way back across the Rio Grande can make little “natural born citizen” bundles of joy while he is here.”
OR
It was being cited for two reasons, one above, and as a “standard of review” case which had the extra kick of the NBC angle.
A standard of review is hard to explain, but basically in this case it would be the court saying to them, “I have the right to kick you out the door, because you have not really overcome the burden you had coming in the door of my courtroom.”
Notice, in Diaz, that there were some “abuse of discretion” questions, which is a “standard of review” for certain agency decisions. Courts have to give a legal basis for what they do. That is why we get written opinions.
The placement of Diaz at the end of the case makes me think it was more “standard of review”.
Also, I have said all along the Indiana decison is not binding on feds, only on any courts below it. What it is good for, is that it is a whole lot shorter and easier to read than Wong; that it is current; that it shows how modern courts use Wong; and it specifically mentions Birthers; and it specifically mentions the Vattel end- around-the-Constitution stuff, and —it deals with Obama!
I apologize for not answering you quicker. For some reason, I had it in the back of my mind this was one of those things bp2 brought up.
And finally, the Diaz decision really goes to show how stupid the government is. You got a guy here who is married and got two kids, AND A JOB, and been here nearly 20 years, and we ship him back so mom and the kids can go on welfare and food stamps....
And, he probably just swum the Rio Grande and come back anyway.
parsy, who hopes this answers your questions